Sunday, January 24, 2010

FSBO: Senator with low mileage

There seem to be an awful lot of people with a real bug up their ass over the latest Supreme Court decision to ban spending caps on campaign spending by corporations. And, while they have a real right to be angry, it is no surprise that they are mad for entirely the wrong reasons. Please notice the implication: It's okay that our government officials are for sale, the problem is just the price. This is akin to your wife telling you that it's okay to seek your jollies with a crack whore, but she's going to go ballistic on you if you visit a classy call girl. Personally, I think the problem isn't the price paid, it's the whole idea that government officials are for sale in the first place.

And, of course, the anger is directed towards those wicked, awful, evil corporations that have put a leash on our politicians... all the while forgetting that corporations don't quite have a monopoly on buying politics. Organized labor, environmentalists and a whole host of other traditional "lefties" all have made plenty of bids on And remember, even the most "earth friendly" environmental lobby has someone behind it trying to pocket millions off their political investment. Al Gore and T. Boone Pickens are sure to profit if they can craft the laws in a way to give themselves the upper hand over any possible competitor.

And isn't it funny... In general, the people that are really, really angry over this issue... are historically the same group of people that have very loose interpretations of "general welfare" and "necessary and proper." But now that "general welfare" seems a little dangerous to them -- now the concept of a corporate influenced electorate seems like a really bad idea. Well, maybe, just maybe, a wild, wild west interpretation of "do whatever you seem fit" is a bad idea no matter what.

While bailouts of AIG were pushed by the idiots on the right as payback for political pull, the bailouts of GM were pushed by the idiots from the left for the same reasons. And, while I am certainly no fan of having my senator having NASCAR-esque stickers all over his expensive Italian suit, there is some room to play devil's advocate for those wicked corporations. Those corporations are treated by our government as a person: they are taxed and they can be sued. Yet, unlike a person, they don't get a vote. Is it no wonder, as governmental control over them morphs and grows, that they might want a say in what next year's political climate might look like?

I have an exceedingly odd way to solve this issue... and it doesn't involve putting a cap on spending at all. Instead, and stick with me here because this is just way out there weird... Instead why don't we draw up some document that limits exactly what those elected officials can do. We'll be very explicit and only give a few enumerated bullet items and then say everything else is off limits. Let's call it a Constitution. Let Goldman Sachs shell out $40 billion dollars to sway an election. If they can influence where some new post roads are built or maybe push a Senator to start an anti-pirate campaign... well, let them.


Kari said...

A Constitution? With some basic guidelines? What a novel idea!

Anonymous said...

here's the plan to grind all this bull to a halt: require voters -- and I'd say two-thirds at least, preferably three quarters -- to approve:
1. any political salary
2. any tax, fee, toll, law
3. any contribution to any public office/official prior to acceptance
4. repeal/eliminate/make unconstitutional all dictates by unelected bureaucrats (FDA/EPA/pick your favorite)

Then big biz/lefties can buy what they want on the open market to bulldoze or preserve.
Tyranny is not limited to dictators, it can just as easily be imposed by "representatives" and bureaucrats, who are nothing more than a very small minority telling the vast majority what they must do -- at gunpoint/threat of imprisionment.