Persephone Yavanna the Entwife (theentwife) wrote,
Persephone Yavanna the Entwife
theentwife

  • Mood:
  • Music:

My dominion's position on corporate political influence via advertising

I've been holding off on making decisions on various issues presented to my dominion's parliament. I don't like the available choices -- they're mostly very black & white, with little in the way of nuanced solutions to the question at hand. I may end up dismissing most of the current ones in order to receive some new "food for thought", although I would prefer not to go that route -- I just wish the choices were not so absolute . . .

In the meantime, I've decided to deal with the issue of political advertising in my country. It's an important real-world issue since cash can buy ads that can influence public opinion and hence election results.

The Issue

A well-heeled lobby group is pushing for the elimination of regulations that prevent corporations from donating money to political parties.

The Debate

1. "This is supposed to be a democratic country," Basket Weaving industry spokesperson Billy King says. "Yet these archaic laws say I can't donate money to support a political party. They put ceilings on the amount any party can spend on advertising. It's time to stop treating voters like children, and trust them to make up their own minds. Free the ballot box!"

2. "You say political freedom, I hear vote-buying," says popular anarchist Falala McGuffin. "If these fat cats get their way, politicians will buy their own seat in Congress. And let's face it, a slick advertising campaign can convince a lot of apathetic voters. We need to tighten the laws, not repeal them. Money should have no place in politics!"

3. "Frankly, I don't see why we need to have elections at all," says your brother, May Jones, over a late-night malt whiskey. "You always seem to know what's best. Why not scrap the whole political system? It would make things so much simpler."

While the third option is intensely tempting, I think I'll go with my instincts & choose option number one. It's the one that fits best with my rather libertarian ideals -- I think the second option could more easily lead to political corruption & under-handed methods of influence-peddling. I prefer to see the influence of money being out in the open, where all can see it & judge for themselves whether or not to succumb to it.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment