It's been awhile

Well it's been quite awhile since I have actually "rambled along" here, so here goes a little wandering of my mind to get things started again. I won't bore you with details of my personal life, at the moment, so I will save that for later! I do, however, want to make a few comments about things going on in the world from my perspective.

At the bowling alley every Tuesday where I toss a 16lb. ball down a 60 foot long, oil-coated, hardwood lane towards ten 3lb. and 6oz. wooden pins arranged in a triangular pattern in an attempt to knock down as many of those pins as possible with the fewest number of throws, they have a few television sets above the lanes with various channels on. (Hows that for rambling?) Usually these boxes are all tuned to various sporting events of some sort which are littered with beer commercials or the like. This was not the case last night. I was attempting, unsuccessfully, to help my team win for the evening, and between my throws, I would glance up at the screen above our lane to take my mind off of my poor ability to improve our team's score. Almost every single time I looked, I saw a political advertisement for or against some candidate. There was no sporting events on any of the screens, as a matter of fact I couldn't tell you what program was showing.  It seemed as if the political ads were the sporting event, littered occasionally with some news or other miscellaneous stuff, and as far as I know politics isn't very sporting, so I was quite amused by that fact. 

I hope you know that it is getting VERY close to the mid-term elections, as they are happening in just 6 days (Nov. 2nd).  These kinds of advertisements this close to any election is not much of a surprise. However, what I noticed, and have been noticing for the last few weeks, is that there seems to be an inordinately large number of political advertisements this year, which seems at odds with the expected turn out of the election being held.

Data from table comes from the US Census, Current Population Surveys, 1 November 1972-2008, as sited by CIRCLE (The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement)

Mid-term elections traditionally have a lower turnout than the presidential elections, but to it seems that the advertisement level is not in sync with the expected turnout percentage.  I hear more ads on the radio, see more on the TV, and pass more yard signs and billboards than I did for the last presidential election, however, I did notice there seem to be considerably less bumper stickers though.

About half way through the evening, which is the middle of the second of three games, I voiced this observation to one of my teammates. He surprised me by his response. He immediately grimaced and went into a tirade about how these extra advertisements are the result of the foreign money and corporations trying to "sway the election".  He mentioned that the Supreme Court changed the rules allowing corporations (and foreign countries) to throw tons of money into elections without restriction.

Yes, there was a ruling in January, 2010 that overturned parts of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, however, it didn't give the corporations or foreign entities the right to donate unlimited amount of money directly to a campaign. The ruling does in fact allow corporations to express their opinion about candidates and topics publicly before an election. In other-words return a freedom, one granted in the first amendment of our constitution: The Right of Free Speech to all people, not just "nonprofits" or "PACs". If we treat corporations as public entities (just like individuals) and tax them, then they should have the same right to express their opinions as do individuals. Of course, no one is obligated to agree or even listen even if they have more money, and can express their point of view to a broader audience than the average individual. The change in the ruling still requires that the corporations add the necessary disclaimers of where the money is coming from, so people can judge the ad based not only on content, but it's source.

I personally think this new ruling is good, not because the corporations have money and have a bigger voice, but because now the corporation's opinions/thoughts are public and not hidden behind "close doors".  As a voter, I can choose to agree/disagree with their public statements, and to choose to use that information or not for deciding on a candidate. As a consumer, I can also use this same information to decide if I want to continue vote daily for that corporation by deciding on where I spend my money or not.

I have to disagree with my teammate though, because I do not think this ruling is what caused the inordinate amount of extra advertisements this year (although I admit I could be wrong), because most of the ads that I am seeing/hearing are not from corporations. The advertisements claim to be from the same nonprofit organizations that we saw the previous election, and from the candidates themselves. I think the driving force behind the extra advertisements is the grass roots response of the population to the massive "change" in how the government is affecting our day to day lives. I think a lot of people are not pleased with the "change" because it's not the change they wanted from the last election. This has sparked a debate between two sides, not necessarily between political parties. The two sides are those that support the new change and those that don't. Those that do not support the change, believe that the established politicians are not listening to their own constituents, which in turn has caused the outcry of "down with the establishment". Gee, not to look for parallels in the past, but that outcry sounds like the underpinnings of the revolt from England in the late 1700's. The same underpinnings that spurred people to take action in 1773 against the establishment by throwing tea overboard in Boston. The people of that time used that event to focus the attention of the people and of the establishment to the discontent of the colonies. Today people use the name "Tea Party" to signify that same level of discontent, but instead of throwing tea overboard in the middle of the night, people have held public gatherings in the middle of the day for the last 2 years. As we get closer to the election, the debate that has been held in courtyards and conference halls across the country has moved to public advertising, and it continues with the same level of veracity from both sides, which is what I think causes the inordinately large number of ads.

Those that follow the political world, have most likely already made their decisions about who they will cast their vote for on Tuesday. Those that do not follow that world, will either not even realize that there is an election, or will vote out of habit, the same way they have voted in the past (straight party line).  Even though the debate isn't over until election day, this last ditch effort by various entities (including corporations) to affect the decisions of those voting next week is being ignored.  So this concern my teammate had about the affect that this ruling would have on this election have been overshadowed by the debate caused by the grass roots movement.

Even though, I don't think the extra money spent on these ads is having any effect on the results of the election, money IS being spent, and in our current economy, people and corporations spending money is a good thing! Right?