This is not a political blog by definition; it is a blog that is supposed to talk about side effects. The side effects of action. The side effects of complicity. The side effects of saying something most people won't say.
That said, I guess I am sticking to my mission statement in that I am talking about the side effects of a decision. Namely, the decision by the U. S. Supreme Court that corporations have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns. This decision replaces Dred Scott as the biggest error the court has ever made.
What would be the side effect of that? Those with the biggest and deepest pockets get to select who wins elections. That, in effect, is what this decision says. How do you think being funded by major corporations will effect political decisions in the future? What is the side effect of unlimited corporate funding? What chance do you have if you don't agree with them?
This is serious folks. The Supreme Court of this country has apparently lost its mission statement, as this seems completely contrary to the basic principles of freedom of speech. What can be done?
Alan Grayson, a Florida congressman, is attempting legislation to put up some provisions to stem the major tide that is forming even as I type. Go the his website to sign his petition to support these efforts.
This is bigger than party. This is the future of this nation folks. Try reversing this process in ten or twenty years, when everyone from the president down is hand-picked by IBM, or Microsoft, WalMart or Mobil Oil.
No comments:
Post a Comment