Balls and Walnuts
more than you ever wanted to know
Second verse, same as the first
I’m having a hard time getting upset over today’s Supreme Court decision allowing corporations the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to sway voters in federal and state elections. Keith Olbermann is calling this decision “our Dred Scott,” as if it’s some sort of pre-Enlightenment atavism, with the five justices writing in the majority a collection of chronologically displaced Australopithecines*. It’s the end of the world as we know it.
In reality, corporations have controlled our politics for many decades, and today’s decision merely legalizes something that has long been an institutional reality. Those like Olbermann who would bust an aneurysm over the loss of our cherished democracy are analogous to people who, upon hearing of the legalization of marijuana, would declare, “Now people might smoke it!”
Come to think of it, perhaps today’s decision will usher in a new era of realpolitik on the Court. They should legalize marijuana, do away with highway speed limits, ax jaywalking restrictions, shred all of the blue laws.
Hmm. When did I become a Libertarian?
D.
*No idea why my brain is breaking out the dictionary. No idea whatsoever.
I bought that house, by the way. Wow, what a dump. I liked the MLS listing way better.
I think the key is really openness. I’m not sure how it is for all elections and, at least for state & local elections, the laws probably vary by state, but I think there needs to be more openness as far as reporting contributions goes. For example, and I’m going by memory here so I may not be spot-on accurate, here candidates have two filings. One is a few weeks before the election and the last doesn’t happen until after the election.
The problem is that those reports can be manipulated to a degree. Legally. That is, what they will do is hold their fundraisers timed as needed. Before the election, you want the appearance of grassroots support, so you hold fundraisers that bring in the people that will donate $5, $10, $25 and other small amounts. That way, when you file your campaign report and the newspapers cover it, it will appear as though you’re getting a lot of support from the “little people”. Then, your big fundraisers where you get your money from the PACs and fat cats will be timed so that those contributions won’t get reported until after the election.
Of course, they may get big money beforehand, especially a major campaign. But, they can control that to an extent. You bury the big money in the midst of a lot of little money. Sure, you’re still getting some support from the big boys, but look at all those “little people” supporting you! Additionally, the candidate (if he or she has money) could loan money to his or her campaign, and pay it off with contributions from the fat cats later on.
So, even though there is some degree of transparency, there are ways around it and ways of manipulating perception.
In this day and age, I think it should strongly be considered that all contributions have to be reported within 72 hours (possibly excluding the weekends) of receipt. That would greatly reduce the potential for manipulation, as it’s going to be hard to get by if you can’t get those big contributions until two days before the election.
With websites and such these days, there really isn’t a practical reason campaigns cannot post contributions on their website within 72 hours.
Good luck, though, trying to get such a requirement passed, unless you manage to pull it off through a referendum.