How do we get the money out of politics?

[SC Patriot]

Our entire political system has been corrupted by big money donors and the two major political parties.

And money is the primary problem. We allow a few big money donors to exert control over the parties that decide who will run for president and ultimately who will be elected. This corruption permeates the entire federal government right down to the lowliest congress person.

Foreign money should not be allowed at all but we see foreign interests giving huge dollar amounts to the RNC and DNC we even allow foreign money donations for candidates of Congress and the presidency.

WHat can we do to get rid of at least foreign contributions and limit the big money donors from exerting control over our political system?

Simple...

Federal funds political parties.... No fund raising at all... Not allowed to use personal money....

As for Super Pacs, ban them... Not allowed to buy TV, Social Media,......

Also bring in multi-seat preference voting for Congress and Senate.. This also makes bribery(money in politics) harder

This would probably need a Constitution amendment...

Elected officials should have all there money in blind trusts, they can not trade stocks or have anyone trading there money. If they wish to buy any stock they have to publicly announce it 7 days before they buy it. Using your own business (e.g. staying in your own hotel) should be illegal...

That is just a start...

Do you vote base on TV ads, lawn signs, mailings, robo calls?

Or do you vote based on applying what you know based on debates, interviews and history of the candidate?

I do the latter. If people vote based on what they hear and not what they see, that is their choice.

Money in politics is nothing more than an economic factor. Good for the advertisers and the media buyers.

As a conservative, I have no right to criticize how others make their decisions.

I just hope all will think like I do one day.

 

[pknopp]

Campaigns may not solicit or accept contributions from foreign nationals. Federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local.

Who can and can't contribute - FEC.gov.

.
But the DNC and RNC can accept foreign money

Not legally I believe.
The only way they do it is illegally, due to the lack of accountability from Citizen's United, (as I understand it).

There is no lack of accountability. Every single penny has to be accounted for.

 

[danielpalos]

Our entire political system has been corrupted by big money donors and the two major political parties.

And money is the primary problem. We allow a few big money donors to exert control over the parties that decide who will run for president and ultimately who will be elected. This corruption permeates the entire federal government right down to the lowliest congress person.

Foreign money should not be allowed at all but we see foreign interests giving huge dollar amounts to the RNC and DNC we even allow foreign money donations for candidates of Congress and the presidency.

WHat can we do to get rid of at least foreign contributions and limit the big money donors from exerting control over our political system?

I agree to disagree with your premise. You are claiming that Capital is the problem under our form of Capitalism. In my opinion, inequality is the problem since Capital cannot be the problem under Capitalism.

Solving simple poverty should lead to this political equivalent:

If liberty and equality are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.--Aristotle

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is why election campaigns should only be funded with public money and no private money allowed.

Horrible idea.

I'm running for President, how much taxpayer money will I get?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no way that the wealthy should have any more political influence than the poor.

Or owners of media.

Now enforce it. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The pumping by the Federal reserve, allows someone who has won an election, to deliberately reward their contributors.

How? Do non-contributors benefit?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I replied to a remark about getting the government out of it. The government makes sure the money is there with the billions they pump into the markets.

People can't contribute if the Fed stops buying Treasuries?

 

[SC Patriot]

Our entire political system has been corrupted by big money donors and the two major political parties.

And money is the primary problem. We allow a few big money donors to exert control over the parties that decide who will run for president and ultimately who will be elected. This corruption permeates the entire federal government right down to the lowliest congress person.

Foreign money should not be allowed at all but we see foreign interests giving huge dollar amounts to the RNC and DNC we even allow foreign money donations for candidates of Congress and the presidency.

WHat can we do to get rid of at least foreign contributions and limit the big money donors from exerting control over our political system?

I agree to disagree with your premise. You are claiming that Capital is the problem under our form of Capitalism. In my opinion, inequality is the problem since Capital cannot be the problem under Capitalism.

Solving simple poverty should lead to this political equivalent:

If liberty and equality are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.--Aristotle

Poverty is not so simple.

Many variables.

1) poor upbringing
2) Racism (it does exist on all fronts)
3) Victim mentality
4) government assistance is more advantageous than a basic minimum wage job
5) Laziness (to deny this will affect your credibility)
6) "vote for me and you will get free healthcare and money money money because we care about you poor oppressed descendants of slaves

Sorry....poverty is not so simple

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

we could put limits on the tax deductibility of campaign donations.

They aren't deductible.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

get rid of citizen's united.

lol ... good luck.

get rid of citizen's united.

Why?

Because by allowing companies with plants in the US to conglomerate anonymous contributions, then noncitizens can also invest in US political campaigns, without there being any means of tracking or preventing.
The only point of Citizen's United is to hide illegal foreign campaign contributions.

