Along the Path to Reducing Polarization

Along the path to heal Polarization is reform of Campaign finance and adjusting the legal rights of Corporations and other legal entities.

I found these following astute comments at the progressive blog Alternet in response to an article by Nick Nyart of Public Campaign, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics.

After Nick’s article explaining how Campaign finance reform would go a long way towards repairing the polarization in our politics, two wise and informed folks offered comments:

From “mmckinl”

The biggest obstacle is the Main Stream Media. Every two and four years they collect a bonanza of ad revenue for political ads. They won’t want to give that up.

Even though presidential races are largely contested in only a few states, the House and Senate races are big money makers.

Then there is the question of funding. The Public is way behind the curve on this. According to the polls I see they are against tax payer dollars being used for this.

My best funding idea would be to license TV, Radio and cable at a 1% recovery rate on all advertising for use of the public airwaves. TV and Radio gross about 70 billlion a year in advertising. This translates into 700 million a year. How this would be apportioned between states (markets) and races (House, Senate, President)could be worked out.

Just talking about a 1% tax on gross would catch the media’s attention. LOL

From “Suzon”

The only human rights that a corporation is entitled to is the aggregate of the rights of the individuals who make up the corporation. A corporation is merely a false front for a group of people who have gathered enough power to demand special rights and privileges, most if not all of which are unwarranted…donations to political candidates should be totally abolished as an unwarranted privilege which is more un-American than anything McCarthy ever uncovered. Only actual individuals should be able to make donations and those should be limited by law.

Corporate donations are discriminatory and unconstitutional, a violation of Article XIV which states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”.

In other words, if a federal law allows corporate contributions, the states must defend the right of their citizens to not be put at a disadvantage.

It seems to be perfectly open to individual states to ban the expenditure of corporate donations inside its borders…

As long as “Change” is the theme of this upcoming election perhaps we can look at those changes that can really steer us in the right direction of increasing cooperation, collaboration and pragmatism. My current support for Obama and McCain is that they are the most likely agents of this kind of fundamental change.