Political contributions, the BuyPartisan Mobile app, and Citizens United
August 22, 2014 at 7:55 pm | Posted in Dysfunctional Politics, Fairness, Judicial Misjudgment | 2 CommentsTags: Al Kamen, Android mobile devices, Apple mobile devices, BuyPartisan, Citizens United, Colby Itkowitz, corporate political contributions, Editors of the Washington Post, iPad, iPhone, iPod, partisan, partisanship, political contributions by businesses, political contributions by corporations, Spend Consciously Inc., Supreme Court
A US two dollar bill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar
“US $2 obverse”. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_$2_obverse.jpg#mediaviewer/File:US_$2_obverse.jpg
There is a new free app for mobile devices, BuyPartisan, developed by Spend Consciously, Inc. (Although the app is presently available only for Apple devices, Spend Consciously plans to release a version for Android devices in the very near future.)
The SpendConsciously.com web site suggests that you use your mobile device to scan the barcode of the product you are considering. The app will display the political donations of the CEO, Board of Directors and employees of the company that produced the product. On the basis of that information, you can decide whether or not to buy the product. You can also tell your friends what you have found out.
Two related articles (one by Colby Itkowitz, and one by Al Kamen and Colby Itkowitz) in the Washington Post describe what they discovered by using the app.
Subsequently the Editors of the Washington Post disparaged the new app, claiming that it would intensify political polarization.
But in coming to that conclusion, the Editors forgot an important new factor, namely, the Supreme Court’s misguided ruling on Citizens United.
The ruling on Citizens United magnifies the impact of an individual CEO + Board of Directors on an election far above above that of an ordinary citizen. A CEO and Board of Directors can favor their preferred candidate by using the vast financial resources of his corporation to the candidate or proposed law that they personally favor. You cannot.
“1900 New York polling place” by E. Benjamin Andrews – Andrews, E. Benjamin. History of the United States, volume V. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. 1912. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1900_New_York_polling_place.jpg#mediaviewer/File:1900_New_York_polling_place.jpg
In an election, a voter has two kinds of votes.
There is a direct vote, by making a choice on a ballot.
There is an indirect vote, by contributing or not contributing to a candidate or to a proposed law.
The CEO and Board of Directors’ huge contribution easily drowns out the much smaller contribution that is feasible for most ordinary citizens. The Supreme Court’s illogical decision dramatically undercuts your indirect vote. The Supreme Court’s ruling implicitly transforms the United States into an oligarchy.
The money that the CEO can appropriate in this manner is derived from the company’s sales to its customers.
Your only way of influencing the amount that the CEO and Board of Directors has available for this legal but unjust diversion of corporate funds? Either buy or do not buy from their company.
The Supreme Court’s politically partisan decision on Citizens United has thus linked buying decisions to political positions.
The linkage acts whether or not you – or the Editors of the Washington Post – recognize its presence.
That is why citizens now need to determine the political preferences of the CEO and Board of Directors of any company they might use.
Without apps like BuyPartisan, a great deal of time consuming detective work would be required for you to obtain that information. The app makes it easy.
Contrary to the position taken by the Editors of the Washington Post, using this app is now imperative for good citizenship.
If you wish to comment on this post but do not see a box where you can submit a comment, that is because the mechanism for commenting is not available on any page that contains more than one post. Comment boxes are available only on pages that contain only a single. So click here, scroll to the bottom of the resulting single-post page, and submit your comment.
John Boehner’s Priorities
October 15, 2013 at 8:46 pm | Posted in Abuse of Office, Disinformation, Dysfunctional Politics, Fairness | 1 CommentTags: debt limit, dysfunctional government, Federal government shut down, John Boehner, Ohio, partisan, Republican, Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, unfair
Official portrait of United States House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), turned upside-down.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives determines which bills are brought to a vote.
The Speaker is therefore supposed to serve the entire House, not just his own party.
In that respect, the Speaker’s responsibility is like that of the President: to act in the interest of the whole country.
John Boehner does not so act.
The present crisis would have been averted if Boehner had brought to vote a bill that had substantial support, and which would have resolved the present stalemate in a prudent, pragmatic fashion.
He refused to do, and lied about his reason. He claimed that the bill didn’t have enough votes to pass, while knowing knew full well that the Democrats together with 18 to 21 Republicans were willing to vote for the bill, and would have been enough to assure the bill’s passage.
He carefully did not state his real reasons:
(1) Despite serving the country’s interest, that manner of passage would have emphasized the Democrats constructive role, and also the fissure between the doctrinaire wing of the Republicans and the pragmatic (and more patriotic) Republicans, who wanted the government be useful,
(2) Boehner’s own vow – not sanctioned by the Constitution, nor by any principle of useful government – to not bring to a vote any bill that would not pass by Republican votes alone,
(3) bringing those bills to a vote would aggravate the pee party, which might challenge him in the next Republican primaries.
His choices reveal his priorities.
Boehner’s priorities are, starting with his highest:
1. John Boehner’s political future.
2. The Republican Party.
3. The United States.
John Boehner doesn’t have a statesmanlike bone in his body.
At the next election, remember: Ohio and the United States would both be better off without him.
If you wish to comment on this post but do not see a box where you can submit a comment, that is because WordPress includes the mechanism for commenting only on the page for the individual posting, never on the page that shows all of the recent postings. So click here, scroll to the bottom of the post, and submit your comment.
‘I Voted’ emblem
Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.
thepoliblog 