Because by allowing companies with plants in the US to conglomerate anonymous contributions,

Contributions to what?

Political campaigns.

{...

January 21, 2020 will mark a decade since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial decision that reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections.

While wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups have long had an outsized influence in elections, that sway has dramatically expanded since the Citizens United decision, with negative repercussions for American democracy and the fight against political corruption.

What was Citizens United about?
A conservative nonprofit group called Citizens United challenged campaign finance rules after the FEC stopped it from promoting and airing a film criticizing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton too close to the presidential primaries.

A 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court sided with Citizens United, ruling that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections.

What was the rationale for the ruling?
In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The justices who voted with the majority assumed that independent spending cannot be corrupt and that the spending would be transparent, but both assumptions have proven to be incorrect.

With its decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that date back more than 100 years. Previously, the court had upheld certain spending restrictions, arguing that the government had a role in preventing corruption. But in Citizens United, a bare majority of the justices held that “independent political spending” did not present a substantive threat of corruption, provided it was not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.

As a result, corporations can now spend unlimited funds on campaign advertising if they are not formally “coordinating” with a candidate or political party.

How has Citizens United changed elections in the United States?
The ruling has ushered in massive increases in political spending from outside groups, dramatically expanding the already outsized political influence of wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups.

In the immediate aftermath of the Citizens United decision, analysts focused much of their attention on how the Supreme Court designated corporate spending on elections as free speech. But perhaps the most significant outcomes of Citizens United have been the creation of super PACs, which empower the wealthiest donors, and the expansion of dark money through shadowy nonprofits that don’t disclose their donors.

A Brennan Center report by Daniel I. Weiner pointed out that a very small group of Americans now wield “more power than at any time since Watergate, while many of the rest seem to be disengaging from politics.“

“This is perhaps the most troubling result of Citizens United: in a time of historic wealth inequality,” wrote Weiner, “the decision has helped reinforce the growing sense that our democracy primarily serves the interests of the wealthy few, and that democratic participation for the vast majority of citizens is of relatively little value.”
...}

Citizens United Explained

The 2010 Supreme Court decision further tilted political influence toward wealthy donors and corporations.

www.brennancenter.org

PACs, (Political Actions Committees), now are allowed to spend enormous amounts of campaign money simply by claiming they are independent of the actual campaign, and the money can come from a foreign national, without the PAC being required to reveal that.

Political campaigns.

PACs aren't campaigns.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If corporations are people, they should be limited to a few grand just like the other people.

Show me where they aren't limited.

PACs are limited in donating funds directly TO a campaign, but there is NO limit at all on how much they spend on their "educational" advertising, which can be incredibly slanted and biased FOR campaign purposes, as long as it is not coordinated with the actual campaign.

Yup, ads are awful. Can't stop them, free speech.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We indeed could turn the money off.

When the federal government controls such a huge piece of the economy, of course people will
have an incentive to spend money to get a piece of the action or input into the process.

And they're allowed to by the Constitution.

So no, you can't.

We most certainly could turn off the money the Federal Reserve is pumping into the markets.

OK. What does that have to do with the First Amendment?

View attachment 446946

Government spending that improves some market investments, allows for a quid pro quo.
It essentially can be buying votes.
It allows candidates to effectively be able to say, "contribute to my campaign, and I will ensure your profits double after I am elected".
The Federal Reserve pumping can be used to selectively benefit a few.

Yup, too much government meddling results in spending to influence that meddling.

And?

I am not saying I have a solution necessarily, just observing that the stock market can be manipulated in order to selectively make people wealthy.
A possible solution is to change stock market laws.
Only allow equity investments.
Then the whole stock market would shrink and be much less corrupt.
The value of the stocks then would be real, not just speculative.

I am not saying I have a solution necessarily, just observing that the stock market can be manipulated in order to selectively make people wealthy.

Which people? How is it selective?

A possible solution is to change stock market laws.
Only allow equity investments.

What would you disallow? Post your list.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Our entire political system has been corrupted by big money donors and the two major political parties.

And money is the primary problem. We allow a few big money donors to exert control over the parties that decide who will run for president and ultimately who will be elected. This corruption permeates the entire federal government right down to the lowliest congress person.

Foreign money should not be allowed at all but we see foreign interests giving huge dollar amounts to the RNC and DNC we even allow foreign money donations for candidates of Congress and the presidency.

WHat can we do to get rid of at least foreign contributions and limit the big money donors from exerting control over our political system?

Why is there money in politics?

Because the government has so much power over our lives and big money wants to control that power.

The answer to getting money out of politics is to get government out of our lives.

