Legitimate Political Influence

Post Reply New Topic

Most people would agree that violence isn't a legitimate means of political change in all but the most extreme cases; but what about other ways of exerting influence?

For example, some people on the Right often bristle at the mention of George Soros or Michael Bloomberg, while their counterparts on the Left are quick to point the finger at Rupert Murdoch, or lately the libertarian Koch brothers, as somehow doing something wrong by trying to influence politics. I can understand feeling that someone is wrong or pursuing the wrong goals, but the level of personal demonizing going on here is kind of perplexing to me. I know that if I thought my country was on the wrong track, and possessed the resources to promote a change, I wouldn't hesitate to use them, and would fully expect the same from my political opposites. I might be annoyed when Soros bankrolls a gun control group and think he's kind of a jerk, but I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing in his position but in the opposite direction.

Anyway, the question I'm asking is what people here think crosses the line when it comes to promoting your own views in society at large. Is it ok for normal people to make political donations or volunteer for campaigns, found groups etc, but wrong for the wealthy to do the same things on a larger scale? Were does the line lay?

Of course, I would draw the line at theft, vandalism, and physical violence, as I'm sure any sensible person would. I also would like to see some civility, as in less overgeneralizing and demonizing ("all you liberals are this...", "all you conservatives are this...") because that doesn't drive the argument anywhere.

Also, I don't mind businesses donating money to a particular cause. That being said, I would like to know which businesses are donating money to what, so that if there's a business that's donating money to a cause that I'm against, I'll be able to boycott that business. Similarly, if there's a business that's donating money to a cause that I support, I'll spend more money at that business.

Personally, I don't like it when there are blatant conflicts of interest. I don't like the idea of a journalist donating cash to his or her preferred candidate. It's an important profession and I don't consider them 'normal people' even when they're off the clock. I think it's unethical and it goes against the general code of conduct. I don't like it when networks have an open affiliation to a particular party either. I hate the idea that our representatives can be bought and sold. It infuriates me that it always comes down to he who raises the most cash wins.

This is why I think campaign finance reform is so important. This is where I lay the line. Unfortunately, I think the beast has already been fed wildly out of control. I don't see any taming in the near future.

Obama's behavior in 2008 pretty much has doomed campaign finance reform for at least the next decade. No Republican is going to take a Democrat at their word like McCain did in 2008 (McCain got stuck with matching funds because Obama weaseled out of an agreement).

The US Supreme Court ruled that journalism is not a profession. Professions are supposed to have professional ethics and standards, the Court ruled that journalists function as the mouthpieces of the owners, that media outlets are the owners speaking, exercising their Right To Free Speech with the public airwaves. In that case, it doesn't matter to whom the journalists donate, what matters are the owners and owners only. The owners decide to have a Conservative or Liberal or Social Darwinist delivering the news according to what he wants broadcast and can change it up at will. It's all up to the owners.

Is that true? If so, I'm quite disturbed. Source please.

There are two specific cases. One was from Florida where Fox News reporters were fired for refusing to repeat corporate propaganda that the owner wanted. Supremes ruled in favour of the owner saying that the owner has the final word about what is said, it's a matter of the owners' free speech that would otherwise be violated, thus there are no professional ethics in journalism. Another case out of California had to do with the owner firing journalists for starting a union. Court ruled that it's a matter of free speech for the owner to decide who serves as journalists and so the owner can fire journalists at will, circumventing the ban on firing people for trying to unionise.

Oh, I remember that Florida case now. I hadn't heard about the California case. The whole situation is really messed up.