Friday’s USA Today contained an article describing new legislation under consideration that would require CEOs, union leaders, and third-party groups like the US Chamber of Commerce, to disclose their funding of and participation in the creation of political advertisements. In fact, as proposed, ads would be required to list the top five donors. One must conclude that this legislation, sponsored by Democrats Chris Van Hollen, MD, and Charles Schummer, NY, is in response to a January Supreme Court decision removing financial limits on campaign contributions.
I understand that limiting campaign contributions is a form of limiting free speech. Practically speaking, though, unlimited giving does more to limit the ability to be heard by small donors than it does to free larger donor’s ability to speak. In response to the proposed legislation, President Obama said, “Powerful special interests and their lobbyists should not be able to drown out the voices of the American people.” But we should be careful here before we start complaining. What efforts have we, as individual citizens, taken to have our voice heard? If whining to our friends that we have no voice is the extent of our exercise of free speech then our complaint is without merit. How many letters might someone be able to pen in the 45 minutes spent on hold to talk to the local talk radio host? There are few things as capable of swaying a lawmaker’s opinion as 300 fresh faxes. True, your voice is only one of 300 million in the country and only one of 670,000 your Congressman represents, so It’s easy to conclude you cannot make a difference. But one of 300 should be downright encouraging if not actually motivational.
If you have made genuine efforts to have your opinions considered, however, then I find no fault in attempting to fix a system that is clearly broken. Time after time we hear that the political system is rigged to favor those with money and that part of its dysfunction is the over-influence of special interest groups.
This proposed legislation, though, makes no effort to curb giving. What it does is create accountability. While the right to anonymous free speech has been repeatedly upheld by the Courts and dates back to the Federalist Papers, Americans ought to have the right to know to whom our elected officials are beholden.
Relevant to the pending battle will be the 1987 ruling in Meese vs Keene. The case addressed whether foreign agents can operate anonymously when distributing political propaganda which the Court defined as including not just slanted and misleading material but also materials that are “completely accurate and merit the highest respect.” The Court ultimately ruled that disseminators of propaganda make additional disclosures to better enable the public to evaluate the material’s impact, to allow citizens to add further information that they think is germane and actually fosters, rather than restricts, free speech. I couldn’t agree more. Ask yourself, “Would it make a difference if an ad attacking a candidate’s stance on gun control was paid for by Smith and Wesson or by the ACLU,” as opposed to “This ad made possible by the friends of Candidate John Doe.”
Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain." Arthur Weasly in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, by JK Rowling.
Those who oppose this legislation will have you believe this is a desperate attempt by the Democrats to preserve an “election advantage” and to “limit the speech of those who may disagree with you,” as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell put it. Not only is that a disingenuous characterization of the bill but those making political ads aren’t just exercising free speech. They’re asking us to believe them. They’re compelling us to action. They’re petitioning us to be pawns in their efforts. At the very least we should be suspect of those who compel us to action while yet remaining anonymous themselves.
It was Einstein who noted that it is insanity to do the same thing over and over and expect different results, yet that is precisely our approach to an identified problem with our political system. If special interests have too much influence, we would do well to take measures to remedy that situation.
As I thought about that later though, I don't feel that way at all. Honestly, I don't know how Disney delivers as much as they do for so little money. $60 for park admission seems high, yes. But look at the infrastructure, the options, the employees, the transportation. I can't believe they do it for as little as they do. Personally, I think it's a tremendous value and worth every penny I spent. 
But on the more important substantive issues, it was full of contradictions and misleading statements. He talked about being knocked down as a child and how his mother taught him to pick himself up. (Great lesson) Later, though, he lamented that at a time when so many Americans have been knocked down, Washington has done so little to help them get back up. (I thought, Senator, the point was to learn to pick YOURSELF up.)
He talked about how the most important aspect of work is that it provides the benefit of dignity and respect to Americans; but he then prattled on about how the work people have doesn't pay enough.
He talked about how tax breaks for corporations, which McCain supports, send jobs overseas. No, Joe, they don't. Tax breaks for corporations brings jobs home; companies have been sending jobs overseas because it already costs TOO MUCH to do business within the US.
He talked about a "promise that their tomorrow will be better than their yesterday." Who is making that promise, Senator? Only we can make our tomorrow better. Government can't and if government is promising that, and Americans want that, then this is the discussion that we should be having in America.
He quoted John McCain on Afghanistan from 3 years ago and Barack Obama on Afghanistan from 1 year ago. Why not break out a quote from McCain on Georgia from years ago and a quote from Obama on Georgia from last week?
