Campaign donations.

[g5000]

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.

Has any disease ever been cured by treating the symptoms?

By trying to control the amount of money which flows toward power, you are addressing the symptom (campaign cash) instead of the disease (the growth of federal power).

Diminish the government's power over our lives, and you instantaneously take away the incentive for money to capture that power over our lives .

Instead, we have been increasing government power. We have recently handed over a great deal of power over our health care to the government. What do you think will happen with respect to the amount of money that is going to be spent trying to capture those new powers?

By focusing on the symptoms, you have missed that the disease is progressing.

It is not a coincidence that campaign cash has been increasing as government power increases.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Has any disease ever been cured by treating the symptoms?

By trying to control the amount of money which flows toward power, you are addressing the symptom (campaign cash) instead of the disease (the growth of federal power).

Diminish the government's power over our lives, and you take away the ability of money to capture that power over our lives. Diminish the government's power over our lives, the symptoms of astronomical amounts of campaign cash go away instantaneously.

Instead, we have been increasing government power. We have recently handed over a great deal of power over our health care to the government. What do you think will happen with respect to the amount of money that is going to be spent trying to capture those new powers?

I think I can find some common ground between the two of us : power equilibrium , which is one of the reasons why the state is divided in independent branches.

I will now go slightly off topic, but I think by doing so we will have a richer discussion :
The government may take actions which can empower it or empower someone else. Although all actions must be enacted by a law, I will divide them by the means by which the power transfer is achived if it requires a disimbursment from the government or not.

Increase Defense expenditure - Empowers the government.(means : budget )
Right to own a weapon - Empowers the citizens (means : law )
Public elementary education - Empowers the citizen, but decreases the power of some tax payers ( at least in purchasing terms). (means budget )
Public healthcare - Empowers the citizen, but decreases the power of some tax payers ( at least in purchasing terms). (means budget )
Antitrust laws - Decreases the power of corporations , empowers the consumer by giving more choices. (means law)
NSA massive data collection - Empowers the government, decreases the power of citizens and corporations.

My objections to your reasoning are as follows :
1. You completely disregard the role of corporate power
2. You are only looking at the power through the lens of government expenditure, but IMHO the budget expenditure is not the main factor that gives power to the government. It is the fact that government can create policy and has the monopoly of violence( that's not a criticism its a definition ) . It is far more dangerous a law that transfers the legislative power to the President than an increase of 20% in government expenditure.
3. Some of the government actions give more power to the government but also empower the citizens.

Would be glad to hear your reasoning here

 

[g5000]

Increase Defense expenditure - Empowers the government.(means : budget )
Right to own a weapon - Empowers the citizens (means : law )

As soon as the federal government began regulating my right to bear arms, it increased its power over my life, and thus ensured a shit ton of money was going to be spent on politicians on both sides of the issue.

Public healthcare - Empowers the citizen, but decreases the power of some tax payers ( at least in purchasing terms). (means budget )

The government has massively expanded its powers in health care with ObamaCare, and it already had massive powers in the health care sector to begin with. Look how much money is spent by special interests over Medicare, Medicaid, and every other government health program.

Now just imagine the amount of campaign cash that is going to flood into politicians' coffers as they control our lives via ObamaCare. It is going to be an explosion of cash. And the outcomes are going to directly affect your life, and probably not for the better.

It amazes me when liberals scream for more and more government control over our lives, and then whine when that power is captured by monied interests shortly thereafter. What the hell did they expect? It's as if they are stone blind to cause-and-effect.

Stop feeding the disease.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Should campaign donations have a low ceiling

No.

Care to share the reasons for your answer?

Free speech.

free speech is what comes out of your mouth,not your bank account....

 

[g5000]

Just taking away a politician's ability to put loopholes, deductions, exemptions, or whathaveyou, in the tax code would have a radical effect on the amount of money which flows to them. You would remove a gigantic incentive to bribe them.

When a politician puts tax breaks for special interests in the tax code, that loss of revenue has to be made up for by everyone else in the form of higher tax rates, and by heavy borrowing.

Cure the disease. Stop trying to treat the symptoms.

Take away their power, and their cash flow will naturally dry up.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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?

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

both....people are who you are buying off....its irrelevant how much the Govt spends....

 

[CultureCitizen]

It amazes me when liberals scream for more and more government control over our lives, and then whine when that power is captured by monied interests shortly thereafter. What the hell did they expect? It's as if they are stone blind to cause-and-effect.

Stop feeding the disease.

I will repeat what I posted in my previous post

The government has massively expanded its powers in health care with ObamaCare, and it already had massive powers in the health care sector to begin with. Look how much money is spent by special interests over Medicare, Medicaid, and every other government health program.

