The Post has an editorial this morning with which I agree, one that advocates passage of common sense legislation designed to eliminate anonymity in the realm of political donations. I agree with this stance. I haven't read the "Disclose Act", but I don't doubt that there are enough poison pills in it to run off significant Republican support.
I do however, support the Post's call for a stripped down bill that eliminates financial anonymity. I don't care if a corporation believes that its interests would be hurt by broad knowledge of its donations, any more than I care if individuals are tracked by their donations. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to take this whole debate the next step.
I think there should be NO LIMITS on how much an individual, corporation, Union, or advocacy group gives to any candidate, cause or party. None whatsoever. But along with this loosening of limits would come an ironclad disclosure regime. At that point, we'd have a truer sense of just what (and who) money was buying in elections, and there would be nowhere to hide for candidates who who take this money. The Press--both mainstream and otherwise--would keep voters informed as to who got what from whom, and voters would have the opportunity to decide.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Those articles are all over the country. The N&O printed their obligatory article yesterday.
What I'd like know is where are the George Sores' pieces? If there ever was one individual who has distorted and corrupted the system then it's the evil Dr. Soros. Where are the articles on voter fraud and intimidation? After the last election you would think they would have investigative reporters at every polling station. And finally, where are the stories on union funds from anonymous foreign sources, or is it just the conservatives?
Yeah, agree Hammer. I was about to jump on the same point. To assume that "[t]he Press--both mainstream and otherwise--would keep voters informed as to who got what from whom" is a bit of a leap if it was to imply that the "mainstream" would be balanced out by the "otherwise."
Um---fellas--which point are you jumping on? If my proposal were adopted, than we'd all KNOW who was giving money--not declaring it would be breaking the law.
As for the ineffectiveness of the mainstream media and "otherwise", if you guys don't think the blogosphere/cable news is keeping the MSM on its toes (and is reporting what they don't), than we're observing a different scene.
True but... (and I hate to say this) the blogosphere doesn't have the credibility of the NY Times et al. Not necessarily with me but with most people.
And CW I just want to say you've got a lot of nerve. All month you've been neglecting your fiduciary duties on this blog. Now you show like nothings wrong posting and posting and posting. If Kitten had a hair on her feline ass she would box your ears, on our behalf of course (somehow that sounded wrong...oh well).
Post a Comment