Campaign donations.

[Fugazi]

So if the EPA came up with the stupid idea that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, people and companies that produce and use fossil fuels might be interested in donating to politicians to stop the idiocy?

It should be people, not companies who decide. Companies deciding the fate of a country reeks to corporatocracy.

It should be people, not companies who decide.

Companies aren't made up of people? Owners, employees, customers who will all be damaged by this idiocy?

Every single employee of the company would get to vote, are you saying your company should decide how it's employees vote?

 

[Andylusion]

Should campaign donations have a low ceiling ( e.g. the minimum wage of a day per election) ?

My position follows :
A) Greed is the engine that makes capitalism move.
B) Most of the elements in the system are fueled by greed.
C) Politicians beneffit from large donations from persons and corporations
D) Politicians will want to keep the donations flowing as they recieve a beneffit from them.
E) From D, it follows large donnors and corporations will have a leverage on the policies dictated by the recipients of their donations.

... I somehow get the impression this line of though went unnoticed by the Supreme Court .

Share your thoughts.

A & B: By greed, do you mean self interest? Because everyone is inherently self interested. Greed, is not the driving engine, because people who are overly greedy, don't last long in a voluntary economic system.

C: Politicians benefit from all donations, large or small, from all people and all business.

D: Politicians always want to keep supporters happy.

E: If that's true, then why did GM's CEO and board of directors all lose their jobs, even though they spent millions in donations to the government?

Or Enron which donated millions? And there are dozens of examples.

VISA and Mastercard both donated millions on millions to government, and yet the CARD act was still passed.

Now do companies get favors for their donations? Sometimes for sure.
Do companies get some amount of influence at times? Of course.

But this idea that somehow policy is "Dictated" by donators.... no you are nuts.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Congrats!
The government turned a non-political corporation into a typical lobbying/donating corporation,
merely by threatening their corporate existence.
I guess when the government threatens you, you throw money at the politicians in self-defense.
If the government didn't have the power to decide that your OS was a danger, you'd have no reason to do that.
Tell me again how the size and power of government doesn't matter.

A & B: By greed, do you mean self interest? Because everyone is inherently self interested. Greed, is not the driving engine, because people who are overly greedy, don't last long in a voluntary economic system.

C: Politicians benefit from all donations, large or small, from all people and all business.

D: Politicians always want to keep supporters happy.

E: If that's true, then why did GM's CEO and board of directors all lose their jobs, even though they spent millions in donations to the government?

Or Enron which donated millions? And there are dozens of examples.

VISA and Mastercard both donated millions on millions to government, and yet the CARD act was still passed.

Now do companies get favors for their donations? Sometimes for sure.
Do companies get some amount of influence at times? Of course.

But this idea that somehow policy is "Dictated" by donators.... no you are nuts.

A,B . Ok , let's call it self interest.
C. Yea , well kind of , let's say that the big guys pack more punch.

"One sign of the reach of this elite “1% of the 1%”: Not a single member of the House or Senate elected last year won without financial assistance from this group. Money from the nation’s 31,385 biggest givers found its way into the coffers of every successful congressional candidate. And 84 percent of those elected in 2012 took more money from these 1% of the 1% donors than they did from all of their small donors (individuals who gave $200 or less) combined."

The Political 1 of the 1 in 2012 - Sunlight Foundation Blog

D. Yes, we agree they try to keep supporters happy, as well as their donnors.
E. Well, some companies just fail in spite of leverage.

Analysis Enron s Political Contributions - ABC News

"Political observers note the irony: The top recipients of Enron's money, including Attorney General John Ashcroft and Texas Attonrey General John Cornyn, are at pains to prove they haven't been influenced by the company's donations."
jaja.

Finally , I did not say policy was "dictated" I said :
"large donnors and corporations will have a leverage on the policies dictated by the recipients of their donations"
This may include bail outs , tax cuts, fiscal loopholes, and other legislative ammendments as well as posts in important positions in the government ( ever heard of the revolving door? ).

Revolving Door Summary Top Industries OpenSecrets

Now in spite of this overwheelming evidence you think the average citizen has the same amount of leverage,... man , what a laugh, you've just made my night !!

