Saturday, November 10, 2012
This from a pillar of the Republican party, which has been trying its darndest to pass voter ID laws to prevent nonexistent polling place fraud but which will make it hard for the poor, minorities, the elderly and the disabled to vote because, after all, they aren't reliably Republican white males. And that's not to mention dirtier tricks.
But, then again, this is just a bit of Rovian Newspeak. You see, this is what amounts to "voter suppression" to Rove:
He succeeded by suppressing the vote, by saying to people, 'you may not like who I am, and I know you can't bring yourself to vote for me, but I'm going to paint this other guy as simply a rich guy who only cares about himself.'First of all, I don't think Mitt "47 percent" Romney needed any help in that regard. But even if the Democrats gave him a boost in that direction, what else is that but politics as practiced in America today?
Can you say "Swift Boat Veterans" or "Willie Horton" boys and girls?
Because everything is for sale in America if you wave enough dollars at it, right?
-- pew rent sitter
I was afraid that was right but this was heartening. Also, some conservative politicians were targeted by liberal groups and were complaining about anonymous money being used against them. Maybe something will be done to ameliorate Citizens Union by at least making the donors public.
Ah, what a strange time to be alive: when rich, anxious white men are finally revealed to be the entitled minority they always accuse other groups of being. Welcome to the 21st century, motherfuckers.
The amount of money squandered on this campaign, though, in a time of financial crisis is both obscene and absurd. In my view, Citizens United was a poor decision. In a democracy, every voice should be entitled to an equal hearing. It should not be the case that money decides who gets heard and having lots of money entitles you to a bigger megaphone than everyone else. And, certainly, I can see no good reason why donors should be entitled to anonymity.
The challenge for the Republicans now is whether or not they can find a way to break out of the "epistemic closure" of right-wing ideological prejudices that, in part, cost them this election.
Amen, brother, AMEN!
Citizens United was a poor decision. In a democracy, every voice should be entitled to an equal hearing. It should not be the case that money decides who gets heard and having lots of money entitles you to a bigger megaphone than everyone else. And, certainly, I can see no good reason why donors should be entitled to anonymity.
One thing I found curious about Citizens United (I thought I might have the name wrong but was too lazy/otherwise engaged to check) is that it turned, in large part, on the legal fiction that corporations are "persons." That notion was first implimented to help sort out such things as liability for what corporations do or don't do, i.e. corporate negligence. But if corporations are "persons" for purposes of election law, why aren't they allowed to cast a vote? Would anyone think that would even be rational?
To merge Carlos's and Ian's points, the most amusing/infuriating thing about arguments against disclosure of donors is that it might result in "intimidation" of the donors ... that is, people might not like the fact that very rich persons and corporations are trying to use their wealth to influence elections and might make decisions about what products or services to buy or otherwise make choices they are free to make if they knew what those fat cats are up to. IOW, 'you have no right to dislike us just because we're trying to buy an election.'