Along with my regular disgust of the Reagan Administration's removal of the the Fairness Doctrine in the media there is a new enemy of the people rearing its head in the laws which allow political donations to be made by corporations and kept anonymous.
I just don't get it. If some one or some body wants to make a political donation what on earth can be their real motive for wishing it to be anonymous? I am sure that there are an number of "right to privacy" scenarios which can be rolled out to defend this desire. I am equally confident that none of them can possibly compete with the demands of transparency which a democratic society must have as one of its basic tenants.
To my mind it is again a question of regulation. I am all for the freedoms that are granted by the constitution-I remain a staunch supporter of the overall system of government in the USA. But what is worrying me is the lack of integrity.
And this integrity cuts across many lines. I am referring to the dumbing down of political discourse which ends up in soundbite rhetoric reminiscent of Newspeak and finely honed by slick speechwriters and campaign managers whose desire is to win at any cost. And the cost is at the altar of populism.
But for a populist to be truly successful there remains the need for the powers behind the throne, and these are the anonymous donors. The politicians are generally no longer concerned with serving the people and the people are often enough not informed enough to make rational decisions.
And one of the major sources of misinformation are the political action committees which have moved from the murky world of translucense to the opaque world of manipulation.
And while we are on the topic of manipulation, and a perfect example of why we not only need regulations, but also non-corrupt enforcement, tomorrow my next post will aim to draw your attention to a group of traders that manage to make even President Sarkozy look like he has some morals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment