[EL] Brooks, McCutcheon et al.

[Richard C. Bozian]

David Brooks misses the boat even on the argument that he makes for the effect of diminishing the positive influence  of parties in unseating incumbents. The loss of party influence pales next to the  unlevelled playing field created by the flood of money. As an example, the minimal levels of money provided to candidates by public financing of campaigns  elections could eliminate the power of money. Parties on both  left and right become stagnant and obstructive to constructive change in legislation in response to changing realities. They are ,as with any organization in power over time,  resistant to dissent and fresh ideas. For them,  party loyalty comes first and newcomers are not welcome. Neither Democrats nor Republicans wish for third parties to have a voice, as witness the situation in Ohio where Libertarians were not allowed to appear on the  ballot on  flimsy principles regularly  ignored. I am not a Libertarian- dissent is needed. 
The arguments on this site  in support of the McCutcheon decision  are very logical  at first glance. Their fallacy,and that of the majority at the SCOTUS, lies in the rigidity of thinking in complex situations of what constitutes right or wrong. What is right or wrong depends not only on an instrument written two hundred plus years ago along with its amendments, but  should include consequences.  The flood of money is leading to a plutocracy of money, leaving us with  a democracy in name only. Ethics and morality are best  based on consequences, not on fixed bases of certitude. Of course, money will not disappear, but its impact should be  minimized. 
Richard C. Bozian M.D. F.A.C.P.Emeritus Professor of MedicineUniversity of Cincinnati 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140404/d1e27912/attachment.html>