It is easy to run head first into the media fueled hysteria about the Supreme Court decision. It is easy to listen to the doomsday conclusion about foreign market takeovers of our political landscape and lose faith about the future of elections in this country. This reaction would be improper in that it would be ignorantly founded and it leaves us unable to find true workable solutions. Firstly, the Supreme Court did not hold that corporations can contribute unlimited funds directly to political campaigns, nor did it find that the Legislature is unable to regulate campaign related spending on any front. All that it held was that the government could not regulate what a corporation could say or how they chose to say it. True this is fiscally linked in that the more money you have the more avenues you could spread your message, but this is true of any message, political or otherwise. If I wanted you to believe that abortion was not the right decision I could spend as much money as I had to promote my belief, be it by TV commercial, movie, or otherwise. I am not saying that this decision is without possibly negative foreseeable consequences. It is true that unchecked, foreign companies could be able to exact an influence in politics and that top 100 companies could use their financial superiority to push their agendas. These are not insurmountable problems. In an article for the Washington Post Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres proposed that the government exercise their power to regulate that companies that have government contracts cannot engage in “electioneering communication.” Three-quarters of the top 100 companies are federal contractors and would likely not give up their federal contracts in order to continue to influence elections. Additionally, the Supreme Court did not hold that Congress could not restrict companies based in foreign countries. It is well within the Legislature’s power to execute either of these policies. We should not be arguing with the Supreme Court’s decision. Instead we must prevent these possible consequences by coming up with solutions.
I'm glad to see this posted, but this is something that has been going on for years...and by that I mean forever. To the government, the support of the big companies with all the money is more important than the people. To me, this is more proof as to why we don't live in a perfect democracy (Of course there's no such thing as perfect). The economy is pretty messed up but that's not going to stop these politicians from leeching money from big companies. And by proxy, will not stop the big companies from leeching subsidies and favors from those politicians.
Although there is nothing humorous about this situation, I couldn't help but think this: those who say money doesn't buy power don't know the address of the store. Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to say otherwise, it's very true. I completely agree with the fact that the U.S. has the nerve to advocate equality, yet allow things like this to occur. I find it almost hypocritical. Yes, it's very corrupt, but unfortunately this is how things work. No matter who is the higher authority, and no matter how "honest" he/she may be, the chances for corruption is greater than for continual honesty. Why? Because the more power one has, the more one wants it. After all, you can't miss what you've never had; no one wants to feel like a dethroned king.
“All men are created equal” – Declaration of Independence. Equality is a founding principle of our nation. HOWEVER, the equality is an equality of OPPORTUNITY not of RESULT. In our nation we all have a right to start the race at the same point but where we end up is entirely up to us. Sometimes this right has been denied and in these instances we have used our voice to cry out for change, but this is off topic. The Supreme Court did not say that companies could contribute unlimited funds to political campaign. The Supreme Court has held that the government could not stifle what message a company chooses to convey or restrict how they choose to convey it.
Casandra: Although I don't agree with your optimism, you have argued your point quite well. As per this poiont:
Additionally, the Supreme Court did not hold that Congress could not restrict companies based in foreign countries.
It's obvious that it depends of the lobbying interests already working its way through Congress. The decision will create more lobbying pressures and thus, more stalemate.
At the moment we are living in a economy where money is pretty much the main priority that's running through many peoples heads. Morals and values are thrown out the window when money comes in to play. It is sad but the truth as well. The government is just doing what the individuals in this society is doing. Focusing on the amount of money that's coming in. You can try to ask why this is so; but the end product is that people believe that money can bring power which is really what the governemnt is proving in this case.
I have always known that as long as you have money you can achieve anything in life basically, because there will always be people no matter how democratic the government there will always be someone in favor of the money. Even if it is a slight move in favor of the money but the point remains that money can buy anything. I do think that allowing corporations to give money for elections would corrupt the democratic system more than it already is.
I have very mixed opinions about an issue like this. Money being provided for politicans through corporations has always nearly been a problem. It can be argued that it's an unfair, unequal advantage to corporation's favor for certain political groups. Yet, it's an issue that's a lot like downloading music online -- no matter what kind of measures we've used to make sure there isn't an unfair advantage, people have always seemed to find loopholes around it.
When it really comes down to it, I would have to support the Supreme Court's decision and say that these corporations do have a right to free speech -- and it's true, they do since they are considered entities/citizens.