 

[Darkwind]

Sorry, but using a website or organization that is biased does not make any point other than they think X as opposed to what the rest of us think.

Any statistic on something so general as freedom or corruption will have a bias, because of all the variables that must be taken into account. Regardless, if you can find other source of information which confirms this countries are more corrupt or less free than the US in a notable way I will consider your viewpoint as valid.

The problem is, you are arguing that they are more free because government gives them things, when in fact, government(s) take, they do not give.

There is no valid comparison between countries on freedom unless each government was identical.

It is a worthless metric to use.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So if the EPA came up with the stupid idea that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, people and companies that produce and use fossil fuels might be interested in donating to politicians to stop the idiocy?

It should be people, not companies who decide. Companies deciding the fate of a country reeks to corporatocracy.

It should be people, not companies who decide.

Companies aren't made up of people? Owners, employees, customers who will all be damaged by this idiocy?

Every single employee of the company would get to vote, are you saying your company should decide how it's employees vote?

No.

 

[BluesLegend]

Should campaign donations have a low ceiling ( e.g. the minimum wage of a day per election) ?

My position follows :
A) Greed is the engine that makes capitalism move.
B) Most of the elements in the system are fueled by greed.
C) Politicians beneffit from large donations from persons and corporations
D) Politicians will want to keep the donations flowing as they recieve a beneffit from them.
E) From D, it follows large donnors and corporations will have a leverage on the policies dictated by the recipients of their donations.

... I somehow get the impression this line of though went unnoticed by the Supreme Court .

Share your thoughts.

So your position is stupidity? Get back to us when liberal politicians give up the taxpayer funded public employee union donations, talk about massive corruption.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Congrats!
The government turned a non-political corporation into a typical lobbying/donating corporation,
merely by threatening their corporate existence.
I guess when the government threatens you, you throw money at the politicians in self-defense.
If the government didn't have the power to decide that your OS was a danger, you'd have no reason to do that.
Tell me again how the size and power of government doesn't matter.

A & B: By greed, do you mean self interest? Because everyone is inherently self interested. Greed, is not the driving engine, because people who are overly greedy, don't last long in a voluntary economic system.

C: Politicians benefit from all donations, large or small, from all people and all business.

D: Politicians always want to keep supporters happy.

E: If that's true, then why did GM's CEO and board of directors all lose their jobs, even though they spent millions in donations to the government?

Or Enron which donated millions? And there are dozens of examples.

VISA and Mastercard both donated millions on millions to government, and yet the CARD act was still passed.

Now do companies get favors for their donations? Sometimes for sure.
Do companies get some amount of influence at times? Of course.

But this idea that somehow policy is "Dictated" by donators.... no you are nuts.

A,B . Ok , let's call it self interest.
C. Yea , well kind of , let's say that the big guys pack more punch.

"One sign of the reach of this elite “1% of the 1%”: Not a single member of the House or Senate elected last year won without financial assistance from this group. Money from the nation’s 31,385 biggest givers found its way into the coffers of every successful congressional candidate. And 84 percent of those elected in 2012 took more money from these 1% of the 1% donors than they did from all of their small donors (individuals who gave $200 or less) combined."

The Political 1 of the 1 in 2012 - Sunlight Foundation Blog

D. Yes, we agree they try to keep supporters happy, as well as their donnors.
E. Well, some companies just fail in spite of leverage.

Analysis Enron s Political Contributions - ABC News

"Political observers note the irony: The top recipients of Enron's money, including Attorney General John Ashcroft and Texas Attonrey General John Cornyn, are at pains to prove they haven't been influenced by the company's donations."
jaja.

Finally , I did not say policy was "dictated" I said :
"large donnors and corporations will have a leverage on the policies dictated by the recipients of their donations"
This may include bail outs , tax cuts, fiscal loopholes, and other legislative ammendments as well as posts in important positions in the government ( ever heard of the revolving door? ).

Revolving Door Summary Top Industries OpenSecrets

Now in spite of this overwheelming evidence you think the average citizen has the same amount of leverage,... man , what a laugh, you've just made my night !!

Money from the nation’s 31,385 biggest givers found its way into the coffers of every successful congressional candidate.

