Tuesday, September 02, 2008

My Attack on the PAC

"A government of the people, by the people and for the people."  Those are great words.  They have been quoted in great speeches by Lincoln and King.  But is it just a dream?

I was listening to a report this morning on PACs ("political action committees").  You probably already know how I feel about them.  Last week, they invaded the Democratic Convention, and now they are at the Republican Convention.  ACLU, NRA, the pharmaceutical companies, defense contractors, big oil, and I could go on and on.  They court the politicians and give their campaigns megabucks -- in effect buying their votes.  Thus, the politicians' loyalties are not to the people, but to the PACs.  It is legal bribery, and it is SO opposed to the idea of "of the people, by the people, and for the people." 

The report was telling about new rules as to the parties PACs can throw for politicians.  They are not to serve foods that require a fork and knife.  The intent is to not allow them to throw a sit-down banquet -- but only serve "finger foods."  So at the Democratic Convention, they served things that could be eaten with a spoon.  At the Republican Convention, they are serving the food in Martini glasses.  Any way to skirt the rules.

I am of the opinion that PACs are THE leading cause of corruption and partisanship in American politics.  Even if I believe in the causes of the PACs, I think they are ethically wrong.  One person, one vote -- THAT is a democracy.  


Anonymous said...

Very well stated. PAC's definitely have politicians in their pockets. Which, in essence, means that PAC's are making laws, not the elected officials. You named it correctly .. "legal bribery". It's a shameful display of American ethics.

Jeff said...

I'll be glad when the election is over.

Now we're going to have to hear stories about Palin's pregnant daughter. It will be interesting (and maybe saddening) to hear the parties spin on it.

Josh Ross said...

Go get'em!!!

randy said...

I disagree with you. In the case of the NRA, the only way shooters can get our side of the debate in front of people is via NRA-ILA. Gun owners struggle with mass media that is biased against our story. What the PAC buys with a contribution is not a vote, but the willingness to listen to a particular viewpoint.

Anonymous said...

While I am all for the 2nd Amendment, for I own several guns, the NRA takes it too far. NO ONE needs to own an UZI unless they are military or law enforcement. Bazooka's should not be able to be purchased for recreation. If the NRA were more balanced, I would agree. However, they are all or nothing.