The truth of the matter is that in this country, we allow all kinds of unfair advantages to the wealthy. Whether it be through education or just overall quality of life, we are not in a position to dictate how the wealthy decide to use their money. This may not be "fair", but it's even more unfair to restrict how much the wealthy can have.
Now, what I don't support is how these corporations are allowed to accumulate all this money. That's why this Supreme Court ruling is such a double-edged sword: politicans will be maintained by these corporations and support these backwards, unspoken-of ways of accumulating and maintaining power. This is the real issue, but I think we and our government should be establishing ways within agencies to limit this.
All in all, I would support the Supreme Court on this ruling. But there are plausible problems that are going to result from this, and that's why we're going to need serious work on our government right now and overall stricter legislation.
The desicion to allow corporations to fund political campaigns in infinite and unchecked sums by the supreme court was founded (in my opinion) on good judgement,a fair interpretation of our civil liberties. have we not the right as individuals to freely spend our money,unchecked, as our judgements sees fit. one can't help but question,will not political campaining through the media only be strengthened, as a fan to the flame. yes,but aren't all forms of media somehow tainted, brainwashing through subliminal messages, coersion, and manipulation. so as a member of a capitalist society i say with all gusto"survival of the fittest".meaning those who can best adapt to the situation at hand through the best means,like infinate amounts of bling bling$$$$$ should be allowed to do so unhindered. although we claim to be equal in every respect I must sadly say we are not with the simple fact that there are those born rich, poor, sick..and so on but despite our current conditions we are all given equal oppurtunity to claim wealth beyond imagining to extreme poverty,this is so because the individual is given the freedom to triumph or fail in whatever means without restriction,as well as spend their money as they wish,and if the possibility of corruption bothers you,then do something about it because even the smallest voice can be heard. the government does not have the right to smother the right to broadcast messeging such as political campaining by whatever means(corporate bling$$$) or media(cable t.v.) -Nicole Ynigo
Think this goverment is corupted always taking from the smaller corporations isn't it enough that the majority is already wealthy. They need to put in perspective that we fought many wars to get our freedom of speech and our Declaration to be independent maybe the goverment needs to put that in mind before they go off doing something without the frredom to let anyone express themselves
"Money is the route of all evil." This is a saying that I have constantly heard. This directly reflects my view about the decision that was made by the Supreme Court. Wheter it was monetary or just free speech as Casandra said, the influence that the corporations have on the elections can be catostrophic if they are allowed to do what they please. There is a reason their involvement was banned in the first place. We all agree that we enjoy free speech but as mentioned before are corporations really individuals? In my opinion, they aren't. They get taxed different. They are held to different expectations and laws so why should they considered as the same now? Now that this decision has been made, elections are going to become who can get the better corp to support him/her. This is not what we want when we are deciding the leaders of this country. Those worlds need to be separate. On this I must definately agree with what Casandra said......we need to find solutions. This country is ours and just sitting and arguing about it just isn't enough.
Personally, I believe that the central and important problem this article explores is the fact that society has learned to obey corporate mandates and entire countries are directed to create policies that benefit the interests of those corporations and not of the people. It’s a question of values as mentioned by Adam Liptak in his the New York Times article: “Joined by the other three members of the court’s liberal wing, Justice Stevens said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings.”
Has the freedom of speech of corporations become more important than our own freedom, the people’s freedom? This is a perfect example of how corporations are getting too much power to the point that they can even help a presidential candidate get elected. However, this is how the capitalism system has evolved, becoming a dehumanized system. This shows that it is time to have some changes in our society, or accept that corporations are more important than our own lives.
The corporations are becoming the american goverment and the citizens are becoming the consumers. It seems to me the corporations will always win. This country's democracy is being corupted. Are country is becoming like every other country, if you have the money you make the rules.
The powers given to all American Citizens by the Constitution are not to be taken lightly, and therefore should be enforced no matter how much bribing there may be around any subject matter meaningful enough to affect the American people and the rest of the world for that matter. In this article the "true" power is secretly revealed to be that of the MASS. The power of the people tends to be far more influential than that of rich politians that would like to rule the country with their points of views and with six to eight figures payed lobbyists in order to achieve their ideal government. Therefore the only tru enemy in this case is not money, nor important authorities deciding what IS RIGHT nor illegal/unconstitutional. The only tru evil and pest is IGNORANCE, with which the "rich" plan to control the rest of us...Inform yourself, form an opinion, stick by it.
This descision puts politicians ideas and opinion for sale to all who can afford it. Corporations have been able to influence and sway the vote of politicians before, but not like this. With its descision the Supreme Court has put politicians on sale as if posting something up on craigslist. this is a step back for American, a sort of de-evolution for this country. A step toward the olden days when politics were in the hands of the super rich and the monarchy. Mite as well pass a law where one must make a certain amout of money to even get the chance to vote and be heard; at this rate freedom wont be free for long.
Freedom of speech is for everyone and just because they are big coorportation they should'nt be denied that right. It is also true that it may ruin the democratic view of the country but if the supreme court made a decision I think is better to support then go agaisnt it and try and make it better next time so that it will benefit the majority.
the supreme court decision was a long time coming. since the last election we saw these things mentioned a lot. now it's like our freedom of speech is being owned by these companies. now that their are no restriction of how much they can spend, in this case they will be able to get their ideas out there, like it is now days most of the people will be brain wash.
I find this to be an upsetting situation but unfortunately in this country money is what counts the most. Ever since the economy reached is lowest point the government is more concerned with making money. In recent years it seems to me as money is what powers in this government, it is more corrupted than ever before.
For many years now the Unites States has become a country centered around big corporations with loads of money rather than on the individual citizens upon which this nation relies on. Money has been parallel with more rights starting back a couple of decades and it is what seems to draw the attention of most of our politicians and judges now. Regarding the recent supreme court decision I would see nothing wrong with it if big companies were making their own commercials that favored their preferred candidate and what not, but this is not the case instead the big companies give massive amounts of money to candidates for what seems like nothing in return. But what is he true cost of all of this? Campaign money can be compared to a favor from the godfather yea sure it looks nice and enticing at first, but once you take it YOU ARE SCREWED. Once politicians take these "kind" gifts from big businesses they are doomed to eventually do what favors the business and ignore the people who are in fact who elect them. So our supreme court allowing this kind of actions basically trap us into a hopeless situation. Do we vote for the known corrupted politician who is clearly bad for this country? or do we vote for the politician who appears to be good but is in fact taking huge sums of campaign money from big companies and as soon as he is elected will forget about his people and will favor the big companies eventually taking away more and more of our rights?
Being that the Astor family has been in the American Elite since God know when, it is obvious that he is favorable of this decision. And not only him, it is obvious that every corporation owner approves of this notion by the supreme court. But what is this about corporations being the "New Citizens"? The sound of that is something that would scare both liberals and conservatives alike. What does this statement of Consumers instead of Citizens imply? it sounds like a fancy way of saying that we are just their cattle, being swayed and utilized by those in the top. Completely unconstitutional, and against what america stands for, we are looking at a grim future if things keep going this way. Now we know what Obamas "Change" was all about.
I am not very informed on this issue. As it appears, it sounds scary to think that corporations wold be able to control the future of this country. This may frighten and alarm some who are susceptible to this type of news. However, I believe that this country is built on a stronger platform that cannot easily be swayed by a decision like this. The job of the supreme court is not to legislate but to make a decision based on the law. On their judgement, it is not the government's right to restrict how corporations express themselves. The link between "expressing" yourself and giving unlimited amounts of money, is not clear and I believe that the supreme court did not address this issue. That will be left for the legislature in the future. Another aspect of this issue is that if a possible president or senator is able to be bought by corporations just because they give large sums of money then this person would be corruptible and not a great choice for a leader. If analyzed thoroughly, this issue can become very large and complex and it is my choice, for the moment, to not be afraid and trust that it will all work out as it is meant to. After all, the only thing I can do is watch and maybe in the future exercise my voting power.
I really didn't understand the post that well. But anything that have to deal the political issues and money is never good thing,because everyone wants 2 be in charge......
I agree with what Hanita says. Even though I did not fully understand the post, I do know that when politics and money are put together, it is never a good thing for anyone because no one ever gets what they want out of it. It is never a good thing for the people involved. Everyone wants power for different reasons and it is not easy to see who deserves it more.
Money makes the world go round, In my Opinion, most of what is being balance and control is minded by the government. even though our lives is surrounded by politics their are certain things in politics that is plotted by our government and sometimes being arrogant can blind us from the truth.
24 comments:
It is easy to run head first into the media fueled hysteria about the Supreme Court decision. It is easy to listen to the doomsday conclusion about foreign market takeovers of our political landscape and lose faith about the future of elections in this country. This reaction would be improper in that it would be ignorantly founded and it leaves us unable to find true workable solutions. Firstly, the Supreme Court did not hold that corporations can contribute unlimited funds directly to political campaigns, nor did it find that the Legislature is unable to regulate campaign related spending on any front. All that it held was that the government could not regulate what a corporation could say or how they chose to say it. True this is fiscally linked in that the more money you have the more avenues you could spread your message, but this is true of any message, political or otherwise. If I wanted you to believe that abortion was not the right decision I could spend as much money as I had to promote my belief, be it by TV commercial, movie, or otherwise. I am not saying that this decision is without possibly negative foreseeable consequences. It is true that unchecked, foreign companies could be able to exact an influence in politics and that top 100 companies could use their financial superiority to push their agendas. These are not insurmountable problems. In an article for the Washington Post Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres proposed that the government exercise their power to regulate that companies that have government contracts cannot engage in “electioneering communication.” Three-quarters of the top 100 companies are federal contractors and would likely not give up their federal contracts in order to continue to influence elections. Additionally, the Supreme Court did not hold that Congress could not restrict companies based in foreign countries. It is well within the Legislature’s power to execute either of these policies. We should not be arguing with the Supreme Court’s decision. Instead we must prevent these possible consequences by coming up with solutions.
Supreme Court Decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Washington Post Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012502970.html
Casandra Frye
I'm glad to see this posted, but this is something that has been going on for years...and by that I mean forever. To the government, the support of the big companies with all the money is more important than the people. To me, this is more proof as to why we don't live in a perfect democracy (Of course there's no such thing as perfect). The economy is pretty messed up but that's not going to stop these politicians from leeching money from big companies. And by proxy, will not stop the big companies from leeching subsidies and favors from those politicians.
Although there is nothing humorous about this situation, I couldn't help but think this: those who say money doesn't buy power don't know the address of the store. Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to say otherwise, it's very true.
I completely agree with the fact that the U.S. has the nerve to advocate equality, yet allow things like this to occur. I find it almost hypocritical.
Yes, it's very corrupt, but unfortunately this is how things work. No matter who is the higher authority, and no matter how "honest" he/she may be, the chances for corruption is greater than for continual honesty.
Why? Because the more power one has, the more one wants it. After all, you can't miss what you've never had; no one wants to feel like a dethroned king.
“All men are created equal” – Declaration of Independence. Equality is a founding principle of our nation. HOWEVER, the equality is an equality of OPPORTUNITY not of RESULT. In our nation we all have a right to start the race at the same point but where we end up is entirely up to us. Sometimes this right has been denied and in these instances we have used our voice to cry out for change, but this is off topic. The Supreme Court did not say that companies could contribute unlimited funds to political campaign. The Supreme Court has held that the government could not stifle what message a company chooses to convey or restrict how they choose to convey it.
Casandra Frye
Casandra: Although I don't agree with your optimism, you have argued your point quite well. As per this poiont:
Additionally, the Supreme Court did not hold that Congress could not restrict companies based in foreign countries.
It's obvious that it depends of the lobbying interests already working its way through Congress. The decision will create more lobbying pressures and thus, more stalemate.
At the moment we are living in a economy where money is pretty much the main priority that's running through many peoples heads. Morals and values are thrown out the window when money comes in to play. It is sad but the truth as well.
The government is just doing what the individuals in this society is doing. Focusing on the amount of money that's coming in.
You can try to ask why this is so; but the end product is that people believe that money can bring power which is really what the governemnt is proving in this case.
-Jacqueline Saka-
I have always known that as long as you have money you can achieve anything in life basically, because there will always be people no matter how democratic the government there will always be someone in favor of the money. Even if it is a slight move in favor of the money but the point remains that money can buy anything. I do think that allowing corporations to give money for elections would corrupt the democratic system more than it already is.
- Madelayne Cisneros
I have very mixed opinions about an issue like this. Money being provided for politicans through corporations has always nearly been a problem. It can be argued that it's an unfair, unequal advantage to corporation's favor for certain political groups. Yet, it's an issue that's a lot like downloading music online -- no matter what kind of measures we've used to make sure there isn't an unfair advantage, people have always seemed to find loopholes around it.
When it really comes down to it, I would have to support the Supreme Court's decision and say that these corporations do have a right to free speech -- and it's true, they do since they are considered entities/citizens.
