Advertisement
I’ve got to confess, I occasionally yell helpful driving suggestions to others on the road; I often talk back to newscasters and politicians on TV; and I always wish I could add my comments on-line to the letters to the editor. Polite people say that opinions are like elbows, everybody’s got one (or two.) While it’s good to be passionate, small, differing opinions can divide an otherwise cohesive populace. Wedge issues are used by political strategists to splinter us into opposing groups and divert our attention from the big issues that most of us would agree on.
For example, Americans generally believe in fairness at the polls. Almost everyone would agree that all registered voters should be allowed to vote, their votes should be counted, and there must be a paper trail for verification. Or, how about this: Both sides of a proposition must be allowed to present their case to the voters. That’s pretty much a no-brainer too, but Proposition 75 was put on the November ballot simply to silence some of Governor Schwarzenegger’s harshest critics: our nurses, teachers, police, and firemen, by cutting their political contributions. When you slash funding from only one side of a debate, the other side has a distinct, unfair advantage. Money buys votes.
I agree that we need to reduce the big buck contributions that fuel our politicians, but let’s be fair about it. I would fully support a proposition limiting the total dollar amount contributed by any individual, corporation, or union to $1,000 per year. With a level playing field, maybe our politicians would start to care more about us, their constituents, than the corporations currently bankrolling their campaigns.
Arizona, New Mexico, North Carolina, Vermont, Maine and Massachusetts have all passed clean money legislation and the difference is astounding: In 1998, before clean money, 79% of Arizona’s political races were decided simply by the number of dollars raised. In 2002, after clean money legislation, that number was reduced to 2%. (Google, “clean money.”)
While the perennial argument from the rich is that limiting political contributions limits their freedom of speech, I seriously doubt that our founding fathers wanted our First Amendment to be used as an pretext so that their children’s children could be subjugated by this aristocracy based on wealth when they fought so hard to free themselves from an aristocracy based on heredity. I think most Americans – past and present - would agree: Equality is essential for democracy.
For example, Americans generally believe in fairness at the polls. Almost everyone would agree that all registered voters should be allowed to vote, their votes should be counted, and there must be a paper trail for verification. Or, how about this: Both sides of a proposition must be allowed to present their case to the voters. That’s pretty much a no-brainer too, but Proposition 75 was put on the November ballot simply to silence some of Governor Schwarzenegger’s harshest critics: our nurses, teachers, police, and firemen, by cutting their political contributions. When you slash funding from only one side of a debate, the other side has a distinct, unfair advantage. Money buys votes.
I agree that we need to reduce the big buck contributions that fuel our politicians, but let’s be fair about it. I would fully support a proposition limiting the total dollar amount contributed by any individual, corporation, or union to $1,000 per year. With a level playing field, maybe our politicians would start to care more about us, their constituents, than the corporations currently bankrolling their campaigns.
Arizona, New Mexico, North Carolina, Vermont, Maine and Massachusetts have all passed clean money legislation and the difference is astounding: In 1998, before clean money, 79% of Arizona’s political races were decided simply by the number of dollars raised. In 2002, after clean money legislation, that number was reduced to 2%. (Google, “clean money.”)
While the perennial argument from the rich is that limiting political contributions limits their freedom of speech, I seriously doubt that our founding fathers wanted our First Amendment to be used as an pretext so that their children’s children could be subjugated by this aristocracy based on wealth when they fought so hard to free themselves from an aristocracy based on heredity. I think most Americans – past and present - would agree: Equality is essential for democracy.