One of the biggest changes in the American political process this year is
not the tea party. It's the influx of unlimited money being spent by anonymous sources to get--mostly--Republican candidates elected. What's particularly weird about it is that to me, it would seem like a counter-intuitive issue for conservatives to support.
Conservatives don't often seem to be for expanding the definition of speech. For example, many have argued that burning the American flag is a free speech issue, but conservatives by and large don't accept that argument. In this case, money=speech and corporations=citizens. Neither equation seems like it would work in Republican math. And I'll betcha if this tidal wave of money was crashing on
Democratic shores, we'd be hearing a lot of fuming from FOX "News" and right-wing talk radio about it. So, are conservative principles a little flexible if
they are the recipients of a positive outcome from a dubious policy? Do the ends justify the means?
One of my biggest problems with this influx of cash is that it is being kept anonymous. Why? To what end? Because of this anonymity, the money could be from
anywhere, including foreign corporations and countries. Now, if the Sultan of Oilistan tried to give $10 million to a GOP Senate hopeful's election effort, it would be illegal. But if the donation is made anonymously, how would we know? And how would we know that there wasn't a little quid pro quo for all that jack?
Another problem is a little less hypothetical. How exactly would genuine grass roots uprisings--and again, I'm
not talking about the tea party--even hope to compete with the deep pockets of Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Media and all the rest? These groups can now effectively
buy an election. My hope is that the huge increase in political advertising is such a turn-off, that all that extra money actually has a
detrimental effect. I mean, aren't you
sick of political ads? Sharron Angle may have an enormous war chest to spend attacking Harry Reid, but as soon as I hear "I'm Sharron Angle, an' I approve this mess-eege," I tune out. And I yell at her.
So, what would the conservative argument be? I thought I'd find out. Here is an article from another point of view. One that assumes "money"
does equal speech. It also claims that anonymous donations are a "tiny" portion of overall spending, something I'm not sure is always the case. Anyway, I thought I'd present it here for anyone curious about the issue. I do not endorse or agree with the following. . .
[Excerpt]
Obama and the Left Assault Anonymous Political Speech
The word has been handed down, from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow all the way up to President Barack Obama, and the talking points have come out. Political speech that isn't reported to the federal government is a “threat to our democracy,” in the words of President Obama. The Democratic National Committee has released a television ad accusing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of diverting foreign members' dues toward political ads in the United States. . .
Read more at: The New American
