The Federal Government is only Run by the Rich

[archangel]

Say introduce a bill that would put aside one congressional seat from each state and have it put in a lotto system...each registered voter would be given the chance to participate in the political system for one two year term if selected from the lotto...of course background checks on those selected would have to be made...and a resume put forward so all could see what they are getting....Just a thought...

 

[dilloduck]

I sense the sarcasm , but Im not sure where you are going with this

are we in the beginning of a debate? Or are you in agreement with me ?

hahahhah, oh well, its all fun eh?

oh ya--just an enjoyable discussion--It's just my opinion that the American people are basically content to be bought by one of the 2 major parties and I think it would take quite a revolution for this to change. Public financing of elections may create new faces on the scene and possibly someone more quilified than the usual but I sure don't want to waste a bunch of money on this process. How a free TV channel for open debates or something like that?
Have some local selection process to whittle down the number of candidates to get it to a reasonble size. But as of now--we are owned by wealthy.

 

[Avatar4321]

oh ya--just an enjoyable discussion--It's just my opinion that the American people are basically content to be bought by one of the 2 major parties and I think it would take quite a revolution for this to change. Public financing of elections may create new faces on the scene and possibly someone more quilified than the usual but I sure don't want to waste a bunch of money on this process. How a free TV channel for open debates or something like that?
Have some local selection process to whittle down the number of candidates to get it to a reasonble size. But as of now--we are owned by wealthy.

If people can't seem to get enough support that private citizens would back their positions, why on earth should we give them public money to support positions the public wont support?

If you want new and better people in politics, pay more attention to whom you vote for on the local level cause those are the people that are going to run for higher office.

 

[dilloduck]

If people can't seem to get enough support that private citizens would back their positions, why on earth should we give them public money to support positions the public wont support?

If you want new and better people in politics, pay more attention to whom you vote for on the local level cause those are the people that are going to run for higher office.

How about no one give em any money?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Let me get this straight, you want equal public funding for all those that want to run for an office? Will there be a limit to how many poeple can get the funding? Our TAX dollars are supposed to support what....2...3....10...100 people running for the same office all equally? Who determines who does and does not get the funding? What happens if that person is a liberal? Gee I wonder how many conservatives would get denied, and vice versa. You can see where this is going and how corrupt the whole system would become real fast. There is no way in hell I would want ANY of my tax dollars to go to some liberal's campaign fund. What if some Islamic terrorist wanted to run for office? We supposed to give them our tax dollars too?

This is the most asinine idea ever.

Uhhh, second most. Any one who even thought of voting for Kerry, thats the most. hahahhaha I agree, waaaaaaaaaaaayyyy to much govt controls, its not the answer, nor is attempting to limit campaign donations. Not to mention unconstitutional. I mean, if I want to go run a $50,000 ad for my nominee in the LA Times, does the govt have the right to stop my freedom of speech? THATS precisely the reason they wrote the first amendment, it had to do with political speech and the printed medium. As they were compelled by law to limit their speech.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Say introduce a bill that would put aside one congressional seat from each state and have it put in a lotto system...each registered voter would be given the chance to participate in the political system for one two year term if selected from the lotto...of course background checks on those selected would have to be made...and a resume put forward so all could see what they are getting....Just a thought...

HEY< I would vote for that! Where do I send my contributions?

 

[SMB]

According to Buckely Vs. Valeo, a supreme court case, they ruled that it is not free speech to be able to contribute money in campaign. So sorry, the supreme court disagrees with all of you.

 

[Annie]

According to Buckely Vs. Valeo, a supreme court case, they ruled that it is not free speech to be able to contribute money in campaign. So sorry, the supreme court disagrees with all of you.

Yeah and the SCOTUS also said that it's ok for gov't to take away private property for better taxing entities. The states are now showing their disagreement, because the private property owners have made their postions clear.

Even SCOTUS screws up.

 

[Hobbit]

According to Buckely Vs. Valeo, a supreme court case, they ruled that it is not free speech to be able to contribute money in campaign. So sorry, the supreme court disagrees with all of you.

It wouldn't be the first time SCOTUS reversed its own ruling.

 

[SMB]

I'm simply proving to all of you that it is not unconstitutional like you all have said. So really, there is no reason not to institute mandatory publice financing.

 

[Hobbit]

I'm simply proving to all of you that it is not unconstitutional like you all have said. So really, there is no reason not to institute mandatory publice financing.

