I believe in campagin finance reform, do you?

[saveliberty]

"This is a representative Republic. Taking steps to BLOCK the people from campaigning for the candidate of their choice defeats the very concept."

We are a democratic republic; "representative Republic" is redundant.
In the ideal the people will vote for the candidate who will best represent their intererests.
Voters today are bombarded by the marketing of a candidate, and money provides the vehicle for greater advantage.
Anyone may speak out and campaign for a candidate, but those who can do so by purchasing hours of 30-second commercials, mostly attacking their opponent, does not serve a democratic republic well.
But, the campaign donation issue is only one part of a greater evil, and that is the ability of wealth to lobby not with ideas, but with bribes. Jobs for the kids or wife/husband, future jobs for the pol down the road; low interest/closing costs on a nice 'summer' home, purchased at below market costs; a round of gold in Scotland, tickets to the World Series, etc. etc.
If I learned that someone in my agency had accepted anything from anyone related to an investigation they would have been put on the beach and the matter turned over for an internal investigation.
This thead has provided more evidence that those of the far right are not democrats or republican (small 'd' is significant) as they hold onto an ideology alien to our Constitution and the ideals embodied in its Preamble. Liberty and justice are simply words to them, unless their liberty is infringed or they are denied justice.

There you go confusing bribes with campaign financing again. You want to go rail against illegal campaign monies, try looking at ACORN and the taxpayer dollars funneled into Democratic pockets.

 

[Oddball]

There you go confusing bribes with campaign financing again. You want to go rail against illegal campaign monies, try looking at ACORN and the taxpayer dollars funneled into Democratic pockets.

Subtleties like the concept of quid-pro-quo are lost on pisswillie, as they tend to interfere with his gross over-generalizations.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you support the best democracy money can buy, eh?

Also, if you haven't seen a list, it's because you haven't taken the time to go to the FEC homepage.

CANDIDATE (P80003338) SUMMARY REPORTS - 2007-2008 CYCLE

As opposed to?
Look, money is always going to be a factor in elections. Whether the incumbent gets free coverage from the lame stream media or someone uses his personal fortune it is the same.
Wouldn't you rather have open accesss than have a bunch of plutocrats like Bloomberg and Kerry buying their way into office?

One would think that, at least in principle, we should focus on electing the best candidates, not the candidates which can most effectively whore themselves out for campaign cash.

Also, want to talk about plutocrats? Add Darrell Issa and Vernon Buchanan to your list.

It is a fact that candidates with more money have an edge over candidates with less money. It has nothing to do with their quality.
But I would argue fund-raising ability is one measure of governing ability. It takes a lot of effort to put the machine together to raise the money necessary for a campaign. Someone with little talent for organizing won't be able to do it. And probably won't be able to govern well either.
In any case, if the candidate cannot get his message out, it doesn't matter how good he is. And to get the message out requires money.
As for plutocrats, there is no end to them, on either side of the aisle. I don't mind people using their own money but I don't want laws that pretty much limit it to those same people.

 

[Polk]

To be completely open about this, I don't think it's a question that has an easy answer. I'm not of the belief that allowing unlimited contributions and requiring quick public reporting would result in a process any more representative than the current one, though I have seen some researchers who are pretty smart cookies (Larry Sabato, for one) propose exactly that.

Also, no one is arguing that candidates with deeper pockets don't have an advantage. It's pretty obvious that they do. Of course, I think a way that could be reduced is by subjecting them to the same caps outside donors are.

 

[saveliberty]

Again, I suggest no corporate giving. A corporation is not of one mind ( S corp maybe not). It may pass Constitutional muster as well.

 

[Polk]

Again, I suggest no corporate giving. A corporation is not of one mind ( S corp maybe not). It may pass Constitutional muster as well.

Corporate giving is already illegal.

 

[saveliberty]

Again, I suggest no corporate giving. A corporation is not of one mind ( S corp maybe not). It may pass Constitutional muster as well.

Corporate giving is already illegal.

Pardon, I mean specifically PACs.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"This is a representative Republic. Taking steps to BLOCK the people from campaigning for the candidate of their choice defeats the very concept."

We are a democratic republic; "representative Republic" is redundant.
In the ideal the people will vote for the candidate who will best represent their intererests.
Voters today are bombarded by the marketing of a candidate, and money provides the vehicle for greater advantage.
Anyone may speak out and campaign for a candidate, but those who can do so by purchasing hours of 30-second commercials, mostly attacking their opponent, does not serve a democratic republic well.
But, the campaign donation issue is only one part of a greater evil, and that is the ability of wealth to lobby not with ideas, but with bribes. Jobs for the kids or wife/husband, future jobs for the pol down the road; low interest/closing costs on a nice 'summer' home, purchased at below market costs; a round of gold in Scotland, tickets to the World Series, etc. etc.
If I learned that someone in my agency had accepted anything from anyone related to an investigation they would have been put on the beach and the matter turned over for an internal investigation.
This thead has provided more evidence that those of the far right are not democrats or republican (small 'd' is significant) as they hold onto an ideology alien to our Constitution and the ideals embodied in its Preamble. Liberty and justice are simply words to them, unless their liberty is infringed or they are denied justice.

