May 31, 2009
Incongruities and incongruities
By Bill Kraus
It is not surprising to hear the Republicans complain about the unfairness of the “liberal” press and their unfriendly-to-unfavorable coverage. It is a little surprising that the complainers don’t take a lesson from or seek the advice of the members of the party who get a fair shake. It ain’t rocket science, guys.
Putting that aside, what is really incongruous is that the Republicans, the ancestral home of the political fat cats, think they are getting the short end when it comes to money, too.
Surprisingly, there may be some truth to this.
The GOP has always felt that the money that flows to Democrats from the negative check-off process available to unions of all stripes but particularly WEAC, the teachers’ politically powerful union, is an easier route to money and maybe even a richer lode than their one-check-at-a-time soliciting.
All attempts to outlaw this have fallen on deaf ears or worse. The contributions are penny ante and the members whose dues are clipped can opt out if they wish. So all the GOP can do is point with alarm and complain.
The GOP operatives have come late to the Internet’s charms as well. Howard Dean explored this avenue and Barack Obama turned it into a 4-lane highway for money. If any Republican finance committee is hitting this jackpot I’m not aware of it.
It is worth noting that the Dems have also rounded up more millionaires than the fat cats have. Nobody on the GOP side in Wisconsin comes close to Herb Kohl, for example, and nationally George Soros and his ilk are red meat for the Dems and the Dem causes.
Let’s concede that it may be incongruous, but it does not seem to be a fanciful lament.
The real incongruity though is that, despite this, the organized and elected Republicans can be counted on to oppose all those reform measures proposed by all the do gooders, not to mention some proposals from their own cohorts as well, which are designed to level the economic playing field.
Spending limits would kill the overkill of negative checking off and Internet prowess.
Contribution limits would cut Herb Kohl and his peers down to size, fiscally anyway.
Best of all, the thirt-party party crashers would be (a) exposed and (b) subject to spending matches which would, in effect, make them indirect contributors to their intended Republican victims.
Goodbye, George Soros. Farewell, Bill Christofferson and the Greater Wisconsin Committee. Hello, parity.
And the Republican response? No thanks.
Now that’s incongruous.
post a letter about this blog »
You are right, money is the root of all evil. Maybe that is why they took "In God We Trust" off of the new dollar coin. You know "Render onto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's". Then why do democrats love dirty money along with republicans who are the ones who mostly trust in God?
The only thing they seem to know is you can not buy love with dirty money but you can buy politicians.
-Joe Gruber | Campbellsport, WI | June 1, 2009
Not sure about Republicans, but my response would be thus:
I oppose "campaign finance reforms" because they tend to limit speech, and therefore freedom, and the vast majority of reforms favor incumbents.
Moreover, until the electorate is smart enough and/or educated enough to vote out of office the corrupt representatives we have there now, the situation will stay pretty much the same. Just how has "McCain-Feingold" improved things, for example. NOT AT ALL!!
-Ken Van Doren | Mauston, WI | June 1, 2009