Every winner received money from every one of these 31,385 givers? LOL!
How many losers received money from these 31,385 givers?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Should campaign donations have a low ceiling

No.

Care to share the reasons for your answer?

Free speech.

free speech is what comes out of your mouth,not your bank account....

What did you say? I was distracted by the political commercial that came out of someone's bank account.

you mean the one that is buying that particular candidate?....

 

[Andylusion]

So if the EPA came up with the stupid idea that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, people and companies that produce and use fossil fuels might be interested in donating to politicians to stop the idiocy?

It should be people, not companies who decide. Companies deciding the fate of a country reeks to corporatocracy.

It should be people, not companies who decide.

Companies aren't made up of people? Owners, employees, customers who will all be damaged by this idiocy?

Every single employee of the company would get to vote, are you saying your company should decide how it's employees vote?

Fail? A company is made up of PEOPLE. Those PEOPLE have a vote. There has never been, as far as I know, any company that has controlled how the people of the company voted.

In fact the only time I know of, where an organization has even attempted to control how people voted, was with Unions.

Congrats!
The government turned a non-political corporation into a typical lobbying/donating corporation,
merely by threatening their corporate existence.
I guess when the government threatens you, you throw money at the politicians in self-defense.
If the government didn't have the power to decide that your OS was a danger, you'd have no reason to do that.
Tell me again how the size and power of government doesn't matter.

A & B: By greed, do you mean self interest? Because everyone is inherently self interested. Greed, is not the driving engine, because people who are overly greedy, don't last long in a voluntary economic system.

C: Politicians benefit from all donations, large or small, from all people and all business.

D: Politicians always want to keep supporters happy.

E: If that's true, then why did GM's CEO and board of directors all lose their jobs, even though they spent millions in donations to the government?

Or Enron which donated millions? And there are dozens of examples.

VISA and Mastercard both donated millions on millions to government, and yet the CARD act was still passed.

Now do companies get favors for their donations? Sometimes for sure.
Do companies get some amount of influence at times? Of course.

But this idea that somehow policy is "Dictated" by donators.... no you are nuts.

A,B . Ok , let's call it self interest.
C. Yea , well kind of , let's say that the big guys pack more punch.

"One sign of the reach of this elite “1% of the 1%”: Not a single member of the House or Senate elected last year won without financial assistance from this group. Money from the nation’s 31,385 biggest givers found its way into the coffers of every successful congressional candidate. And 84 percent of those elected in 2012 took more money from these 1% of the 1% donors than they did from all of their small donors (individuals who gave $200 or less) combined."

The Political 1 of the 1 in 2012 - Sunlight Foundation Blog

D. Yes, we agree they try to keep supporters happy, as well as their donnors.
E. Well, some companies just fail in spite of leverage.

Analysis Enron s Political Contributions - ABC News

"Political observers note the irony: The top recipients of Enron's money, including Attorney General John Ashcroft and Texas Attonrey General John Cornyn, are at pains to prove they haven't been influenced by the company's donations."
jaja.

Finally , I did not say policy was "dictated" I said :
"large donnors and corporations will have a leverage on the policies dictated by the recipients of their donations"
This may include bail outs , tax cuts, fiscal loopholes, and other legislative ammendments as well as posts in important positions in the government ( ever heard of the revolving door? ).

Revolving Door Summary Top Industries OpenSecrets

Now in spite of this overwheelming evidence you think the average citizen has the same amount of leverage,... man , what a laugh, you've just made my night !!

First off, I never suggested that "the average citizen has the same amount of leverage". Nor should the average citizen have the same amount of leverage.

You really want our politicians kowtowing to homeless drunk bums on the street? Do you have any idea what a nightmare our society would be in, if politicians made policy based on the whims of people who have absolutely no idea how anything anywhere works?

When government makes a policy that affects a particular business (let's say yachts), who exactly do you propose they call up to get advice from? No one? That would lead to things like the 1990 luxury tax on yachts, which resulted in thousands of middle and lower class jobs being destroyed.