There you go confusing bribes with campaign financing again. You want to go rail against illegal campaign monies, try looking at ACORN and the taxpayer dollars funneled into Democratic pockets.

I don't believe I'm confused, you suggesting I am is your opinion, biased as it is. And isn't it ironic, you use ACORN as an example of what's wrong with the system, and that is exactly the point I'm making.

 

[Murf76]

If I had my way, they wouldn't be allowed to take any money for any reason, and pork would be eliminated completely. We could set up websites, with hard-copies to libraries, where they could post their campaign agendas, and let them rely on the news services for getting their messages out. Let the groups who host campaign events and speaking engagements pay for their travel, and let the PACS who place ads on their behalf identify their particular interest BEFORE the ad spot is run.

We need to take the profit-motive out of government service.

But the MOST IMPORTANT thing we can do RIGHT NOW... is to stop Cap-and-Scam. Those Carbon Credits are MONEY, passed from the hand of the bureaucrat to the businessman. The possibilities for corruption are endless....
The politician who receives support can kick back money to his supporters. Those who do NOT support him can be punished by withholding credits. And unscrupulous producers can put pressure on even honest politicians by threatening to pick up and move if they don't get what they want.

Cap-and-Scam takes corporatism to a whole new level. Corruption becomes the rule rather than the exception. And on top of that... it doesn't solve the problem. Even if everyone in the world adopted it, the carbon savings are only something like one-tenth of one percent.

It's imperative that this thing be stopped in its tracks.

 

[The Rabbi]

If I had my way, they wouldn't be allowed to take any money for any reason, and pork would be eliminated completely. We could set up websites, with hard-copies to libraries, where they could post their campaign agendas, and let them rely on the news services for getting their messages out. Let the groups who host campaign events and speaking engagements pay for their travel, and let the PACS who place ads on their behalf identify their particular interest BEFORE the ad spot is run.

We need to take the profit-motive out of government service.

Rely on the news services to get their message out?? Are you nuts? Why in the world would I want to let news services be the gate keepers of information, basically with the power to choose a candidate?
No no. I want MORE money in elections. I want candidates to hit up the fat cats for money, every special interest in the country. Then I want them to disclose where the money came from so everyone can see who is supporting whom. So and so is supported mainly by the trial lawyers? Vote his ass out. So and so is getting his money mostly from public service unions? Vote his ass out. More money plus more disclosure will equal better government.

 

[Murf76]

If I had my way, they wouldn't be allowed to take any money for any reason, and pork would be eliminated completely. We could set up websites, with hard-copies to libraries, where they could post their campaign agendas, and let them rely on the news services for getting their messages out. Let the groups who host campaign events and speaking engagements pay for their travel, and let the PACS who place ads on their behalf identify their particular interest BEFORE the ad spot is run.

We need to take the profit-motive out of government service.

Rely on the news services to get their message out?? Are you nuts? Why in the world would I want to let news services be the gate keepers of information, basically with the power to choose a candidate?
No no. I want MORE money in elections. I want candidates to hit up the fat cats for money, every special interest in the country. Then I want them to disclose where the money came from so everyone can see who is supporting whom. So and so is supported mainly by the trial lawyers? Vote his ass out. So and so is getting his money mostly from public service unions? Vote his ass out. More money plus more disclosure will equal better government.

Yeah... but who gets the message out about where the money came from if not the news services?
You're still in reliance upon them.

What has to happen is that the corporate profit motive between businessman/newsman and politician needs to be broken. Most of these news services have other corporate interests. GE springs immediately to mind, where NBC and MSNBC has helped position Jeffrey Immelt to the inner circle of the Obama administration and large "green" contracts are in the offing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Good, we've now moved from the name calling stage to an actual discussion on the issue of money and politics. As I suggested, most of us agree that there exists a systemic problem which puts the ideal of a democratric republic at risk.
The next problem is how to convince those who benefit from a broken system to fix it, when they control the power to make law?

 

[Polk]

Good, we've now moved from the name calling stage to an actual discussion on the issue of money and politics. As I suggested, most of us agree that there exists a systemic problem which puts the ideal of a democratric republic at risk.
The next problem is how to convince those who benefit from a broken system to fix it, when they control the power to make law?

