|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Home | News | Commentary | Forum | The Loft | Online Activist | State News | Resources | Cartoons | Classifieds | Contact Us |
By Harris R. Sherline May 12, 2008 Page 2 of 2 It's obvious that the failure to regulate campaign finance certainly is not for lack of trying. The theory generally seems to have been that if we could just get money out of the equation, the political process would somehow eliminate corruption and favoritism. But, I submit that's just wishful thinking, because it's counter to human nature. People invariably look for loopholes in such laws, which are generally circumvented almost as fast as they are put on the books. Dating back to Teddy Roosevelt, the most popular response to the inherent weaknesses in campaign finance legislation has been the notion that the process should be financed by the federal government. However, I don't see how that would be much different than the present situation. The administration of a government financed system would undoubtedly become as convoluted and ineffective as the one we have now, the primary difference being who would be in control. With the government financing and running things, it's bound to become more bureaucratic, but would still be subject to political influence, just with different players. One alternative proposal is to simply require that all political contributions be immediately disclosed to the public on the Internet, including the sources of the money, so everyone could see who is supporting and financing the various candidates. As usual, when it comes to regulating behavior, there are no easy answers. --- NOTE: Read more of Harris Sherline's commentaries on his blog at "opinionfest.com." -------------------- Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA. >> Back -- Page 1 2
Current rating:
|
|
5.0 out of 5.0 (4 total votes)
|
|
|
|
| |||
 | |||
| |||
|
