by Jack Lee
If you think you have seen more political ads this year you are probably right. That’s because there has been a huge infusion of corporate and union cash into PAC’s aka 501c3 and 501c4’s, non-profit groups, to spend on influencing elections.
In January of this year the Supreme Court of the United States held by the narrowest of margins, 5/4, that corporations and labor unions had the right same right to free speech as you. The ruling overturned decades of restrictions on campaign finance and now allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on political ads.
Elections spending this year is up by about $18 million over the previous election cycle. Democrats are blaming their low poll numbers at least in part on this unlimited spending by corporations. They say it has established a shadow republican party that is removed from scrutiny. Donations to 5-01-C4 non-profits can be made anonymously and they in turn can use the money to run ads against a candidate or for propositions or however they wish. This is known as a form of “soft money” laundering to conceal the source of funding.
Since the time of the SCOTUS ruling polls show 80% of us have an unfavorable feeling about it and this would include many republicans.
Yet, it doesn’t stop the Republicans from taking corporate money. I wonder how Chicoans will fare if the corporations win locally.
Oh give me a break. If anything the playing field is now made a bit more level.
BIG UNION has been pouring millions into elections for decades. There are countless leftist organizations that have done likewise. BIG Corporation is made up of those on the left as well as the right. All of these are groups run by or made up of people…just bigger slices of America. Soros spent millions funding several 501c3’s in order to defeat Bush…his money failed to produce the desired result. What did it matter that a portion of the huge fortune of a single investment tycoon was spent, in the end the people still decided on Bush.
It’s up to each individual to protect his own vote. It is up to each individual to sift through the information and decide what’s true and which candidates are deserving to lead. Whether influenced by a $5 dollar bumper sticker, ads that cost millions, or by simply watching candidates debate one time, in the end the individual must come to choice based on his own perceptions and ideals. In the end it’s just me and that ballot.
Unfortunately Quentin a political party must take the money if it’s offered, to do less is to surrender elections to the other party. Money is affording them to get their message out and that often makes the difference at the ballot box, you know that, so a party is always going to take the money. But, if that money was not made available, well, then we have a different situation, because it now is incumbent more on individuals and their contributions. Personally… I like that better.