funding secrets!
We haven't really mentioned funding in class yet, but I found this article very interesting since we have the democrats primarily Obama and Gibbs calling out the Republicans for receiving donations from undisclosed sources. Though it was pointed out in the article that the democrats are guilty of the same action. My overall point is should we allow either party to keep their supporters private? I personally believe we should force candidates to disclose a list of all their supporters because ultimately when we vote for candidates we are also voting for the agendas of these undisclosed supporters since they can influence a candidate with their supply of cash.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
First off lets state that the comments by the dems are incredibly stupid, considering the thousands of "questionable" donations he recieved in 08. But I agree, there is no reason why donors should not be disclosed. Americans have a right to know if ads they watch and sometimes are influenced by come from reputable people. It may not matter much because facts are facts and ads are ads, but freedom of political speech implies that it is public. If you are gonna make a public statement the public should know who is saying it.
This issue is an interesting example of the complicated relationship that exists between the three branches of government due to their interdependence. As this article shows, Obama is clearly leaning on the Supreme Court to consider this issue; whether or not the Supreme Court will heed Obama's "nudge" remains to be seen.
Post a Comment