This is exactly why you should be for small government. A big government with the power to enact corporate welfare attracts big corporate money to stay in power. It's a vicious cycle. I'm sure you think that big corporations are only concerned with making money and maximizing profit, right? Cause they pretty much do. Then ask yourself why they spend so much on politics. You know what isn't the answer? Asking the government to please police itself into not taking big corporate money. If government didn't have the power to stack the deck in any corporations' favor then corporations wouldn't have a need to spend on politics.
Uh, not really.
You see, we had a pretty sensible campaign finance reform law in McCain-Feingold. Then the Citizen United decision decided that wealth transfers were "Speech".
I don't have a problem with subsidies per se. Quite the contrary, the Germans and Japanese beat the pants off of us because they subsidize their industries to make them more competitive on the international market. That's what you do if you are smart.
What McCain-Feingold Meant to Do But Didn't
The primary objective of McCain-Feingold was the restore public trust in the political system by banning donations to political parties from wealthy individuals and corporations.
But the legislation allowed people and corporations to give their money elsewhere, to independent and third-party groups.
Some critics claim McCain-Feingold made matters worse by shifting campaign cash from the political parties to outside, third-party groups, which are more extreme and narrowly focused.
Writing in The Washington Post in 2014, Robert K. Kelner, chairman of the election law practice at Covington & Burling LLP, and Raymond La Raja, an associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst:
"McCain-Feingold tilted influence in our political system toward the ideological extremes. For centuries, political parties played a moderating role: Because they comprise a broad coalition of interests, parties had to mediate among competing constituencies, looking for middle-ground positions that would draw maximum support. Traditionally, they used their preponderance of resources to impose discipline on extremists who threatened party comity.
But McCain-Feingold pushed soft money away from parties and toward interest groups, many of which prefer to focus on highly contentious issues (abortion, gun control, environmentalism). These are not necessarily the issues of greatest concern to most Americans, especially during difficult economic times. With the parties in retreat, is it any surprise that our national political debate has taken on a more extreme tone or that fewer moderates are elected?"
Did McCain-Feingold Make American Politics Worse?
Joe just wants to be man handled a bit. Lol.
