February 26th, 2012
Inspired by GOP proposals to “solve” the super PAC problem.
Aren’t Republican politicians
Supposed to like traditions?
On social and family issues, they pretend to be traditional,
But when it comes to the public interest, their vows are more… conditional.
Since Citizens United, Republicans increasingly stray from what they vowed,
And the way they want “solve” this problem is by changing what’s allowed.
So they can consort without restriction with the special interests they curry.
They’ve already moved in with their super PAC mistresses and out of the family home,
And now seek to retroactively rewrite their vows so that it’s OK to continuously roam.
I think we should stick to the traditional vow of loyalty to the public interest and no other,
Rather than continue to allow adulterous dalliances that the public interest smother.
So unless the GOP wants to formally become the party of the political lout,
We really need to find real ways to get the money out.
Elected officials take the oath of office and pledge their loyalty to the country, the people, and the public interest. Then, they stray.
Republicans have always had affairs once in office, both sexual and political. But the political affairs have become more widespread, bigger, and more blatant since Citizens United. The importance of the “other campaign” has grown so much that it’s now the candidate’s primary relationship. It’s as if the philanderer has moved out of the family home and is now living with his super PAC mistresses and the interests they represent, while still professing his devotion to the people he’s pledged to represent.
Democrats too have the occasional political affair, though not as often, as torrid, or as blatant as Republicans. And Democrats seem more willing to recognize the error of their ways and reform: they want to get rid of the super PACs on both sides (i.e., stop seeing other people) and renew their political marriage vows.
Republicans also say they want to “get rid of” the super PACs, but the way they’d do that is not to cut off relations with super PACs and their unlimited funders, renew their vows to the public interest, and return to the fold of traditionally financed campaigns. No, they propose to “solve” the super PAC problem by eliminating all campaign funding restrictions and allow super PAC interests to contribute directly to candidates.
In other words, Republicans propose to eliminate political adultery… by changing the marriage laws to turn all marriage into open marriage.
I’m not surprised that Newt Gingrich would have a view like this, given his personal commitment to open marriage (in a perverse way, I guess it’s nice that his personal views are consistent with his political ones). Ron Paul, of course, dislikes laws of any kind and would eliminate all campaign finance restrictions, implementing the political equivalent of a free love commune. And Mitt Romney, though he’s renounced marital polygamy, is apparently still OK with political polygamy (after all, corporations are people, so corporate super PACs are people too).
But Rick Santorum? Rick, I would have thought your traditional marriage views and populist tendencies would have carried over to the political arena. But maybe this is another example of departing from your principles for the team. But at least you seem to be limiting yourself to one super-rich giant donor, which I guess is kind of political monogamy.
I guess Republican men will be Republican men.
Tags: 2012 election, Campaign finance, Democracy, Elections, hypocrisy, Lobbyists, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Republicans, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Scandals, Sex scandals
Posted in Republicans | No Comments »