As you probably gathered from my comments in class, Dante's discussion of fraud always gets me thinking about politics, all the more so on a day like today, Super Tuesday of a primary season. Let's start with a term you probably had not heard before: Technically speaking, a barrator is one who "sells justice, office, or employment." The term always sets me to thinking about lobbyists.
A lobbyist uses money to influence a member of Congress to vote the way he/she wants that member of Congress to vote. Now, technically speaking it is the politician who is selling the justice or office insofar as it is the politician who is giving the favor. But certainly the lobbyist belongs in there as well, since he is complicit in the act. On a larger scale but in the same spirit of lobbyists are the Political Action Committees (pacs) that essentially foot the bills for political campaigns. LIke lobbyists, if you are going to donate to a politician's campaign, you are going to want something in return. The problem has been made worse in recent years by a Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United, which essentially allowed these PACs to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns.
Most of the political campaigns, with the exception of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, are being assisted by such PACs. Invariably, these companies are going to want something in return for their money. A system of public financing could eliminate this activity to a large degree, since the campaigns wold be funded by public money and no private money would be allowed in. The moral advantage of such a system should be obvious. Some may object that this is a limitation on freedom of speech, but freedom of speech is not an absolute right. There are certain instances where the public good trumps freedom of speech. For example, speech that is specifically intended and/or likely to cause violence is not protected speech. And, famously, you do not have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded building. SO I think a case can be made that the vice associated with private campaign donations is enough of a threat to the public good so as to allow a restriction on private campaign contributions at least for presidential races, and perhaps for all national races. And I'd like to think I'd have Dante on my side on this one.
A lobbyist uses money to influence a member of Congress to vote the way he/she wants that member of Congress to vote. Now, technically speaking it is the politician who is selling the justice or office insofar as it is the politician who is giving the favor. But certainly the lobbyist belongs in there as well, since he is complicit in the act. On a larger scale but in the same spirit of lobbyists are the Political Action Committees (pacs) that essentially foot the bills for political campaigns. LIke lobbyists, if you are going to donate to a politician's campaign, you are going to want something in return. The problem has been made worse in recent years by a Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United, which essentially allowed these PACs to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns.
Most of the political campaigns, with the exception of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, are being assisted by such PACs. Invariably, these companies are going to want something in return for their money. A system of public financing could eliminate this activity to a large degree, since the campaigns wold be funded by public money and no private money would be allowed in. The moral advantage of such a system should be obvious. Some may object that this is a limitation on freedom of speech, but freedom of speech is not an absolute right. There are certain instances where the public good trumps freedom of speech. For example, speech that is specifically intended and/or likely to cause violence is not protected speech. And, famously, you do not have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded building. SO I think a case can be made that the vice associated with private campaign donations is enough of a threat to the public good so as to allow a restriction on private campaign contributions at least for presidential races, and perhaps for all national races. And I'd like to think I'd have Dante on my side on this one.
No comments:
Post a Comment