I'm 16 years old. Who takes me seriously, when I speak politically? any wild guesses? here's a hint: nobody. I can't vote yet, so obviously that means I don't think yet. duh. I just feel like there really isn't anything I can do. I hate being young. well, you know what I mean.
** Google There are many things you can do to become involved in the political arena, voting is just one of them. You will find that nearly all political parties or groups will welcome you with arms spread wide they are always in need of help. You could try the greens or the Young Democratic Socialists - http://www.gp.org/ http://www.ydsusa.org/ Or one of the many anti-war or political pressure groups around the US. But I don’t know your political tastes so it might be best to get on the web and have a look. ** If you want to talk politics here just fire away but be warned politics is very important to many people and that means they can get very emotional (and even mean). There will be those who will dismiss what you say because of your age but ignore them if you have an opinion and think it can be rationally backed up your age is of absolutely no relevance. ** Good Luck Balbus
^^ i somewhat agree, it is like this, but it doesn't have to be. If more people really cared and got involved, rather than be led around by others, there might be politicians worth voting for. We need more grassroots activism, and a lot of it, to get these "leaders" to actually pay attention.
Leaders who "pay attention" to their actual electorates will be achieved once all corporate financing and thereby the astronomical costs of running for office are eliminated from the system. This will only be achieved once the long established nomenclature of corporations as "persons" is overturned and their position opposite society restored to that which it was from the inception of the very concept of "the corporation". As things stand, K Street has more influence over the decisionmaking process than any amount of civic pressure.
Most political parties (at least the Democrats, Republicans, Greens, and Libertarians) and political activist groups will accept members who are under 18. I joined the Democratic Party when I was 16, and even though I couldn't vote I was able to work on the campaigns of local candidates.
Limiting freedom of speech? No, corporations are legal constructs not "people" and thereby are not extended Constitutional protections intended for "citizens" of our nation. As it is, it is the corporations themselves who "limit freedom of speech" by amassing control of our supposedly "free" press and media and dictating what may or may be not be told to the public. And reverting back to my previous post, its also the corporations which ensure a system so controlled by and for purely elite big money interests that any bid for office by those not endorse and financed by those same interests is doomed to fail for lack of nationwide exposure. There's classic demonstration of your limiting of freedom of speech. Try again pal, your indoctrination is showing.
What if it's not a corporation, and just a really rich individual who is donating lots of money to a campaign? Would you then agree that he's entitled to do so under our rights to freedom of speech? Really, why should there be a legal difference between standing on the street corner with a "Vote for Whoever" sign, and airing lots of commercials with exactly the same message?
If there is ever to be true campaign reform and an end to big money corruption then big money must be removed from the equation altogether. Why do you suggest that the really rich should have any more say in the process than the poorest in our nation, Kandahar? I should think the difference between nationwide exposure in every living room and a sandwich board on a street corner should be obvious if you bother using whatever intellect you claim to possess.
I'm not saying that they should, but one of the results of having money is the ability buy things. Campaign finance reform will never change that because there are too many loopholes, such as 527s, tax-exempt charities or churches that strongly push their views, "issue advertising", etc. However, it WILL take away the right to freedom of speech from people who just want to support a candidate without using these loopholes. They're fundamentally the same thing...individuals using whatever method they can to get as much exposure for their cause or candidate as possible. The only real difference is the AMOUNT of exposure. Should we also differentiate between standing on a busy street corner with a sign, and standing on a residential street corner with a sign? Should I be allowed to pay other people to stand on street corners with signs? What about political bloggers who can afford to buy lots of advertising, to get their blogs lots of traffic? Should they be forced to stop trying to bring traffic to their website during campaign season? What if someone wanted to start a newspaper devoted specifically to electing a certain candidate? There are simply too many different ways of expressing one's political views to legislate against them all, and often these methods of expression require money. Like it or not, no amount of campaign finance reform is going to allow the poor to have an equal voice with Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch.
Wouldn't it make a ton of sense to just bar profiting organizations from sponsoring political causes? It would go far in eliminating alot of the political corruption we have today. Like lickHERish said, a corporation is not a person. A corporate entity, 99.9 times out of a hundred, acts in corporate interest anyway - that is it's purpose. It will spend money on a candidate whose proposed policy stands to make them more money, and in doing so, kind of hijack the people's election. I'm all for freedom of speech of each human being, and groups of humans too, when their organization recieves no profits. But a corporation's place is to sell products and services within the confines of rules that exist to protect the people. It is NOT their place to circumvent these rules with massive amounts of money. A CEO might as well walk into congress and hand out $1000 to each representative who is about to vote on an issue that will effect his company. Essentially, bribery.
There's just too much gray area regarding what is a "profiting organization" and what is a "political cause." For example, if my friends and I held a bake sale specifically to raise money for the Democratic Party, would we be a "profiting organization"? What if Microsoft wanted to donate huge sums of money to the NRA, or Coca-Cola wanted to donate huge sums of money to the NAACP? Do those count as "political causes"? I don't think there's any way to keep money out of political campaigns. If you outlaw one kind of campaigning, another will spring up to take its place.
