I have an idea: Let's just put the government up for sale to the highest bidder.
It would save time. And we could quit agonizing about what's the right thing to do. Make it simple. Let's just be honest and say: We're auctioning off the people's rights.
Today's cave-in to the NRA is jaw-droppingly astonishing.
The Democrats were trying to do something to counter the Supreme Court's awful decision that allows unlimited campaign contributions from corporations -- in essence, treating corporations as if they were people with free speech rights. They had crafted a bill with strict financial disclosure requirements. It wouldn't stop the cash, but at least we would know who was paying for the ads.
But, to get the votes of the 40 or 50 Blue Dog Dems who will not go against the NRA, they had to carve out an exemption to the disclosure that is so tailored to the NRA that only a few other 501(c)(4) groups fit and will qualify for the exemption: Humane Society (yes), AARP (yes), AFL-CIO (no), Chamber of Commerce (no), MoveOn.org (no). Is there any rationale there? No.
"It truly is amazing," said Paul Helmke, a spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "We are not talking 2nd Amendment issues at all. We are not talking gun bans or background checks. We are talking campaign finance disclosure. I have never seen this before. I have seen people get earmarks for things. Here it seems like the NRA has tooth marks instead."
I don't think House leaders wanted to do this, but it was the only way to get it passed. It's also the price of winning control of the House. To do so, Rahm Emanuel recruited conservative Dems to run in Repub-leaning districts -- and won. So we got control of the agenda and the committees -- and this is the price to pay.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Don't BP and Goldman Sachs already own the government?
ReplyDeleterichard
To be clear what this is about: the requirement, which NRA is uniquely exempted from in this bill, is reporting who donated the money that NRA then funnels to political campaigns.
ReplyDeleteThat's all. They want to shield the identity of who gives them money to "buy" congressmen. Is there any better evidence that they expect that some wealthy zealots will give millions and millions to influence a particular vote of self-interest?