Campaign Finance Reform? (Shhhhh! Our Guy Is Winning)

Some people amaze me with their "principled" positions on things that they claim are the problem with our country and our democracy.

Prior to the current issue of campaign finance reform the biggest contextual flip flow of my favorite targets as that of the Electoral College. In 2000 when their guy had the popular vote but not the electoral college vote it was now time to scrap this outdated institution. Fast forward to 2004 when their guy lost the popular vote but could have done a "George Bush" if they could get the vote tally in OH flipped oh the Electoral College was back as the legitimate way to win the price. An institution, by the way which assists "the little guy" states in having a voice. Absent this framework the campaigns would be focused on CA, NY, TX, FL, IL and maybe the next ring of states but that's it.

Now comes the issue of campaign financing. Today both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the Democrats have raised an astounding amount of money. This entire campaign is slated to be the most expensive one in history. Barack Obama has raised more money than anyone else in history.

Where as it has been said in the past that too much money sent in by the corporations means that our politicians are bought - the Obama supporters point to the fact that he has gotten a sizeable number of individual contributors and thus "THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN" so it is a good thing. As always, the truth is not so cut and dry. What we have is BOTH individual contributors donating to the Obama campaign AND the usual suspects, the corporations paying in as well. Don't believe the hype.

Open Secrets: Campaign Financing

The two Democratic candidates have raised a total of $430 million to John McCain's $80 million. Keep in mind that those funds raised in the primary can be used for the general election. This will ultimately show the strategic wisdom between the Republicans having ended their contest early as a means of unifying behind one candidate when the numbers didn't make sense (hello Hillary) and the Democrats duking it out, staying in the news and having each of their teams send in the cash to the race at the risk of an angry portion of the party come November.

Again - let us analyze the source of the funding. INDIVIDUALS vs CORPORATIONS. Indeed the grand ole "individual". He is the one man in the "one man, one vote" principle that we hold so dear. The corporation does not have the right to vote. After all the individual is only looking after his own best interests. The corporation is trying to "corner the market" and increase his monopolistic POWER!


So what have we here?
Basically have the power of the "label" which allows certain individuals to taint the motivations of others while glossing over their own motivations which are just as "agendized".

If it were only so cut and dry. The fact is that corporations themselves are limited as to how much money they can directly put into a campaign. As a result they organize a PAC (Political Action Committee) among their employees (my evil company leans on all managers to join the PAC) to advance the industries interests and thus the employee's interests. Keep in mind, however, that the big evil corporation that I work for has a vested interest in having a "we win no matter who wins" strategy. Thus they spread the love among the candidates. Clearly there are some candidates that are hostile toward the corporations interests but at least they are on the donor list and can make this point at some time in the future.

Of the individuals who are "outside the system" - you know those "real Americans" who have the honest attempt to "take back the country" from the corporate powers that are running it today - they are no less agendized their antics. From the unions from organized labor to the upstart Internet centered organization such as the loathsome "MoveOn.org" they are little different from the Corporate PAC. It is only by popular sentiment are they seen as having the best interests of the "Little Guy". In my view since the "little guy" has to work and he also have several "ballots" from these big firms - namely an electricity bill, a cellphone bill and the receipt from the grocery store......he votes for them each time he pays for goods or services rendered to them.

The unions are no more pure in their objectives than are the corporations. This is nothing more than a proxy fight for the vast economic ideologies that are always bumping heads.

I have no problem with a massive amount of disagreement over well entrenched thoughts. I think that this is ultimately good for the country. (I wish that within the Black community we could have more of this type of battle absent the risk of being called a "Happy Negro"). My only problem is with those who attempt to pain "their side's" intentions as pure when they are doing the exact same damned thing.

Now of course I am biased. I assure you that my frequent adversaries would agree that the solution to the economic depression that is most intense in the areas where their political machine is strongest desire to see UNIONS present and thus paychecks flowing again. The only problem is that they have not learned the equation. "Unions cannot exist without corporations but corporations can exist without unions". Indeed there are plentiful union members in Detroit, Cleveland and Newark. There are just not enough corporations around there any longer to allow them to express that high union wage rate that they believe their services are worth.