Campaign donations.

[Andylusion]

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.)

First off, when you look up "CitiGroup Donated Millions to Obama"... that is actually not true. Virtually none of the companies donate directly to Candidates. When you say "Companies and Unions are not citizens, so they should not donate", generally they are not.

The method watch dog groups determine how much money a "Company" donates to a candidate, is they look up individual people, who work for X company, and total up donations by those individual citizens, as being for the company.

The other method, is by giving money to PACs. Political Action Committees, are simply groups that pool money from sponsors, and then the PAC donates money to various people and causes.

The problem there is, if 10 people (one of which is CEO of CitiGroup) donate $100,000 each to a PAC, and the PAC donates $500K to 20 candidates including Obama, did CitiGroup donate to Obama?

It's extremely rare that a company directly donates to a specific candidate. I can't think of even one time off the top of my head, although I'm sure it's happened at some point.

But generally speaking, Companies do not donate directly to politicians.

So how exactly would you propose we prevent that? Ban individuals from donating to politicians? Because that denies yourself the ability to influence elections too.

And the problem then becomes.... you would *STILL* have people giving money to politicians.... except now it's completely under the radar.

I personally would rather know who is giving money to whom.

You seem to live in a mythical world where if you "ban large donations" that then it wouldn't happen. When has that ever worked? Did we largely finish a fight over drugs, with the argument being "banning pot hasn't worked, let's simply regulate it instead"... right? Isn't that the answer we've come to over decades of the drug war? How then do you turn around on this one, and say "Banning this activity will work, even though banning drugs and alcohol did not"?

Moreover, ummm.... hello.... didn't see back in the Bill Clinton days, clear unambiguous violations of the campaign finance laws, and absolutely NOTHING happened. In fact, half the country rallied around him, to protect him from the mean ol Republicans trying to enforce the law.

Question...... if we already have people violating the EXISTING LAWS..... why the heck are you bothering with asking for more laws? This reminds me of this idiotic debate here in Columbus Ohio. We have I-270 the rings around the city, and all the people are complaining that everyone drives too fast. The speed limit is 65 MPH, and everyone is doing 75 MPH. So what's their solution? Lower the speed limit. Huh??? If you are not going to enforce the speed limit of 65, why the heck would lowering the un-enforced limit to 60 do anything?

We don't need ANOTHER UNENFORCED CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW. Here's a thought.... ENFORCE THE LAWS AS THEY EXIST NOW. Try that.

As long as the partisan-idiot citizens, rally around every politicians that breaks the law... it doesn't matter what laws you have. The public needs to fix their own lack of morality, and lack of demanding character in politicians, first. Without that, no amount of laws matter.

Lastly, you are trying to fight something that can't be fixed.

As long as you demand government regulate business..... business is going to try and influence government.

See, you want government to be able to control a business, and yet somehow not have business try and influence those who control them. That's insane. That will never happen.

I don't know where you work (assume you work), but chances are you have a boss, or a superior. If you want a raise, that superior has to support it. If you are like the other 99% of the population, you will likely try and be on the good side, of the person who determines if you get a raise.

Shocking revelation for you.... businesses are the same way. If there is some government agency that controls whether or not your business can grow, your business is going to try and influence that agency.

Hello..... NORMAL HUMAN BEHAVIOR. For you to demand that a government agency control a business, and yet expect that business to never try and gain influence over that agency, is absolute insanity on your part.

If that's your goal, then you are in for a lifetime of disappointment. That will never happen. Never.

You want to get corporate money out of politicians? Eliminate government grants, government regulations, and high taxes.

When there is nothing to be gained from expensive government influence, there will be less government influence purchased.

 

[CultureCitizen]

You seem to live in a mythical world where if you "ban large donations" that then it wouldn't happen. When has that ever worked? Did we largely finish a fight over drugs, with the argument being "banning pot hasn't worked, let's simply regulate it instead"... right? Isn't that the answer we've come to over decades of the drug war? How then do you turn around on this one, and say "Banning this activity will work, even though banning drugs and alcohol did not"?

