Would you play a chess game with someone who played by a different set of rules than you? That really wouldn't make sense would it? Especially if your set of rules put you at a disadvantage. Yet, this is exactly what some critics would expect of Democrats. Critics want Democrats to pass some kind of purity test that says they shouldn't take campaign monies from Wall Street or corporations while their opponents continue to rake in the big bucks.
When Barack Obama was first running for president in 2008, he promised to pursue with his opponent the course of using only public financing for their campaigns. When he saw how primary opponents were gaming the system using 527 groups (now called Super PACs) he reversed course. The linked article explains his reasoning. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061900914.html.
As is everything in politics, it's complicated. We now have many critics of the Democratic party who want us to play by a different set of rules than our opponents. Democrats are expected to win races, but are asked to follow rules that would hinder their chances of winning.
It would be great if we had a system where presidential candidates could only use public financing and that prohibited outside groups from collecting monies or holding fundraisers for candidates. But, we don't have that. Our Supreme Court has ruled that corporations also have free speech rights under our Constitution. Their money is their speech. So, we have a system that allows PACs and Super PACs and we cannot require Democrats to play by a different set of rules than their opponents. If Democrats don't win elections, they don't have much opportunity to enact laws to change the system or to implement their platform.
Right now winning is vital. Be wary of any critic who wants to improve the Democratic Party by requiring Democrats to play by a different set of rules than their opponents.
No comments:
Post a Comment