A good "blogosphere buddy" of mine, Zen (whom I am well-acquainted with through the old Daily Whackjob blog), and I have been battling back and forth over the recent Supreme Court ruling on the rights of corporations and unions when it comes to campaign financing and advertising.
While I still stand that CEOs and the like should not be restricted because of their status and resources, I was convinced by a few of Zen's other points that this was a bad ruling. He brought these two issues to my attention...
- Apparently, this ruling is now putting restrictions placed by the states at risk (federal rulings are supposed to supercede state laws unless deemed unconstitutional). Obviously, it would make sense that nationwide elections, such as the presidential elections, should be federally ruled and regulated from a financing perspective. However, states should be able to decide how their statewide elections are financed and regulated. This ruling effectively throws many state laws and restrictions out the door. This is a case where the federal government needs to step back and step out of the affairs of the individual states.
- The second, and more dangerous issue (in my opinion), is the fact that global corporations now can influence our elections. This means that corporations in foreign lands can influence our elections, and this also opens an avenue for foreign nations themselves to have direct influence. I'm surprised that some on the left ("we are part of a global community") don't see this as a good thing....ok, I kid, I kid. In all seriousness, this is a dangerous precedent to set and it actually makes me quite a bit nervous.
So kudos to Zen for turning me around on this issue. While he and I will probably have several more arguments to have on different points...I can at least admit where I may have been blind to certain things.
I do agree with him on another point...this ruling has opened up a Pandora's Box of potential problems going forward.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Phil...you should know how refreshing it has been to have a civil debate of substance with you. Thank you, very much. I look forward to more, and always welcome the opportunity to learn from a different viewpoint. I wouldn't characterize you as wrong, me as right, or in any way that you bent to my will. I see it as much more open-minded than that. Thanks, again!
I'm guessing you've grown tired of what passes for "debate" in other regions of this state's blogosphere? ;)
No, I should thank you, because you did point me towards some repercussions from this court ruling that I did not notice or think of previously.
Post a Comment