2008 Woodie Awards
The golden chains of politics
Eric Crawford
Issue date: 11/13/06 Section: Spin Cycle
- Page 1 of 1
Any political system that involves the indebting of politicians to private contributors is inherently unequal and corrupt.
That said, if I was driving a little fast one day and got pulled over, then decided to slip the officer a fifty dollar bill to get out of paying a hefty fine, I would most likely get arrested.
So why is this considered bribery, but the funneling tens of thousands of dollars into political campaigns for future political favors considered an "expression of free speech"?
What we need in our election system is a separation of money and politics at least as strong as our hallowed separation of the Church and the State.
Ok, I should have said "much stronger than our separation of Church and State," but we'll leave that one for another day.
Unfortunately, prop. 89 (which would have allowed for opt-in public campaign financing) was resoundly defeated in the November seventh elections. Progressives should be disheartened, because states that have similar systems have found them to be a great success.
Arizona and Maine both have opt-in public financing plans. Second term State Legislator of Maine, John Elder, was able to use the now open system to become the highest-ranking elected Green Party official in the country.
Elder used to live in a "solar powered shack… with no running water". Just four years before he was elected with an almost two-to-one victory against his Democratic opponent, he was painting houses and going to massage school.
Discussions of his qualifications aside, Maine's public campaign financing has allowed for a political outsider, uncorrupted by the corporate money of the oil, drug, insurance, and HMO companies, a way in without selling out.
One of the most prevailing aspects of selling out is an inferior product.
If we don't stand for inferiority for the sake of money in our favorite bands, why should we let it happen in our government
That said, if I was driving a little fast one day and got pulled over, then decided to slip the officer a fifty dollar bill to get out of paying a hefty fine, I would most likely get arrested.
So why is this considered bribery, but the funneling tens of thousands of dollars into political campaigns for future political favors considered an "expression of free speech"?
What we need in our election system is a separation of money and politics at least as strong as our hallowed separation of the Church and the State.
Ok, I should have said "much stronger than our separation of Church and State," but we'll leave that one for another day.
Unfortunately, prop. 89 (which would have allowed for opt-in public campaign financing) was resoundly defeated in the November seventh elections. Progressives should be disheartened, because states that have similar systems have found them to be a great success.
Arizona and Maine both have opt-in public financing plans. Second term State Legislator of Maine, John Elder, was able to use the now open system to become the highest-ranking elected Green Party official in the country.
Elder used to live in a "solar powered shack… with no running water". Just four years before he was elected with an almost two-to-one victory against his Democratic opponent, he was painting houses and going to massage school.
Discussions of his qualifications aside, Maine's public campaign financing has allowed for a political outsider, uncorrupted by the corporate money of the oil, drug, insurance, and HMO companies, a way in without selling out.
One of the most prevailing aspects of selling out is an inferior product.
If we don't stand for inferiority for the sake of money in our favorite bands, why should we let it happen in our government
Be the first to comment on this story