The next time you go to the doctor, don’t worry about who he
is or what his credentials are. It
doesn’t matter and he shouldn’t have to tell you. Or, when you go to your financial advisor, if
he keeps hidden that he is an employee of the fund he suggests when he leads
you to believe he isn’t, he has a right to privacy. Oh, and your baby sitter – not to worry that
you are not able to find out who she is and anything about her past.
If you think those are really dumb statements, I would agree
with you. But, when a clandestine
organization goes on television with information about one of the constitutional
proposals or a candidate; you don’t have the right to know who they are. If you wouldn’t accept advice or trust people
in your personal life that you don’t know, why would you trust a group that you
know nothing about in your political decisions?
That is what has happen during the last election more than
any other time in United States history.
Claims, accusations and downright lies filed the advertising of the
political ads. It should make honest,
good people ill. (Yes, everyone, before
you get excited, both sides have committed this sin.) But, we didn’t have the chance to evaluate
their point of view because we don’t know who provided the financial support
for the advertising.
Additionally, people and organizations called “bundlers”
skirted campaign laws and used them to hide the source of money for candidates and
parties. Many of us were upset when we
found out that Romney said things in private that were difficult to support in
public. Romney himself even said that it
could have been said better. But, did
any of us find out who was in the room that night (other than the host, a
bundler)?
Is there anyone that thinks that the “smoked filled rooms”
of yore where secret deals were made was the proper way to govern? Well, of course not. If your local politician takes money from an
oil company then votes in support of their petition to drill in your
neighborhood, wouldn’t you want to know?
Do black hooded people stand on the floor of the United States Senate
and make a speech about policy? No,
because we all demand to know who is speaking.
Yet, we put up with Super PAC's and bundlers that raise,
over the last election in this case, literally billions of dollars. This money flows to candidate’s campaigns and
their parties like water down a hill, filling the lowest ground. In this case, the money fills the coffers of
candidates that are willing to accept every last cent. There are candidates that don’t accept the
money blindly, demanding to know where the money came from. But, many of them, I feel confident, feel great
pressure to accept the money so they can compete against a foe that does take
the money.
Don’t be fooled. When
people go to the store to buy a stove, they want certain features and they want
it to work. No one, let me repeat, no
one, gives a dime to any campaign if they don’t think they will get the results
they want. Give enough, your voice will
be heard. A little more, your plan will
be enacted.
The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech. It is an amplifier to your own voice. This is true.
Also, people do have the right to assemble to combine their resources so
that their voice will be louder – and delivered with force. But, the voters, as the ultimate decision
maker in any policy decision, should have all the information available to make an educated decision.
Let's all cry, "Enough of this lunacy!" In a Responsible Community, when someone
exercises their right, they are to take responsibility for their action. It is not a violation of someone’s freedom of speech to ask that they take the responsibility to say who they are.
If it takes a new ruling from the Supreme Court to change
the current situation, then let’s find a case to carry to their doorstep. If it takes more than that, then let’s change
the Constitution.