The truth of the matter is that in this country, we allow all kinds of unfair advantages to the wealthy. Whether it be through education or just overall quality of life, we are not in a position to dictate how the wealthy decide to use their money. This may not be "fair", but it's even more unfair to restrict how much the wealthy can have.
Now, what I don't support is how these corporations are allowed to accumulate all this money. That's why this Supreme Court ruling is such a double-edged sword: politicans will be maintained by these corporations and support these backwards, unspoken-of ways of accumulating and maintaining power. This is the real issue, but I think we and our government should be establishing ways within agencies to limit this.
All in all, I would support the Supreme Court on this ruling. But there are plausible problems that are going to result from this, and that's why we're going to need serious work on our government right now and overall stricter legislation.
-- Julie McConnell
The desicion to allow corporations to fund political campaigns in infinite and unchecked sums by the supreme court was founded (in my opinion) on good judgement,a fair interpretation of our civil liberties. have we not the right as individuals to freely spend our money,unchecked, as our judgements sees fit. one can't help but question,will not political campaining through the media only be strengthened, as a fan to the flame. yes,but aren't all forms of media somehow tainted, brainwashing through subliminal messages, coersion, and manipulation. so as a member of a capitalist society i say with all gusto"survival of the fittest".meaning those who can best adapt to the situation at hand through the best means,like infinate amounts of bling bling$$$$$ should be allowed to do so unhindered. although we claim to be equal in every respect I must sadly say we are not with the simple fact that there are those born rich, poor, sick..and so on but despite our current conditions we are all given equal oppurtunity to claim wealth beyond imagining to extreme poverty,this is so because the individual is given the freedom to triumph or fail in whatever means without restriction,as well as spend their money as they wish,and if the possibility of corruption bothers you,then do something about it because even the smallest voice can be heard. the government does not have the right to smother the right to broadcast messeging such as political campaining by whatever means(corporate bling$$$) or media(cable t.v.)
-Nicole Ynigo
Think this goverment is corupted always taking from the smaller corporations isn't it enough that the majority is already wealthy. They need to put in perspective that we fought many wars to get our freedom of speech and our Declaration to be independent maybe the goverment needs to put that in mind before they go off doing something without the frredom to let anyone express themselves
Scarleth Lazo
"Money is the route of all evil." This is a saying that I have constantly heard. This directly reflects my view about the decision that was made by the Supreme Court. Wheter it was monetary or just free speech as Casandra said, the influence that the corporations have on the elections can be catostrophic if they are allowed to do what they please. There is a reason their involvement was banned in the first place. We all agree that we enjoy free speech but as mentioned before are corporations really individuals? In my opinion, they aren't. They get taxed different. They are held to different expectations and laws so why should they considered as the same now? Now that this decision has been made, elections are going to become who can get the better corp to support him/her. This is not what we want when we are deciding the leaders of this country. Those worlds need to be separate. On this I must definately agree with what Casandra said......we need to find solutions. This country is ours and just sitting and arguing about it just isn't enough.
-Tiffany
Personally, I believe that the central and important problem this article explores is the fact that society has learned to obey corporate mandates and entire countries are directed to create policies that benefit the interests of those corporations and not of the people. It’s a question of values as mentioned by Adam Liptak in his the New York Times article: “Joined by the other three members of the court’s liberal wing, Justice Stevens said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings.”
Has the freedom of speech of corporations become more important than our own freedom, the people’s freedom? This is a perfect example of how corporations are getting too much power to the point that they can even help a presidential candidate get elected. However, this is how the capitalism system has evolved, becoming a dehumanized system. This shows that it is time to have some changes in our society, or accept that corporations are more important than our own lives.
The corporations are becoming the american goverment and the citizens are becoming the consumers. It seems to me the corporations will always win. This country's democracy is being corupted. Are country is becoming like every other country, if you have the money you make the rules.
The powers given to all American Citizens by the Constitution are not to be taken lightly, and therefore should be enforced no matter how much bribing there may be around any subject matter meaningful enough to affect the American people and the rest of the world for that matter. In this article the "true" power is secretly revealed to be that of the MASS. The power of the people tends to be far more influential than that of rich politians that would like to rule the country with their points of views and with six to eight figures payed lobbyists in order to achieve their ideal government.
Therefore the only tru enemy in this case is not money, nor important authorities deciding what IS RIGHT nor illegal/unconstitutional. The only tru evil and pest is IGNORANCE, with which the "rich" plan to control the rest of us...Inform yourself, form an opinion, stick by it.
