There is a very common fallacy sometimes called the
Free Parking Fallacy. I call it the
Designated Hitter (DH) Fallacy. Before the Aussies here complain they can't possibly understand anything about baseball, all you need to know for our purpose here is in the next paragraph.
Some baseball leagues vote whether to adopt a "DH" rule. Suppose some team owners or managers dislike the rule and vote against it. But they're in a minority and the DH rule is adopted. A team is allowed to ignore the DH rule and operate without it, but they will be at a disadvantage when playing against teams which exploit the DH rule.
Is it hypocritical for a team that opposed the DH rule to exploit it once adopted?
No. Is it improper or immoral for a team that opposed the DH rule to exploit it?
No.
The DH Fallacy is frequently made in political discussions. For example, Warren Buffett pays taxes at a net 20% rate and is on record stating his opinion that it would be better public policy for high-income earners like himself to pay 35%. Right-wingers despise this sort of talk and call Mr. Buffett a hypocrite because he doesn't voluntarily donate that extra 15%. Should Buffett pay the higher rate he has proposed, despite that the actual tax tables don't call for it?
No. Is he under some "moral obligation" to do so?
No.
Repubs would have no interest at all in that solution, and would call it an attack on free speech (because dollars equal speech, so if you have no spare cash, we can't hear you.) We would need a strong Democrat imprint on at least legislative and executive to pull that off, and then there'd be the Roberts Court to steer around. Nice to theorize about, though.
You really believe that the Democrats are unaffected by all the big money they get? And that they are truly interested in any reforms that would stop those rivers of money?
Wrong again. With exceptions
it is mostly Democrats who support campaign finance reform, and
Republicans who oppose it. It wasn't so long ago that U.S. Presidential campaigns were
government financed. Candidates who used non-government money for their campaign were denied the large government campaign subsidies. With the emergence of PACs, the restriction became harder to enforce; and with the
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision issued by a Court packed by Republicans, the government financing became obsolescent.
[In 2000] Republican George W. Bush became the first major party candidate to opt out of the public financing system during the primaries.
Many politicians are motivated by the opportunity for public service and are unhappy with the time and effort that they must spend on fund-raising in the American system.
If the Democrats wish to appear virtuous they could refuse all such donations. Make a principled stand. But you, like me, will not hold your breath to see it happen. And do not give me the nonsense that "we can't do it because the other mob won't".
Oh my. Go back and re-read the comments about the
Designated Hitter Fallacy. Can you get the correct answers without clicking on the spoilers?
www.cbsnews.com
apnews.com
dailymontanan.com
