Boy What A Difference A Decade Makes.

Do you know what a 527 is? How about a 501? Maybe a 501(C), or a 501(C)(4), (5), (6)? Well why not? I know, but only because I just read an article about them. No actually I knew about 501(C) (4)s, and if I knew about the others I'd forgotten. Anyway, 527s are or were social welfare organizations that could get donations without disclosing who donated what and then turn around and run attack ads against candidates for political office. Sound familiar? Back in 2000, the congress, lead by John McCain and other Republicans, pushed to stop them from doing that, unless they disclosed their donors. Democrats were against it. But it became law. What they forgot to do at the time was to do the same for 501(C)(4)s which are now doing the same thing, since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Well now some in congress are trying to outlaw the 501(C)(4)s from this same practice. The only difference that I can see is that now, the Democrats are championing the cause and the Republicans are against it. Just the exact opposite as in 2000. Amazing how people change in such a short time, isn't it? How come if it was the wrong thing back then it's the right thing now, or how come if it was the right thing back then, it's the wrong thing now? Ya know what I think? I think it's an opportunity for one side to be against anything the other side wants to do. And a second opportunity to be just as obstinate. It's not that I fault congress back in 2000 for missing an opportunity, because that seems to be what they do best. No, it's that they are so willing to change sides so easily. Do they get up in the morning and have to check to see which side they're supposed to be on today? Or do they have to wait until they get to work to find out? Or do they wait to see what the other side does? My guess? I don't think they know what they're doing. But here's what I do know. Attack ads don't help the political process. They make it harder to decide. But then, that's what they're designed to do.