This descision puts politicians ideas and opinion for sale to all who can afford it. Corporations have been able to influence and sway the vote of politicians before, but not like this. With its descision the Supreme Court has put politicians on sale as if posting something up on craigslist. this is a step back for American, a sort of de-evolution for this country. A step toward the olden days when politics were in the hands of the super rich and the monarchy. Mite as well pass a law where one must make a certain amout of money to even get the chance to vote and be heard; at this rate freedom wont be free for long.
Freedom of speech is for everyone and just because they are big coorportation they should'nt be denied that right. It is also true that it may ruin the democratic view of the country but if the supreme court made a decision I think is better to support then go agaisnt it and try and make it better next time so that it will benefit the majority.
-Liony Arzu
the supreme court decision was a long time coming. since the last election we saw these things mentioned a lot. now it's like our freedom of speech is being owned by these companies. now that their are no restriction of how much they can spend, in this case they will be able to get their ideas out there, like it is now days most of the people will be brain wash.
I find this to be an upsetting situation but unfortunately in this country money is what counts the most. Ever since the economy reached is lowest point the government is more concerned with making money. In recent years it seems to me as money is what powers in this government, it is more corrupted than ever before.
For many years now the Unites States has become a country centered around big corporations with loads of money rather than on the individual citizens upon which this nation relies on. Money has been parallel with more rights starting back a couple of decades and it is what seems to draw the attention of most of our politicians and judges now. Regarding the recent supreme court decision I would see nothing wrong with it if big companies were making their own commercials that favored their preferred candidate and what not, but this is not the case instead the big companies give massive amounts of money to candidates for what seems like nothing in return. But what is he true cost of all of this? Campaign money can be compared to a favor from the godfather yea sure it looks nice and enticing at first, but once you take it YOU ARE SCREWED. Once politicians take these "kind" gifts from big businesses they are doomed to eventually do what favors the business and ignore the people who are in fact who elect them. So our supreme court allowing this kind of actions basically trap us into a hopeless situation. Do we vote for the known corrupted politician who is clearly bad for this country? or do we vote for the politician who appears to be good but is in fact taking huge sums of campaign money from big companies and as soon as he is elected will forget about his people and will favor the big companies eventually taking away more and more of our rights?
Being that the Astor family has been in the American Elite since God know when, it is obvious that he is favorable of this decision. And not only him, it is obvious that every corporation owner approves of this notion by the supreme court. But what is this about corporations being the "New Citizens"? The sound of that is something that would scare both liberals and conservatives alike. What does this statement of Consumers instead of Citizens imply? it sounds like a fancy way of saying that we are just their cattle, being swayed and utilized by those in the top. Completely unconstitutional, and against what america stands for, we are looking at a grim future if things keep going this way. Now we know what Obamas "Change" was all about.
I am not very informed on this issue. As it appears, it sounds scary to think that corporations wold be able to control the future of this country. This may frighten and alarm some who are susceptible to this type of news. However, I believe that this country is built on a stronger platform that cannot easily be swayed by a decision like this. The job of the supreme court is not to legislate but to make a decision based on the law. On their judgement, it is not the government's right to restrict how corporations express themselves. The link between "expressing" yourself and giving unlimited amounts of money, is not clear and I believe that the supreme court did not address this issue. That will be left for the legislature in the future. Another aspect of this issue is that if a possible president or senator is able to be bought by corporations just because they give large sums of money then this person would be corruptible and not a great choice for a leader. If analyzed thoroughly, this issue can become very large and complex and it is my choice, for the moment, to not be afraid and trust that it will all work out as it is meant to. After all, the only thing I can do is watch and maybe in the future exercise my voting power.
Andrea Montero
I really didn't understand the post that well. But anything that have to deal the political issues and money is never good thing,because everyone wants 2 be in charge......
I agree with what Hanita says. Even though I did not fully understand the post, I do know that when politics and money are put together, it is never a good thing for anyone because no one ever gets what they want out of it. It is never a good thing for the people involved. Everyone wants power for different reasons and it is not easy to see who deserves it more.
Money makes the world go round, In my Opinion, most of what is being balance and control is minded by the government. even though our lives is surrounded by politics their are certain things in politics that is plotted by our government and sometimes being arrogant can blind us from the truth.
Post a Comment