There are two news stories that caught our attention today amidst the latest presidential candidacy announcements (check out Pulse of America for those links).
A chilling effect on third parties?
We’re a little late coming to the first one, but a big thanks to GEA for posting it in the Shoutbox. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a Pennsylvania court ruling that requires Ralph Nader to pay $89,821 for costs incurred by Democrats who challenged his ballot access papers in the 2024 general election. (Read an AP article on the topic here.) While ballot access fraud is certainly a legitimate concern, this ruling could have a chilling affect on future third party ballot access efforts. Do you think this is an example of the two major parties using whatever means possible to shut out a third party?
Business as usual for the drug lobby?
The second is a Washington Post article on the prescription-drug legislation passed today in the U.S. House. It shows that no matter the party, or voting philosophy, if a corporation spends enough money, it can generate favorable outcomes on Capitol Hill. Unity08 doesn’t have a position on how to solve high healthcare costs for seniors, but we certainly take issue with the fact that lawmakers of any political affiliation will overtly change their position if corporate lobbyists spend enough money.
Use the comments below to let us know what you think.
