When governments become beholden to big banks, and business and war, then things tend to get good for the rich, and not so good for workers.
You seem stuck on this point, which is bizarre. The problem in Flint was public sector unions negotiating for pension benefits for government employees that were unsustainable, and government officials agreeing to the terms.
I disagree with your view of campaign finance reform, but so be it. BUT when people think that spending unlimited amounts of money running adverts to elect our officials is a RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH, I just want to throw up. It's not!
And I want to throw up whenever I see someone swallow this line of retoric.
The US Congress averages close to a 90% re-election rate. People who are already in office have a natural advantage: the media wants to cover them. If there is such a problem with tainted elections, where are the tainted candidates? Correct - they are already in office. Doesn't it seem suspicious that so many would be on fire to get campaign finance reform passed? They are doing it to solidify their power - in specific, making it even more difficult for candidates from outside the 2-party system to get elected.
The real killer is that in many states, there are onerous ballot-access laws that favor the major parties. Third-party candidates spend so much money getting on the ballot that, combined with contribution limitations, they have trouble getting their voices heard. Since they can't make their own noise, the media tends to ignore them... it's a negative feeback cycle that just bleeds independent candidates dry.
If we really want to stop corruption, why isn't the emphasis on contributions after a politician is elected?
Slashdot Mirror
When governments become beholden to big banks, and business and war, then things tend to get good for the rich, and not so good for workers.
You seem stuck on this point, which is bizarre. The problem in Flint was public sector unions negotiating for pension benefits for government employees that were unsustainable, and government officials agreeing to the terms.
Sharp has unveiled a next-gen monitor that is an absolute mouthful
I think you are doing monitors wrong.
And I want to throw up whenever I see someone swallow this line of retoric.
The US Congress averages close to a 90% re-election rate. People who are already in office have a natural advantage: the media wants to cover them. If there is such a problem with tainted elections, where are the tainted candidates? Correct - they are already in office. Doesn't it seem suspicious that so many would be on fire to get campaign finance reform passed? They are doing it to solidify their power - in specific, making it even more difficult for candidates from outside the 2-party system to get elected.
The real killer is that in many states, there are onerous ballot-access laws that favor the major parties. Third-party candidates spend so much money getting on the ballot that, combined with contribution limitations, they have trouble getting their voices heard. Since they can't make their own noise, the media tends to ignore them... it's a negative feeback cycle that just bleeds independent candidates dry.
If we really want to stop corruption, why isn't the emphasis on contributions after a politician is elected?