USA Today had a well-researched article about all the political appointees in the Obama administration who just happened to have fundraised over $100,000 for the campaign. But, for some reason, the story generated less interest in the blogosphere than the 25th anniversary of Ice Pirates. I don't know if it's because the article was in the Mikky-D's press, or because the practice is so common amongst both parties that none of the partisan operatives dare criticize, or because there was other corruption allegations that stole the limelight. But it seems like we just brush it aside as "business as usual" in Washington and wonder why the government is being run by incompetent boobs whose only purpose in life is to make speeches and false promises.
30 October 2009
Our Longstanding Corrupt Practices
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
See what the others have said:
12 comments:
Sadly, it is business as usual, for all the hoopla about HOPE and CHANGE.
The mediocre little rats are at the feeding trough.
WOW! Ice Pirates turned 25?!?! I can't believe it's been so long! "The ship has herpes." Ha ha wow. Now, there's two hours of my life I'll never get back. Or six to eight if you count the number of times I've seen it. Feels bad, man.
Oh yeah, too bad about that other thing, too.
25 years! Wow. I always wanted a car with giant wheels and a spiked skull on the front.
But back to the topic: The problem lies not with administrations that surround themselves with high-dollar donors. The fact is, your biggest fundraisers are often the people who you trust the most. And when it comes to exerting control over the gigantic executive branch--about half of which doesn't like you--much of the time, having moderately competent trusted people in charge is more important than having supremely competent untrusted people in charge. Of course, hiring supremely competent trusted people is ideal, but good luck with finding several thousand people like that.
The problem here is Congress--which refuses to remove money from politics. If campaigns were publicly funded, for instance, there'd be no need for fundraising at this level--and thus no need for paying those fundraisers back. It would clean up all kinds of sleaze. But you won't see that from Congress any time soon.
Sorry, had to rant. This is a topic near and dear to me.
--Guy who usually comments under his own name
Great reference to Ice Pirates. Classic flick. RIP John Matuszak.
yoooo gaba gaba!
Anyone seriously stupid enough to think that a former low level Chicago machine foot soldier like BHO was going to transcend the political river of shit he cut his teeth on deserves to have their hearts broken.
If someone on here could explain to me what the connection is between free speech and campaign financing I would be grateful. While you're at it tell me how it ties into free association and any other constitutional guarantee that opponents to campaign finance reform have used to kill or fatally weaken bills that have been drafted to tackle this issue.
The thing is though, I'm not sure that restricting campaign financing to public funds would really do anything. There are still PAC's that can and will operate independent of candidates to either promote them or to conduct smear campaigns against their opponents. In congress, you will always have the issue of special interest groups pushing their agenda in one congressional district or another. It would be nice if there were laws that made it easier to connect the dots and follow the money when it came to our elected officials, but when it comes to writing laws like that, the fox is guarding the hen house.
In a democracy it is every citizen's duty to scrutinize what their elected officials do and hold them accountable for it. This is a small price to pay for the freedoms we enjoy in my humble opinion.
Where did you get the portrait of our congress critters?
There are still PAC's that can and will operate independent of candidates to either promote them or to conduct smear campaigns against their opponents.
The fact is, your biggest fundraisers are often the people who you trust the most. And when it comes to exerting control over the gigantic executive branch--about half of which doesn't like you--much of the time, having moderately competent trusted people in charge is more important than having supremely competent untrusted people in charge.
In a democracy it is every citizen's duty to scrutinize what their elected officials do and hold them accountable for it. This is a small price to pay for the freedoms we enjoy in my humble opinion..
Yes, I also do agree. The problem here is Congress--which refuses to remove money from politics.
It would be nice if there were laws that made it easier to connect the dots and follow the money when it came to our elected officials.
Post a Comment