Sunday, January 31, 2010

The Definition of Corruption

I heartily agree with Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres in "A Hatch Act reply to the high court, (Tuesday, 26 January, 2010 in the Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012502970.html), that all corporations or entities, especially the very large ones, should have to make a choice between receiving money from the federal government and endorsing candidates. Like all Democrats they are outraged by the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the First Amendment and give due deference to Freedom of Speech.
Their solution is to disallow any federal contractor from contributing to political campaigns., and they specifically mention defense contractors, believing that would cut down on money for Republicans. I agree with that, but I would broaden it to any federal payout. If an entity gets a subsidy, whether for a service or a good or not, it should not then be able to turn around and subsidize the person or persons who decided to give them the subsidy in the first place. This is the very definition of political corruption.
Not long after the 1994 political revolution, Newt Gingrich proposed just that, but the proposal did not last through the day. In the lead with the hatchet was AARP; and interested parties included Planned Parenthood, La Raza, ACORN, the NRA et al. There isn't a substantive difference between a company that builds and maintains an airport for the benefit of one politician and 10 of his friends, the company that supplies replacement toilets for the Army, and the group that uses federal money to locate AIDS patients among illegal itinerant workers. Whether the business is for or not for profit, they are all in the business of generating income and they all get their opportunity to do this from the American taxpayer. But, the taxpayer only has the privilege of paying, never of deciding who gets the cash.
So, yes, Mrs. Pelosi, who promised the most transparent and honest government four years ago and who has delivered just the opposite, here's your chance to produce as promised. Follow the advice of these two Yale lawyers, and ban all contributions to members of Congress from entities receiving federal subsidies. Indeed!

Thursday, January 21, 2010

The First Massachusetts Republican Senator

The first Republican Senator from Massachusetts was Charles Sumner who held the seat from 1851 until his death in 1874. Sumner was first elected as a Democrat, but he was a fervent Abolitionist. He was instrumental in organizing the Republican Party and in the election of Abraham Lincoln.
In 1856 Charles Sumner, not known for rhetorical restraint, delivered a speech in the Senate that was full of invective. Two days later he was attacked by the nephew of the South Carolina Senator that Sumner had singled for particular scorn. It took Sumner nearly three years to recover, but the beating did nothing to dim his passion for abolishing slavery in the United States.
Shortly before his death he wrote a bill that would outlaw discrimination in public accommodations, but he died before it passed. His bill became known as the 1875 Civil Rights Act and though it was struck down by the Supreme Court, the Republican Charles Sumner’s bill would be re-born 89 years later as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
During a speech in the campaign of 1860 Charles Sumner said, "If ever there was a moment when every faculty should be bent to the service, and all invigorated by an inspiring zeal, it is now, while the battle between Civilization and Barbarism is still undecided. Happily, a political party is at hand whose purpose is to combine and direct all generous energies for the salvation of the country. The work must be done, and there is no other organization by which it can be done. A party with such an origin and such a necessity cannot be for a day, or for this election only.
If bad men conspire for slavery, good men must combine for freedom. And when this triumph is won, securing the immediate object of our organization, the Republican Party will not die, but, purified by long contest with slavery, and filled with higher life, it will be lifted to yet other efforts for the good of man.
Others may dwell on the past as secure; but to my mind, under the laws of a beneficent God, the future also is secure, on the single condition that we press forward in the work with heart and soul, forgetting self, turning from all temptations of the hour, and, intent only on the cause."

This certainly has echoes for the present. While we are not looking at slavery per se, it is evident that were the many provisions on Obama’s agenda being pushed by the far left in this country to be enacted, the individual freedom of Americans would be greatly curtailed. And, more important, the security and prosperity of future generations would be all but erased.
Scott Brown, the new Senator from Massachusetts, has captured the imagination and support of Republicans and Independents from across the country simply because he enunciated the concerns of the majority as well as their desire for common sense and private sector solutions to the nation’s dilemmas. Brown took Obama’s promises during the 2008 campaign and in effect committed the Republican Party to carrying out those promises on behalf of the American people.


Sources: Michael Zak: grand_old_partisan@hotmail.com, Columbia Encyclopedia