We need laws that criminalize the practice of Congress members accepting money

[whitehall]

We just had a gigantic "campaign finance law" passed sponsored by liberal senators Feingold and McCain. What more do you want? George Soros and Media Matters are now tax exempt. Lefties laughed when Al Gore was caught violating election laws and they laughed when democrat John Murtha was deemed the biggest porker in congress. There are laws on the books that regulate lobbyists and donations and campaign funding. Ignorant lefties even suggested that the federal government finance election campaigns and keep those pesky citizens out of the equation. The dirty little secret is that the left has been whining ever since the Supreme Court ruled that "money is speech" and corporations are allowed to donate to politicians they like. We are all lobbyists. We chip in to an organization like the Sierra Club or the NRA or PETA that promises to try to get laws passed. The problem with the whiners is that they like some lobbying efforts but they want to silence others. It's the 1st Amendment stupid, live with it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

But congress passes laws to make it legal to bribe them.

IPO stock deals are one example.

Which makes my point. Congress is the problem, not the solution.

We already know the problem, what's the solution? Public financing of elections seems such a simple answe, I don't understand why it gets so much resistance. If Congress is the problem, we need to remove temptation. They wouldn't have as many expensive promises to keep and more time to actually read some bills. If we can't count on Congress to do it, then it has to be done by the states calling for a Constitutional amendment. Either way it will be tough, because the money givers will just give more to keep their sweet deal going.

There is much more graft after elections than there is during elections. I certainly don't want to pay for every Tom Dick and Asshole who wants to be a politician to run for office.

We need to put choke chains on all those dogs while they are serving by requiring blind trusts and audits of their personal finances to make sure they don't accept bribes.

 

[konradv]

Which makes my point. Congress is the problem, not the solution.

We already know the problem, what's the solution? Public financing of elections seems such a simple answe, I don't understand why it gets so much resistance. If Congress is the problem, we need to remove temptation. They wouldn't have as many expensive promises to keep and more time to actually read some bills. If we can't count on Congress to do it, then it has to be done by the states calling for a Constitutional amendment. Either way it will be tough, because the money givers will just give more to keep their sweet deal going.

There is much more graft after elections than there are during elections. I certainly don't want to pay for every Tom Dick and Asshole who wants to be a politician to run for office.

We need to put choke chains on all those dogs while they are serving by requiring blind trusts and audits of their personal finances to make sure they don't accept bribes.

Two different questions, normal graft would have to be dealt with the old fashioned way, in the courts. I'm concerned with the legal graft called soliciting campaign contributions. Financing every Tom, Dick and Harry would cost us less in the long run, IMO. Set up a system of town halls and debates that would run all the time. When elections approach, hold sub-primaries to determine which party affiliates and any independents that qualify for funds, then give them all the same. After the primaries we'd probably never have more than three candidates, so it would be just one Tom, one Dick and one Mary, to be fair, that would get funds for the general, not every.

 

[rdean]

And who is it who makes the laws?

 

[whitehall]

We already know the problem, what's the solution? Public financing of elections seems such a simple answe, I don't understand why it gets so much resistance. If Congress is the problem, we need to remove temptation. They wouldn't have as many expensive promises to keep and more time to actually read some bills. If we can't count on Congress to do it, then it has to be done by the states calling for a Constitutional amendment. Either way it will be tough, because the money givers will just give more to keep their sweet deal going.

There is much more graft after elections than there are during elections. I certainly don't want to pay for every Tom Dick and Asshole who wants to be a politician to run for office.

We need to put choke chains on all those dogs while they are serving by requiring blind trusts and audits of their personal finances to make sure they don't accept bribes.

Two different questions, normal graft would have to be dealt with the old fashioned way, in the courts. I'm concerned with the legal graft called soliciting campaign contributions. Financing every Tom, Dick and Harry would cost us less in the long run, IMO. Set up a system of town halls and debates that would run all the time. When elections approach, hold sub-primaries to determine which party affiliates and any independents that qualify for funds, then give them all the same. After the primaries we'd probably never have more than three candidates, so it would be just one Tom, one Dick and one Mary, to be fair, that would get funds for the general, not every.

Are you lefties nuts? Does anyone in their right mind think that federal bureaucracies should be in charge of financing elections while the American people are forced to sit on the sidelines? Does anyone in their right mind think incumbent politicians of either party should be in charge of financing their opponent's campaigns? The longer Obama socialists remain in office the crazier the left wing gets.

 

[konradv]

There is much more graft after elections than there are during elections. I certainly don't want to pay for every Tom Dick and Asshole who wants to be a politician to run for office.

We need to put choke chains on all those dogs while they are serving by requiring blind trusts and audits of their personal finances to make sure they don't accept bribes.

Two different questions, normal graft would have to be dealt with the old fashioned way, in the courts. I'm concerned with the legal graft called soliciting campaign contributions. Financing every Tom, Dick and Harry would cost us less in the long run, IMO. Set up a system of town halls and debates that would run all the time. When elections approach, hold sub-primaries to determine which party affiliates and any independents that qualify for funds, then give them all the same. After the primaries we'd probably never have more than three candidates, so it would be just one Tom, one Dick and one Mary, to be fair, that would get funds for the general, not every.

Are you lefties nuts? Does anyone in their right mind think that federal bureaucracies should be in charge of financing elections while the American people are forced to sit on the sidelines? Does anyone in their right mind think incumbent politicians of either party should be in charge of financing their opponent's campaigns? The longer Obama socialists remain in office the crazier the left wing gets.

Results of primaries would be known and everyone would get the same amount. Where's the wiggle room to finagle that?

 

[jillian]

we also need a law to prevent congress members from insider trading.

much agreed!

if you want money out of politics... somethingi heartily endorse, then you have to find another way to fund campaigns.

unfortunately that isn't possible any longer because of Citizen's United.

so good luck.

 

[jillian]

There is much more graft after elections than there are during elections. I certainly don't want to pay for every Tom Dick and Asshole who wants to be a politician to run for office.

We need to put choke chains on all those dogs while they are serving by requiring blind trusts and audits of their personal finances to make sure they don't accept bribes.

Two different questions, normal graft would have to be dealt with the old fashioned way, in the courts. I'm concerned with the legal graft called soliciting campaign contributions. Financing every Tom, Dick and Harry would cost us less in the long run, IMO. Set up a system of town halls and debates that would run all the time. When elections approach, hold sub-primaries to determine which party affiliates and any independents that qualify for funds, then give them all the same. After the primaries we'd probably never have more than three candidates, so it would be just one Tom, one Dick and one Mary, to be fair, that would get funds for the general, not every.

Are you lefties nuts? Does anyone in their right mind think that federal bureaucracies should be in charge of financing elections while the American people are forced to sit on the sidelines? Does anyone in their right mind think incumbent politicians of either party should be in charge of financing their opponent's campaigns? The longer Obama socialists remain in office the crazier the left wing gets.

are you so stupid as to think that corporate funding of campaigns is better than government funded campaigns where every candidate gets the same amount of money, brain dead loon?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Two different questions, normal graft would have to be dealt with the old fashioned way, in the courts. I'm concerned with the legal graft called soliciting campaign contributions. Financing every Tom, Dick and Harry would cost us less in the long run, IMO. Set up a system of town halls and debates that would run all the time. When elections approach, hold sub-primaries to determine which party affiliates and any independents that qualify for funds, then give them all the same. After the primaries we'd probably never have more than three candidates, so it would be just one Tom, one Dick and one Mary, to be fair, that would get funds for the general, not every.

Are you lefties nuts? Does anyone in their right mind think that federal bureaucracies should be in charge of financing elections while the American people are forced to sit on the sidelines? Does anyone in their right mind think incumbent politicians of either party should be in charge of financing their opponent's campaigns? The longer Obama socialists remain in office the crazier the left wing gets.

are you so stupid as to think that corporate funding of campaigns is better than government funded campaigns where every candidate gets the same amount of money, brain dead loon?

Public campaign funding won't stop the DNC, RNC, unions, PACS and corporations from spending millions on ads for or against candidates.

All public funding will do is take more money from the taxpayers to be wasted by politicians.

