So, it's either carte blanche power over our Representatives, or McCain/Fiengold legislation? No alternatives are possible. If you agree with McCain/Fiengold then you are for the itsy little people, but if you disagree, you're for businesses having "carte blanche" power over our representatives.
Reminds me of your last argument. If you're for vouchers, then you're for kicking handicapped children out of school and sending them into the streets to fend for themselves. If you're against vouchers, then you are for the poor helpless invalid children.
Typically Clintonized Democrat party framed argument. Did you pull this technique out of chapter one of the Carville handbood on how to argue a position or something?
What's interesting is the way in which you describe businesses as having "carte blanche" power over our representatives. Yet, haven't once mentioned the powerful environmental or union lobby groups, who at times use taxpayer money in order to influence politicians.
Even if McCain/Fiengold passes, it won't be some panacea legislation which will prevent groups from influencing politicians. Laws only work if people are willing to enforce them. And given all the excuses Democrats provided for Clinton and Gore during their recent illegal campaign activities, I have little doubt it will continue in droves after McCain/Fiengold passes. After all, who is going to enforce the rules anyway?
Money is like water rolling down hill to politicians. Where one impediment exists, water will find away around it.
'Soft Money' wasn't considered legal until the Democrat party started engaging in the activity in droves.
Michael |