Stop making sense.

 

[SC Patriot]

get rid of citizen's united.

lol ... good luck.

we could put limits on the tax deductibility of campaign donations.

Remove the incentive for big money donors to play both sides

Huh?

Limits on tax deductibility?

Since when was a political campaign donation deductible?

Am I debating people who have no idea what they are debating?

Blues Man...I have absolutely no idea what your political ideology is. You may see things exactly as I see them....or maybe the other way........but for you to post what you did?

You dont belong in this conversation. You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[pknopp]

I replied to a remark about getting the government out of it. The government makes sure the money is there with the billions they pump into the markets.

People can't contribute if the Fed stops buying Treasuries?

Of course but there is less money to go around.

 

[Polishprince]

Elected officials should have all there money in blind trusts, they can not trade stocks or have anyone trading there money. If they wish to buy any stock they have to publicly announce it 7 days before they buy it. Using your own business (e.g. staying in your own hotel) should be illegal...

That is just a start...

That would be really stupid, making politicians completely dependent on their political power and political favors to get ahead.

These kinds of rules would make it impossible for wealthy dudes who earned their money outside of politics to even consider a run. But it would give them all of the power on the other side, being able to corrupt politicians looking to get ahead.

 

[danielpalos]

Our entire political system has been corrupted by big money donors and the two major political parties.

And money is the primary problem. We allow a few big money donors to exert control over the parties that decide who will run for president and ultimately who will be elected. This corruption permeates the entire federal government right down to the lowliest congress person.

Foreign money should not be allowed at all but we see foreign interests giving huge dollar amounts to the RNC and DNC we even allow foreign money donations for candidates of Congress and the presidency.

WHat can we do to get rid of at least foreign contributions and limit the big money donors from exerting control over our political system?

I agree to disagree with your premise. You are claiming that Capital is the problem under our form of Capitalism. In my opinion, inequality is the problem since Capital cannot be the problem under Capitalism.

Solving simple poverty should lead to this political equivalent:

If liberty and equality are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.--Aristotle

Poverty is not so simple.

Many variables.

1) poor upbringing
2) Racism (it does exist on all fronts)
3) Victim mentality
4) government assistance is more advantageous than a basic minimum wage job
5) Laziness (to deny this will affect your credibility)
6) "vote for me and you will get free healthcare and money money money because we care about you poor oppressed descendants of slaves

Sorry....poverty is not so simple

I agree to disagree. Solving simple could be as simple as merely being legal to our own laws (regarding the concept of employment at-will in our at-will employment States for unemployment compensation).

It could have been done Yesterday, but for right wingers refusing to be legal to our own laws for the general welfare instead of the general warfare as they prefer. Only Capital must circulate under Capitalism. Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than what we have know with our endless wars and no general warfare clause in our Constitution.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

DERP!

 

[Blues Man]

Our entire political system has been corrupted by big money donors and the two major political parties.

And money is the primary problem. We allow a few big money donors to exert control over the parties that decide who will run for president and ultimately who will be elected. This corruption permeates the entire federal government right down to the lowliest congress person.

Foreign money should not be allowed at all but we see foreign interests giving huge dollar amounts to the RNC and DNC we even allow foreign money donations for candidates of Congress and the presidency.

WHat can we do to get rid of at least foreign contributions and limit the big money donors from exerting control over our political system?

Simple answer.

The electorate needs to make decisions based on what they know....not what they are told they should know.

I have never made a voting decision based on political ads. When they come up on TV, that is when I go pee and make a sandwich.

Lawn signs? Really? My neighbor has a lawn sign for Hillary and that will sway my sentiments?

Uh....no.

And how do you know people actually know what they should know or what you think they should know ?

Unfortunately people believe what they see on TV and hear on the radio

I am a conservative. I believe what I do as long, as it is within the law, I am allowed to do. I decide to do based on what is legal and and if it is, I will do what I want to do.
I will not criticize those that do what they decide to do as long as it is legal....even if it due to their desire to believe political ads.
I cant stop it and it is not my right to stop it. Freedom of decision...and freedom of taking advice to make the decision.

I never said anything about people making their own decisions who to vote for.

This is about taking the money out of politics so our politicians aren't in the pocket of anyone.

thats the point.

Regardless of why they decide what they decide...be it money or fame or whatever.......the electorate has the choice to vote them out.

If they dont, that was the majority choice.

As a conservative, It works for me.

that's naive

 

[Blues Man]

Campaigns may not solicit or accept contributions from foreign nationals. Federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local.

Who can and can't contribute - FEC.gov.

But the DNC and RNC can accept foreign money

That's not what the law I quoted states.

there's a way around it and I linked to it