Scholarly Article on Money and Democracy!

I chose to write my blog on the journal article “Building a democracy: People or corporations” by Marty Jezer and Randy Kehler. I found this journal article through the databases in the Texas A&M Universities library. I determined that the article was in fact a scholarly source by searching and locating the journal in the ULRICH’S Periodical Directory; the content type verified that it is an academic and scholarly source.

            The article “Building a democracy: People or corporations”, written by Marty Jezer and Randy Kehler puts a huge emphasis on the involvement of money in politics; and also examines how money has corrupted the democratic process and American values in a historical perspective.  Marty and Randy (2006), both articulates this message by stating,  “while the right to vote has been extended to all adult citizens regardless of race, creed, religion, sex, or economic status, the value of the vote has been deflated by the domination of the dollar” (2006, p. 57). The blatant truth in this statement is important to the authors overall agenda, in informing the readers to understand not only the present political atmosphere, but also the history of the relationship of politics and money within the United States. The author’s main topics within the article are the “History of Abuse”, the changes in legislation allowing for Super PAC’s and corporations to dictate the elections, and also the need for a “Grassroots Democracy Movement”.

            The author makes his argument that money in politics is corrupting the democratic system that was put in place by the Founding Fathers. This claim is supported by the author’s examination of American History and in particular the Compromise of 1877, Mark Hanna’s “free- wheeling” process of campaign funding in the McKinley and Bryan’s presidential campaign and also by describing politics of “the Gilded Age”. The author’s explanation of the needed grassroots democracy movement acts as the solution to the authors problems with our democratic system. The author lays out a list of alternative ways to promote equality among the individuals, and to take the vote back away from the corporations.

            Overall, this article is very informative and conveys and important message to the American people about the role of money in politics and how it can be detrimental to the democratic system, if we don’t change it soon. Even though this article was written in 1995, it still speaks true volume today, and is still applicable to the politics in 2012. The author made valid points and was very informative.

 

                                                                       Works Cited

Jezer, Marty, and Randy Kehler. "Building a democracy movement: People or corporations?" Social Policy. 26.1 (1995): 57-63. TAMU Library Database. Web. 23 Oct. 2012.

 

The Voice of the Corporations!

     In our bipartisanship style government, little is agreed upon, especially on Capitol Hill. However, one things is agreed upon on both sides (Republican and Democrat), Corporations are huge and powerful entities that influence politics and the flow of money within the United States on many levels! With knowing about the huge conglomerates and how much they influence political processes, “we the people” must ask how these corporations became so huge. How do they influence politics within our great Republic? Do the corporations have a bigger voice than the citizens? And one really interesting question that many politicians are asking, are corporations people?

     Well in respect to the first question “How did the corporations get so big”, we the people are somewhat to blame. In referencing Chapter 22 of Navigating America, “we as citizens grant [the] corporate giants their charter, and thus their right to exist”; we are responsible to giving these corporations the very powers that we as Americans sometimes suffer from. Corporations are comprised of people. Therefore, we the people support the money and political giants by investing in their stocks as stockholders, we support by working at corporations as employees and we also help corporations grow by buying and consuming their products. The combination of these consuming activities allows corporations to grow and flourish even in hard economic times.

     With a basic understanding of how we the people are essentially catalysts for the rapid and incredible growth of these elite corporations, we now can dissect the notion to whether corporations are actually people. In the United States Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision argued that the government is not allowed to put limitations on the amount of money corporations, unions labors, etc. are allowed to put into political campaigns; thus allowing the emergence of Super PACs. This recent controversial decision basically states, depending on your interpretation, is that corporations are people because the SCOTUS is protecting corporations right to abundantly supply money to political campaigns as “free speech”, a first amendment guarantee. These political powers granted to these wealthy corporations are the corporations “free reign” to control politics, which they are doing a mighty fine job doing. In America, money equals power, and a political figure without money is almost nonexistent.  The same goes for corporations.

     In our democracy that we live in today, corporations controls America and our freedoms. Its voice speaks louder than the individual citizens, but as stated in this blog, we give the corporations its powers and voice. Corporations are a great example of how money and politics are both fused together as one powerful entity in our American society.

