On What We Need Is More Money In Politics
I hear what you are saying. And to be clear, I am a proponent of full public funding of elections. But I still think that the silver lining to this ruling is that disproportionate interests will simply be made more obvious after removing the leveling effect of contribution caps. Certainly not everyone will research everything, but for those that care, patterns will be a little more obvious. Even if that pattern is simply that someone is WAY more funded than the other. This does nothing for equality or advancement towards the way things SHOULD be. But it's something.
0
On What We Need Is More Money In Politics
It's naive to ask citizens to do background research on their candidates? If this is the case, how will public funding of elections clarify the message? The messages will be the same, except for the lack of a big "Paid for by Big Pharma" stamp at the end of the ad. Seeing who a politician's biggest backers are clearly defines where they stand. Even if corporations hide behind names like "Citizen's United", it's a quick step to know who is really paying the bills.
I know. The fear is about drowning out dissenting opinions. But there is big money behind both ponies in every race we have. That's the system we are stuck with. It's pretty naive to think that public financing will suddenly erase corporate interests in politicians.
0
On What We Need Is More Money In Politics
There are some plus sides to this. Removing limitations in this way will make it easier to identify the largest corporate backers of candidates. Since "anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors," it will become quickly apparent which corporate interests our politicians stand for. The more heavy the interest, the more outsized the show of support. Seems like a decent trouble flag to me.
0
On What We Need Is More Money In Politics
Not even a silver lining. A "plus" to an otherwise goofy ruling.