Can We All Be "Citizens United" Against The Bullshit?

"Money is the root of all evil," everyone has heard that one before. Most people will agree with it to a certain extent.  Money can bring power, and power can corrupt even the most well intentioned man.  We trust our country to be run by representatives that we "elect" and "choose", but how do these representatives get on the ballots to begin with.  It takes a lot of money to run a campaign, and somebody has to pay the bill.  Political campaign contribution rules changed dramatically in 2010 with the Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission case the opening of the floodgates for unlimited corporate contributions to political campaigns.  And in the 2012 election cycle we saw that the Super PACS had a major impact.

Well it looks like the Supreme Court will have another chance to effect the world of politics next week in the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission case. If you don't know what the case is about, let me sum it up for you:

If you ask Richard L. Hasen of UC Irvine, the McCutcheon case could be good for politics.  In his opinion piece in The Washington Post, he says that removing the limits of personal campaign contributions will streamline the route from donor to politician, and remove the nasty middleman(Super PACS). Mr. Hasen feels that the contribution limits, which have been in place since the Watergate Scandal, forced the individuals to donate instead to PACs, and not the candidate directly. This in a sense gave the power to the PACs and not the individual donor.  Mr. Hasen also goes on to say the he is "troubled by the prospect of an awful decision that would clear the way for more corruption. But I find some solace in the thought that such a ruling could have a surprising positive side effect: reducing gridlock in Washington."

Well Thank you for that, sir, I did need a good laugh. We can excuse the corruption, because at least those that have been corrupted are more efficient at doing it.  I'm not sure if this opinion was written tongue-and-cheek, for I do not know Mr. Hasen and his sense of humor.  I did however do a tiny bit of research on other writings or opinions Mr. Hasen has published.  I found an article written just a few months ago where he contradicts himself.  In a piece published in the New York Times titled, "Limits to Candidates Deter Corruption", Mr. Hasen clearly disagrees with himself.  In the piece, written in October of 2013 he says, "limiting direct contributions to candidates does serve the key public interest in deterring corruption of candidates." Ok, but it makes them more efficient, so it's not that bad, right? And then he says, "The closer the money comes to the hands of members of Congress, the greater the danger of corruption and undue influence of big donors."

Moral of the story, I don't think Mr. Hasen knows what to think.  He is clearly a well respected member of the political science community, he published a book, which means he can complete a task, and he seems to like to write opinion pieces, which means he has passion, and I too have passion.  But I normally can stick to an opinion for more than 6 months.  So in my opinion, if you want an opinion on the McCutcheon case, look elsewhere.

Boehner and the POTUS Can't Agree on Immigration

   In the news again is the Republican Speaker, John Boehner, making a statement that immigration reform will be a battle ground leading up to the mid-term elections. On Thursday, the BBC News article, "Republican John Boehner doubts immigration deal", really doesn't leave much to the imagination. The republicans are not going to pass any comprehensive immigration reform if they have anything to do about it, especially if the bill has a special path to citizenship.

  This article highlights the vast divide between the Republican and Democrats on immigration policy.  While the President has pledged to make immigration reform a priority, Mr. Boehner has stated that he and his colleagues have a plan, but don't think that the President is competent enough to enforce the new laws.  Translated that means, they have no plans to pass immigration reform legislation.  The article hints that this may be the only position for the Speaker to take because of the fracturing of the Republican party.  If the Republicans can't agree, they run the risk of looking like the reason for the blocking of the bill.  But if he blames a weak President, and that a bill of this kind will need strict enforcement, that Obama cannot deliver.  This position that the republicans are taking is an an example of the growing divide between the parties.

   Whether you like it or not there are nearly 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Having 12 million people in our country that aren't documented is a big problem.  They are working illegally.  They are not paying taxes. They aren't able to vote. And some people say they are taking away American's jobs.  It is my belief that you have to solve a problem by getting to the root cause.  The root cause for the influx of illegal immigrants in this country is because we are currently the largest supplier of opportunity in North and South America.  Coincidentally we are boarded by a country that is not well stocked in this commodity. And south of Mexico is a host of other countries that have struggling economies, and a poor majority.  These people hear of the opportunity here in the United States and they leave everything behind for a chance at a better life. So the root cause of the immigration problem is that there are people living in poor countries that want to do better for themselves.  So we can build a wall to keep them out, or we can help to bolster the economies in their countries to eliminate the need for them to leave their homeland.  That second option seems pretty difficult, so many people feel a wall is the most tangible solution.

The sad truth is, that a wall will not do it, and it doesn't answer the question of what to do with the 12 million people already here.  I feel that this article is important because this is an issue that we have to live with everyday.  I am required to carry uninsured motorist coverage on my car insurance because of the large number of unlicensed and uninsured drivers in this country.  These people are driving without licenses because they are not able to comply without fear of being sent home.  If an undocumented worker doesn't pay into the system then the benefits of the system are not properly funded.  If their child attends public schools that is a burden that we all share.  I think that most of the push back on immigration reform is because the republicans are fearful of boosting the democrats voting base.

In Other News:  A pathway to allow kids to chew their pop-tarts in to guns may be coming to Florida.