An immodest thought on campaign finance
"An honest politician is one that stays bought"--H. L. Mencken
Campaign finance laws do not work. Money continues to influence elections no matter how hard Mr. McCain and Mr. Feingold work to stop it. Libertarians rightly bring up first amendment concerns about telling people how to spend their money, and folks on the left decry the fact that influence is being bought and sold on Capitol Hill.
Campaigns have become expensive circuses, with attack ads, swift-boating and interest campaign groups becoming common as an unintended result of people trying to keep the interest groups out of political finance. It obviously is not working.
Here's a suggestion...
Repeal McCain-Feingold, for a start. Replace it with a simple scheme that has worked well for NASCAR--Corporate Sponsorship. Anyone tired of watching power suits on C-SPAN would get an immediate benefit, as elected representatives would be required to "proudly" display their sponsor's logo on colorful corporate livery. It would also be much easier to explain why a certain politician was speaking on behalf of a certain bill...for instance, if Senator Foo Bar from the great state of whatever was speaking for or against an appointment to the FCC, it would make a lot of sense for us to be able to see the fine "Comcast" logo displayed on his colorful outfit.
Replace that dignified library where elected officials make their pronouncements with a backdrop showing their fine sponsors, with the largest donors having their logo more prominent, and the lesser ones smaller.
Lining up campaign funds would be much easier as well--$5 million gets your logo on the congressman's door, as well as on the hood of his limo, $1 million gets the logo on the limo door, $500,000 buys the chairs in his office, etc.
Government could also save money on the franking privilege if mailing costs were defrayed by placing the rep's corporate sponsors prominently on his mass mailings--"And now, a word from your congressional representative Mud Face, proudly brought to you by the friendly folks at National Right to Life--remember, don't kill that baby!"
Wearing the logo of the contractor that benefited the most from government contracts at the ribbon cutting for a new bridge could give everyone that saw the photo op a new respect for the role of the building interests in politics, as well as a documented photo record of responsibility when the bridge collapses from shoddy construction. Wearing the Halliburton logo when at a signing ceremony for a bill awarding a no-bid contract would show dedication to their masters, as well as provide clarity to the public.
Money buys political influence, there is nothing new about that, and there is nothing that will ever change that.
Let's just make them display who their bitch ass belongs to.
Campaign finance laws do not work. Money continues to influence elections no matter how hard Mr. McCain and Mr. Feingold work to stop it. Libertarians rightly bring up first amendment concerns about telling people how to spend their money, and folks on the left decry the fact that influence is being bought and sold on Capitol Hill.
Campaigns have become expensive circuses, with attack ads, swift-boating and interest campaign groups becoming common as an unintended result of people trying to keep the interest groups out of political finance. It obviously is not working.
Here's a suggestion...
Repeal McCain-Feingold, for a start. Replace it with a simple scheme that has worked well for NASCAR--Corporate Sponsorship. Anyone tired of watching power suits on C-SPAN would get an immediate benefit, as elected representatives would be required to "proudly" display their sponsor's logo on colorful corporate livery. It would also be much easier to explain why a certain politician was speaking on behalf of a certain bill...for instance, if Senator Foo Bar from the great state of whatever was speaking for or against an appointment to the FCC, it would make a lot of sense for us to be able to see the fine "Comcast" logo displayed on his colorful outfit.
Replace that dignified library where elected officials make their pronouncements with a backdrop showing their fine sponsors, with the largest donors having their logo more prominent, and the lesser ones smaller.
Lining up campaign funds would be much easier as well--$5 million gets your logo on the congressman's door, as well as on the hood of his limo, $1 million gets the logo on the limo door, $500,000 buys the chairs in his office, etc.
Government could also save money on the franking privilege if mailing costs were defrayed by placing the rep's corporate sponsors prominently on his mass mailings--"And now, a word from your congressional representative Mud Face, proudly brought to you by the friendly folks at National Right to Life--remember, don't kill that baby!"
Wearing the logo of the contractor that benefited the most from government contracts at the ribbon cutting for a new bridge could give everyone that saw the photo op a new respect for the role of the building interests in politics, as well as a documented photo record of responsibility when the bridge collapses from shoddy construction. Wearing the Halliburton logo when at a signing ceremony for a bill awarding a no-bid contract would show dedication to their masters, as well as provide clarity to the public.
Money buys political influence, there is nothing new about that, and there is nothing that will ever change that.
Let's just make them display who their bitch ass belongs to.
posted by Drunkenrantz at 12:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home