This article from Huffington Post really caught my eye. It’s not often I hear some sense from politicians when it concerns campaign finance and corporations. This is especially true of the GOP; hearing it from Newt Gingrich is a remarkable. There is no way for me to paraphrase this better:
“I think super PACs as such are in fact very dangerous in the long run,” Gingrich told Colbert. “There’s something fundamentally, profoundly wrong about what’s happening. And it’s happening in both parties, and in the long run it’s going to be very negative and very destructive of our system.”
It’s a great message,, but there is hint of sour grapes. Mr. Gingrich lost to Mitt Ronmey in the primaries primarily because of Super PAC’s. That doesn’t bother me because Super PAC’s are a major contemporary issues that will do nothing but compromise the political process. If it takes the self interest of a powerful man to bring the issue to the forefront, so be it.
For those of you who do not know what Super PAC’s are, there have been Supreme Court decisions in the last 4 years that have ruled that capping what a corporation, union, or individual can contribute to a campaign is unconstitutional. In other words, they can now contribute unlimited amounts of money to a Political Action Committee. What is a PAC you ask? :
“Political Action Committee (PAC) — A popular term for a political committee organized for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect and defeat candidates”
Thus, a candidate cannot receive unlimited donations, but the PAC that supports him can. Think advertising, travel, fundraisers, ect… As Mr. Gingrich implied, the idea that a wealthy individual can compromise the integrity of the electoral process s is wrong. It goes against the idea of the democratic process. This is not a Republican V. Democrat issue; President Obama’s Super PAC received massive amounts of money, including donations of over a million dollars from multiple people. The key ruling came in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010
.
This ruling, especially the conceptualization of corporations and unions as people, diminishes the value of every American vote. American politics is already limited by the two-party system, allowing the Super PAC rulings to go unchallenged further limits the pool of qualified leaders.The Super PAC debate has the potential to be a key Bi-Partisan issue that could unite the warring factions of the political landscape. Please share your thoughts.
Sources:
Our authors want to hear from you! Click to leave a comment
Related Posts
Was Newt sober when he said this?
As long as we have professional politicians this type of activity will flourish. I would like to see it become mandatory that every citizen over 25 years old be required to spend a term in congress and the senate. That employers would be required to hold their positions until they return from service. When in service a salary would be paid that is reasonable and cover the expenses incurred to do the job. If a person is self employed, have the government pay to keep the business viable, if necessary. And before citizens take office they have to take courses on the constitution and how they do the job. We could continue to elect the president and vice president. And the president could appoint cabinet members and other officials. But the good ol boy network of politics would be unable to sustain in a system like that. If it could be done in a way where citizens were actually proud to take on the position. And if you get an occasional yahoo in office, which I’m sure would happen, then the members can vote the person out.
It’s a pipe dream, I know. But we aren’t running the country anymore and not for a long time.
I’m not 100 sure we ever were…