Campaign donations.

[occupied]

Conservatives are somehow comfortable with the fact that we live in a plutocracy controlled by unaccountable, untouchable mega-wealth. Even the worst aristocracies have a lot of devoted serfs because they have been led to believe that their livelihoods absolutely depend on protecting the wealthy from their responsibility.

 

[CultureCitizen]

And the donations that flow to the politicians,
because the government is just too damn big.

Again , the size of the government doesn't play a role. The amount of money that flows into the politicians hands with donations is more important.

Again , the size of the government doesn't play a role.

Is the government big enough to throw $500 million loan guarantees around for "green" energy?
Suddenly "green" energy companies want to buy access to government.

The amount of money that flows into the politicians hands with donations is more important.

If the federal government controlled only 5% of GDP, would huge donations be flowing to politicians?
Would donations be larger if government controlled 20%. Would they be even larger if government controlled 30%?
Why or why not?

There are several aspects to your question:
1) The level of corruption of the country in general and the level of corruption of the politicians
2) How easily that money can be turned into a personal beneffit.

The size of the government spending is not a factor.
Take a look at the countries with the smallest gov expenditure as a percent of gdp :
Samoa, Nigeria, United Arab Emirates , Central african republic , lao pdr , guatemala , benin , singapure.
With the notable exception of singapore ( which is very close to a city state), none of these countries are characterized by their transparency and low levels of curruption I would argue that a very low % of gdp means not only small government but no governance.

If we look at the contries with high expenditure we find very mixed results:
Greece, France , New Zeland , Belgium, Portugal ,Kiribati , Afghanistan , New Zeland , Ireland , Denmark.

In some of these nations the government corruption is low and in some others high
My conclusion is that government size and how corruptible is the government are two variables with no causal link.
But if you can back your theory with some references I will be glad to discuss them.

Expense of GDP Data Table

The size of the government spending is not a factor.

It's not just spending, it's also control.
The more spending, the more control, the greater the incentive to buy a politician.

The level of corruption of the country in general and the level of corruption of the politicians

What allows more potential for corruption, a government that spends $1 trillion or one that spends $3 trillion?

The budget of a country is not that relevant. I have already presented my evidence. If you have evidence that two countries with the same amount of control and different gov budgets have a different level of corruption I will accept your argument. Meanwhile I will research for more evidence of the opposite argument.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And the donations that flow to the politicians,
because the government is just too damn big.

Again , the size of the government doesn't play a role. The amount of money that flows into the politicians hands with donations is more important.

Again , the size of the government doesn't play a role.

Is the government big enough to throw $500 million loan guarantees around for "green" energy?
Suddenly "green" energy companies want to buy access to government.

The amount of money that flows into the politicians hands with donations is more important.

If the federal government controlled only 5% of GDP, would huge donations be flowing to politicians?
Would donations be larger if government controlled 20%. Would they be even larger if government controlled 30%?
Why or why not?

There are several aspects to your question:
1) The level of corruption of the country in general and the level of corruption of the politicians
2) How easily that money can be turned into a personal beneffit.

The size of the government spending is not a factor.
Take a look at the countries with the smallest gov expenditure as a percent of gdp :
Samoa, Nigeria, United Arab Emirates , Central african republic , lao pdr , guatemala , benin , singapure.
With the notable exception of singapore ( which is very close to a city state), none of these countries are characterized by their transparency and low levels of curruption I would argue that a very low % of gdp means not only small government but no governance.

If we look at the contries with high expenditure we find very mixed results:
Greece, France , New Zeland , Belgium, Portugal ,Kiribati , Afghanistan , New Zeland , Ireland , Denmark.

In some of these nations the government corruption is low and in some others high
My conclusion is that government size and how corruptible is the government are two variables with no causal link.
But if you can back your theory with some references I will be glad to discuss them.

Expense of GDP Data Table

The size of the government spending is not a factor.

It's not just spending, it's also control.
The more spending, the more control, the greater the incentive to buy a politician.

The level of corruption of the country in general and the level of corruption of the politicians

What allows more potential for corruption, a government that spends $1 trillion or one that spends $3 trillion?

The budget of a country is not that relevant. I have already presented my evidence. If you have evidence that two countries with the same amount of control and different gov budgets have a different level of corruption I will accept your argument. Meanwhile I will research for more evidence of the opposite argument.

The budget of a country is not that relevant.

Hilarious. And wrong.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Hilarious. And wrong.

