Monday, September 26, 2011
The American Electoral Process: the influence of the Real "green" party.
Money talks. And as most Americans know, it holds a lot of say in politics; especially in elections. It can make campaigns successful by maximizing advertising, but also prevent fulfillment of campaign promises by keeping politicians bound to the lobbyists that provide funding. Money's influence - often conflated with "corporations' influence" - is viewed as a potential threat to democracy, a fuel for corruption. Last year, the Supreme Court "ruled the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections". If this issue sounds interesting to all of you govaholics, there will be a presentation on Friday at Claremont Graduate University discussing it. Until then, what are your thoughts on (independent) corporate funding of campaigns supporting candidates? Should it be curbed? Does it result in an aristocratic structure?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It's interesting to look at the precedent this overturned- according to the article, the previous McCain-Feingold law "banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of 'electioneering communications' paid for by corporations or labor unions from their general funds in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections." Why the time restriction? Should free speech be limited based on proximity to the election, or should the rule be constant no matter the date?
Post a Comment