Bloomberg: Ban Campaign Contributions by Businesses
---
Michael Bloomberg, who spent $160 million of his own money to buy two terms as Mayor of New York, now thinks that -- gasp! -- there is too much money in election campaigns.
Is there a single person on the planet who has less moral sanction to invoke the flaws of campaign finance than Michael Bloomberg? Is there a blacker pot to be going around lecturing the kettles?
Money is speech, and speech is protected by the First Amendment. To the extent that our campaign finance laws, or the Supreme Court, or Michael Bloomberg, say otherwise, they are wrong.
Period. End of story.
If our philosopher-king mayor is so concerned about corruption in government, then perhaps he should focus on, um, government. On what the government does and who does it.
If the City of New York, with its $55 billion annual budget and 350,000 employees didn't go around buying so much and building so much and generally doing so much, then no one would be chasing any government contracts. There would be no need to worry about conflicts of interest, because there would be no conflicts of interest. There would be no need to call for limits or bans on campaign contributions, because no one would be making any campaign contributions, at least not out of any ulterior motives.
Period. End of story.
Only a politician could dare suggest that the problem of political corruption has nothing to do with politicians. Only a self-loathing ex-businessman could dare suggest that businessmen deserve to be loathed.
Period. End of story.
Firms that do business with the city and also make political contributions are engaged in "bribery or graft," Mayor Bloomberg said yesterday.Oh my goodness.
...
Taking off from there, the mayor went on to decry the campaign-finance system he says invites corruption for allowing city vendors to try to influence the government by making hefty campaign contributions.
"If you've got business before the city, state or federal government, you shouldn't be giving to elected officials. Period. End of story."
Is there a single person on the planet who has less moral sanction to invoke the flaws of campaign finance than Michael Bloomberg? Is there a blacker pot to be going around lecturing the kettles?
Money is speech, and speech is protected by the First Amendment. To the extent that our campaign finance laws, or the Supreme Court, or Michael Bloomberg, say otherwise, they are wrong.
Period. End of story.
If our philosopher-king mayor is so concerned about corruption in government, then perhaps he should focus on, um, government. On what the government does and who does it.
If the City of New York, with its $55 billion annual budget and 350,000 employees didn't go around buying so much and building so much and generally doing so much, then no one would be chasing any government contracts. There would be no need to worry about conflicts of interest, because there would be no conflicts of interest. There would be no need to call for limits or bans on campaign contributions, because no one would be making any campaign contributions, at least not out of any ulterior motives.
Period. End of story.
Only a politician could dare suggest that the problem of political corruption has nothing to do with politicians. Only a self-loathing ex-businessman could dare suggest that businessmen deserve to be loathed.
Period. End of story.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- It's Called What?
- Bloomberg: Ban Campaign Contributions by Businesses
- Still Think Bloomberg's Not a "Typical Politician"?...
- More Election-Year Shenanigans in NYC
- A Different Kind of Water Torture
- Anybody But Bloomberg: "Be Glad We Don't Take It All"
Posted by Kip on
26 August 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
