I watch too much TV. I admit it. I really like watching courtroom dramas.
And if there is one thing courtroom TV shows have taught me is that if a lawyer, juror or judge is involved in some personal way with a case, that person has to step aside.
The Supreme Court just ruled that corporations can give and give large amounts of money to political campaigns. Now while I think that is not a good idea, the Supreme Court thinks it’s fine and dandy.
Who am I to argue with the Supreme Court?
Now in my opinion, since companies can give large amounts of money to campaigns, we don’t want any signs of our politicians appearing that their votes are for sale.
We need a new law here....
To avoid looking improper, if a politician accepts campaign money from a company, they should not participate in any way in voting for or against a law that might affect that company. Further, they should not even voice an opinion regarding that law while it’s being debated.
This non-participation period should run for at least two full terms from the time of the contribution and one term prior to the contribution.
Just a thought.
Moose
That could certainly be a way to protect the integrity of the legislative process, but such a move would have to be done quickly. Once the corporations start buying elected officials, it'll be impossible to get such a law passed. However, once corporations own Congress, they can just repeal the law. The best approach of all would be a Constitutional Amendment to overrule the Supreme Court, but that would stand zero chance of happening.
ReplyDelete