William Ramage | United States
The lack of a financial reform of the campaigns in the United States contradicts the same principles on which the United States was founded. Businesses and corporations indirectly control what the Congress legislates. There are no laws that prevent large companies from funding federal campaigns. This translates into that candidate's policies that reflect the interests of their corporate lenders. They represent business interests rather than people.
Take, for example, the great pharma. Suppose they only finance a senator campaign that wins the seat. The senator will then support the great pharma, perhaps going against the population of his constituency and their needs. Often, the large pharmaceutical industry will support the increase in the prices of necessary drugs, turning healthcare into a company. With representative puppets, this is easy to accomplish. The lack of a financial reform of the countryside leaves open the door open to the lobby and corruption. The secret money is also completely unethical, but completely legal.
The campaign's finance reform encourages democracy
As Stormy Daniels has shown, those with more money will have more choices. Simply put, he or she can cover up faults much more easily. This is severely unethical because voters often have no idea who they really vote for because these people can continue to cover their dark past with money, and thus be the face of the Americans. This legal corruption greatly influences our elections and, incredibly, continues to be legal. It is inscrutable how the federal government regards this ethics as directly influencing the result of the elections. After all, people have the right to know who they are electing to represent or govern the country.
Further laws fail to prevent the individual's personal efforts in various investment opportunities, creating another loophole for the legislator's personal gains. You can buy tons of stocks from a particular sector, deregulate the aforementioned sector, thus raising stock prices. Holders of public offices have the full ability to change legislation, potentially affecting thousands of people without their consent, in order to be successful. Thanks to relaxed laws, this is completely legal. In this sense, the design of our government allows the upper classes to maintain their high status at the expense of the working classes and lower classes.
A Move to Reject PACs
This is often overlooked by the general public, and is a persistent problem in our modern system of government. Despite the ability to get away with it in a completely legal way, some new candidates have begun to pave the way to a new future of people-controlled campaigns. Basic campaigns and the rejection of CAP donations are starting to appear voluntarily in various campaigns.
Political figures like Beto O & # 39; Rourke, Ilhan Omar and Dean Phillips are among dozens of progressive candidates who have pledged to reject corporate PACs. Despite the open door of the government, these candidates have taken the ethical path and have borne fruit. This demonstrates the true nature of the truest Americans who refuse to take the apple from the snake. Instead, these candidates take the high road and fight for the right way to stay in charge.
71 Republic is the third voice in the media. We are proud of independent and independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give us helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to ours Patreon.
Source image in the foreground