Now I'm Worried (Because I Agree With Palin)

Regular readers of this blog will know that I am no fan of the Wasilla quitter, Sarah Palin. As far as politicians go, Sarah Palin may be the dumbest and most incompetent of all (with the possible exception of Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry). And that's saying a lot considering all of the stupid and incompetent politicians (of both parties) that currently hold elective office -- both on the state and national level.

A couple of days ago Palin went back to Iowa and gave another one of her $100,000 speeches. As usual, most of it was garbage -- just another rant on how President Obama is ruining the country with his economic policies (ignoring the fact that most of those policies are Republican policies that he has caved in and agreed to).

But in that speech (choke-gasp-this is really hard to admit) she actually said one thing that not only made sense, but I agree with! I still find it hard to believe that I actually wrote that sentence, but it's true. Sarah Palin made a coherent and intelligent statement. She may take it back once she realizes what she's done, but it's on the record now. Here's what she said:

"To be fair some GOP candidates, they also raise mammoth amounts of cash and we need to ask them too, ‘What if anything do their donors expect in return for their investments?’ We need to know this because our country can’t afford more trillion-dollar thank-you notes to campaign backers."

And she's absolutely right about that. All of the major Republican candidates have formed a super-PAC, capable of allowing them to avoid the limits on campaign donations. These super-PACs are dedicated to only one thing -- getting their particular candidate elected. And there is no limit to the amount of money a person or corporation (or special interest group) can donate. Even worse, the donors to these super-PACs can keep their own identities a secret -- so the American public can never know who has donated huge sums to the candidate.

But while the public doesn't know who's donating the big money to a candidates campaign through these super-PACs, you can be sure the candidates know. And they know what those donors expect in return if the candidate gets elected -- even though it's done with "a wink and a nod" rather than a written agreement.

Campaign donation limits were passed to keep the rich or corporations & special interests from buying a candidate to do their bidding (whether in perception or in reality). It was an effort to keep candidates honest and independent, in the hope they would then do what was best for the country rather than what was best for their biggest contributors. It was a good idea, but the Supreme Court killed it.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs FEC decided that money was the same as speech, and restricting the amount of money a person or entity donated was restricting their free speech. Although it left in place the limits on donations directly to a candidate's campaign, the decision allowed the creation of these "independent" super-PACs -- and that gave the rich entities an easy way around donation limits. Once again, if you have enough money you can buy a candidate (and keep that fact secret).

So, although it still pains me to say it, Sarah Palin was right (about this one thing). But now I'm worried. Is the world coming to an end?

NOTE -- In the interest of fairness, I must report that President Obama also has one of these super-PACs.