Here are my sources
2012 Corruption Perceptions Index -- Results
Expense of GDP Data Table

And my evidence :
Country Corruption Index 2012 % of gov spending
Singapore 87 12.7
Switzerland 86 16.5
Australia 85 26.3
Sweden 88 30.9
Norway 85 34.3
Finland 90 39.2
Denmark 90 43.1
New Zealand 90 46.3

The above list contains the countries with the lowest level of corruption. They are all long standing peacefull democracies with strong institutions and a certain degree of transparency.
The % of the gdp of government spending varies from 12.7 of singapore to 46 of new zeland.
With such a big variation in the GDP and such a small variation in the corruption index I can conclude these two variables show no correlation. Therefore adecuate controls are the main variable at play here. Furthermore I would argue that "limiting the donations" to only citizens and setting a low ceiling for donations ( e.g US $100) would serve as a control for the aforementioned corruption.

I'll be waiting for you to proove the contrary supported by some evidence.

 

[g5000]

Why does a donor or corporation donate to a politician?

Because it considers it will enact policies which are favorable for it.

CultureCitizen

In your OP, you said, "Politicians will want to keep the donations flowing as they recieve a beneffit from them."

Based on your answer, it appears there are benefits to both sides.

Moving on to the next question.

If a politician did not have the power to enact policies favorable to special interests, would those special interests donate money to the politician?

 

[CultureCitizen]

If a politician did not have the power to enact policies favorable to special interests, would those special interests donate money to the politician?

Maybe, sometimes it may be thaty they are not interested in eacting a policy but avoiding the change in existing policies or loopholes.
The fact remains that large donors wield political power through donations, which is not exactly how a representative democracy is supposed to work.

I find it disquieting. It makes me think of a voting system in which one citizen equald to one vote is not the norm , but rather one dollar equals one vote.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If a politician did not have the power to enact policies favorable to special interests, would those special interests donate money to the politician?

Maybe, sometimes it may be thaty they are not interested in eacting a policy but avoiding the change in existing policies or loopholes.
The fact remains that large donors wield political power through donations, which is not exactly how a representative democracy is supposed to work.

I find it disquieting. It makes me think of a voting system in which one citizen equald to one vote is not the norm , but rather one dollar equals one vote.

Maybe, sometimes it may be thaty they are not interested in eacting a policy but avoiding the change in existing policies or loopholes.

So if the EPA came up with the stupid idea that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, people and companies that produce and use fossil fuels might be interested in donating to politicians to stop the idiocy?

 

[g5000]

If a politician did not have the power to enact policies favorable to special interests, would those special interests donate money to the politician?

Maybe, sometimes it may be thaty they are not interested in eacting a policy but avoiding the change in existing policies or loopholes.

CultureCitizen

So the politician not only has the power to enact a policy, he also has power over existing policies.

For example, there may be a carve-out in the tax code for a particular special interest. The politician not only had the power to put that carve out in the tax code, he has the power to make sure it stays there.

If the politician did not have that kind of power, would those special interests donate money to the politician?

 

[zeke]

Maybe, sometimes it may be thaty they are not interested in eacting a policy but avoiding the change in existing policies or loopholes.

So if the EPA came up with the stupid idea that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, people and companies that produce and use fossil fuels might be interested in donating to politicians to stop the idiocy?

And therein lies the problem WHO gets to say the EPA's idea is stupid? Is it the politicians that accepted the huge amounts of money from the corporations that have a vested interest in not believing the EPA? Why, sure it is.
Not quite a fair arbiter are those politicians accepting large donations from fossil fuel companies?

What should be happening is that the COngress should be basing decisions on climate and environment using agreed upon sources of the best scientific research and information available.
The fact that we let huge money into the decision process guarantees that we the people will get a decision based on the most dollars contributed, not the best scientific research and the most reasonable decision making process.

 

[CultureCitizen]

If the politician did not have that kind of power, would those special interests donate money to the politician?

No , they would not. That said, I am not completely against donating but against :
a) donations with a high ceiling.
b) Corporations and Unions donating, since they are abstract entities.

 

[g5000]

If the politician did not have that kind of power, would those special interests donate money to the politician?

No , they would not.

CultureCitizen

So would you agree that the more power we give to our federal politicians over our lives, the more money will flow to them to capture that power?

 

[CultureCitizen]

So if the EPA came up with the stupid idea that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, people and companies that produce and use fossil fuels might be interested in donating to politicians to stop the idiocy?

It should be people, not companies who decide. Companies deciding the fate of a country reeks to corporatocracy.

But then, maybe that is what you seek to achieve: give companies a voice and vote, and freedom to dictate policy. In that case I understand your position, but I do not share it.

Study links carbon dioxide emissions to increased deaths

 

[zeke]

For example, there may be a carve-out in the tax code for a particular special interest. The politician not only had the power to put that carve out in the tax code, he has the power to make sure it stays there.

If the politician did not have that kind of power, would those special interests donate money to the politician?

If I may; I would imagine that the amount of the campaign contribution would somehow be based by the donor on the dollars saved represented by the tax carve out.