 

[jillian]

Are you lefties nuts? Does anyone in their right mind think that federal bureaucracies should be in charge of financing elections while the American people are forced to sit on the sidelines? Does anyone in their right mind think incumbent politicians of either party should be in charge of financing their opponent's campaigns? The longer Obama socialists remain in office the crazier the left wing gets.

are you so stupid as to think that corporate funding of campaigns is better than government funded campaigns where every candidate gets the same amount of money, brain dead loon?

Public campaign funding won't stop the DNC, RNC, unions, PACS and corporations from spending millions on ads for or against candidates.

All public funding will do is take more money from the taxpayers to be wasted by politicians.

actually, yes it would if the law prohibited those things.

personally, i'd prefer all money came out of politics. but you can't run a campaign without it. it either comes from corporations and all those little distasteful things that represent average people that you hate so much... or it gets paid for by government and we get rid of all money in politics.

i prefer the latter.

 

[Skull Pilot]

are you so stupid as to think that corporate funding of campaigns is better than government funded campaigns where every candidate gets the same amount of money, brain dead loon?

Public campaign funding won't stop the DNC, RNC, unions, PACS and corporations from spending millions on ads for or against candidates.

All public funding will do is take more money from the taxpayers to be wasted by politicians.

actually, yes it would if the law prohibited those things.

personally, i'd prefer all money came out of politics. but you can't run a campaign without it. it either comes from corporations and all those little distasteful things that represent average people that you hate so much... or it gets paid for by government and we get rid of all money in politics.

i prefer the latter.

Then you're talking first amendment issues.

I'd rather see the graft and corruption of sitting politicians be addressed before I tell people their first amendment rights were null and void

 

[jillian]

Public campaign funding won't stop the DNC, RNC, unions, PACS and corporations from spending millions on ads for or against candidates.

All public funding will do is take more money from the taxpayers to be wasted by politicians.

actually, yes it would if the law prohibited those things.

personally, i'd prefer all money came out of politics. but you can't run a campaign without it. it either comes from corporations and all those little distasteful things that represent average people that you hate so much... or it gets paid for by government and we get rid of all money in politics.

i prefer the latter.

Then you're talking first amendment issues.

I'd rather see the graft and corruption of sitting politicians be addressed before I tell people their first amendment rights were null and void

i don't believe money is speech. and corporations were never intended to be considered people for purposes of the first amendment. they are a statutory creation and were considered as "reople" for the sole purpose of them having standing to be parties in law suits. clarence thomas and antonin scalia disagree. interestingly so does elliott spitzer.

which is why citizens united mitigates against our getting money out of politics unless the court reverses itself (which this court won't) or there's a constitutional amendment.

hence my initial comment about why money can't be taken out of politics. so the o/p can whine about it to his heart's content. it isn't going to happen

 

[Skull Pilot]

actually, yes it would if the law prohibited those things.

personally, i'd prefer all money came out of politics. but you can't run a campaign without it. it either comes from corporations and all those little distasteful things that represent average people that you hate so much... or it gets paid for by government and we get rid of all money in politics.

i prefer the latter.

Then you're talking first amendment issues.

I'd rather see the graft and corruption of sitting politicians be addressed before I tell people their first amendment rights were null and void

i don't believe money is speech. clarence thomas and antonin scalia disagree. interestingly so does elliott spitzer.

which is why citizens united mitigates against our getting money out of politics unless the court reverses itself (which this court won't) or there's a constitutional amendment.

Not money but the air time that money buys is speech. That money is not given directly to politicians or candidates and is therefore not subject to campaign financing laws.

If you tell private citizens that they can't buy ads on TV and radio you're opening up a first amendment can of worms.

 

[jillian]

Then you're talking first amendment issues.

I'd rather see the graft and corruption of sitting politicians be addressed before I tell people their first amendment rights were null and void

i don't believe money is speech. clarence thomas and antonin scalia disagree. interestingly so does elliott spitzer.

which is why citizens united mitigates against our getting money out of politics unless the court reverses itself (which this court won't) or there's a constitutional amendment.

Not money but the air time that money buys is speech.

