Steve, I would say that the gross nature of campaign finance is at the core of mounting insanity of our current elected officials. As the measure of campaign strength continues to rely on, and escalate, the financing of candidates, only those with the best donation "snow jobs" survive. The idea of buying our electoral candidates with our…
Steve, I would say that the gross nature of campaign finance is at the core of mounting insanity of our current elected officials. As the measure of campaign strength continues to rely on, and escalate, the financing of candidates, only those with the best donation "snow jobs" survive. The idea of buying our electoral candidates with our donations, and the continual support of the importance of donated money to our elections is what assured the election of guy like djt. The bewildering blathering is the smoke-screen. The money is the problem.
I agree - how we finance campaigns is grotesque, and I'm not defending it. Fern is correct in noting that state legislators, and corporate donations to them, need to be scrutinized as much as federal-level political donations. Prof. Richardson's article was musing about the possibility that there may be a fissure between corporate political interests and the interests that have so far brought populist/nationalist/racist into the Republican voting base. The discussion's gotten a little off track from the Professor's post, and that was why I responded to Fern's comment.
Steve, I would say that the gross nature of campaign finance is at the core of mounting insanity of our current elected officials. As the measure of campaign strength continues to rely on, and escalate, the financing of candidates, only those with the best donation "snow jobs" survive. The idea of buying our electoral candidates with our donations, and the continual support of the importance of donated money to our elections is what assured the election of guy like djt. The bewildering blathering is the smoke-screen. The money is the problem.
I agree - how we finance campaigns is grotesque, and I'm not defending it. Fern is correct in noting that state legislators, and corporate donations to them, need to be scrutinized as much as federal-level political donations. Prof. Richardson's article was musing about the possibility that there may be a fissure between corporate political interests and the interests that have so far brought populist/nationalist/racist into the Republican voting base. The discussion's gotten a little off track from the Professor's post, and that was why I responded to Fern's comment.