Call me a cynic, but I don't think you can.

 

[Murf76]

Good, we've now moved from the name calling stage to an actual discussion on the issue of money and politics. As I suggested, most of us agree that there exists a systemic problem which puts the ideal of a democratric republic at risk.
The next problem is how to convince those who benefit from a broken system to fix it, when they control the power to make law?

You wreck the so-called "Rule of Incumbency", which allows 80-90% returns to Congress. Put candidates 'on-the-record' for campaign-finance reform in the 2010 and 2012.

 

[Oddball]

Good, we've now moved from the name calling stage to an actual discussion on the issue of money and politics. As I suggested, most of us agree that there exists a systemic problem which puts the ideal of a democratric republic at risk.
The next problem is how to convince those who benefit from a broken system to fix it, when they control the power to make law?

Nice moving of the goalposts from "Members of Congress accept bribes. Does anyone doubt this premise?" to "most of us agree that there exists a systemic problem".

I bet you give your analyst fits.

 

[The Rabbi]

If I had my way, they wouldn't be allowed to take any money for any reason, and pork would be eliminated completely. We could set up websites, with hard-copies to libraries, where they could post their campaign agendas, and let them rely on the news services for getting their messages out. Let the groups who host campaign events and speaking engagements pay for their travel, and let the PACS who place ads on their behalf identify their particular interest BEFORE the ad spot is run.

We need to take the profit-motive out of government service.

Rely on the news services to get their message out?? Are you nuts? Why in the world would I want to let news services be the gate keepers of information, basically with the power to choose a candidate?
No no. I want MORE money in elections. I want candidates to hit up the fat cats for money, every special interest in the country. Then I want them to disclose where the money came from so everyone can see who is supporting whom. So and so is supported mainly by the trial lawyers? Vote his ass out. So and so is getting his money mostly from public service unions? Vote his ass out. More money plus more disclosure will equal better government.

Yeah... but who gets the message out about where the money came from if not the news services?
You're still in reliance upon them.

What has to happen is that the corporate profit motive between businessman/newsman and politician needs to be broken. Most of these news services have other corporate interests. GE springs immediately to mind, where NBC and MSNBC has helped position Jeffrey Immelt to the inner circle of the Obama administration and large "green" contracts are in the offing.

They post it on their sites or on the FEC site. Thus there is no reliance on lame stream media sources.
There is no way to break the connection between corporations and politics. NOt as long as politicians have the power to make or break corporations, which will always be the case.

 

[Murf76]

There is no way to break the connection between corporations and politics. NOt as long as politicians have the power to make or break corporations, which will always be the case.

Well, I agree that the right to lobby is guaranteed, so there will always be influence. But that influence needn't be translated to hard, cold, CASH.

If we installed a newbie Congress in 2010... we'd put quite the spoke in the wheels, don't you think?
Corruption is a learned behavior. It takes time to build a network. We've been foolish to GIVE them that kind of time.

 

[The Rabbi]

How else do you influence someone??
Let's take one industry, maybe construction. There are some measures that will be harmful to construction interests. Some measures that will help construction interests. A politician who naturally sees the positives of construction will favor the pro legislation. And the industry will naturally support him. And the best way they can support him, meaning to help him get elected and stay in office is campaign contributions.
Do you see anything wrong with this? I sure don't.

 

[Oddball]

How else do you influence someone??
Let's take one industry, maybe construction. There are some measures that will be harmful to construction interests. Some measures that will help construction interests. A politician who naturally sees the positives of construction will favor the pro legislation. And the industry will naturally support him. And the best way they can support him, meaning to help him get elected and stay in office is campaign contributions.
Do you see anything wrong with this? I sure don't.

It's all a legalized protection racket.

Blaming those paying the protection makes as little sense as blaming the recreational drug user for drive-by shootings.

 

[Navy1960]

"The end of democracy, and the defeat of the American revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." Thomas Jefferson

"He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of this country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man....The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people."
Samuel Adams

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."
Patrick Henry, American colonial revolutionary

"We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts--not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
Abraham Lincoln

"I used to say that Politics is the second oldest profession [prostitution being the oldest], but I have come to realize that it bears a gross similarity to the first."
Ronald Reagan
My Favorite Quotes - Founding Fathers and Presidents

The point is that campaigns should belong to the people, and not special interests, or corporations that have little if any desire or motivation other than their own and not the nation. The people have EVERY right to support whatever candidate they so choose, but I will rightly point out a special interest group , PAC, corporation, and any other group are not people and cannot Vote and therefor should should have ZERO influence on who WE THE PEOPLE choose to lead us.