by Nathaniel Smith, Politics: A View from West Chester, 12/18/14
Upton Sinclair said in 1935:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
Do we need to know more to see why, in the age of Citizens United, the US Congress doesn’t want to understand anything scientific except the science of gerrymandering
So let’s update to:
“It is difficult to get Congress to understand global warming, when its reelection depends upon not understanding it!”
Jim Hightower asked, in “The Hightower Lowdown,” July 2014: “If the government says that money is speech, and more money can buy more speech, doesn’t that mean that speech is not free?”
That would be the Supreme Court, those nine immortals who are almost the most important branch of the government, because they can tell the other two branches what they can and cannot do, especially when those two have trouble coexisting on the tree.
Corporations run on the principle that the more shares you own, the more votes you cast. So by that reasoning the more money you have, the more votes you should have, right? Now there, Mr. Chief Justice, is an idea whose time is rapidly coming, if you and your friends choose to give it a push.
I didn’t even make that one up. See “Tom Perkins: People With More Money Should Get More Votes” by Jillian Berman, Huffington Post, 2/14/14. Here’s the gist of the controversial venture capitalist’s idea: “The Tom Perkins system is: You don’t get to vote unless you pay a dollar of taxes…. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes.”