Tuesday, November 09, 2004
After more than a year of watching the Federal Election Commission undermine the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) which he sponsored, Senator John McCain plans on initiating a new series of reforms to shore up the Act, including a new enforcement agency to replace the Federal Election Commission.
It's not hard to see why the Senator faults the FEC for allowing 527 groups to evade the contribution limits that apply to all political action committees that attempt to influence elections. The FEC's inaction and tortured construction of definitions under the BCRA was bad enough that a federal judge had to tell the FEC to rewrite the regulations it wrote to implement the BCRA.
It is one thing for a regulatory agency to interpret a law to facilitate the intent of its drafters in the legislature. It is a completely different thing when that agency interprets the law in such a way as to contradict the clear intent of the law's drafters and that goes against plain old common sense.
America don't need rich folks dominating our elections through multimillion dollar contributions to 527s. Congress agreed and passed a law way back in the 70s which should have prevented this. And yet, the FEC abused its authority, and granted rich folks the ability to flood our airwaves with their message.
Maybe the Senator is right that it's time for the FEC to go. In a time when rich folks are throwing record sums of money at our elections, America could use an election watchdog with some teeth.
Links to this post:
Don't claim to love America if you dispise everything it stands for. Socialism (which is your goal) can not exist with our Constutution, they are diametrically opposed to one another.
1) I think that our current leadership and most Americans describe our country as a democracy, and want it to be a democracy.
2) Some of the founding fathers had great reservations about the electoral college. Jefferson, for instance said: "I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election ... as the most dangerous blot on our constitution, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit."
3) Democracy is where each person has one vote, and a majority of votes rules. Socialism is where the government owns all the property. They aren't at all the same. We're for Democracy.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
This country was never meant to be a democracy, and yes socialism can very easily be the result of democracy, examples; current day Europe and 1930's-1940's Germany. Yes, if you know your history, then you know that a Democracy was set up in Germany after WWI, and Hitler used it to come to power!