Money and Democracy

See the book

There are those who strongly believe that power and influence should be bought and sold, without disclosure.  And that it is an extension of the principles of the so-called "free market economics" to allow this to happen. Former influential lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former U.S. Congressman from Texas and House majority leader Tom DeLay, were two die-hard advocates of such a practice.  They are both convicted felons now, for better of for worse!

A couple of years after Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay were convicted for their misadventures profiled in the documentary Casino Jack, some supremely influential folks decided in a historic 5 to 4 vote in favor of allowing the free flow of undisclosed amounts of money in exchange of access and influence.  Well, Jack Abramoff served his time and is now out with books of his own, and can spend the many millions that he raised before he was given a place to spay bought and paid for by the people.  Not a bad bargain, after all!  The beauty of it all is that he can now continue his misadventures with additional protection guaranteed by the Citizens United vs. FEC ruling, as alluded to, when the new and improved Jack Abramoff, author of the new book appeared on Colbert Report.

View the speech

Well, looks like junior Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders is proposing an amendment to the US constitution, trying to overturn the Citizens United vs. FEC ruling.  You can join his efforts to help amend the U.S. constitution, if you agree with his characterization of the matter. Here, here, here, here, here, and here are some related resources and links.  

See the Book

I also recommend a very interesting essay by Ronald Dworkin, Professor of Law and Philosophy at New York University and Emeritus Professor of Jurisprudence at University College London, and columnist for the New York Review of Books, and the book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, by Investigative Journalist Greg Palast.  Have you ever wondered why there is not much out-cry in the mass media about this?  Could it be that one of the major beneficiaries of this decision is the mass media who is going to receive those funds after all to run advertisements?  I think it is not unlikely.