So who would you have politicians get advice from? Well obviously, you are going to get advice from people who are in the industry that you are going to regulate. Now who in the industry are you going to get advice from? Cooter and Cooter's Yacht Yard, who have been in business for 3 months? Or Fraser Yachts, which operates world wide?

Of course you are going to get advice from the people highly successful in the business, and those are usually the top 1%.

It's ironic you bring up Enron, because Enron is exactly what I would point to, as proof of my claim. The government could have very very easily loaned Enron millions of dollars. And in fact, Enron CEO Skilling met with Bush, for that very purpose. And Bush turned him down. By your logic, they should have had a bailout, and been completely cleared. Instead Skilling went to prison, and Enron no longer exists. That should be impossible based on your world view.

Now it's true that all the members of the House received donation by the wealthy. Of course it's also true that no member of the house was elected without donations from the lower and middle class.

Why would you ever think that a member of government should be elected without donations from the wealthy?

What do you think that proves? It doesn't prove anything. You do realize that many people donate to both political parties routinely? People donate to both the winner and the loser, before the election. Happens all the time.

Goldman Sachs donated to both Romney and Obama.
In 2014, GS donated to McConnel, Booker, Himes, Sullivan, and numerous others. Some Democrats, and some Republicans.
And they donated to both the GOP and DNC parties.

Now when the top 1% is donating to both parties in election races, and then you say "Not a single member of the House was elected without donations from the top 1%".... what exactly do you think that proves?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Should campaign donations have a low ceiling

No.

Care to share the reasons for your answer?

Free speech.

free speech is what comes out of your mouth,not your bank account....

What did you say? I was distracted by the political commercial that came out of someone's bank account.

you mean the one that is buying that particular candidate?....

Yes. And?

 

[Andylusion]

Should campaign donations have a low ceiling ( e.g. the minimum wage of a day per election) ?

My position follows :
A) Greed is the engine that makes capitalism move.
B) Most of the elements in the system are fueled by greed.
C) Politicians beneffit from large donations from persons and corporations
D) Politicians will want to keep the donations flowing as they recieve a beneffit from them.
E) From D, it follows large donnors and corporations will have a leverage on the policies dictated by the recipients of their donations.

... I somehow get the impression this line of though went unnoticed by the Supreme Court .

Share your thoughts.

So your position is stupidity? Get back to us when liberal politicians give up the taxpayer funded public employee union donations, talk about massive corruption.

Yeah, it's interesting..... To me, when a private company donates to a particular candidate, that is simply self interest. *I* donate to a particular candidate for self interest reasons. I think the other candidate is going to cause me problems.

But when people who are in government, donate to people who pay their wages, that's more like a bribe in my book. I work for government, and you lead the government, and I pay you, to keep money flowing to me.

If you look at the top contributors to Barack Obama in 2014... read the list.....

University of California
US Government
Harvard University
Stanford University
Columbia University
US Dept of State
University of Chicago
University of Michigan
US Dept of Justice
US Dept of Health & Human Services

Out of the top 20 donations to the Obama campaign, 10 of them, were groups that directly get funding from the Federal Government.

No conflict of interest there. Let me guess, all of them were exclusively considering which candidate was "best for the country" right? Bull.

 

[Edgetho]

I love how dimocraps cite greed as a Republican vice at every opportunity but refuse to work unless it's guaranteed Union Wages or for the goobermint, who pays TWICE what the average Private Sector Employee pays.

Also gotta love how dimocrap scum spend their parents into the poverty to get the most education that will give them the easiest job for the most amount of money.

dimocrap scum are the greediest fucks around.

Who else wants something for nothing 24/7/365.....?

Meanwhile, those of us who have worked for our money are called greedy by lazy, no account, gimmedats.

Orwellian

 

[boilermaker55]

Sure sounds like some want an Oligarchy ruling class.

 

[Andylusion]

Sure sounds like some want an Oligarchy ruling class.

Yeah, that's the Democrats. That's exactly what they want. In a Free-market Capitalists system, there would be no Oligarchy Ruling class. The only way you can establish dominance over the market, is with the help of government, though "regulation". That is exactly what the Democrats stand for.