If you tell people that they can't buy ads on TV and radio you're opening up a first amendment can of worms.

I agree to an extent. But I think you're throwing up your hands and accepting the status quo

Which is why the money should come from government, in very limited amounts, equally distributed to each candidate.

and why fixing this requires constitutional amendment if at all.

 

[Skull Pilot]

i don't believe money is speech. clarence thomas and antonin scalia disagree. interestingly so does elliott spitzer.

which is why citizens united mitigates against our getting money out of politics unless the court reverses itself (which this court won't) or there's a constitutional amendment.

Not money but the air time that money buys is speech.

If you tell people that they can't buy ads on TV and radio you're opening up a first amendment can of worms.

I agree.

Which is why the money should come from government, in very limited amounts, equally distributed to each candidate.

That will not stop private citizens and PACS. or unions etc from spending money on ads.

We're already limited as to how much an individual can directly give to a politician or candidate.

 

[jillian]

Not money but the air time that money buys is speech.

If you tell people that they can't buy ads on TV and radio you're opening up a first amendment can of worms.

I agree.

Which is why the money should come from government, in very limited amounts, equally distributed to each candidate.

That will not stop private citizens and PACS. or unions etc from spending money on ads.

We're already limited as to how much an individual can directly give to a politician or candidate.

see my edit above...

the problem in the system isn't unions. it's corporations and PACS.

and unions get their money from real members... individuals. the way it works now, one billionaire has more say than millions of voters.

for purposes of keeping it fair, i'm happy to keep unions from donating money, too.

 

[konradv]

Public campaign funding won't stop the DNC, RNC, unions, PACS and corporations from spending millions on ads for or against candidates.

All public funding will do is take more money from the taxpayers to be wasted by politicians.

actually, yes it would if the law prohibited those things.

personally, i'd prefer all money came out of politics. but you can't run a campaign without it. it either comes from corporations and all those little distasteful things that represent average people that you hate so much... or it gets paid for by government and we get rid of all money in politics.

i prefer the latter.

Then you're talking first amendment issues.

I'd rather see the graft and corruption of sitting politicians be addressed before I tell people their first amendment rights were null and void

No one said "null and void". It would require a new amendment. That's a given. What sort of speech are you talking about anyway? If it's an election campaign it's the candidates speaking, right? If they all have an equal platform, who's free speech is being taken away?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I agree.

Which is why the money should come from government, in very limited amounts, equally distributed to each candidate.

That will not stop private citizens and PACS. or unions etc from spending money on ads.

We're already limited as to how much an individual can directly give to a politician or candidate.

see my edit above...

the problem in the system isn't unions. it's corporations and PACS.

It doesn't matter. You can't pick and choose whom to exclude from spending money on ads. If one can't then none can.

 

[Skull Pilot]

actually, yes it would if the law prohibited those things.

personally, i'd prefer all money came out of politics. but you can't run a campaign without it. it either comes from corporations and all those little distasteful things that represent average people that you hate so much... or it gets paid for by government and we get rid of all money in politics.

i prefer the latter.

Then you're talking first amendment issues.

I'd rather see the graft and corruption of sitting politicians be addressed before I tell people their first amendment rights were null and void

No one said "null and void". It would require a new amendment. That's a given. What sort of speech are you talking about anyway? If it's an election campaign it's the candidates speaking, right? If they all have an equal platform, who's free speech is being taken away?

Any private citizen or group of citizens can purchase air time to speak for or against a candidate without giving that money directly to a candidate. If you prohibit private citizens from doing that, you are denying their first amendment rights.

 

[dblack]

No one said "null and void". It would require a new amendment. That's a given. What sort of speech are you talking about anyway? If it's an election campaign it's the candidates speaking, right? If they all have an equal platform, who's free speech is being taken away?

Those not invited to be on the "platform". Presumable you're not suggesting that every two-bit yahoo with delusions of grandeur be granted an equal share of this public funding, are you? Whatever procedure and policies formed around filtering out non-"viable" candidates will inevitably be heavily politicized. (Take a look at the process of gerrymandering if you want a preview.) Essentially you're suggesting government be put in charge of deciding who gets to run for office each election.