Now just imagine the amount of campaign cash that is going to flood into politicians' coffers as they control our lives via ObamaCare. It is going to be an explosion of cash. And the outcomes are going to directly affect your life, and probably not for the better.

It amazes me when liberals scream for more and more government control over our lives, and then whine when that power is captured by monied interests shortly thereafter. What the hell did they expect? It's as if they are stone blind to cause-and-effect.

Stop feeding the disease.

I hate to repeat myself, but look , the following is a least of the least corrupt countries :

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

You can see that all of these countries have very different government expenditures, they all have a public healthcare system (notably singapore which has one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the world ) and except for Singapore ( which happens to have the smallest gov expenditure) they all have high freedom indexes.
Freedom index

Singapore : 7,67
Switzerland : 9.01.
Australia : 8.33
Sweden: 9.85
Norway : 8.26
Finland : 8.16
Denmark :8,3
USA : 8,3
http://www.freetheworld.com/2012/freedomIndex/Towards-Worldwide-Index-3-Vasquez-Stumberger.pdf

So reallity doesnt check with your theories about government spending. Sorry.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Should campaign donations have a low ceiling

No.

Care to share the reasons for your answer?

Free speech.

free speech is what comes out of your mouth,not your bank account....

What did you say? I was distracted by the political commercial that came out of someone's bank account.

 

[Darkwind]

Why does a donor or corporation donate to a politician?

Because it considers it will enact policies which are favorable for it.
Now, I am not completely against donations, but I consider that those donations must have a ceiling.

Say you have a ngo and several donnors which might suggest the best way in which the ngo should advance.
One donnor donates $1,000,000 and the rest of the donnors donate $10,000 .
Now tell me you wouldn't feel more inclined to listen to the ideas of the really big donnor.

Now, apply free association and the right to redress grievances. In a country of 320+ million people, a single voice against other single voices gets lost and no ones interests get served. The $1m donation can still be made, compared to the single citizen who may get to contribute $1,000. However, as a group of "LIKE MINDED" people, we are still expressing only our opinions, and that group consists of 10,000 people giving $100 each, we just matched the $1m donation.

How is that NOT free speech?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Has any disease ever been cured by treating the symptoms?

By trying to control the amount of money which flows toward power, you are addressing the symptom (campaign cash) instead of the disease (the growth of federal power).

Diminish the government's power over our lives, and you take away the ability of money to capture that power over our lives. Diminish the government's power over our lives, the symptoms of astronomical amounts of campaign cash go away instantaneously.

Instead, we have been increasing government power. We have recently handed over a great deal of power over our health care to the government. What do you think will happen with respect to the amount of money that is going to be spent trying to capture those new powers?

I think I can find some common ground between the two of us : power equilibrium , which is one of the reasons why the state is divided in independent branches.

I will now go slightly off topic, but I think by doing so we will have a richer discussion :
The government may take actions which can empower it or empower someone else. Although all actions must be enacted by a law, I will divide them by the means by which the power transfer is achived if it requires a disimbursment from the government or not.

Increase Defense expenditure - Empowers the government.(means : budget )
Right to own a weapon - Empowers the citizens (means : law )
Public elementary education - Empowers the citizen, but decreases the power of some tax payers ( at least in purchasing terms). (means budget )
Public healthcare - Empowers the citizen, but decreases the power of some tax payers ( at least in purchasing terms). (means budget )
Antitrust laws - Decreases the power of corporations , empowers the consumer by giving more choices. (means law)
NSA massive data collection - Empowers the government, decreases the power of citizens and corporations.

My objections to your reasoning are as follows :
1. You completely disregard the role of corporate power
2. You are only looking at the power through the lens of government expenditure, but IMHO the budget expenditure is not the main factor that gives power to the government. It is the fact that government can create policy and has the monopoly of violence( that's not a criticism its a definition ) . It is far more dangerous a law that transfers the legislative power to the President than an increase of 20% in government expenditure.
3. Some of the government actions give more power to the government but also empower the citizens.

Would be glad to hear your reasoning here

Antitrust laws - Decreases the power of corporations , empowers the consumer by giving more choices. (means law)

Microsoft didn't used to spend much money on lobbyists or campaign contributions until the government brought their antitrust case.

 

[Darkwind]

It amazes me when liberals scream for more and more government control over our lives, and then whine when that power is captured by monied interests shortly thereafter. What the hell did they expect? It's as if they are stone blind to cause-and-effect.

Stop feeding the disease.

I will repeat what I posted in my previous post

The government has massively expanded its powers in health care with ObamaCare, and it already had massive powers in the health care sector to begin with. Look how much money is spent by special interests over Medicare, Medicaid, and every other government health program.

