Anyone ending a comment with, "and if you don't agree with me, you're wrong," that doesn't have strong empirical data behind it has minimal credibilit
y. I suspect I'm wasting my time making a reply, but I have a minute to burn.
Everyone has a special interest. People with Special interests vote on election day because they are citizens. They have voices and rights because they are citizens. Normally, "interests
" are associated with a "policy." If I'm a cancer patient with a rare tumor, my special interest may be candidates who support faster permission of experiment
al treatments or some such. So the cancer patient will vote for a candidate that matches their interests. If I'm against abortion, I'll vote for candidates who take that position. If I work for a company and support candidates who help my employer, then that's my right.
With contributi
on limits, those 3 people (and everyone else) had a somewhat equal shot at having an equal voice in a campaign. That includes those most special, precious, and uniquely super smart people: those that sit on boards of directors.
The problem has never been that people have special interests - it's each person's relative ability to impose their interests on others. The problem now is that unions and corporatio
ns are given more rights to push their personal agenda. In 2011, it's illogical to agree that $1 of speech equals $25 million of speech.
That inequity is the issue. Portraying this as some amorphous issue of interests is surreal.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment