Red Flag: Rove's Blackmail and how it relates to corporate funded DLC

[Lerkfish]

IF Rove's blackmail against republican congresscritters works -- in that, he threatened to withold campaign funds from them if they didn't support the presiden'ts dictatorial powers in the NSA scandal -- I think we seriously need to take a critical look at how campaigns are funded.

Because, if threatening to withold campaign money can force elected officials to vote or behave a certain way, then we have a crisis that cuts across parties in this country.

Here's the gist of my argument: The higher the amount of money that can be controlled by the fewest people, the more the official must dance to their tune like a merry little monkey. In other words, the MORE the democratic party is funded by corporations, the MORE our democratic officials will HAVE to cater to issues that affect those corporations. IF BLACKMAIL WORKS, then that's a clear signal in the future for corporations to pull the same tactics. Even if dems have higher moral fiber than republicans, corporations will still EXPECT blackmail to work, and fund them accordingly. Only those officials signalling their willingness to play along will get funding.

In other words, Because of how republicans are now, WHY would corporations donate to democrats UNLESS they could garner influence by doing so? The more saleable are the corrupt republicans, the more corporations will funnel their money to them ONLY.

How does this relate to the DLC? now relax, I'm not even saying the DLC is corrupt or whatever, I'm saying that the main tenet of the DLC system is going after and securing corporate donors. In this present climate, if what Rove threatens publicly, works publicly, then the DLC will face one or both of two unsavory fates:

1. They will see their corporate funds dwindle to a trickle.
2. Or, they will have to become as corrupt as the republicans to attract corporate donors.

Either way, without corporate funding at all, or with tainted corporate funding, the one thing of value that DLC brought to the big tent will evaporate.

Now, ask yourselves, in light of this, what is the advantage to the party of moving ever rightward and abandoning progressive candidates, in order to get more corporate funding?

[wtbymark]

1. well then, our only hope goes to the SCOTUS next month

The Vermont campaign cap law goes to the court very soon. This obviously is a cap on the campaign funds any candidate can raise. It would be a step in the right direction, limiting the amount of influence imposed on a candidate from donors. It's a big step toward publicly funded campaigns. Keep your fingers crossed for this Vermont law.

[Lerkfish]

2. thanks for the heads up on that!

I agree, we need to change the way campaigns are run and funded.

[Lerkfish]

3. lol! this topic is suffering from other, better news today.

which is fine with me.