That was a long post so I'll try to answer part by part.

That was a long post so I'll try to answer part by part.

When ?
France starting 1995.
France - How French parties and politicians are funded - France 24

Banning this activity will work, even though banning drugs and alcohol did not"?
It's very different.
First, drugs are a commodity.
Donations are pretty much a one sided transaction ... else they wouldn't be donations , would they?
Second, party donations actually beneffit persons who are or will be in a position of power. So it's a very specific scenario.
I am thinking the equivalent would be forbidding drugs for the people who are holding office. Which might not be such a bad idea.

Other countries have more stringent rules, parties recieve public funds for their campaigns, and sometimes not too much money flows into their hands. Tough luck if you want to run three month 24/7 campaigns.

 

[Kosh]

Follow the money:

Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors 1989-2014 OpenSecrets

 

[CultureCitizen]

Question...... if we already have people violating the EXISTING LAWS..... why the heck are you bothering with asking for more laws? This reminds me of this idiotic debate here in Columbus Ohio. We have I-270 the rings around the city, and all the people are complaining that everyone drives too fast. The speed limit is 65 MPH, and everyone is doing 75 MPH. So what's their solution? Lower the speed limit. Huh??? If you are not going to enforce the speed limit of 65, why the heck would lowering the un-enforced limit to 60 do anything?

That's a rather convoluted line of thought.
I guess you apply the same exact way of thinking to airline travels : If people were already bringing potentially lethal items in their handbags before 9/11, why bring in additional regulations and screening?

Mind you, the last time I took a plane from Washington I had to leave begind a crystal snowball which was classified as a "dangerous item".

 

[CultureCitizen]

I don't know where you work (assume you work), but chances are you have a boss, or a superior. If you want a raise, that superior has to support it. If you are like the other 99% of the population, you will likely try and be on the good side, of the person who determines if you get a raise.

Shocking revelation for you.... businesses are the same way. If there is some government agency that controls whether or not your business can grow, your business is going to try and influence that agency.

Well , yes , I am a computer scientist, and data analyst and I work as a consultant. If I want a rise I have to work hard and yield results or seek employment elsewhere if I don't like the company's rules.
Inviting my boss to lunch and telling him I'll make him a big donation for his next vacations if he speaks well of me in the next HR meeting... well, that's not in my book,
I am not that naive though I've heard many of such cases happen when vendors really want to win a large contract.
It can be done, that doesn't mean it's right.

 

[CultureCitizen]

If that's your goal, then you are in for a lifetime of disappointment. That will never happen. Never.

You want to get corporate money out of politicians? Eliminate government grants, government regulations, and high taxes.

When there is nothing to be gained from expensive government influence, there will be less government influence purchased.

It has been done in other countries, so if there is political will or enough pressure from society it will be done.
Aaah... and yet again you quote the "expensive government", where do you guys ( republicans) got that idea from ?
How big do you think was the government expenditure during WWII ( nearly 55% of gdp) ?
The french government's footprint is rather large, and yet they did the reform.

And, believe me, if there is another bank bailout in the next 5 years due to "loopholes" in regulations or pension funds suddenly disapear, to integrate the liabilities into the capital structure of the bank, the parties will be facing a much more stringent regulation.

 

[CultureCitizen]

You want to get corporate money out of politicians? Eliminate government grants, government regulations, and high taxes.

When there is nothing to be gained from expensive government influence, there will be less government influence purchased.

Finally, I am confident I will se some such legislation when chinese companies are firmly established in the US. I'm quite sure not that many people will like to see the destiny of the US moved back and forth too meet whims of chinese CEOs. Ah , well time will tell.

Where s The Money Chinese Investments in U.S. - ABC News

 

[danielpalos]

Follow the money:

Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors 1989-2014 OpenSecrets

I believe the left's experience with the right's alleged faith in capitalism may yet have many miles to travel before some on the left can sleep in the comfort of their sincerity. Some of us may even believe, that those citizens of the Fortune 500, may not be getting their monies worth their from their public servants on the right--some on the left would like to suggest that good Capitalists, simply insist their public servants merely purchase the finest solutions money can buy, with an official Mint at their disposal.

Good help should come up with good policies, public. Excellent help should be able to come up with excellent policies, public.

 

[Andylusion]

You seem to live in a mythical world where if you "ban large donations" that then it wouldn't happen. When has that ever worked? Did we largely finish a fight over drugs, with the argument being "banning pot hasn't worked, let's simply regulate it instead"... right? Isn't that the answer we've come to over decades of the drug war? How then do you turn around on this one, and say "Banning this activity will work, even though banning drugs and alcohol did not"?

That was a long post so I'll try to answer part by part.

That was a long post so I'll try to answer part by part.

When ?
France starting 1995.
France - How French parties and politicians are funded - France 24

Banning this activity will work, even though banning drugs and alcohol did not"?
It's very different.
First, drugs are a commodity.
Donations are pretty much a one sided transaction ... else they wouldn't be donations , would they?
Second, party donations actually beneffit persons who are or will be in a position of power. So it's a very specific scenario.
I am thinking the equivalent would be forbidding drugs for the people who are holding office. Which might not be such a bad idea.

Other countries have more stringent rules, parties recieve public funds for their campaigns, and sometimes not too much money flows into their hands. Tough luck if you want to run three month 24/7 campaigns.

Money itself is a commodity. Not sure what you think the difference is there.

And you happen to bring up France, which is ironic given the massive number of political corruption scandals they have had.

Jean-Claude Méry, published a video (I should say, had it published after his death), detailing a kick back scheme that lasted a decade, in which he delievered over $5 Million dollars to the Chief of staff of French PM Jacques Chirac.

Oh wait.... I thought you said your system, which you cited France as an example, would prevent corporate influence in government? Apparently not. What it did do, was hide the influence under the table, and no one knew about it for decades.

Following is the short list of French companies involved in political scandal.

Elf Aquitaine
Bouygues Construction
Générale des Eaux
Société d'application et de revêtement
Sicra
Baudin Châteauneuf
Grands Travaux de Marseille
Bouygues
CBC
Alstom
Nord France
Dumez
Chagnaud
Fougerolle
SAEP
SCGPM
Société parisienne pour l'industrie électrique

Among the actions was channeling money through legal donations (huh?), and these companies creating fictional jobs given to politicians and people in the government (sound familiar?).

And this is the short list. These are the companies that have openly admitted to it.

The list of corruption scandals is endless. Fake public housing. Over priced school renovations. Voter fraud, from people who don't exist, or are dead. Bribery from energy companies. Lucrative contracts for 'public gardens'. The list goes on and on and on.


If you claim that banning campaign donations will get money out of politics, and your example is France.... then you failed. That's not a winning argument in my book.

 

[Andylusion]

Question...... if we already have people violating the EXISTING LAWS..... why the heck are you bothering with asking for more laws? This reminds me of this idiotic debate here in Columbus Ohio. We have I-270 the rings around the city, and all the people are complaining that everyone drives too fast. The speed limit is 65 MPH, and everyone is doing 75 MPH. So what's their solution? Lower the speed limit. Huh??? If you are not going to enforce the speed limit of 65, why the heck would lowering the un-enforced limit to 60 do anything?

That's a rather convoluted line of thought.
I guess you apply the same exact way of thinking to airline travels : If people were already bringing potentially lethal items in their handbags before 9/11, why bring in additional regulations and screening?

Mind you, the last time I took a plane from Washington I had to leave begind a crystal snowball which was classified as a "dangerous item".

Actually, to me you just made my point. Has additional regulations and controls, really made us any safer by preventing you from taking a crystal snowball?