But it is unconstitutional. Where you spend your money is part of your freedom of expression. Disallowing people from giving money to their favorite cause, political or charitable, is a violation of their first ammendment rights. How would you like it if the government put a $100 spending limit on trips to "The Sharper Image" so the place wouldn't cater to rich people. Maybe there'd be a $100 giving limit to the Salvation Army so that they wouldn't cater to the interests of the rich.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

According to Buckely Vs. Valeo, a supreme court case, they ruled that it is not free speech to be able to contribute money in campaign. So sorry, the supreme court disagrees with all of you.

Im not talking about contributions per se. Im talking about buying an ad.

Thats just one of the billions of ways around campaign finance laws, which is why I said earlier, they are a TOTAL joke.

 

[MtnBiker]

According to Buckely Vs. Valeo, a supreme court case, they ruled that it is not free speech to be able to contribute money in campaign. So sorry, the supreme court disagrees with all of you.

Your reading comprehension is as poor as your idea.

You have failed to prove the notion that only millionaires are elected or just how your purpose idea of public financing will function.

Lame.

 

[007]

I'm simply proving to all of you that it is not unconstitutional like you all have said. So really, there is no reason not to institute mandatory publice financing.

I don't think you've proven a damn thing. All I've seen is you do is throw out some idea that sounds like financial opression. "YES YOU CAN spend your money on this, NO YOU CAN'T spend your money on that". Sounds very communistic to me. Silence the people.

I very rarely have donated to a campaign. I'm not rich, but I sent what "I" wanted to send. And when and if hitlery clinton ever runs for office, I'LL MORTGAGE EVERY DAMN THING I HAVE TO SEND THE MOST I POSSIBLY CAN TO SEE THIS NARCISSIST BITCH DEFEATED, AND BY GOD I WANT THE FUCKING *FREEDOM* TO DO SO!!!

So NO, your idea is a BAD one.

You're dismissed.

 

[Mariner]

lot of interesting things in response to the original post, but no one has really contested its main point: since it costs money to campaign, those with more money obviously are given outsized influence over government. This may respect the rights of people to spend their money and speak their mind, but as a practical matter, it means poor people have little voice.

John McCain has been the most clear and honest politician in recent history about the corrupting influence of the ridiculously lucrative lobbying system and the skewed campaign finance system.

Publicly financed elections would have their own problems, but who knows, it might actually be better. At present, the Senate is filled with multimillionaires. How are they supposed to accurately represent the rest of us?

Mariner.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

lot of interesting things in response to the original post, but no one has really contested its main point: since it costs money to campaign, those with more money obviously are given outsized influence over government. This may respect the rights of people to spend their money and speak their mind, but as a practical matter, it means poor people have little voice.

John McCain has been the most clear and honest politician in recent history about the corrupting influence of the ridiculously lucrative lobbying system and the skewed campaign finance system.

Publicly financed elections would have their own problems, but who knows, it might actually be better. At present, the Senate is filled with multimillionaires. How are they supposed to accurately represent the rest of us?

Mariner.

The issues have been addressed, its unconstitutional, unwanted, and probably worse than the present system.

You do realize that originally only land owners could vote? I would imagine that also meant, run for office. And that was in the day when land ownership wasnt so common.

If you dont have alot of money and want to run for office, get into a local race. You do realize there are alot more to politics than just the national level? And besides, many non rich people manage to get elected.

 

[Avatar4321]

lot of interesting things in response to the original post, but no one has really contested its main point: since it costs money to campaign, those with more money obviously are given outsized influence over government. This may respect the rights of people to spend their money and speak their mind, but as a practical matter, it means poor people have little voice.

John McCain has been the most clear and honest politician in recent history about the corrupting influence of the ridiculously lucrative lobbying system and the skewed campaign finance system.

Publicly financed elections would have their own problems, but who knows, it might actually be better. At present, the Senate is filled with multimillionaires. How are they supposed to accurately represent the rest of us?

Mariner.

John McCain is hardly the most clear and honest politician in recent history about anything. The man admits he lies. And yet for some reason people seem to think that makes him honest. Bosh.

He seems to have this odd view that money creates corrupt the system. But money doesn't corrupt the system. Corrupt politicians corrupt the system. He seems to think even politcians that are supposedly "honest" like himself are corrupted by money. Its a bunch of BS.

So his plan? Public funding. Which of course takes away the accountability of the politicians actions. Instead of actually listening to what the constituents who supported him says, a politician under the John McCain system would be able to tax the people to force them to pay for his campaign and the people would be unable who withhold funds from him.

Of course, Ive addressed this numerous times in this thread as has alot of other people. The fact that you want to pretend no one has talked about it says more about what you want to see than reveals any facts.