Donors with Agendas

Donors with Agendas - NYTimes

This article expresses the concern of the elite rich donating into super PACs for candidates to run their campaign on. It is a concerning issue so the author suggests a few solutions to the problem. First that the people of the US should be taxed for a fund that would be set up for campaign funds. He also suggests that there should be a limit on the amount of money each candidate should be able to spend.

I have to wonder how paying taxes for campaigning would be perceived by Americans. Most candidates at this point have had at least a million dollars in total donations. Imagine having to pay taxes to go into a fund for potential candidate(s) that you didn't agree with! The point of the author putting this in there is something we that don't think about often. If candidates didn't have to find other sources for funding would they be as likely to voice their opinion for issues or interest groups. If they were to get into office would they move a bill into motion because someone asked them to as a favor for the money? Would the candidate be more likely to remember they are there to represent our best interests instead of remaining in a donator's good grace?

Setting limits for campaigning would be a good idea. I believe it would keep the competition fair. I have to question where candidates receive funds from and how receiving those funds may alter their decisions in the future. One billionaire in particular has donated a sum of money to several candidates. He donated $1 million to Gingrich, $1.1 million to Perry, $100,000 to Romney and $10 to million to American Crossroads. His name is Harold Simmons. His company makes metals, paints and chemicals and he has been in trouble for lead and uranium emissions in the past. “He also runs a radioactive waste dump in Texas that has clashed with environmental regulators over its proximity to a nearby aquifer.” I wonder what type of future favors come along with that amount of money. If there are favors for large donors such as this one do you believe they would be in your best interest? The author stated “And all but the most privileged Americans will pay the price if the nation’s wealthiest can buy elections,” to support his idea on large sum donors.

If we were to be taxed for a campaigning fund we would be able to track how the money was used. It would be interesting to see how each candidate used their share. 

Weakening US Constitution

'We the People' Loses Appeal With People Around the World is an article from The New York Times. It states why people involved in politics believe that the US constitution is losing its appeal as a fundamental building constitution. In the 1960's and 1970's democratic constitutions were written very similar to ours. Although, democratic nations with similar constitutions to ours had gone into a free fall of sorts and many nations revised them in the 1980's and 1990's.

There are many possible reasons for our constitution not working for other nations. One being that our constitution is the oldest still in effect anywhere around the world. Another possibility is that our constitution guarantees relatively few rights in comparison to some new Charters and Bill of Rights that have been formed.

These are a few constitutions that are viewed as a better basis than our own: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, South African Constitution, and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers, had stated in a letter to James Madison in 1789 on constitutions is that it, “naturally expires at the end of 19 years” because “the earth belongs always to the living generation.” For many nations around the world they update or revise their constitution about every 19 years. Perhaps the United States should take the advice of a founding father and clue from other nations and revise their constitution to better protect the people and their rights.