Campaign donations.

[BluesLegend]

So your position is stupidity? Get back to us when liberal politicians give up the taxpayer funded public employee union donations, talk about massive corruption.

Have you ever heard of the revolving door ?
That's more than enough leverage from corporations. Large donations are an invitation to corruption ( for both parties ).

I'm going to guess you are a corporation hating liberal? You seem fine with the rampant corruption between the Democratic party and the public employee unions who fund their campaigns yet you foam at the mouth about corporate campaign contributions.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I'm going to guess you are a corporation hating liberal? You seem fine with the rampant corruption between the Democratic party and the public employee unions who fund their campaigns yet you foam at the mouth about corporate campaign contributions.

No , only citizens should donate. Unions and corporations are not voting citizens.

 

[g5000]

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?

Exactly right. My single voice may be small, but because of the right of association, my voice can be greatly amplified by giving money to the NRA or Greenpeace or whatever organization speaks to my needs.

 

[g5000]

No , only citizens should donate. Unions and corporations are not voting citizens.

Unions and corporations are regulated and impinged upon by government power. Therefore, they have every right to defend themselves against that power.

 

[g5000]

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.

It can be viably argued the people of those countries are more docile and less concerned with personal freedoms than Americans. Like you, they are willing to roll over to excessive government powers.

ETA: And the Freedom Index did not measure campaign donation or spending limits. So you are measuring apples and oranges. If campaign limits were measured, that obviously would have knocked some of those countries down a few pegs.

 

[CultureCitizen]

No , only citizens should donate. Unions and corporations are not voting citizens.

Unions and corporations are regulated and impinged upon by government power. Therefore, they have every right to defend themselves against that power.

They can do that by other legal means. Donations, specially large donations promote clientelism : quid pro quo favor negotiation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would you ever think that a member of government should be elected without donations from the wealthy?

What do you think that proves? It doesn't prove anything. You do realize that many people donate to both political parties routinely? People donate to both the winner and the loser, before the election. Happens all the time.

Goldman Sachs donated to both Romney and Obama.
In 2014, GS donated to McConnel, Booker, Himes, Sullivan, and numerous others. Some Democrats, and some Republicans.
And they donated to both the GOP and DNC parties.

No . I didn't say that rich couldn't donate. I said they can only contribute with a low donation say $100 USD per candidate.
Regarding the second point. Again ,nor companies nor unions are not citizens.

I really don't care if they donated the reps or the dems, I just think only voting citizens should donate.
In this way no one gets leverage.

I didn't say that rich couldn't donate. I said they can only contribute with a low donation say $100 USD per candidate.

Exactly! We wouldn't want the people to get too uppity and vote out one of the assclowns with a life-time
seat in the House or Senate. Wouldn't want someone else to get leverage over the little people.
Just the guy or gal already in office.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I believe True capitalists should have no problem with capital in politics.

 

[CultureCitizen]

It can be viably argued the people of those countries are more docile and less concerned with personal freedoms than Americans. Like you, they are willing to roll over to excessive government powers.

Yes , it can be argued. But as far as being a valid argument , I would very much like to see some poll or statistic supporting your point of view. Anything can be argued ( including some radical viewpoints which like to extend their religion through terror), but without facts, backed by some research it is not a valid viewpoint.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I believe True capitalists should have no problem with capital in politics.

You are confusing the economic system : private, mixed, public, with the government system : democracy , monarchy , dictatorship, theocracy, synarchism.

I would argue that capital in a dictatorship is no problem , but it is a serious threat to democracy.

 

[Yarddog]

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.

They should get a stage, a microphone and a folding chair. They should. Be elected for their ideas and not their bull crap and the dirt they can pay people to dig up. They do a national tour , a grueling series of debates with no props. If they can't handle that they have no business doing business in the white house

 

[danielpalos]

I believe True capitalists should have no problem with capital in politics.

You are confusing the economic system : private, mixed, public, with the government system : democracy , monarchy , dictatorship, theocracy, synarchism.

I would argue that capital in a dictatorship is no problem , but it is a serious threat to democracy.

I only agree with you to the extent capitalism is inefficient and needs to be bailed out by socialism, but in a capital manner analogous to this maxim:

If liberty and equality,
as is thought by some are chiefly to be found in democracy,
they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.

Aristotle, Politics​

Solving for a simple poverty of money would allow full participation in our Institution of money based markets and provide those valuable, market based metrics.

 

[boilermaker55]

Where did that example come from? You can't make a car!!! Damn! Then what the hell is everyone driving?
When 1% control the amount of wealth in this country and in the world, you don't consider that Oligarchy?
Seriously!
Study history.

Seems you need to find out the real meaning of Oligarchy.

Sure sounds like some want an Oligarchy ruling class.

Yeah, that's the Democrats. That's exactly what they want. In a Free-market Capitalists system, there would be no Oligarchy Ruling class. The only way you can establish dominance over the market, is with the help of government, though "regulation". That is exactly what the Democrats stand for.