                                                           Works Cited

"Are Corporations People?" Video Clip. 7 May,2012. YouTube. 16 October 2012.

Levs, Josh, and Bill Mears. "Supreme Court Refuses to Reconsider Campaign Finance Controversy." CNN Politics 26 June 2012, n. pag. Web. 16 Oct. 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/25/politics/scotus-campaign-finance/index.html>.

Money, Politics and Film!

     For my free response to film, I decided to discuss the film The Campaign with well-known actors Will Ferrell (Cam Brady) and Zach Galifianakis (Marty Huggins). I picked this film mainly because of its heavy involvement with my topic “money, biases and political power”! With campaigning currently in season I believe this is an appropriate pick! This is film would fall under the genre of comedy and pokes fun at the “American” political establishment.

     With Will Ferrell as the arrogant, sexually explicit and ignorant congressman from a small district in North Carolina, he engages in a political confrontation with a family- oriented, humble and feminine opponent, Marty. During the political campaign as the Republican nominee Marty Huggins and Democratic nominee Cam Brady fight each other in political debates and attack ads; the actors takes us on a journey to show the nature of ‘true’ politics in America with a comical spin!

     Money is one of the main motives in this film. The only reason why the “corrupt” businessmen try to convince Marty to run against Cam Brady in the elections is to do illegal business with Chinese workers. This was supposed to create great revenue in the city at the expense of the environment and the integrity of the community itself. Ultimately, the movie ends without the businessmen succeeding; however, the motive and the theme were evident throughout the whole entire film. Along with vicious campaign ads which are only possible due to money and lobbying, Marty’s lifestyle had to change also. Marty had to change the way he dressed, the interior decoration in his home and the car he drove all had to reflect his affluence.

     Money, Biases (Republican/ Democratic), and Political Power are all major themes throughout this film and is a comical hyperbole of our American political processes. With sexual content, vulgar language and comical genre; the directors for this film has targeted and sold its product to many Americans. The directors did an outstanding job with this comedy in my opinion. This film is a must see!

"The Campaign Official Trailer 2." Video Clip. 20 July, 2012. YouTube. 9 October 2012.

Rhetorical Analysis on Genres in Political Advertisements

With respect to the approaching presidential elections and in relation to my central media theme “money, biases and political power in the media”, I decided to center this week’s blog on analyzing the very first “Obama” political campaigning advertisement of 2012 in relation to genre.  This campaigning advertisement by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) falls under the genre of political, informational and depending on the measurement one’s sense of humor, comical. However, the ultimate genre used as a political weapon in this advertisement is satire. While analyzing this advertisement I noticed a variety of political and satirical tools used to attack Mr. Obama. The combination of these two genres are used, in my interpretation, to appeal to the voters who are not as interested in politics, politically savvy or just wants a good laugh. “Yes we can, yes we can, yes we can” are the words chanted by Obama supporters as the advertisement began to play. I believe it’s safe to say that the majority of Americans know that this is the slogan that the Obama campaign “coined” in 2008 during the campaign season. In respect to this opening scene, I believe the advertisement fueled by its political agenda, appealed to many television viewers and grabbed their attention. After the political advertisement grabbed the public’s attention with this melodious chant, it began to attack the Obama administration with the “hot” topics of his (Obama) term. Obama Care, The end of our dependence on American energy, Obama’s “many “vacation extravaganzas, the BP spill, the presidents NCAA bracket and the national deficit problem were all topics that the NRSC satirically poked fun at by describing each event as a hypocrisy of the Obama administration. At the end of the advertisement, Obama is shown riding a mystical unicorn with a rainbow trailing behind him; which in my view symbolizes how out of touch Obama is with reality. Therefore, appealing to the comical genre which is mentioned above. This political campaigning advertisement with a satirical genre shows Obamas views (from a partisan author) in a mocking rhetoric, which appeals to most Republicans.

“President Barack Obama’s First Ad of 2012” link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIA5aszzA18

“President Barack Obama’s First Ad of 2012.” Video Clip. 31 March, 2011. YouTube. 2 October 2012.