What is corruptible?Civic activist Ralph Nader has often talked about how Washington has become corporate occupied territory. This has been achieved primarily through the increasingly out of control influence of money on the electoral process. This has been aided and abetted by an unconscionable and irrational Supreme Court decision that unfathomably decreed that campaign contributions constituted 'speech' and that such bribes were thus unregulateable.
Yesterday, the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee voted 16-1 to recommend Hillary Clinton's nomination for Secretary of State to the full Senate.
The lone dissenter was Republican David Vitter. The Louisiana senator cited that fact that the global foundation founded by former Pres. Clinton to address ills in the developing world accepted donations from other countries' governments. Vitter, who, last year, found himself embroiled in a hooker sex scandal, lectured the rest of the committee on the risk of impropriety, or even the appearance of impropriety. I suppose he should know.
In other words, donating money to the non-profit foundation of a public official's spouse represents a disqualifying potential corrupting influence. But donating money directly a public official's campaign coffers is nothing more than a selfless gesture and unimpeachable "freedom of speech."
Labels: campaign financing