So what do you guys and gals think? I, in typical me fashion, was skeptical of this decision at first, but Brooks' op-ed piece made me question my assumptions. I agree with some of Brooks' premises, but disagree that this decision helps. In my opinion, as long as financial contributions are considered "speech", we will have problems with out democracy. Not necessarily extreme problems, just that, at the very least our democratic process would be more democratic if campaign donations were not considered "speech".
Seriously I agree with the NYT on this one. America has a bit of a reputation overseas as a country where the rich and powerful have a high influence on lawmaking, and removing donation limits is just gonna make this worse.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/symposium-mccutcheon-and-the-future-of-campaign-finance-regulation/#more-207528
From NYT editorial board:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/04/opinion/the-campaign-finance-ruling-helps-big-donors.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
From NYT's David Brooks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/04/opinion/brooks-party-all-the-time.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
So what do you guys and gals think? I, in typical me fashion, was skeptical of this decision at first, but Brooks' op-ed piece made me question my assumptions. I agree with some of Brooks' premises, but disagree that this decision helps. In my opinion, as long as financial contributions are considered "speech", we will have problems with out democracy. Not necessarily extreme problems, just that, at the very least our democratic process would be more democratic if campaign donations were not considered "speech".
Thoughts?
Seriously I agree with the NYT on this one. America has a bit of a reputation overseas as a country where the rich and powerful have a high influence on lawmaking, and removing donation limits is just gonna make this worse.
Art is life itself.