When Al Gore sold the Elk Hills Oil reserve to Occidental Petroleum, who he happen to have stock in.... that is Oligarchy rule. In a Free-market system, companies would bid on the oil reserve on the market. Under the Democrats, there is no market. It's the ruling elite cornering the market for those they favor.

 

[boilermaker55]

Seems you need to find out the real meaning of Oligarchy.

Sure sounds like some want an Oligarchy ruling class.

Yeah, that's the Democrats. That's exactly what they want. In a Free-market Capitalists system, there would be no Oligarchy Ruling class. The only way you can establish dominance over the market, is with the help of government, though "regulation". That is exactly what the Democrats stand for.

When Al Gore sold the Elk Hills Oil reserve to Occidental Petroleum, who he happen to have stock in.... that is Oligarchy rule. In a Free-market system, companies would bid on the oil reserve on the market. Under the Democrats, there is no market. It's the ruling elite cornering the market for those they favor.

 

[Andylusion]

Seems you need to find out the real meaning of Oligarchy.

Sure sounds like some want an Oligarchy ruling class.

Yeah, that's the Democrats. That's exactly what they want. In a Free-market Capitalists system, there would be no Oligarchy Ruling class. The only way you can establish dominance over the market, is with the help of government, though "regulation". That is exactly what the Democrats stand for.

When Al Gore sold the Elk Hills Oil reserve to Occidental Petroleum, who he happen to have stock in.... that is Oligarchy rule. In a Free-market system, companies would bid on the oil reserve on the market. Under the Democrats, there is no market. It's the ruling elite cornering the market for those they favor.

No, that was dead on right. A small group of people, controlling everything.

Free-market Capitalism, is almost the opposite of that. GM can't tell me what to do. Not in a free-market capitalistic system.

Government though can, but in a free-market capitalist system, does not.

In an Oligarchy, where the Government regulates on behalf of their own supporters, they do.

So you have rules like the CAFE standard. Now I can't make a car, because the regulations prevent me. Thus GM and Government win, and I lose. That's Oligarchy.

 

[CultureCitizen]

No conflict of interest there. Let me guess, all of them were exclusively considering which candidate was "best for the country" right? Bull.

Then

Yeah, it's interesting..... To me, when a private company donates to a particular candidate, that is simply self interest. *I* donate to a particular candidate for self interest reasons. I think the other candidate is going to cause me problems.

But when people who are in government, donate to people who pay their wages, that's more like a bribe in my book. I work for government, and you lead the government, and I pay you, to keep money flowing to me.

The problem gets more complicated when people worked in the government for several years and moved to a private company somehow the link is still there. That's why I think large donations should be avoided. It keeps the revolving door closed for the elections.

Regarding companies and unions : they are not citizens, so they should not donate at all ( I find no problem in having ceo's and the like make individual donations with a very low ceiling.)

 

[CultureCitizen]

You really want our politicians kowtowing to homeless drunk bums on the street? Do you have any idea what a nightmare our society would be in, if politicians made policy based on the whims of people who have absolutely no idea how anything anywhere works?

Allegedly it is even more dangerous to let politicians make policy based on the whims of people who exactly know how thinks work and can make it work in their favor. Those people should not have any leverage whatsoever in the government. Period.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Why would you ever think that a member of government should be elected without donations from the wealthy?

What do you think that proves? It doesn't prove anything. You do realize that many people donate to both political parties routinely? People donate to both the winner and the loser, before the election. Happens all the time.

Goldman Sachs donated to both Romney and Obama.
In 2014, GS donated to McConnel, Booker, Himes, Sullivan, and numerous others. Some Democrats, and some Republicans.
And they donated to both the GOP and DNC parties.

No . I didn't say that rich couldn't donate. I said they can only contribute with a low donation say $100 USD per candidate.
Regarding the second point. Again ,nor companies nor unions are not citizens.

I really don't care if they donated the reps or the dems, I just think only voting citizens should donate.
In this way no one gets leverage.

 

[CultureCitizen]

So your position is stupidity? Get back to us when liberal politicians give up the taxpayer funded public employee union donations, talk about massive corruption.

Have you ever heard of the revolving door ?
That's more than enough leverage from corporations. Large donations are an invitation to corruption ( for both parties ).