TSA Lets Loaded Guns Past Security On to Planes - ABC News

So, we're fondling breasts, grabbing crotches, taking off shows, and spinning around with a metal detector wand shoved between our legs... and yet guys are walking on the plane with guns.....

That's my point dude. Now obviously you don't want highly illegal stuff going on with no one checking.

And I am not advocating that open bribery and people walking on to planes with machine guns.

But your view is what I call the baptist preacher view.

You should not watch terrible stuff. So don't see rate X movies. And since seeing a rate R movie might make you want to see an X rate movie, then don't see rate R movies either. And since you might see a trailer for a rate R movie, while seeing a PG-13 movie, then you should go to movies at all. And since you might be tempted to see a movie if you are at a mall where movies are advertised, you shouldn't go to malls.

Instead of just having plain and simple laws, "don't bribe, or take bribes", and have that be the standard, now you have to regulate everything. And it doesn't work. The truth is, if someone really wants to blow up a plane, they are going to do it.

If someone wants to bribe a politicians, and the politician is open to it, they are going to do it.

Again, we knew about Bill Clinton, and the Chinese money. It was already illegal. Nothing happened. What is yet another law on illegal donations going to do, when we don't follow exist laws?

 

[Andylusion]

I don't know where you work (assume you work), but chances are you have a boss, or a superior. If you want a raise, that superior has to support it. If you are like the other 99% of the population, you will likely try and be on the good side, of the person who determines if you get a raise.

Shocking revelation for you.... businesses are the same way. If there is some government agency that controls whether or not your business can grow, your business is going to try and influence that agency.

Well , yes , I am a computer scientist, and data analyst and I work as a consultant. If I want a rise I have to work hard and yield results or seek employment elsewhere if I don't like the company's rules.
Inviting my boss to lunch and telling him I'll make him a big donation for his next vacations if he speaks well of me in the next HR meeting... well, that's not in my book,
I am not that naive though I've heard many of such cases happen when vendors really want to win a large contract.
It can be done, that doesn't mean it's right.

Doesn't matter if it's "Right" or not. Murder is not "right". It still happens. Prevent people from defending themselves with gun control, doesn't prevent people from murdering. Why? Because if they are willing to break the existing law, making a new law isn't a problem for them. If they'll violate the "don't murder" law, then obviously violating the "don't have a gun" law is not a problem for them.

The law will only hinder those who already obey the law. If they already obey the law, then they'll obey the new law as well. But if they already break the law, they'll break the new law just as easily.

Similarly, politician funding is exactly the same in every way.

The people who obey the existing laws, are going to follow all the new laws you pass as well.

The people who already break existing laws, will break the new laws just as quick. Nothing will improve.

 

[CultureCitizen]

If someone wants to bribe a politicians, and the politician is open to it, they are going to do it.

The difference there, as well as in the French scandals you talk about, is that if it is done, it will be consider a crime and prosecuted, whereas in the current state it is just plain legal .

Regarding regulations, ah well, drinking alcohol is not prohibited , but driving under the effects of alcohol or cannabis is.
There is a difference between prohibition and regulation. I do not intend donations to be prohibited, rather to have them regulated.

Furthermore, both drinking and getting stoned are both "victimless" crimes: no one gets affected. That is unless you decide to drive. Trying to buy politicians or change laws to your favour through donations is not a victimless crime. Billions are at stake and the lives of many people can change as politicians enact laws.

 

[CultureCitizen]

You should not watch terrible stuff. So don't see rate X movies. And since seeing a rate R movie might make you want to see an X rate movie, then don't see rate R movies either. And since you might see a trailer for a rate R movie, while seeing a PG-13 movie, then you should go to movies at all. And since you might be tempted to see a movie if you are at a mall where movies are advertised, you shouldn't go to malls.

Again , just victimless crimes. When politicians change laws billions of tax dollars are at stake, not just erotic fantasies crossing one's mind.

 

[Andylusion]

If that's your goal, then you are in for a lifetime of disappointment. That will never happen. Never.

You want to get corporate money out of politicians? Eliminate government grants, government regulations, and high taxes.

When there is nothing to be gained from expensive government influence, there will be less government influence purchased.

It has been done in other countries, so if there is political will or enough pressure from society it will be done.
Aaah... and yet again you quote the "expensive government", where do you guys ( republicans) got that idea from ?
How big do you think was the government expenditure during WWII ( nearly 55% of gdp) ?
The french government's footprint is rather large, and yet they did the reform.

And, believe me, if there is another bank bailout in the next 5 years due to "loopholes" in regulations or pension funds suddenly disapear, to integrate the liabilities into the capital structure of the bank, the parties will be facing a much more stringent regulation.

You didn't follow my line of thinking at all.

First, yes if public pressure is brought against bribes and stuff, it will stop. But there is none. We saw this with Bill Clinton. Clear violations, and nothing happened. In fact, the public supported him.

The French government did reform, and it has solved nothing. Arguably there is more corruption now, than before the reforms.

But you missed my point....

Expensive government influence, has to do with how much it costs to influence the government.

Here's the deal....

Let us say.... that the cost of lobbying a public official, is $500,000. Now that isn't $500K in cash, hand delivered to a senator. No that's the cost of hiring a lobbyist, paying for lunch at an expensive restaurant, funding a lobbying campaign, renting a Washington DC office, cost of travel to DC, and of course the cost of various donations to groups and politicians.

All totaled, it's half a million.

Now you are CEO of X-Corp. How do you determine if you want to pay up that half million?

Obviously, you have to weight the cost of paying the half million, verses the benefit of the influence.

For example, if your company is paying $5 Million in taxes, is it worth it to pay for influence to get a tax break to cut your taxes in half? Yes.

But if you are only paying $1 Million in taxes, is it worth it to pay for influence to cut your tax bill in half? No. The cost of buying the influence doesn't save enough to make it worth it.

Point being, the higher taxes are, the more worth while it is to lobby for a tax cut.

Same thing with regulations. The more costly the regulations are, the more cost effective it is to lobby for exemptions from the regulations.

Again, I go back to the drug war, because it is so comparable. For years we've been targeting the source of the drugs. LIke Drug runners.

But the problem is, you can jail all the drug runners you want. That's not going to make any difference as long as their is so much money to be made in running the drugs. The cost of getting caught, is a tiny fraction of the value of running the drugs.

You want to reduce business influence in government? Cut taxes, and cut regulations. When the cost of taxes and regulations is really low, the value of buying influence will be really low. No one is going to spend millions on lobbying, to save thousands in taxes and regulations.

This is exactly why politicians always default to more taxes and more regulations. They know exactly what they are doing. The more expensive the regulations, the higher the taxes, the more valuable lobbying THEM, is to the companies. It just a way to increase how much money they collect from companies.

 

[Andylusion]

If someone wants to bribe a politicians, and the politician is open to it, they are going to do it.

The difference there, as well as in the French scandals you talk about, is that if it is done, it will be consider a crime and prosecuted, whereas in the current state it is just plain legal .

Regarding regulations, ah well, drinking alcohol is not prohibited , but driving under the effects of alcohol or cannabis is.
There is a difference between prohibition and regulation. I do not intend donations to be prohibited, rather to have them regulated.

Furthermore, both drinking and getting stoned are both "victimless" crimes: no one gets affected. That is unless you decide to drive. Trying to buy politicians or change laws to your favour through donations is not a victimless crime. Billions are at stake and the lives of many people can change as politicians enact laws.

But it wasn't. The scandal involving the video tape, no one was caught at all. And further, bribes in the US, are a crime.

Again, campaign donations *ARE* regulated already. Bill Clinton illegally accepted bribes from Chinese front companies, to sell high end military technology to the Chinese Military, and he did it. And everyone knows it, and nothing happened.

By what logic to propose that your regulations will be any more effective than the regulations that already exist, and are already ignored?

Drinking and being stoned are not victimless. If you have ever met someone whose family was destroyed by a drunk or stoned father, there are victims. I have personal relatives whose lives were ruined over this. Don't give me your crap it's victimless. You are full of it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If someone wants to bribe a politicians, and the politician is open to it, they are going to do it.

The difference there, as well as in the French scandals you talk about, is that if it is done, it will be consider a crime and prosecuted, whereas in the current state it is just plain legal .

Regarding regulations, ah well, drinking alcohol is not prohibited , but driving under the effects of alcohol or cannabis is.
There is a difference between prohibition and regulation. I do not intend donations to be prohibited, rather to have them regulated.

Furthermore, both drinking and getting stoned are both "victimless" crimes: no one gets affected. That is unless you decide to drive. Trying to buy politicians or change laws to your favour through donations is not a victimless crime. Billions are at stake and the lives of many people can change as politicians enact laws.

Trying to buy politicians or change laws to your favour through donations is not a victimless crime. Billions are at stake

Billions are at stake. Sounds like buying a politician can be a good investment.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Doesn't matter if it's "Right" or not. Murder is not "right". It still happens. Prevent people from defending themselves with gun control, doesn't prevent people from murdering. Why? Because if they are willing to break the existing law, making a new law isn't a problem for them. If they'll violate the "don't murder" law, then obviously violating the "don't have a gun" law is not a problem for them.

The law will only hinder those who already obey the law. If they already obey the law, then they'll obey the new law as well. But if they already break the law, they'll break the new law just as easily.

Similarly, politician funding is exactly the same in every way.

The people who obey the existing laws, are going to follow all the new laws you pass as well.

The people who already break existing laws, will break the new laws just as quick. Nothing will improve.

I could argue that the murder rate in Northern countries is a lot lower than in the US , but in the other hand there are countries in South America with gun control laws who have murder rates a lot higher than in the US.
My conclusion so far is that gun control laws do not play a significant role in the level of violence, but rather how healthy the society is..

Hence, this kind of events are an evidence of how corrupt the country is as a whole . I don't quite buy your argument.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Drinking and being stoned are not victimless. If you have ever met someone whose family was destroyed by a drunk or stoned father, there are victims. I have personal relatives whose lives were ruined over this. Don't give me your crap it's victimless. You are full of it.

Oh , come on , the same can be said about overeating ... and dying of Diabetes or a heart attack.

 

[Andylusion]

Drinking and being stoned are not victimless. If you have ever met someone whose family was destroyed by a drunk or stoned father, there are victims. I have personal relatives whose lives were ruined over this. Don't give me your crap it's victimless. You are full of it.

Oh , come on , the same can be said about overeating ... and dying of Diabetes or a heart attack.

Really.... you want to compare over eating with alcoholism and drug abuse?

That's your argument? Fail?

 

[Andylusion]

Doesn't matter if it's "Right" or not. Murder is not "right". It still happens. Prevent people from defending themselves with gun control, doesn't prevent people from murdering. Why? Because if they are willing to break the existing law, making a new law isn't a problem for them. If they'll violate the "don't murder" law, then obviously violating the "don't have a gun" law is not a problem for them.

The law will only hinder those who already obey the law. If they already obey the law, then they'll obey the new law as well. But if they already break the law, they'll break the new law just as easily.

Similarly, politician funding is exactly the same in every way.

The people who obey the existing laws, are going to follow all the new laws you pass as well.

The people who already break existing laws, will break the new laws just as quick. Nothing will improve.

I could argue that the murder rate in Northern countries is a lot lower than in the US , but in the other hand there are countries in South America with gun control laws who have murder rates a lot higher than in the US.
My conclusion so far is that gun control laws do not play a significant role in the level of violence, but rather how healthy the society is..

Hence, this kind of events are an evidence of how corrupt the country is as a whole . I don't quite buy your argument.

But you just made my argument. That... what you just said.... is my argument.