Not surprisingly the National Association of Realtors political action committee is spending big on this election in hopes of maintaining favorable rules for them. Haven't we all seen the horrible consequences of allowing powerful organizations such as this to buy influence in Congress?
Don't forget to check back to Dan's Deep Creek Blog for future updates.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
More news from the TheHill.com ..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree. Do you have any solutions?
You could ban contributions from political action committees, require that elections be 100% publicly financed, etc.
It's clear to me at least that people are still buying influence on the campaign trail and that is a disservice to the people of this country
Yeah, that would be great but the current Supreme Court has been unwilling to allow Congress to limit political spending from outside groups. Without that, campaign finance reform is pointless (and possibly counterproductive). Unless of course, you make the level of public funding so high that the candidate under assault from outside groups would have the funds to respond.
BM,
Thanks again for your comments here.
I should have known from the vagueness of your question I was being set-up for that one. You are right though, corruption and politics seem inseparable.
What is ironic to me, however, is that those doing the most lobbying always manage to need the most help. How is it that they get the rules bent in their favor and then still need us to come along and bail them out of the mess they get themselves in?
HAHA...it wasn't a set-up, I actually agree with you.
I just think meaningful reform is difficult under the current conservative Supreme Court.
Congress could do some useful things though: limiting contributions to political parties and conventions (like the $2,300 per individual limit to candidates), and lowering the contribution limit for lower level races. A $2,300 check isn't much of an influence buying transaction when a presidential candidate is raising 100s of millions of dollars, but it can be a lot for House members, especially in cheap media districts.
Post a Comment