A Great Summation of Politics (Business and Government)

.

"The free market is simply not capable of screwing up the entire economy without the devoted and unethical assistance from unrestrained and malignant politicians colluding with unethical and malignant businessmen, both of whom are insulated (for a while, at least) from the rule of law and from reality."

Wednesday, August 18, 2010
BETWEEN BRAINS
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/


This is certainly true for the national economy, when the federal lawmakers (oh, how I hate that word), those prostituted puppets, get to mucking around where they have no business mucking.

And a more focused look at California's self-strangulation from The City Journal. (hat tip, Manteca's City Managers Blog, August 14, 2010, "Some Issues Bear Repeating.")

As far as Manteca politics go, the collusion begins almost immediately upon qualifying as a candidate. Thus far, I've had solicitations from two "associations" representing individual professionals and small contractors to come and "interview" in return for (possible) contributions to my political campaign for city councilman. Their public posture is: "We can influence the votes of a block of influencial people on your behalf." The not-so-public deal is: "If we think you will protect and enhance our money-making ability, we'll give you $100 and expect you to vote in our favor on certain questions."

Gee, here I thought that a representative owed a duty, freely given, to individual citizens - not associations, unions, other big enterprises, less-than-general segments of private or public sectors, etc. - those entities other than citizens being known collectively as special interests.

Perhaps these two associations' political marketing dollars should be spent on the public, the voters, to influence their selection of officials, not on the officials to influence their fiduciary votes on the public's business (and maybe against the public's interests.) These associations are perfectly free to make such independent expenditures, as reaffirmed in the January 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.

"In this case we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell. It has been noted that "Austin was a significant departure from ancient First Amendment principles," Federal Election Comm'n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 490, 127 S.Ct. 2652, 168 L.Ed.2d 329 (2007) (WRTL) (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). We agree with that conclusion and hold that stare decisis does not compel the continued acceptance of Austin. The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether. We turn to the case now before us."

Perhaps these two associations should sponsor a public forum for ALL candidates to publically announce their views on whatever questionnes du jour these associations wish. You know, ...above board ...out in the open ...encourage public discussion of any issues.