I've been thinking about government a lot lately... Before I lose you here, this isn't going to end up in a Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber) type rant - just a few thoughts I've had recently.
The main thing that's been on my mind lately is the inability of the public to influence politicians without "greasing wheels" (contributing money to influence policy) or protesting in the streets by the millions . It seems that to influence policy you have to be willing to contribute more to a senator or representative's than the person with an opposing view. This seems to be the path a majority of groups have gone, and maybe they're right... short term.
I think there's a better solution than having to form political action committees (PACs) or other large lobbying organizations and donating money to have your voice heard.
It's strange that people are willing to accept that this is the way business is done, and start playing the game... when most people don't agree with it. It's just like playing dirty in sports because the other team is cheating. It may win you a game or two, but after a while the game you started off playing is ruined.
I'm not saying that campaign contributions are wrong. After all, the politicians have to run expensive smear campaigns somehow. I'm saying that forming groups that seek to influence policy with contributions is not a good practice... and I think it should not be allowed. Corporations should not be able to influence politics and neither should PACs or lobbying groups. Individuals should... which means that politicians campaigns should be funded by individuals (with limits on each person's spending).
The situation I'm in is a complicated one. I'm only one person, without much power to change the way things work. In addition, there exists a way to influence policy legally, but I don't like the idea it supports, that money buys votes. I don't really know what to do, other than the simplest thing I can do. Vote against any person who votes to protect the interests of a corporation or other similar group (labor unions, etc.) at the expense of normal consituents. On a side note, I'll never* vote for a candidate who runs negative ads... I will cast a Nader vote if I have to.
*Except in presidential campaigns... too much power in one person's hands to focus on that issue when determining a vote.
Posted by Jordan at October 24, 2006 6:22 PM | TrackBack
Comments (3)
Individuals like George Soros? A man known as "the economic war criminal"... I like your idea in priniple, but it doesn't stand up in practice. In fact, it would put even more political power into the hands of an even smaller group. Corporations at least represent the interests of a very large group of investors (like you and I). George Soros does not represent anyone, but himself.
Posted in reply to Johnny's comment |
He should have a spending limit (hinted at in the post). Just because he's powerful doesn't mean his vote (or spending) should count more than another person's.
I can't agree that since corporations and lobbying groups represent the interests of people that they are somewhat good. Each of the people represented have a voice... let them use it.
Lastly, corporations are interested only in profit, and too great a number of them end up eventually hurting the consumer or the environment in search of that very magical profit.
Posted in reply to Jordan's comment |
Ahhh. I didn't see the spending limit in the post. I was blinded by parenthesis. :-) Then I agree with your post. I still think corporations aren't the bad guy. They are interested in profit, but that profit benefits the almighty shareholder. (Which is usually Joe Schmoe investor.)
Posted in reply to Johnny's comment |