Allowing entities to finance the formation of perceptions, places a vast amount of power in the few hands at the helms of those entities, far overreaching the capacities of their � ���"rank and file.� �� � Politics have always been and will always be subject to self-serving influences. As wealth concentration continues unabated, effective control of the political process has already been skewed away from the average taxpayer. Simply put, the CEO of Goldman Sachs reaching into the company coffers has access to more money than you do to impact the outcome of an electoral campaign, and it's not even his money. Neither shareholders, nor his employees, have any say on the candidate receiving the CEO's largesse.
Some alternative legislation should be considered, including anonymity of donations, capping personal contributions and matching them with government funds, as well as eliminating all corporate political contributions and related loopholes. Beyond cleaning up the abuse of the process, this would bring campaign funding and spending within realms that might foster the advance of alternative parties to the political game on the national stage.
Should the Supreme Court overturn years of tested law in favor of corporate and union spending, it will relegate the taxpaying voter to that of second-class citizen, and insinuate a gigantic crack into the democratic process. No matter what the Supreme Court decides, the voter should take a stand at the poles with facts rather than with the prejudice of well-financed and influential rhetoric and advertisements.
High definition cameras bringing the drama into public consciousness should invade this upcoming Supreme Court hearing, and educate voters on the fundamental process none can take for granted. A Democracy is a very fragile environment demanding fastidious nurturing. � ���"We the people,� �� � was never intended to mean, � ���"We the corporations� �� �
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
