When discussing the opportunities afforded him, as The Decider of who would fill Obama's vacated Senate seat, Rod Blagojevich reasoned: “I’ve got this thing and it’s fucking golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for fuckin’ nothing. I’m not gonna do it. And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there.”
What's so bad about using what you have to get what you want? Isn't that what the incoming Obama Administration is doing with the inauguration? Pay-to-play, right?
The term describes situations in which money is exchanged for services or the privilege to engage (play) in certain activities.
While House member Nancy Pelosi has introduced legislation prohibiting the re-sale of inauguration tickets, which were selling on the black market for tens of thousands of dollars. The tickets, which are meant to be free and distributed to the most deserving, present an obvious example of the incoming administration's permissive stance on pay-to-play politics. Coming from Illinois, perhaps such is the only sort of politics Mr. Obama knows.
It seems that, "Maximum $50,000 donors get up to four tickets to the swearing-in, the parade and one of several balls, among other festivities." If that's not pay-to-play, then what is?
The logic mirrors that of the former Illinois governor: “I’ve got this thing and it’s fucking golden [inauguration tickets, in this case], and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for fuckin’ nothing [but for $50,000, they're all yours]. I’m not gonna do it. And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there [to cement my relationship with donors, who cares if they're from securities and investment industries].”
Those big wigs donating their way to the inauguration aren't simply interested in a seat over the parade route or the chance to experience an historic event, but an opportunity to gain access to the incoming administration. Trading money for access is the epitome of pay-to-play politics and it appears that the new Obama Administration isn't above it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment