Will You Join The Revolution? Sign The Pledge!!!

[creativedreams]

Replacing remocrats with depublicans isn't kicking anyone out.....It's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

I love that! Hope you don't mind but that's my new signature in all my forums!

 

[Foxfyre]

LOL and yet according to the recent Supreme Court decision don't they have the RIGHT to spend their money how they see fit?
Right leaning court with a right leaning activist decision. If you have a problem with these activist justices and their decision then blame the republicans that put them there. LOL

This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .

or. . .

We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.

And that removes all the payola from the system right there.

I honestly don't understand how you relate government benifitting individuals, etc to lobbyists?? "corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else" are not the federal government so how does your prohibition on the federal government apply to them??

For example, Oil companies lobby for expanding drilling, so IF the government decides to support such expansion, including opening up federal land for drilling after being lobbied, how can your prohibition on the federal government prevent the oil companies from benefitting from the expansion gained through their lobbying??
I just don't see how a restriction on the federal government that does not affect or limit lobbying can remove all the payola from the system.

My concept would not reward say Exxon or Conoco Phillips from successfully lobbying Congress for a contract to do oil exploration unless they did it on behalf of all oil producers. There is no problem for lobbyists representing all oil producers to present information and evidence of oil reserves in such and such a place and persuade Congress that it was in the interest of the general welfare (a benefit to ALL Americans) to open federal lands to such exploration and production. Those oil companies who then bid for the drilling rights would of course benefit--without an expectation or informed hope of profit they would not be able to do the work. But ALL oil companies would have equal right to bid on the contracts, not just one or two favored entities. And the resulting increased oil reserves would then benefit all Americans as all benefit from plentiful energy resources and also the economic activity that would require nothing from the national treasury.

There would be no advantage for anybody to funnel excess monies into campaign coffers because the law would prevent the legislator from providing any benefit exclusively for the contributor. And THAT is how you eliminate payola.

 

[creativedreams]

The Kick Them All Out Project - Take The "Kick Them All Out" Pledge!

I hope all of you on this forum join us. Democrat, Republican, independent, and all others please join us and take back our country from the fat cats and crooked politicians. We currently have 2,100 confirmed signers.

It doesn't take a mental giant to see this country has evolved to be neck deep in corporate corruption.

It even appears corporate media is sold out where they are now a vehicle to crush the image of anyone in an independent party.

That being said......if there is a revolution I will simply just head for the mountains and live like Grizzly Adams just to get away from all the BS.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

My pledge is to God and the Constitution. I don't need to sign a petition to let my employees know how I feel about their performance. I do that directly with phone calls, emails, letters, and last but certainly not least, the voting booth.

 

[Foxfyre]

Isn't there already an individual limit to how much one can donate to a candidate?

IMO the problem isn't with the individual limit that an individual or entity that counts as an individual can donate to a candidate but that an entitiy that counts as an individual with billions of dollars in funding could flood the airwaves, press and internet with ads supporting or railing against a candidate and it is all protected under freedom of speech. Isn't that what the recent supreme court decision was all about??

Yes as George Soros has done consistently in promoting an agenda dear to Moveon.org and other leftwing groups. Yes as T. Boone Pickens has done running a massive ad campaign promoting use of natural gas and wind power, which of course he invests heavily in, as beneficial to America. Yes as GM and Ford and Toyota and KIA and Hundai spend billions in advertising promoting their cars, trucks, and SUVs.

SCOTUS was quite right, however, that all these groups are perfectly entitled to use their own money to promote whatever they want to promote through whatever medium is willing to take it. It isn't even an issue of fairness. It is an issue of unalienable rights to ones own opinion and one's own thoughts and ideas and the pursuit of one's own fortune by legal means. Whether it is one billionaire with more money than God spending it on some cause or whether it is millions of everyday Americans pooling their funds, it is a First Amendment issue. If you silence one, you give the government the right to silence anybody.

However, if you forbid Congress to use the people's money to provide any form of charity, benevolence, or reward to ANY individual, group, entity, special interest, corporation or whatever unless it provides the same benefit to all regardless of socioeconomic or political status, then there isn't much incentive for anybody to manipulate the system

And that's what we should be focusing on. Not trying to 'get' some group we disapprove of.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm shocked that so many of you are this happy with how our congress has been running things over the last several years. Very shocked.

To those who don't like this idea just keep on keeping on with the status quo. Pretend like your not part of the problem all you want...as the saying goes "ignorance is bliss". Keep putting the same deadbeats who passed the laws that caused our governmental problems in the first place in office, its america your free to vote how you want.

Me personally, I think re-electing the same failures of representatives over and over again is lemming like at best and idiotic at worse. But thats my opinion.

Keep on keeping on with the status quo you congress supporters.

 

[Gatekeeper]

I am for replacing ALL OF THEM. They can all have a chance again the next time around once they "Get the picture" from being tossed out on their collective asses.

The old Cliche', Familiarity Breeds Contempt is true beyond words. These politicians become so embedded and like a creeping web of entanglement spin their webs between each other, corporations and others, thus maintaining a tight control of the political domain and all the citizens.

Lobbyists---BAN THEM FOREVER for the most part. Those groups that truly desire to advocate something really beneficial to the masses are stomped into oblivion, by the wealthy and powerful that orchestrate the lobbyists.

UNION Donations---BAN IT FOREVER and any others that will benefit financially and 'power/control wise.

I have begun NOT to vote for ANY politician that has the slightest trace of anything but fair and just advocating or voting on Bills,Laws or anything else that effects the citizens. NO more paying off your pals by securing massive grants and programs for their districts, unless they are truly needed for health, safety, security of the citizens.

 

[drsmith1072]

This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .

or. . .

We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.

And that removes all the payola from the system right there.

I honestly don't understand how you relate government benifitting individuals, etc to lobbyists?? "corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else" are not the federal government so how does your prohibition on the federal government apply to them??

For example, Oil companies lobby for expanding drilling, so IF the government decides to support such expansion, including opening up federal land for drilling after being lobbied, how can your prohibition on the federal government prevent the oil companies from benefitting from the expansion gained through their lobbying??
I just don't see how a restriction on the federal government that does not affect or limit lobbying can remove all the payola from the system.

My concept would not reward say Exxon or Conoco Phillips from successfully lobbying Congress for a contract to do oil exploration unless they did it on behalf of all oil producers. There is no problem for lobbyists representing all oil producers to present information and evidence of oil reserves in such and such a place and persuade Congress that it was in the interest of the general welfare (a benefit to ALL Americans) to open federal lands to such exploration and production. Those oil companies who then bid for the drilling rights would of course benefit--without an expectation or informed hope of profit they would not be able to do the work. But ALL oil companies would have equal right to bid on the contracts, not just one or two favored entities. And the resulting increased oil reserves would then benefit all Americans as all benefit from plentiful energy resources and also the economic activity that would require nothing from the national treasury.

There would be no advantage for anybody to funnel excess monies into campaign coffers because the law would prevent the legislator from providing any benefit exclusively for the contributor. And THAT is how you eliminate payola.

Ok? You inserted the idea of an individual contract which had nothing to do with what I said and did not answer the question that I asked.

you seem to be talking about not awarding a contract to any company if that contract is a direct result of that company's lobbying, which is more of a restriction on the company than it is the government and that's not what your original argument was about.

From what I understand leasing rights to drill on federal land are bid on and go to the highest bidder. So, what if the big oil companies lobby as a group to expand drilling and open up new drilling sites on federal lands but don't lobby specifically for an individual contract to drill for oil on federal lands? The lobbying works and the lands get opened up which benefits the oil companies who can bid the highest for the leases. So it goes to reason that this expansion would benefit those big oil companies that lobbied for the expansion so how does your restriction on the federal government prevent these companies from benefitting from their lobbying??

Perhaps the federal government ISN'T the problem in this instance? LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Isn't there already an individual limit to how much one can donate to a candidate?

IMO the problem isn't with the individual limit that an individual or entity that counts as an individual can donate to a candidate but that an entitiy that counts as an individual with billions of dollars in funding could flood the airwaves, press and internet with ads supporting or railing against a candidate and it is all protected under freedom of speech. Isn't that what the recent supreme court decision was all about??

Yes as George Soros has done consistently in promoting an agenda dear to Moveon.org and other leftwing groups. Yes as T. Boone Pickens has done running a massive ad campaign promoting use of natural gas and wind power, which of course he invests heavily in, as beneficial to America. Yes as GM and Ford and Toyota and KIA and Hundai spend billions in advertising promoting their cars, trucks, and SUVs.

SCOTUS was quite right, however, that all these groups are perfectly entitled to use their own money to promote whatever they want to promote through whatever medium is willing to take it. It isn't even an issue of fairness. It is an issue of unalienable rights to ones own opinion and one's own thoughts and ideas and the pursuit of one's own fortune by legal means. Whether it is one billionaire with more money than God spending it on some cause or whether it is millions of everyday Americans pooling their funds, it is a First Amendment issue. If you silence one, you give the government the right to silence anybody.

However, if you forbid Congress to use the people's money to provide any form of charity, benevolence, or reward to ANY individual, group, entity, special interest, corporation or whatever unless it provides the same benefit to all regardless of socioeconomic or political status, then there isn't much incentive for anybody to manipulate the system

And that's what we should be focusing on. Not trying to 'get' some group we disapprove of.

What are you talking about?? I thought I asked a pretty straight forward question and yet for some reason I didn't get an answer. LOL

LOL at your "SCOTUS was quite right" argument. Giving the same rights of freedom of speech to a company is hardly a first amendment issue but since your talking heads are defending it I can see why you would follow suit. LOL Oh and since companies now have that human right what other human rights do companies qualify for? LOL Right to life?? LOL

And once again you present an argument that doesn't seem to make sense. You continue to believe that the problem lies with big government and present restricting that as an answer to all of your problems. LOL

As for what we should be focusing on you seem to contradict yourself with your statement about not trying to "get" some group that you disagree with because you seem to be going after big government at every turn. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

I'm shocked that so many of you are this happy with how our congress has been running things over the last several years. Very shocked.

To those who don't like this idea just keep on keeping on with the status quo. Pretend like your not part of the problem all you want...as the saying goes "ignorance is bliss". Keep putting the same deadbeats who passed the laws that caused our governmental problems in the first place in office, its america your free to vote how you want.

Me personally, I think re-electing the same failures of representatives over and over again is lemming like at best and idiotic at worse. But thats my opinion.

Keep on keeping on with the status quo you congress supporters.

WOW after all that has been said in this thread you still miss the point. LOL Posters have not said that they are happy with congress as a whole or that they are happy with how congress as a whole is running things.

Most who seem to like their elected representative or at least think that they haven't done anything worthy of being booted do not see their represenative as a major player in the problems. If they do see their representatives as a problem then they can do their part to try and vote them out the next time around.

I would think that the poll numbers showing disapproval of congress as a whole combined with posters defending or supporting their elected representatives would have cleared most of this up for you.

 

[HUGGY]

This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .

or. . .

We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.

And that removes all the payola from the system right there.

I honestly don't understand how you relate government benifitting individuals, etc to lobbyists?? "corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else" are not the federal government so how does your prohibition on the federal government apply to them??

For example, Oil companies lobby for expanding drilling, so IF the government decides to support such expansion, including opening up federal land for drilling after being lobbied, how can your prohibition on the federal government prevent the oil companies from benefitting from the expansion gained through their lobbying??
I just don't see how a restriction on the federal government that does not affect or limit lobbying can remove all the payola from the system.

My concept would not reward say Exxon or Conoco Phillips from successfully lobbying Congress for a contract to do oil exploration unless they did it on behalf of all oil producers. There is no problem for lobbyists representing all oil producers to present information and evidence of oil reserves in such and such a place and persuade Congress that it was in the interest of the general welfare (a benefit to ALL Americans) to open federal lands to such exploration and production. Those oil companies who then bid for the drilling rights would of course benefit--without an expectation or informed hope of profit they would not be able to do the work. But ALL oil companies would have equal right to bid on the contracts, not just one or two favored entities. And the resulting increased oil reserves would then benefit all Americans as all benefit from plentiful energy resources and also the economic activity that would require nothing from the national treasury.

There would be no advantage for anybody to funnel excess monies into campaign coffers because the law would prevent the legislator from providing any benefit exclusively for the contributor. And THAT is how you eliminate payola.

That is crap. Between the commodity speculation, which should be illegal in the case of vital national interest such as oil and some minerals, and the "maintanance scam" perpetrated by the oil companies at the refinerys there is no such thing as "good for the american citizen".

The whole shebang lock stock and washer should be nationalized at the point of a gun via some kind of marshall plan for financial recovery and security. If we need a legal reason let it be fraud and treason.

If we control only two things in our world ...in our United States... let it be the security of our health and the right to cheap energy to travel freely without being taxed to those ends by the thieves that own health care corporations and the treason to our national security commited by Big Oil.

If you out there see a chance to arrange an "accident" to any of these gouls you have my admiration and debt.

I am so thoroughly done with expecting any progress toward what is right by thier bloody hands that all I can dream of any more is those hands being chopped off.

Radical? More radical and primative than condeming americans never broken laws to death by medical neglect or pricing them out of survival by the cost refined of our own national resources?

These vermin have controlled the message for far too long pitting american against american to fight over straw men and red herrings. And when that is not enough distraction they send our finest to war against whatever they hold up as proof of wrong doing in thier bloody hands while thier other hand is stealing everything it can under cover of our armed forces.

Piss on all of them. At some point the flags they wave would be better suited tied into nooses and waved around a flagpole with the necks of the traitors in them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Isn't there already an individual limit to how much one can donate to a candidate?

IMO the problem isn't with the individual limit that an individual or entity that counts as an individual can donate to a candidate but that an entitiy that counts as an individual with billions of dollars in funding could flood the airwaves, press and internet with ads supporting or railing against a candidate and it is all protected under freedom of speech. Isn't that what the recent supreme court decision was all about??

Yes as George Soros has done consistently in promoting an agenda dear to Moveon.org and other leftwing groups. Yes as T. Boone Pickens has done running a massive ad campaign promoting use of natural gas and wind power, which of course he invests heavily in, as beneficial to America. Yes as GM and Ford and Toyota and KIA and Hundai spend billions in advertising promoting their cars, trucks, and SUVs.

SCOTUS was quite right, however, that all these groups are perfectly entitled to use their own money to promote whatever they want to promote through whatever medium is willing to take it. It isn't even an issue of fairness. It is an issue of unalienable rights to ones own opinion and one's own thoughts and ideas and the pursuit of one's own fortune by legal means. Whether it is one billionaire with more money than God spending it on some cause or whether it is millions of everyday Americans pooling their funds, it is a First Amendment issue. If you silence one, you give the government the right to silence anybody.

However, if you forbid Congress to use the people's money to provide any form of charity, benevolence, or reward to ANY individual, group, entity, special interest, corporation or whatever unless it provides the same benefit to all regardless of socioeconomic or political status, then there isn't much incentive for anybody to manipulate the system

And that's what we should be focusing on. Not trying to 'get' some group we disapprove of.

What are you talking about?? I thought I asked a pretty straight forward question and yet for some reason I didn't get an answer. LOL

LOL at your "SCOTUS was quite right" argument. Giving the same rights of freedom of speech to a company is hardly a first amendment issue but since your talking heads are defending it I can see why you would follow suit. LOL Oh and since companies now have that human right what other human rights do companies qualify for? LOL Right to life?? LOL

And once again you present an argument that doesn't seem to make sense. You continue to believe that the problem lies with big government and present restricting that as an answer to all of your problems. LOL

As for what we should be focusing on you seem to contradict yourself with your statement about not trying to "get" some group that you disagree with because you seem to be going after big government at every turn. LOL

I thought I answered you quite completely. Earlier I had pointed out that corporations are limited to how much they can contribute directly to any candidate just as individuals are.

So let me try to explain this more clearly than I apparently explained it. Huggy, you might listen in here as your post, other than being pro big authoritarian government and no private healthcare entity or oil company has a right to exist, was not easy to follow.

The issue before the Supreme Court was not - repeat was NOT - about campaign contributions.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a corporation or any other like entity could spend its own money promoting a candidate, cause, issue, or piece of legislation within so many days prior to a general election. SCOTUS quite properly identified all entities as made up of Americans with a Constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, and, short of inciting to riot or insurrection, the right to express any opinion they wanted to express through whatever medium was willing to allow them to express it.

They ruled that it was a violation of the First Amendment to deny a corporation or a union or a political action group or an afternoon bridge club the right of free expression about anything.

So, we on the right have to put up with George Soros or unions or big corporations or T Boone Pickens or whomever or whatever promoting a candidate or cause or initiative or whatever, and you on the left will just have to put up with people saying things you don't want to hear too. Any other approach would take away a freedom that would give government license to eventually take anything it wants.

 

[creativedreams]

I urge you all to review this thread and tell me what you think?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/104884-the-rubber-stamp-in-politics.html

 

[MaggieMae]

as long as they ban union money I agree.

LOL and yet according to the recent Supreme Court decision don't they have the RIGHT to spend their money how they see fit?
Right leaning court with a right leaning activist decision. If you have a problem with these activist justices and their decision then blame the republicans that put them there. LOL

This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .

or. . .

We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.

And that removes all the payola from the system right there.

The rules have been strengthened concerning reporting where a lawmaker receives political donations from, and they also need to comply with stricter reporting on their financials. It's fairly easy now to track who receives what from where, but the public really doesn't seem to care. For example, where was the outrage that medical-affiliated lobbyists spent $3 million+ to put the kibosh on provisions they didn't want in the health care reform bill(s)? We can track who on capital hill benefited from that money, but did anyone care?

 

[MaggieMae]

LOL and yet according to the recent Supreme Court decision don't they have the RIGHT to spend their money how they see fit?
Right leaning court with a right leaning activist decision. If you have a problem with these activist justices and their decision then blame the republicans that put them there. LOL

This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .

or. . .

We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.

And that removes all the payola from the system right there.

The solution is so simple it blows my mind neither one of you 2 suggest it.

CAP THE AMOUNT YOU CAN DONATE. Say $5,000 is the MAX an individual can donate to one specific politician. Therefore GE can only give $5,000 to a canidate if htey want to support said canidate and I can give a canidate up to 5,000 also.

Pretty easy solution guys.

Unless you see a big hole in it I am missing.

There already ARE caps, and has been for a long time.

The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law Brochure

 

[Foxfyre]

LOL and yet according to the recent Supreme Court decision don't they have the RIGHT to spend their money how they see fit?
Right leaning court with a right leaning activist decision. If you have a problem with these activist justices and their decision then blame the republicans that put them there. LOL

This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .

or. . .

We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.

And that removes all the payola from the system right there.

The rules have been strengthened concerning reporting where a lawmaker receives political donations from, and they also need to comply with stricter reporting on their financials. It's fairly easy now to track who receives what from where, but the public really doesn't seem to care. For example, where was the outrage that medical-affiliated lobbyists spent $3 million+ to put the kibosh on provisions they didn't want in the health care reform bill(s)? We can track who on capital hill benefited from that money, but did anyone care?

So what advantage was there to the lawmakers to accommodate the lobbyists? Take away that advantage and the lobbyists can spend as much as they want for whatever they want and it is unlikely to sway anybody unless the requests are in the interest of the general welfare.

 

[MaggieMae]

Too many politicians seem more concerned with re-election than with doing their jobs.

Thats EXACTLY why i'm so behind this idea. If we keep voting them out they will realize it is us the people that re-elect them and not their lobbyists/corporate sponsors.

Part of the elected's "job" is catering to their constituency back home, which is part of what helps them keep their "job." If the elected don't give the electors what they want then the electors should vote the elected out of office. Unfortunately the electors don't.

Unfortunately most of the electors don't look much further than the R or the D that is attached to the candidate's name. They don't take the time to know how the elected actually voted in the past and most vote for a candidate based on one or more issues that they believe their candidate supports or is disagrees with.

IMO, these people will not vote out anyone and will continue to vote for the devil they think they know.

And for good reason, usually. Take John Murtha (D-PA), may be rest in peace, who was the biggest pork barrel spender for years, but his earmarks especially in defense budget spending kept businesses in his district thriving and people working, so even if Republicans hated him for his outspoken stance on the Iraq war, they continued voting for him. The House is unique in that respect. It's members are SUPPOSED TO look out for the people within their own districts. The Senate is charged with weighing what a House member may want for his district against the overall benefit for all the American people across the country. For example, if closing some munitions plant because it was no longer funded by the government meant 50,000 people losing their jobs, then that would have an overall effect on the social welfare programs those people would require.

Frankly, that's the dilemma that's currently occurring on a national level--do we end costly programs that are deemed nonproductive putting people out of work and thus placing those people on unemployment/welfare rolls, or continue to fund obsolete programs and keep people employed?

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm shocked that so many of you are this happy with how our congress has been running things over the last several years. Very shocked.

To those who don't like this idea just keep on keeping on with the status quo. Pretend like your not part of the problem all you want...as the saying goes "ignorance is bliss". Keep putting the same deadbeats who passed the laws that caused our governmental problems in the first place in office, its america your free to vote how you want.

Me personally, I think re-electing the same failures of representatives over and over again is lemming like at best and idiotic at worse. But thats my opinion.

Keep on keeping on with the status quo you congress supporters.

The only problem with your premise, Pilgrim, is that you present no alternative. The Constitution sets forth the manner in which Congress operates, with specific rules for the House and the Senate. The corruption comes from those who broadly define "freedom of speech" to include influence peddling as opposed to simple advocacy. There IS nothing wrong with the system; it's adherence to that system, period, that has been bastardized.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm shocked that so many of you are this happy with how our congress has been running things over the last several years. Very shocked.

To those who don't like this idea just keep on keeping on with the status quo. Pretend like your not part of the problem all you want...as the saying goes "ignorance is bliss". Keep putting the same deadbeats who passed the laws that caused our governmental problems in the first place in office, its america your free to vote how you want.

Me personally, I think re-electing the same failures of representatives over and over again is lemming like at best and idiotic at worse. But thats my opinion.

Keep on keeping on with the status quo you congress supporters.

The only problem with your premise, Pilgrim, is that you present no alternative. The Constitution sets forth the manner in which Congress operates, with specific rules for the House and the Senate. The corruption comes from those who broadly define "freedom of speech" to include influence peddling as opposed to simple advocacy. There IS nothing wrong with the system; it's adherence to that system, period, that has been bastardized.

Sometimes there doesn't need to be an alternative. When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with? Sometimes we just need to stop. Period.

But the problem is a system that has gradually evolved that allows the fire to exist in the first place. And there, the problem is the system.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .

or. . .

We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.

And that removes all the payola from the system right there.

The solution is so simple it blows my mind neither one of you 2 suggest it.

CAP THE AMOUNT YOU CAN DONATE. Say $5,000 is the MAX an individual can donate to one specific politician. Therefore GE can only give $5,000 to a canidate if htey want to support said canidate and I can give a canidate up to 5,000 also.

Pretty easy solution guys.

Unless you see a big hole in it I am missing.

There already ARE caps, and has been for a long time.

The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law Brochure

Your link makes the(not your) claims of corporations donating millions to canidates a red herring.

However i dont see anything in there preventing said corporations from spending millions on ads instead of donating to campaigns. I think that will be the problem area with McCain Feingold being gone.