In other words, That carve out saved me 100k. I gave 20k to your campaign. I lose that 100k write off. Now you get 1k.

How about the home interest deduction. Realtors fight hard every time it is mentioned that this is a costly tax provision. Realtors give heavily to our Reps to keep this write off in place. Would the Realtors scale back their contributions if home owners lost this write off? I believe they would.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe, sometimes it may be thaty they are not interested in eacting a policy but avoiding the change in existing policies or loopholes.

So if the EPA came up with the stupid idea that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, people and companies that produce and use fossil fuels might be interested in donating to politicians to stop the idiocy?

And therein lies the problem WHO gets to say the EPA's idea is stupid? Is it the politicians that accepted the huge amounts of money from the corporations that have a vested interest in not believing the EPA? Why, sure it is.
Not quite a fair arbiter are those politicians accepting large donations from fossil fuel companies?

What should be happening is that the COngress should be basing decisions on climate and environment using agreed upon sources of the best scientific research and information available.
The fact that we let huge money into the decision process guarantees that we the people will get a decision based on the most dollars contributed, not the best scientific research and the most reasonable decision making process.

And therein lies the problem WHO gets to say the EPA's idea is stupid?

Anyone interested in an advanced economy.

Is it the politicians that accepted the huge amounts of money from the corporations that have a vested interest in not believing the EPA?

What about the employees that have a vested interest? The consumers?

The fact that we let huge money into the decision process guarantees that we the people will get a decision based on the most dollars contributed

Based on the failure of Tom Steyer in 2014, money isn't everything.

 

[g5000]

For example, there may be a carve-out in the tax code for a particular special interest. The politician not only had the power to put that carve out in the tax code, he has the power to make sure it stays there.

If the politician did not have that kind of power, would those special interests donate money to the politician?

If I may; I would imagine that the amount of the campaign contribution would somehow be based by the donor on the dollars saved represented by the tax carve out.

In other words, That carve out saved me 100k. I gave 20k to your campaign. I lose that 100k write off. Now you get 1k.

How much would you have donated if carve outs were not allowed in the tax code in the first place?

How about the home interest deduction. Realtors fight hard every time it is mentioned that this is a costly tax provision. Realtors give heavily to our Reps to keep this write off in place. Would the Realtors scale back their contributions if home owners lost this write off? I believe they would.

How much would the real estate special interests donate to politicians if no deductions were allowed in the tax code?

A lot more or a lot less than they do now, or the same amount?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So if the EPA came up with the stupid idea that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, people and companies that produce and use fossil fuels might be interested in donating to politicians to stop the idiocy?

It should be people, not companies who decide. Companies deciding the fate of a country reeks to corporatocracy.

It should be people, not companies who decide.

Companies aren't made up of people? Owners, employees, customers who will all be damaged by this idiocy?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Companies aren't made up of people? Owners, employees, customers who will all be damaged by this idiocy?

As I said, people should be able to donate, and the donations should have a low ceiling ( $100 or so) , so that voters income does not become a factor.
Explain yourself. How would this policy cause any damage ?
The current policy favours clientelism.

Clientelism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"Clientelism is the exchange of goods and services for political support, often involving an implicit or explicit quid-pro-quo.[1] It is a political system at the heart of which is an asymmetric relationship between groups of political actors described as patrons and clients and political parties. Richard Graham has defined clientelism as a set of actions based on the principle take there, give here, with the practice allowing both clients and patrons to gain advantage from the other's support. Moreover, clientelism is typified by "exchange systems where voters trade political support for various outputs of the public decision-making process."

 

[CultureCitizen]

So would you agree that the more power we give to our federal politicians over our lives, the more money will flow to them to capture that power?

I can almost agree , but let me rephrase your statement.

As government and corporations become more powerfull they will seek of ways to assert their position of power and increase their cash flow.

Hence , measures mut be taken to ensure this increase of power does not turn into a cycle of continued negotiations in which the general population becomes the looser and corporations and the government become the winners.

 

[Roadrunner]

Should campaign donations have a low ceiling ( e.g. the minimum wage of a day per election) ?

My position follows :
A) Greed is the engine that makes capitalism move.
B) Most of the elements in the system are fueled by greed.
C) Politicians beneffit from large donations from persons and corporations
D) Politicians will want to keep the donations flowing as they recieve a beneffit from them.
E) From D, it follows large donnors and corporations will have a leverage on the policies dictated by the recipients of their donations.

... I somehow get the impression this line of though went unnoticed by the Supreme Court .

Share your thoughts.

Since the Constitution does not mention party, the single greatest election reform we could make would be to ban any and all party reference from ballots.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Since the Constitution does not mention party, the single greatest election reform we could make would be to ban any and all party reference from ballots.

Just from the ballots ? Or are you proposing having no political parties at all ?