3 Comments

  1. www. the sacredwhispers.com
    July 25, 2013 @ 11:16 am

    Democracy ceases to be a Democracy when it tolerates different rules and conditions for different people. Secrecy only serves to create and protect privileges for the 1%…
    In the name of Democracy, I urge the SEC to disclose corporate political spending.

    Reply

  2. Victor Tiffany
    July 27, 2013 @ 8:25 am

    It’s not just disclosure that is not partisan or ideological for that matter. The grassroots movement to overturn Citizens United is both cross partisan and trans-ideological. See:

    http://www.amendmentgazette.com/2013/06/30/the-ideologies-of-abolishing-corporate-personhood/

    Reply

  3. Bill Roberson
    July 28, 2013 @ 8:10 pm

    While secret funding is particularly corrosive to democracy, any large contributions are detrimental. Even with transparency, too many voters are still unaware of where the information (or, more likely, misinformation) that effects their choices comes from. Unequal funding (often favoring incumbents) results in unequal paid media exposure. Those elected spend increasing amounts of time fundraising, which detracts time and energy from what they were elected to do. For corporations, funding is a business investment. They expect, and often receive, favorable policy decisions, or at least access, giving policymakers one-sided information. Legislators cannot be impartial — there must always be some concern how their actions will sit with big donors. Fundraising may have a more insidious effect. It requires spending more time with elites whose lifestyles and concerns are very different from that of their constituencies, with whom they may have minimal contact. About half of Congress are millionaires, already making it difficult to “walk in the shoes” of those they purport to represent.

    Reply

Leave a Reply