Now just imagine the amount of campaign cash that is going to flood into politicians' coffers as they control our lives via ObamaCare. It is going to be an explosion of cash. And the outcomes are going to directly affect your life, and probably not for the better.

It amazes me when liberals scream for more and more government control over our lives, and then whine when that power is captured by monied interests shortly thereafter. What the hell did they expect? It's as if they are stone blind to cause-and-effect.

Stop feeding the disease.

I hate to repeat myself, but look , the following is a least of the least corrupt countries :

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

You can see that all of these countries have very different government expenditures, they all have a public healthcare system (notably singapore which has one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the world ) and except for Singapore ( which happens to have the smallest gov expenditure) they all have high freedom indexes.
Freedom index

Singapore : 7,67
Switzerland : 9.01.
Australia : 8.33
Sweden: 9.85
Norway : 8.26
Finland : 8.16
Denmark :8,3
USA : 8,3
http://www.freetheworld.com/2012/freedomIndex/Towards-Worldwide-Index-3-Vasquez-Stumberger.pdf

So reallity doesnt check with your theories about government spending. Sorry.

Sorry, but using a website or organization that is biased does not make any point other than they think X as opposed to what the rest of us think.

 

[Roadrunner]

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 ?

Just from the ballots.

A person that needs a party reference at the polls has no business voting.

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

Has any disease ever been cured by treating the symptoms?

By trying to control the amount of money which flows toward power, you are addressing the symptom (campaign cash) instead of the disease (the growth of federal power).

Diminish the government's power over our lives, and you instantaneously take away the incentive for money to capture that power over our lives .

Instead, we have been increasing government power. We have recently handed over a great deal of power over our health care to the government. What do you think will happen with respect to the amount of money that is going to be spent trying to capture those new powers?

By focusing on the symptoms, you have missed that the disease is progressing.

It is not a coincidence that campaign cash has been increasing as government power increases.

The disease is the apathetic and civically illiterate electorate.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Sorry, but using a website or organization that is biased does not make any point other than they think X as opposed to what the rest of us think.

Any statistic on something so general as freedom or corruption will have a bias, because of all the variables that must be taken into account. Regardless, if you can find other source of information which confirms this countries are more corrupt or less free than the US in a notable way I will consider your viewpoint as valid.

 

[initforme]

Anything that levels the playing field is what I am for. No organization or person can give more than $100. That's the cap. Otherwise the system cannot and will not work for the middle and lower class.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Anything that levels the playing field is what I am for. No organization or person can give more than $100. That's the cap. Otherwise the system cannot and will not work for the middle and lower class.

Anything that levels the playing field is what I am for. No organization or person can give more than $100.

How does that level the playing field?

 

[Roadrunner]

Anything that levels the playing field is what I am for. No organization or person can give more than $100. That's the cap. Otherwise the system cannot and will not work for the middle and lower class.

Middle and lower classes are mindless dupe that rarely know what they are voting for or why.

They elect people year after year, not having any idea what those people are doing.

As long as the benefits flow and the burning, looting and stealing isn't too bad, both classes are satisfied.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Now, apply free association and the right to redress grievances. In a country of 320+ million people, a single voice against other single voices gets lost and no ones interests get served. The $1m donation can still be made, compared to the single citizen who may get to contribute $1,000. However, as a group of "LIKE MINDED" people, we are still expressing only our opinions, and that group consists of 10,000 people giving $100 each, we just matched the $1m donation.

Well no , it's actually more like purchasing power.

Also, Corporations and Unions have already an in-place structure and colaboration models which allow them to funnel more resources. Individuals don't. Yes, such organizations can be created but certainly they can't match the logistics and financial capacity and response time of a union , much less of a company...and of course there's also that little problem of the revolving door , where politicians move from government into the corporate world and back.

There is no equality of oportunity.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Antitrust laws - Decreases the power of corporations , empowers the consumer by giving more choices. (means law)

Microsoft didn't used to spend much money on lobbyists or campaign contributions until the government brought their antitrust case.

Wow !
Your post actually seems to be supporting my point of view regarding corporatocracy and clientelism.
Guess I'll have to thankyou.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Antitrust laws - Decreases the power of corporations , empowers the consumer by giving more choices. (means law)

Microsoft didn't used to spend much money on lobbyists or campaign contributions until the government brought their antitrust case.

Wow !
Your post actually seems to be supporting my point of view regarding corporatocracy.
Guess I'll have to thankyou.

Congrats!
The government turned a non-political corporation into a typical lobbying/donating corporation,
merely by threatening their corporate existence.
I guess when the government threatens you, you throw money at the politicians in self-defense.
If the government didn't have the power to decide that your OS was a danger, you'd have no reason to do that.
Tell me again how the size and power of government doesn't matter.