Skip to content

Freedom of Choice Curtailed Again

March 27, 2014

I hear Barack Obama is revising political campaign funding, as it affects one’s tax forms.  Effectively this would make it more difficult for a private citizen to provide funding for presidential candidates, among others, thereby making it more likely corporate interests have less competition for such contributions.  The obvious consequence is corporations and wealthy individuals shall be more influential over such candidates- as if that dynamic needed any help in the United States after the Supreme Court ruled corporations have equal free speech rights as individual citizens with comparative meager resources.

This brings up a few points I would like to make on the matter, but not necessarily what readers here may expect.

1.  In the first place, I only heard about this new law from public radio on Wednesday of this week (March 26th).   I am having a curious difficulty finding any other mention of it elsewhere.  I blame Google and any other major company in collusion with governmental authorities.  It is in their interest to omit this from the news for reasons I’ll get to.  It isn’t the first time this has happened- how many people knew about NORTHCOM when it was enacted, or ACTA until it was almost forced on us?  I severely doubt anyone knows how it ended up with the ATF raid in Waco, Texas or the unjustified raid against the Hutare, either.

2.  The description of this law says it takes away the little check box on tax forms, where most of us ignore the part about contributing to political campaigns.  It is supposed to have helped prevent corruption because it is (or was) our means to circumvent financial influence over candidates from corporations and biased, monied people.  I ignore this little box myself.  I’m too poor for that.  But, perhaps surprisingly, eliminating it completely is not what bothers me most about this.  What paltry amounts we may be able to contribute to presidential campaigns and the like don’t matter anymore, so the elimination of this little check box has negligible affect, I would say.  This doesn’t detract from how bad an idea it is to take away what meager influence we can have over major candidates, but this isn’t the biggest issue.

3.  I make no secret of my dislike for the alleged President Obama, but even so, I can’t blame him much for this law.  I blame Congress and the American political system.  Obama is just a pawn on the chessboard allowed there for the publicity.  Congressional entities wrote and passed this undemocratic bill.

For that matter, as far as I know, this time Obama’s administration didn’t even have any anti-Constitutional interference like it did with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.  (That was when Obama, the winner of a Nobel peace prize before he did a damned thing to earn it, then made a habit of blitzing people with drones and asked for ambiguous language so he could legally detain American citizens without any legal recourse.  Somehow that makes it seem like he’s an enemy of quite specific Articles of the Constitution.  Funny, that terminology sounds familiar…)

Congress and its fictitious two-party system are more to blame for our lack of influence over the politics of the United States.  This political balance between two parties, one of which being effectively just as useless for the common person as the other, creates a farce where any other party is actively excluded from media opportunity and leadership.  (Ask yourself why third-party candidates NEVER get airtime on major networks.  Then ask yourself how only two parties can satisfactorily represent 300 million people.)  The cause of our issues is the political system, and it is only natural this system would do away with what pitiful influence we may exert over who is allowed in.  The other safeguards of our republican democracy, the Supreme Court and the electoral college, are both bought.  We don’t have many options.


So, let’s summarize.  One small, almost useless resistance to corruption in the federal American government is lost.  What a shock!  Given the complete lack of help from our other democratic safeguards, I can’t imagine how the affect would be measurable.  I’m not happy about it, but pressing the point is as productive as bringing up birth certificates late in Obama’s second term.

The bigger danger to what freedom we haven’t been robbed of is the peripheral detail for most of the electorate so easily distracted by the newest season of American Idol or the most recent upgrade of some unnecessary technological gizmo: we have no real power of choice in the first place.  We pick from the people we are allowed to choose from.  Until we have some kind of representation not owned by the political system and its corruption (namely, a strong party not beholden to financiers of mainstream Democratic and Republican campaigns), nothing is going to improve.

I wandered a bit from the cause of this posting.  But I think the greater threat it led to is worth mentioning.


P. S.: If anyone wants to continue along this line of thought, just consider the following: our so-called two-party system is effectively one entity, as far as the commoner is concerned.  (Don’t fool yourselves- the monied class is definitely trying to reestablish serfdom, so commoner is exactly the right word.)  This two-face party leads a government devoting more than half its budget every year to the euphemistic “Department of Defense.”  So, effectively one party devotes the majority of its resources to war across the world.  The word for that is fascism.  Just so you know.

From → commentary, politics

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: