I find it hard to swallow that the conversation is “can Democrats..?” instead of “should Democrats..”? It really goes to show that the entire system, how things are run, needs to change. But it only will if people want it to change. If they want their voices represented in government, where energies are focused needs to shift significantly.
Can Democrats Find Their Own Karl Rove? | Mother Jones.
Democrats, on the other hand, are searching for their own powerful outside groups, and for a figurehead, like Rove, to fight the flow of conservative cash in the next election….[W]ithin days of leaving the White House last month, former deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, who will manage the re-election campaign, was on a nationwide tour. His mission was to reconnect with big bundlers, some of whom have grumbled publicly that they haven’t received enough attention from the White House and have been irked by its tough rhetoric aimed at Wall Street executives.
Is it just me or is there something very wrong with this sentiment? This is why I don’t like the democratic party either. For the 2012 elections they shouldn’t be finding wealthy political figureheads or groups to fund them (groups they’ll inadvertently owe something), in my opinion. They need to get back in touch with the people they supposedly represent. And for far too long our political leaders have been representing corporations and narrow interests instead of empowering their voting base and tapping into what will get the people to be invested in them. Right now it’s a war on cash, not issues or what the future will really look like.
Disappointed.
hahayourefunny 
Anonymous
March 16, 2011
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with corporate or special interest funding per se.
The special interest group is an easy one to tackle. People, including myself, make donations to groups with platforms they agree with. As you know, they span the political spectrum, from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Family Association. In turn, they do their homework, look at the candidates’ positions and chances of winning and then donate. In a way, voters are purchasing skilled donors. Nothing wrong with that, since donors know, or should know, the principles of the group before they give.
Now the question becomes does money influence votes or do votes influence money? With many exceptions varying in magnitude, I say that it’s the latter. Do you think Barbara Boxer is secretly pro-life and just gets money from NARAL because they have deep pockets? I don’t think so, either. Might Barbara Boxer change a minor vote (ie, which pro-life person do we want appoint for this vacancy) in order to accommodate NARAL’s views on something? Perhaps, but I don’t think that matters in the scheme of things.
As far as corporations go, I’m also okay with that. I understand there might be more reservations with corporations, since few consumers do research on political donations before shopping and, thus, funding is less transparent. But corporations represent real people — employees, shareholders and, to a lesser extent, consumers. And as long as corporations pay tax and are subjected to regulation, they should have a say in the political process.
2010 provided reassurance that money isn’t everything. Jerry Brown won by significant margins despite his tighter budget.
Jamie.Marie
March 18, 2011
I understand where you’re coming from, I just don’t think that money should drive politics, and I do believe that is the case. Even in a situation where an individual does their research and donates money to a platform that they agree with – that means only those people who have enough money in their budget to donate have a voice in politics, and the more money the louder the voice.
i do have an issue with your question “does money influence votes or do votes influence money” as it sets up a false either/or argument. Obviously there would be valid arguments for both positions and they are intimately interwoven. Money influences votes by use of misleading ads and such (but only in the context of individuals who won’t look up information on their own, which i believe is a lot of people, maybe i need more faith), and obviously a representative’s positions on issues will inform various agencies and programs where they should donate.
But WHY are they donating? Because we believe that candidates need money to win. Candidates need more ads, more campaign materials than the other “guys”.
As far as corporations go, I do believe we should do our own research before shopping at certain places and it would add a level of accountability that we do not currently see. However, even though corporations are comprised of individuals, I don’t think they should have a say in political processes. I think it’s obvious that huge corporations are going to be interested in legislature that advances their company’s interest, even if it not in the interest of the individuals which comprise it (especially employees). And even though money isn’t everything it is absolutely a driving factor in today’s political sphere, and I am of the opinion that it is a problem. I also am not a fan of capitalism, though.
My problem is with this idea that campaign seasons and elections are prefaces by a push for donations and fundraising instead of getting in touch with people. I think the way the system works right now is failing. Even if there is nothing wrong with it per se something is wrong with it, because our government does not currently represent it’s people.
Sorry if I’m all over the place, all jacked up on decongestant meds. I definitely appreciate your contribution, as it made me reflect on my own positions more thoroughly.