Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Campaign Finance Reform
Most everyone agrees that, in order for our country to correct the problems we're experiencing in congress, we need to enact some kind of campaign finance reform. This selling of legislation to the highest bidder has got to go but how can these career politicians compete in this age of electronic media, television being the primary and very expensive tool? Seems like the Supreme Court would have taken this into account when they ruled on the Citizens United case earlier this year, but no, not even our Supreme Court can be trusted to make good decisions. Now not only is the legislative process for sale, the election process is even more open to manipulation by money. This is as sickening to me as China's manipulation of currency for advantage. Just like on Wall Street, the game is rigged. "With many outside political groups able to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision, a new type of independent expenditure has popped up: ones bankrolled completely by just one donor. These funds allow wealthy contributors to dump large amounts of money into whichever races they choose -- often with very little transparency -- essentially rendering the old rules limiting individual political contributions a joke. Take the Concerned Citizens for a Working America. The Virginia-based political action committee (PAC) has thrown $250,000 into South Carolina's fifth congressional district on behalf of the Republican candidate. But who are these "concerned citizens"? It turns out that the sole citizen is a Virginia nonprofit called New Models, which is not required to disclose its donors. There's also Taxpayers Against Earmarks (TAE), a new nonprofit "dedicated to educating and engaging American taxpayers about wasteful government spending and the misguided practice of earmarks." While its mission is educational, it has an affiliated political arm -- what's known as a "super PAC" for its ability to raise and spend any amount it wants -- called the Ending Spending Fund, which just put nearly $600,000 into the Nevada Senate race against Majority Leader Harry Reid (D). The "taxpayers" against earmarks is actually just one man named Joe Ricketts, founder of Ameritrade and owner of the Chicago Cubs, who is also the sole financier of the Ending Spending Fund. Individuals are allowed to donate only $2,400 per election to a federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee, according to federal law. People can donate to $5,000 to a traditional political action committee, which essentially funnels contributions to individual candidates, and $30,400 to a national party committee each year. But the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Citizens United cleared the way for a federal court's decision in Speechnow.org v. FEC, which opened the floodgates for unlimited election spending by certain outside groups, as long as they do not coordinate their activities with any political candidates or party committees. In the past, independent expenditures needed to collect contributions from a large number of individuals, who were bound by federal contribution limits, in order to be influential. Even currently, the vast majority still do. But what's also now possible is that an individual can start one of these groups, be the sole funder and therefore direct in which race -- or races -- he or she wants to intervene. Essentially, for the very wealthy, the old rules no longer exist." Full story he http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_772214.html |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Finance question.. | General | |||
For all of the naysayers about healthcare reform | General | |||
On health care reform | General | |||
Real Election Reform | ASA |