Religion
Related: About this forumPope Francis Attacks The Corrupting Influence Of Money In Elections
His Holiness Pope Francis called upon candidates in his home nation of Argentina to hold a free, unfinanced campaign during a question and answer session with low-income youth from Buenos Aires. The Pope also warned that campaign donations lead elected officials to act against the interests of the people. In the financing of electoral campaigns, many interests get into the mix, according to Francis, and then they send you the bill.
The Popes comments place him at odds with five other very prominent Catholics the five justices who joined the Supreme Courts decision in Citizens United v. FEC. That opinion did not simply deny that huge influxes of money can corrupt elected officials, at least when that money goes to allegedly independent groups such as super PACs; it even suggested that the use of money to obtain greater access to politicians is an objective moral good:
Favoritism and influence are not . . . avoidable in representative politics. It is in the nature of an elected representative to favor certain policies, and, by necessary corollary, to favor the voters and contributors who support those policies. It is well understood that a substantial and legitimate reason, if not the only reason, to cast a vote for, or to make a contribution to, one candidate over another is that the candidate will respond by producing those political outcomes the supporter favors. Democracy is premised on responsiveness.
The Pope also suggested that he would support a public financing system, noting that such a method of funding elections would allow for me, the citizen, to know that Im financing each candidate with a given amount of money. The same five conservative justices who decided Citizens United, however, have also made public financing virtually impossible to implement successfully in the United States.
more
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/03/11/3632295/pope-francis-attacks-corrupting-influence-money-elections/
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Not that it would change a single thing, but it would be great.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)on how to run a democracy that anyone could imagine.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)Favoritism and influence are not . . . avoidable in representative politics. It is in the nature of an elected representative to favor certain policies, and, by necessary corollary, to favor the voters and contributors who support those policies. It is well understood that a substantial and legitimate reason, if not the only reason, to cast a vote for, or to make a contribution to, one candidate over another is that the candidate will respond by producing those political outcomes the supporter favors. Democracy is premised on responsiveness.
The Pope also suggested that he would support a public financing system, noting that such a method of funding elections would allow for me, the citizen, to know that Im financing each candidate with a given amount of money. The same five conservative justices who decided Citizens United, however, have also made public financing virtually impossible to implement successfully in the United States.
If you do disagree, would you say why, please? TIA.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to comment on civil matters? Or do you think that anyone who claims that is an asshole?
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)I asked a question. I did not call anyone an asshole. Get it? I asked a question, nothing more, nothing less. Why you're becoming hysterical is beyond me.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)what a shock.
And do be careful about using the word "hysterical". The uber-feminists here will regard that as virulently sexist, no matter the context.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)keep their noses out of politics? Stop pushing abortion laws, health insurance exceptions, and other legislation? I don't see that anywhere in his "wonderful" statement.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Does anyone think it's a coincidence that what the pope is proposing would increase THEIR influence over American politicians?
okasha
(11,573 posts)"We're whores. Submit your bid."
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of speech"
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)That's impression that I get from posts such as these.
Look, I'm going to put it simply:
The process by which you reach a conclusion is as important to me as the conclusion itself. Yes, Pope Awesome and I may share a few ostensibly similar political positions, but I find the process by which he reaches these conclusions unreliable at best. Because while he's railing against money in politics, his own fucking Bishops throw around their weight as high-ranking spiritual leaders within one of the world's more populous Christian denominations so that they might affect domestic policy in their respective nations.
Whether the currency is money or faith, lobbying is lobbying.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The article is from Think Progress and they are reporting it because they are strong advocates of public financing for elections.
They also note that he is in direct opposition to the Catholics on SCOTUS in terms of their Citizens United ruling.
This is not to say that he is right on every issue or that his own house doesn't need some serious cleaning.
One has to really do a pretzel act to find a way to attack this position.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)corrupting our electoral system and stop lobbying to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens.