One of the great themes of President Obama and American political commentary is that there is too much partisanship. People in Congress have been elected to serve the people and they should work together to produce legislation in the common good. Robert Reich argues here that they need to examine what they have in common in order to do this.
It is as if nastier people have come to Washington and, if we could only nurture a little more virtue, we might get somewhere. Much of this commentary simply distracts us from attention from the role that moneyed interests play in stimulating partisanship. I think the public understands the fact that policy is often sold to the highest bidder in our corrupt Congress. I do not think that the public understands the relationship between money and partisanship. The institutional press bears significant responsibility here. In my view, the institutional press needs to focus on the money trail with respect to both national parties. Of course, there have been stories here and there. But I do not think those stories begin to detail the extent to which particular Senators and Representatives have been funded by which interests, the differences between the sources of funds for Democrats and Republicans, and the extent to which some industries do their best to buy both parties. One would think a cynical press would be more interested in these connections than they are.
As I argue here, the Court’s recent decision on campaign finance in my view did not do much to change political campaigns, but it has aroused a stunning political backlash (80% of the American people disagreeing with it – including 78% of Republicans). What I fear and believe is the Congress will pass something that only appears to address the problem, but one that leaves our corrupt system intact. I do not believe that Congress will require that shareholders pre-approve corporate spending in particular election campaigns. I do not even believe that Congress will remove the ability of businesses to deduct their political expenditures (dissenting shareholders and taxpayers thus subsidize the corruption of our democracy). Even if such measures were passed the flow of corporate money would be substantial.
Larry Lessig has a nice piece (here) on congressional corruption in the most recent issue of the Nation. In the end, after detailing the role that money plays in Congress, he calls for predominantly citizen-funded elections. I think free or relatively free access to commercial television for federal election candidates has to be a part of the mix. But, as Lessig argues, to get much traction toward a solution, we need a constitutional convention called for by 2/3 of the states. He does not discuss the extent to which states are as corrupted by money as Congress and the difficulties of rousing the necessary 2/3, but it seems clear to me that if Congress is to change, we can not wait for Congress to act.
The system of commodity money eventually evolved into a system of representative money.[citation needed] This occurred because gold and silver merchants or banks would issue receipts to their depositors – redeemable for the commodity money deposited. Eventually, these receipts became generally accepted as a means of payment and were used as money. Paper money or banknotes were first used in China during the Song Dynasty. These banknotes, known as "jiaozi" evolved from promissory notes that had been used since the 7th century. However, they did not displace commodity money, and were used alongside coins.
Posted by: Viagra Online | 04/06/2010 at 01:27 PM