When Al Gore sold the Elk Hills Oil reserve to Occidental Petroleum, who he happen to have stock in.... that is Oligarchy rule. In a Free-market system, companies would bid on the oil reserve on the market. Under the Democrats, there is no market. It's the ruling elite cornering the market for those they favor.

No, that was dead on right. A small group of people, controlling everything.

Free-market Capitalism, is almost the opposite of that. GM can't tell me what to do. Not in a free-market capitalistic system.

Government though can, but in a free-market capitalist system, does not.

In an Oligarchy, where the Government regulates on behalf of their own supporters, they do.

So you have rules like the CAFE standard. Now I can't make a car, because the regulations prevent me. Thus GM and Government win, and I lose. That's Oligarchy.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I believe True capitalists should have no problem with capital in politics.

You are confusing the economic system : private, mixed, public, with the government system : democracy , monarchy , dictatorship, theocracy, synarchism.

I would argue that capital in a dictatorship is no problem , but it is a serious threat to democracy.

I only agree with you to the extent capitalism is inefficient and needs to be bailed out by socialism, but in a capital manner analogous to this maxim:

If liberty and equality,
as is thought by some are chiefly to be found in democracy,
they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.

Aristotle, Politics​

Solving for a simple poverty of money would allow full participation in our Institution of money based markets and provide those valuable, market based metrics.

But then I have no problem with a small amount of capital ( e.g. that each person donates the minimum daily wage). The problem is that a single entity throws in millions of dollars, that, is a call to clientelism.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

you mean the one that is buying that particular candidate?....

Yes. And?

so you are in agreement that if a person or company donates 5 million to a politician...that politician is beholding to that donor to some extent?...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

you mean the one that is buying that particular candidate?....

Yes. And?

so you are in agreement that if a person or company donates 5 million to a politician...that politician is beholding to that donor to some extent?...

so you are in agreement that if a person or company donates 5 million to a politician...that politician is behold[en] to that donor to some extent?...

Sure. I gave you a bunch of money, I need you to do something for me, stop doing something to me, give me some money or stop taking so much money from me.
If the government had a lot less power, the politicians would get a lot less in donations.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

you mean the one that is buying that particular candidate?....

Yes. And?

so you are in agreement that if a person or company donates 5 million to a politician...that politician is beholding to that donor to some extent?...

so you are in agreement that if a person or company donates 5 million to a politician...that politician is behold[en] to that donor to some extent?...

Sure. I gave you a bunch of money, I need you to do something for me, stop doing something to me, give me some money or stop taking so much money from me.
If the government had a lot less power, the politicians would get a lot less in donations.

BUT.....no matter how little power the govt has the people running the show still have to run for the office,and someone is going to sponsor them....hence they can still be bought....

 

[danielpalos]

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

you mean the one that is buying that particular candidate?....

Yes. And?

so you are in agreement that if a person or company donates 5 million to a politician...that politician is beholding to that donor to some extent?...

so you are in agreement that if a person or company donates 5 million to a politician...that politician is behold[en] to that donor to some extent?...

Sure. I gave you a bunch of money, I need you to do something for me, stop doing something to me, give me some money or stop taking so much money from me.
If the government had a lot less power, the politicians would get a lot less in donations.

BUT.....no matter how little power the govt has the people running the show still have to run for the office,and someone is going to sponsor them....hence they can still be bought....

I believe this is only a problem with politicians, not Statesmen. Statesmen should have clear goals for their State or the Union, not private parties that gave them the most money for their private problems. Promoting the general welfare should be just that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

you mean the one that is buying that particular candidate?....

Yes. And?

so you are in agreement that if a person or company donates 5 million to a politician...that politician is beholding to that donor to some extent?...

so you are in agreement that if a person or company donates 5 million to a politician...that politician is behold[en] to that donor to some extent?...

Sure. I gave you a bunch of money, I need you to do something for me, stop doing something to me, give me some money or stop taking so much money from me.
If the government had a lot less power, the politicians would get a lot less in donations.

BUT.....no matter how little power the govt has the people running the show still have to run for the office,and someone is going to sponsor them....hence they can still be bought....

hence they can still be bought....

Who do you want to buy more, the politician limited to his constitutionally prescribed powers, or one who can throw billions of dollars in loan guarantees at your poor business model?

Who gets the bigger donation, the guy who can approve your liquor license or the guy who can break up your company, because he decides your control of 10% of the market is too much?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yes they should, elected positions shouldn't go to the highest bidder. Love Lincoln or hate him, he wouldn't have been wealthy enough to run in today's politics.

Each one should be given a certain amount of air time / ad spots, and that's it. The rest should be done pounding the pavement, which obviously would still give the more financed crook the upper hand. But at least the playing field would be leveled somewhat.

Amen to that.