Can We Safeguard Our Democracy After Supreme Court Decision?

Can We Safeguard Our Democracy After McCutcheon? (via Moyers & Company)

The Supreme Court’s evisceration of our campaign finance rules is a powerful argument for the cleansing properties of sunlight. We should respond to McCutcheon by pushing for the full and timely disclosure of every penny donated to advance a political…


Related video:

The Real News: “Supreme Court Decision Opens Floodgates for More Campaign Cash”

3 Responses

  1. We’re up against the most terrifying question underlying capitalist democracy: does rational free will really exist, or are we just meat machines that can always be manipulated by the best experts that money can buy? If the latter, then do we simply surrender democracy, or do we have to radically change our society to stave off those brainwashing minions?

    I’m beginning to think that representative democracy was always doomed by the unrepresentativeness of money. There are other paradigms of democracy, like community consensus, juries, and even mass civil disobedience. And God knows there are other paradigms of property rights.

  2. Hey Juan!
    Roberts evidently with his hands over his eyes does not see any evidence that money corrupts. You point out that the Disclose Act failed to pass in 2012 because of GOP opposition although they had favored it before. Do you think the earlier favoritism was genuine or was it always just an interim argument advanced for the purpose of removing spending limits? If that is the case, then the current opposition would be expected once spending limits are removed. The GOP whittled another duck.

    Now, lets say we are right and people are concerned about money corrupting politics despite Roberts myopia and are suggesting another try at a disclosure law. Just how is it possible to pass a disclosure law if money corrupts?

    Isn’t that the real irony?

    Given that, how is it that democratic values should be protected? If money gets you elected for good or bad, then how do you make the legislators responsive to any demands that are not in the interest of money? It used to be that under the premise of a balance of power, the one or individual sought protection from the powerful in the courts rather than from the legislature which was presumably meant to be responsive to the mob in the House–majority rule–because they were always up for election.

    No wonder we have a persistent budgetary crisis. The rich no longer truly believe in the nation–they no longer wish to support it. The wealthy refusing to play their previous part in financing cultural mores has always been the end of a culture.

    We can argue and demand all we want, but the point is we are left out in the woods and there is nobody there to listen.

Comments are closed.