Re: OT:Tobacco Tax

[Guest guest]

American campaign financing has been looked at by the SCOTUS and declared to be free speech and not subject to restraining regulation.  Historically, those with the most money get to use it to promote their own interests, regardless of the health, or morality or societal fairness of those interests.  Those who have money to spend in their own interests have traditionally been those with money; those without resources don't have representation other than from those with social consciousness and money.  Republicans have represented the moneyed interests; Dems have tried to represent the majority of citizens who do not have money to spend on campaigns.  Republicans in recent history generally have been able to raise more money for their interests than Dems.Obama, for the first time in contemporary history, has been able to change this outcome.  By refusing to accept taxpayer campaign funding, he has been able to out-raise the Repubs with a successful populist effort.  According to Open Secrets, he was able to raise $750 million, more than any other politician in history.  But, remarkably, 89% of that raised came from individual donors; none from PACs, self-funding or Federal funds.  A truly populist effort.Elections are bought.  That's the American way.  The Rs have done very well in this game.  Now the Ds, with the enabling power of the internet, have been able to turn the advantage to those less economically fortunate.  The history of private interests versus public interest is best viewed in toto, rather than from a reductionist's POV. Sears, DCNW PDX On Dec 7, 2008, at 10:21 PM, rongrice01 wrote:Dr. Desiena. You said "Tobacco should not be a Republican or a Democratic issue". Fine, then quit making it one and look at your facts first. According to OpenSecrets.org, in 2008 the ratio of Tobacco lobbying money was $1,213,724 for Democrats and $1,843,908 for Republicans, hardly 15%-85%. Also your death rates are way off according to the CDC, where they estimate 450,000 tobacco related deaths per year, rather than your stated 5 million.I don't want to get in a pissing match with anyone, but if you were to place this same logic on the Automobile industry, we would find that the majority of the autoworker's special interest lobbying money goes to Democrats, a reported $70 million spent in 2008 alone. Again, according to OpenSecrets.org, this is given at a ratio of over 6:1 to Democrats. Would you then place the blame of automobile deaths on the Democrats and their addiction to autoworker union money? I didn't think so.I don't defend tobacco companies, I grew up with a smoking parent and hated it. I don't like having to deal with this even today. However; people smoke voluntarily in the same way that people get into cars and drive, voluntarily. We could make the same argument about protecting children from riding in cars as we do for second hand smoke. Neither are really done by their choice, but we don't make a stink about keeping them out of cars. Taking one issue and placing the public risk produced by one industry upon one party is not intellectually honest. It furthers the disdain each party has toward the other, and it doesn't further any real solution for the risk being discussed, and stagnates any real progress in Congress. In much the same way Regan's campaign of "Just Say No" made great strides in the reduction of youth drug use in the 1980's, smoking cessation education is making great strides today. If we could stop the glamorization of smoking in movies and tv programs, we would greatly reduce the number of young smokers. That is only one solution, and there are undoubtedly more that would work. As I said in my previous post, if you live in a glass house, you really shouldn't cast stones. Grice, DCAlbany, OR