Viewers of this speech who pay attention to his words, will not have been impressed with the content or the medium. 
However, the speech itself probably did little. She certainly had nothing to say that might sway Republicans to rethink their party affiliation. Furthermore, absent too were talking points that independents might find attractive. The speech seemed to have two purposes. First, convince her supporters to vote for Obama. But who else were they going to vote for? Those people involved enough in politics to be at or watch on tv the DNC convention are also likely to be people who will value their vote and not stay at home. Those who might elect not to vote at all, certainly were not in attendance and might well have been watching America's Got Talent and missed the speech completely.
Secondly, and more importantly to Mrs. Clinton, the speech was littered with reminders of why she should remain relevant in the Democratic Party. This was a "You Picked the Wrong Guy" speech.
Will we remember her or this speech in 4 or 8 years? I suspect not. The speech didn't brand itself with any tag lines that might survive the next few years. But it was a hell of an effort.
I believe not attending to these differences is the cause of the apparent divide in American thought. True conservatism (not that practiced by the Republicans) understands the importance of relationships between people and values those relationships over the individual. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts. Liberal ideology seeks to raise the needs and desires of the individual above the collective good. This is where the Libertarians lose most Americans. Intuitively, Americans sense the error of the "my liberty is more important than the collective good" ethos and shun the movement. Neither the modern Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has found a way to tap into the American belief in Freedom while simultaneously bonding us to society. This is the time for Democratic and Republican ideologies to be replaced by less "me" centered thinking and our nation should return to its ideological roots, which means that we understand our obligation to each other to value and defend each other's freedom, not just our own.
The Democratic support that the super delegates are so keen on being a part of should be viewed as something of a mirage. What would the delegate count be if the events of the last month had taken place in December? Would Obama have as much support as he does now? Would he be the presumed candidate? And yet the Obama of today is the one the Democrats are likely to insist represents their party. The Obama that sees middle America as "clingers," the Obama that wouldn't repudiate Wright but is now quite right to repudiate, this is the Obama that will face McCain in November. For a party as down on America as this one, an Obama nomination seems awfully optimistic. Perhaps, it's not just Michigan and Florida that need a do-over: perhaps the Democrats ought to have a national do-over.
Sure he's liberal. Liberal we can handle. Heck even socialist we can handle. We have systems in place to deal with presidential initiatives which we ultimately don't approve of. But relinquishing any control to any kind of world organization is very troubling. Being outside of our borders and constitution, we could find ourselves subject to a body we don't agree with and yet have few ways to get out from under its jurisdiction. This is a slippery slope. I fear Obama's need to be liked and validated will prompt him to try to enter the U.S. into many global initiatives.
Hillary, despite her belief that her ascension has been preordained, has a low ceiling and a high floor. Obama continues to manifest himself as a divisive candidate, creating his own new voting demographic within his party, one that surely will never be as influential as, say, the evangelicals have been for the GOP. It is no wonder that Clinton supporters would sooner vote for McCain, the two have significantly more in common and, to their credit, Clinton supporters can see through the audacity of hype. The sad fact for the democrats is that these two represented the best the Democrats had to offer. Perhaps it is a tacit admission of poor policy that the Democrats chose two candidates who are best known for their celebrity status and not their policies or experience. If the policy postulates of the democrats had more merit, a "celebrity" wouldn't have be needed to endorse those policies.
I'm afraid I just don't believe that her feelings are the result of poorly timed contemplation. My understanding is that the family was present for the photo shoot and got to see the picture in advance. They liked it and moved on. NOW all of a sudden Miley is embarrassed? These are smart people familiar with the media. I, of course, have no inside information, this is just my opinion, but it would appear she wants to have her cake and eat it too: do the photo shoot (be edgy, become known to new demographics) and then make a heartfelt apology to appease the core fan group.
Is Obama smart enough to see the error of his proposal to meet with such foreign leaders? Probably not. Too impressed with his own palaver, he'll stand by his words. But can McCain and the GOP make the same connection and exploit Carter's follies as empirical evidence that they were correct in postulating what such visits from US dignitaries would bring about?
His words address the inherently conservative values (not republican--conservative) most Americans believe in. But he also points out that while we believe in them, we don't LIVE them. His article can be, and should be, a call for personal change. It will be an exciting read for the number of times you exclaim (too loudly for those sipping coffee nearby) "Yes!" Although, if I'm honest, it is depressing on a national scale because I know most Americans act on their immediate desires and not on the values they hold most sacred. But, in the end, change starts at home.
