There are a lot of political issues that the Church takes on.
Fine, most of the Church’s efforts revolve around reproductive rights and civil liberties.
But here’s one that the Church should take on: Campaign finance reform.
Please direct your attention to the map below:
This map, published in “Super PAC Hate-Spending” by Dave Johnson on Slate, dramatically shows how much money is being spent, not by the candidates themselves, but by the nebulous “super political action committees” against other opponents. (Click on the link to see the interactive map.)
The second paragraph in the box reads:
Besides fueling a more divisive political climate, Super PAC spending reveals how the US elections are being dominated by the funding of the super rich, making the overall political process less about free speech and more about hate speech.
The amount of money spent on political advertising is unethical, immoral and against the Church’s directive to care for the poor, the helpless and the marginalized.
It’s not completely fair to simply “you could have done this for that amount of money,” but which outlay is more valuable?
Restore Our Future, Inc. spent $5,441 in New Hampshire running attack ads against Newt Gingrich.
An organization like charity: water can give 272 people fresh, clean water for $5,440.
As three year-old Burner the Younger likes to say through clenched teeth, “This. Is. Redickoowus.”
The absolute waste of money donated through Super PACs, campaign contributions and the like has simply got to stop. The U.S. Government already gives $85 million to qualified candidates for campaigning. After the Super Bowl, the Oscars and Dancing with the American Idol Mad Men finales, what do Americans care about more than the presidential election?
It shouldn’t cost $5.3 billion as it did in 2008.
It’s time for the Church to step up, call our leaders to account for their fundraising and put a stop to this unconscionable fiscal behavior.
Tags: Burner the Younger, campaign finance reform, politics
You raise a good point — how much is enough? Are all donations to political campaigns immoral, or just above a certain amount? At what amount? Does it depend on the campaign, the donor, the issue? Is it a percentage or flat amount? Is a donation that an individual makes to a Super PAC less moral than a donation directly to the candidate?
I’d love to get yours and others perspectives on these.
Thanks, David.
I think that it depends–for example, is it immoral to buy an expensive suit?
If that expensive suit is helping me lord my power or prestige over others, then yes.
If that expensive suit helps me get a job at HWO or some global philanthropic foundation, then probably not.
If that expensive suit just makes me feel good about myself, then…I don’t know.
How much of our money goes towards a candidate we can really believe in? How much gets used towards supporting someone we really believe can make a change for the better?
It depends.
But I don’t think Super PACs are out to promote the candidates they believe will benefit everyone. I think they’re out to promote their own self-serving interests.
funny – I look at the numbers and argue for the opposite of the post title! I’m cynical about finance reform in politics and general spending in government, so I’d say that, given the outrageous lunacy of these numbers, the church should NOT get involved in politics but, instead, model, encourage, and invite a more healthy, thoughtful, and sane way of approaching the world.
That’s what you get when you combine cynicism and anabaptist leanings, I suppose!
Isolationist.