The breaking news story this weekend about the US response to the UK's decision to pull its troops out of Basra, should give us all pause to consider why the UK Prime Minister and the opposition Tory party ageed with and respected the wishes of the majority of UK citizens to pull their troops out of Basra/Iraq.
By contrast, here in the US, where a majority of citizens polled also want to get out of Iraq, and have so wanted since 2005, the US is still there, and just last week, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, Obama's Secretary of Defense Gates used a talk to the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, to float the administration's desire to keep US troops in Iraq with no target withdrawal date even mentioned.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates urged Iraq to host U.S. troops beyond the end of the year to maintain stability and keep Iran at bay, echoing the growing concerns of U.S. military officials that the government in Baghdad isn't moving fast enough to request an extension of the U.S. troop presence.
Mr. Gates predicted the U.S. would accede to such a request to send a message to American allies and Iran that the U.S. isn't withdrawing from the region, he said in remarks to a think tank in Washington on Tuesday.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405... ...
US cables recently provided by Wikileaks to Scotland and The Scotsman on line reporter opined that Brown took this action (1) to be seen by the UK public as correcting Tony Blair's mistake in sending troops to Iraq in the first place and (2) to get re-elected.
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/wikileaks/Wikleaks-US-anger-at-Gordon.6779840.jpThat's how real politik works in a country (UK) where foreign corporations are not permissible donors to campaigns.
Imagine the gnashing of teeth in the US DOD, State Department, Pentagon & White House when their best friends and potential future employers, the Military Industrial Complex, could not be turned loose to buy off the individual members of Parliament or leaders of Britain's political parties. Because in the UK, "foreign donors are not permissible donors".
And the Brits still enjoy habeas corpus rights as well.
Here are some sections from a Link to the Library of Congress materials detailing UK Election Law.
Note to DU readers - this whole document is chock full of common sense rules on campaign financing. Reading this shows you how very, very vulnerable the US campaign financing system and our elected officials are to corrupting influence by wealthy special interests, whether individuals like the Koch brothers or corporations.
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/uk.phpExecutive Summary
Legislation to prevent excessive spending by electoral candidates in the United Kingdom has been in place since 1883. The UK’s system of regulating campaign financing focuses on limiting the expenditure of political parties and individual candidates, rather than limits on donations that can be received by these parties and individuals, combined with a transparent reporting system of donations received and election expenditure incurred .
***********************************************
The definition of campaign expenditure for political parties extends to “party political broadcasts, advertising, unsolicited material to electors, manifesto or other policy documents, market research and canvassing, media/publicity, transport, rallies or other events.”<7> The law also requires that any notional expenditure (incurred when another person pays the cost that the political party would have otherwise had to pay) be counted as a campaign expenditure incurred by the party.<8>
Donations to Political Parties
There are no limits on the amount of donations that political parties may receive; however, there are laws that govern who may be a donor, as well as limits, noted above, on spending by political parties on campaign expenditure. The aim of the law is to regulate donations to political parties through transparency, as political parties must make their finances public.<12> Political parties may only accept donations above £200 (approximately US$280) from “permissible donors.”<13> Donations are defined in the PPERA to include “gifts of money and property; subscriptions and affiliation fees; sponsorship; money spent on behalf of a party; the provision of property, services, or facilities; or the lending of money other than at commercial rates.”<14> Permissible donors are defined as: an individual registered on a UK electoral register; a UK registered political party; a UK registered company; a UK registered trade union; a UK registered building society; a UK registered limited liability partnership; a UK registered friendly/building society; or a UK based unincorporated association.<15>
Foreign donors, other than registered British electors living abroad, are not considered to be permissible donors. If a donation is received from a donor that does not fall into these categories, the political party must return the donation or, if the donor cannot be identified, return the money to the Electoral Commission.<19> If the Electoral Commission believes that a political party has received donations from a non-permissible source they “may seek forfeiture orders in the courts to recover from political parties the value of donations.”<20>
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
