Over the past couple weeks I was reminded as to why I tend to ignore the mainstream news. Sure, I listen to the podcast versions of some mainstream stuff, but none of them went into detail on any of the major propositions various states are voting on this week. The following radio/TV shows/podcasts DID however, delve into California's Proposition 89--the so-called "Clean Money and Fair Elections Act" (which I believe is an accurate name for it): [http://www.californiareport.org/|KQED's the California Report] [http://www.pbs.org/now/|PBS' Now with David Brancaccio] And I thought that [http://www.motherjones.com/radio|Mother Jones Radio] had done something too, but I can't find anything in [http://www.motherjones.com/radio/archive.html|their archives] now. What IS Prop 89? In a nutshell, here's what it does: 1) It puts a universal cap on how much any candidate running for office in California can accept from any single donor. I believe the cap is $5 (but don't quote me--I can't find the exact figure). 2) It allows public money to fund this program and state matching funds to pay for campaigns. 3) It taxes corporations and financial institutions to pay for it all. Now, the above is according to my voter booklet, but based on the above and the reporting I've heard about this prop? IT ROCKS. First, it stops mega-corporations from being able to buy candidates lock-stock-and-barrel. Everyone knows that "campaign contributions" are just legalized bribes. Even if the bribe isn't overt, a mega-corporation has the power to "donate" a shitload of money to a candidate that supports what said mega-corp happens to be into as well. As individuals, most of us can't do that. Say Bob Smith is going to run for state senate. He believes corporations should be allowed to stomp on little puppies. It turns out that the Puppy Soda Company gets the ingredients for it's soda from stomped puppies. The thing is, stomping puppies is illegal in this state. So, they give massive bank to Bob Smith who has already said he plans to legalize puppy-stomping. Because the Puppy Soda Company is so HUGE and they want to move into your state, they "donate" a hundred million dollars to his campaign allowing Bob Smith to blitz the airwaves about how cool he is (conveniently leaving out the bit about legalizing the stomping of puppies). His face is everywhere and the marketing campaign he bought with that "donation" from the Puppy Soda Company has convinced nearly everyone in your state that BOB SMITH ROCKS! He's ushered into office with a landslide victory past a better candidate who tried to get the word out that Smith was going to legalize puppy-stomping, but he didn't have enough money to be heard above Smith's mega-marketing campaign. The first law Smith pushes is the legalization of puppy-stomping and it passes quickly thanks to the Puppy Soda Company "donating" money to other lawmaker's campaigns, too. Now, sure, the puppy-stomping example would never happen in the real world (probably) but you can see the parallel. All MEN are created equal, but corporations have more rights out of the gate just on the principle that they are NOT human. Yet our state and federal governments generally recognize corporations as individuals. The only thing they can't do is vote. However, being able to donate millions is MUCH more than most of us regular folks can do. Proposition 89 is the first bill (that I know of) that takes some power away from the corporations and makes the playing field a lot more level for the rest of us. Now, people against Prop 89 say that it's bad because it forces public money to pay for (I believe it's a dollar-for-dollar matching fund) public campaigns so if some guy who wanted to get in office, so he could, say, pass a law legalizing puppy-stomping, it would be public money that would give him a platform. This is true, but the difference is that any other candidate who wanted to run on the anti-puppy-stomping platform could easily raise the funds he or she would need to challenge the pro-puppy-stomping candidate. Also, it wouldn't be all taxpayer money paying for these campaigns. It would largely be taxes on corporations and financial institutions that do business in California. So, yes, it will "hurt the small business man," but it will do so at the expense of our having a more audible voice and quieter campaigns. There are many other costs that are rising making the plight of the small business man a desperate one, indeed. However, this is a tiny price to pay compared to skyrocketing health care costs, astronomical insurance costs and inflation (to name just a few). Worry about the real problems and let the political landscape level out. The citizens need their voices back. The only negative thing about the bill is that apparently it allow the nurse's union (the folks behind the bill) to have more power. To that I say: SO WHAT? They're NURSES--they deserve more power. No, it doesn't mean they can pass laws willy-nilly. My understanding is that they aren't taxed like corporations and they don't have a donation cap. Yes, it may seem a little hypocritical, but what's the worst thing a nurse's union will do compared to worst thing a corporation will do? There ya go--and the benefits of the law outweigh what some call "a power grab by the nurses." Oh yeah, the REAL POWER in California will be the nurses... ANYway, I hope I've persuaded you if you were going to vote no on Prop 89 or were on the fence about it. Corporations are way too powerful as it is. A few years ago a bunch of public interest lawyers tried to get California to revoke (I think it was) Unocal's corporate charter due to repeated violations of the law and endangering the environment, but the state refused to do it. That's because Unocal represents way too much oil money for the state of California. This prop won't force corporations to be more ethical, but it will remove a good chunk of their power to influence politics. After all, corporations ARE NOT HUMAN and do not deserve the same rights we have. Vote Yes on Proposition 89. Do it for the puppies.
Orignal From: CALIFORNIANS, PLEASE VOTE YES ON PROP 89!
No comments:
Post a Comment