What I also find troubling about the Sadow article is that not just that he doesn’t understand the context in which David Ehrenstein uses the term (or worse, he does understand it and uses the term in a way that Ehrenstein did not mean). I also have a problem with his continued pushing of the so called “white guilt” that Ehrenstein also brings up (but again, Sadow takes out of context).

See, Ehrenstein uses the “white guilt” theory to define what the “Magic Negro” has been in our culture. Sadow uses the term to try and explain away why white people will specifically vote for Obama. To me, whenever people use the term “white guilt” it is a disparagement that “conservatives” use to those of us white “liberals” who feel that racism is actually wrong and that it is our duty as HUMAN BEINGS to stand up for other people from other cultures when society gives them the short end of the stick. Unfortunately, the closed minded cannot remove their heads from certain orifices long enough to understand that. Their simplistic, and racist if I might add, view is that the only reason a white person would stand up and support a black person for anything is because of some guilt. That is what I personally find most offensive. If Obama is the Democratic nominee for president I will be voting for him for who he is and not what he is. It will not be done out of guilt, but because I will truly believe that he is the better person for the job.

Though I must add that in my disgust towards Sadow and his words in that article I also find some laughter and irony… that Sadow would quote a gay black man who is part jewish to “prove his point” is quite humorous. I wonder if he (the conservative who supports the gay hating embryo lover Jindal, who would use the “magic negro” term as so called “proof”) even knows.

I am glad you enjoy my blog though, so far I have enjoyed yours as well. Thanks for contributing, I hope you do more soon.

And his Thursday entry calls Obama the “magic negro,” which I found especially offensive coming from an academic.

I have quit commenting on his blog, opting instead to start my own, www.twongsgazette.blogspot.com . I weighed in on his last entry.

I enjoy your blog and have bookmarked it.

“Let’s think about the logic here — usng Jindal as an exmaple, there are many people he will have appointed who never gave him any.”

That does not disprove my statement. Even if 10% of the appointments are purchased, that still means that people are able to purchase them.

“Also, there will be those who gave the maximum that won’t get any appointment, even if that’s what they desired.”

What is the “maximum”, really, when corporations can contribute as well? The answer…. the only “maximum” campaign donation is the number of corporations you own.

“Therefore, we may conclude that money does not “buy” an office. So what’s the justification for limiting free speech here?”

You are using the false logic that just because something doesn’t happen all the time that it doesn’t happen at all.

“Again, use your head: do you seriously think $2,500 to a campaign by itself is going to convince a governor to do one thing or the other? “

No. But when people can circumvent campaign finance laws and funnel multiple “maximum donations” to a candidate, you will likely be able to purchase the influence.

“>Where in my argument did I make the claim that people only contribute to try and buy an office?

Reread your post, that’s what you did and that’s what the reference in the original posting was about.”

Actually, you need to re-read my post. I never made the assertion that the only reason to contribute is to buy an office. I made the assertion that SOME people do it, not all. Many people donate because they think that candidate is the best person for the job. And I clearly stated that those people would not have their right to free speech infringed in anyway.

“Sure, but as noted above that doesn’t mean they’re going to get it.”

“>The elimination of the ability of a person to purchase their way into a government appointment is quite compelling.

You can say that all you want, but the evidence is such you can’t prove it theoretically or empirically.”

Keeping it legal to give bribes for appointments continues the perception that Louisiana government is for sale. Isn’t that what Jindal is supposedly trying to solve?

“>Louisiana law allows corporate campaign contributions …

So what?”

My whole quote was “Louisiana law allows corporate campaign contributions. Federal law does not.” The point I was making was to show that limitations in campaign contributions exist and not to the detriment of candidates who have won.

“Logic check, again. Because one fails to get elected or not doesn’t mean being able to rely on own resources isn’t an advantage that in some cases can tip an election one way or the other. It’s not an either/or situation.”

John Georges, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot… how many wealthy people would have to run for office to show you that personal wealth is not all you crack it up to be in an election.

“At the state level, that is correct because that is an area of regulation (gambling, under the general police powers of the Constitution) left to the states (although the ability to do so does not mean that it is correct to do so, just as in the case of this bill). So what about all the citizens who are not enagged in a comemrcial activity regulated by the state who would be denied free speech rights under this bill? Still no compelling justification.”

I used the ban on contributions on casino owners to show that there are cases where the complete ban on campaign contributions from a certain class of people (casino owners) is not a violation of their free speech rights (according to the courts).

There are also other examples where people are banned from giving campaign contributions because of their employment. Take civil service for example. Civil servants are not allowed to take part in ANY political activity. They, like government appointments, do not have the “right” to that job. They choose to take the job, knowing that if they do so their political activities will be restricted. And as long as you go into the job knowing the rules, and you still go for the job, it is not an example of government stripping anyone of their free speech rights because they are choosing to do so of their own free will.

So what is the compelling interest to prevent people from getting political appointments who donated money to the campaign of the office holder? Well, one reason is that apparently the Governor believes employers funneling money through their employees is a big deal. So what is to stop the office holder from hiring people to a government position with the understanding that they will get paid $X more in salary than normal and they are expected to contribute that money back to his reelection campaign? Should the governor have the ability to funnel tax dollars to his reelection campaign? Yes or no.

“Your whole argument smacks of tossing the baby out with the bathwater.”

Well, if you use that analogy, you are acknoledging the bathwater needs to be tossed out.

“Just because some people think they can get a leg up on an appointive position in government doesn’t mean we have to take away the free speech rights of the vast majority of others.”

Wait a second. Who is saying that the free speech rights of the vast majority of others are being taken away with this legislation? If we tell people who want government appointments that they cannot contribute to the campaign of the person making the appointments, that has absolutely no effect on the vast majority of people who are not trying to get government appointments.

“There’s no compelling case for taking away these rights from individuals “

Sure there is. See the example I gave with the governor funneling tax dollars to his campaign (and the governors belief that employers funneling money to campaigns via their employees happens enough that a law needs to be written about that).

“and in the process transferring polticial power into the hands of those people and organizations with resources that would not be limited by such a law.”

Then we should deal with those other issues as well. We shouldn’t just allow people to bribe their way into government because other people can circumvent the law that would prevent such bribes. We should make it so people cannot circumvent the law.

The bottom line is this. People do not have the right to be employed by their government. Because of this, government has the authority make some restrictions on the political activities to both protect those employees from retribution for their political activities and to prevent people from using government employees to funnel tax dollars to their own campaigns.