CDZ Should Corporations and Big Donors Be Limited in Donations to Politics?

[Foxfyre]

In theory, but when you get arrested and prosecuted what you think the Constitution says isn't going to help you much.

My point precisely. Anything, Constitutional or not, can be enforced at the barrel of a gun.

A lower court cannot over rule the ruling of a higher court and the SCOTUS is not likely to over rule itself so quickly.

Check the caps, indicating SCOTUS.

EVERYTHING anyone ever reads requires interpretation to some degree or other.

No more than reading "The Cat in the Hat".

One of mine? No, Mr Klien isn't one of mine unless he is a Catholic or an American blend or an unemployed man who was kicked off disability.

Lucky you. I have no idea what he is, aside from thickheaded hack.

The problem that comes from using the Constitution (or any other law) to define morality--I'm not saying you guys are arguing that but it is what I am taking from the discussion--is that we make of the courts 'gods' who are given authority to dictate what we are required to observe as virtue or sin.

IMO, the Founders intended that we the people determine what is virtue or sin and not the courts or any other application of law. In the Constitution, they gave the central government no power of any kind to dictate that.

Where we have gotten off track is the tendency of the people to want the federal government to enforce THEIR concept of virtue and punish THEIR concept of sin, even while they want the government to not interfere with the liberties and choices they want for themselves. Obviously, since we all do not agree on what virtue and sin is, or what liberties should be protected, the federal government cannot accommodate us all but will generally go with whomever holds the power (dictatorship) at the time.

So again, I think it will require a Constitutional amendment that forbids the federal government from benefitting ANY of us if everybody is not benefitted and otherwise the federal government is silent. And that would take care of all the problems with corporate welfare--there wouldn't be any--or corporate influence--they wouldn't have any way to buy it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

You're right, that's not what was being discussed.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're right, that's not what was being discussed.

But corporate influence is the topic of the thread is it not? My argument is how that came to be along with a remedy to fix it.

 

[jillian]

amusing little exchange. i'll have to tell bill gates he doesn't know how to think for himself. apparently neither does warren buffet.

*shakes head and laughs at the wingerness of your statement*

Bill and Warren like to talk about raising tax rates on rich folks, while they work to make sure the government gets none of their billions after they die.

Yes. How terrible that they gave their money to charity.

Yeah, keeping it away from government.
While whining the government needs more.

i'm not a gubmint hating extremist. and i think anyone who wishes to participate in government should actually choose to govern

i'm not a gubmint hating extremist.

Neither is Warren. He thinks the government needs more revenue. Especially from the rich.
While he structures his affairs to minimize government revenue.

you can't run a government without money.

and you can't screw your populace by putting all your money into wars and having nothing left for things that matter.

so you might not be a gubmint hating extremists, but at some point, you have to acknowledge that money has to go into the economy. our infrastructure is failing and our middle class being screwed. and more than that, you can't have a society with the type of wealth disparity that the right is cultivating so diligently.

personally, i choose not to live in a banana republic to please the koch brothers and exxon mobil.

 

[Mac1958]

We allow big money to control our politics.

We. Allow.

1. Publicly-funded elections
2. Strict, short, term limits
3. Balanced Budget Amendment

Either we're serious about this or we just don't give a crap any more. Hey, what time are the Kardashians on tonight?

.

 

[dblack]

Honestly, publicly funding elections worries me much more than corporate influence. In part, because I don't think it will diminish corporate influence. It will merely provide a centralized fulcrum for those wishing to control the election process.

 

[M14 Shooter]

and you can't screw your populace by putting all your money into wars and having nothing left for things that matter.

The resident shoe-shine tech obviously has no idea how much money the federal government spends on things other than "wars".

 

[quorthon]

This is stupid. Corporations and the wealthy elites are trying to buy our elections.

I wonder if it ever wasn't so

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bill and Warren like to talk about raising tax rates on rich folks, while they work to make sure the government gets none of their billions after they die.

Yes. How terrible that they gave their money to charity.

Yeah, keeping it away from government.
While whining the government needs more.

i'm not a gubmint hating extremist. and i think anyone who wishes to participate in government should actually choose to govern

i'm not a gubmint hating extremist.

Neither is Warren. He thinks the government needs more revenue. Especially from the rich.
While he structures his affairs to minimize government revenue.

you can't run a government without money.

and you can't screw your populace by putting all your money into wars and having nothing left for things that matter.

so you might not be a gubmint hating extremists, but at some point, you have to acknowledge that money has to go into the economy. our infrastructure is failing and our middle class being screwed. and more than that, you can't have a society with the type of wealth disparity that the right is cultivating so diligently.

personally, i choose not to live in a banana republic to please the koch brothers and exxon mobil.

you can't run a government without money.

I agree, Buffett and Gates should give all their money to the government.

 

[Foxfyre]

Honestly, publicly funding elections worries me much more than corporate influence. In part, because I don't think it will diminish corporate influence. It will merely provide a centralized fulcrum for those wishing to control the election process.

Agreed. And in the world of unintended negative consequences, it could be just another public pot of money to be tapped by opportunists who might or might not be serious candidates for public office. And if only candidates deemed 'viable' were allowed to tap into that resource, it gives the government far too much control over who will or will not be deemed 'viable'. It could give a huge advantage to those who already have name recognition and pretty well shut out any who are just entering the process.

 

[Foxfyre]

and you can't screw your populace by putting all your money into wars and having nothing left for things that matter.

The resident shoe-shine tech obviously has no idea how much money the federal government spends on things other than "wars".

The direct cost of the Iraq war is estimated at between $100 and $200 billion a year from 2003 to 2010 when it was declared 'officially ended.' That is a tremendous amount of money but a drop in the bucket when you look at a government spending and obligating us for more than $3 TRILLION plus year after year.

Even as I say that, we have to stop thinking of a billion dollars as inconsequential, let alone $100 billion. Think how many hard working people's taxes it takes to equal one billion, let alone one trillion.

We are pawns of the government who can take whatever it wants from us, however much, whenever it wants until we start pushing back and demanding fiscal responsibility from those we elect to high office and stop re-electing those who campaign with promises they seem to forget about once they get to Washington. We have to live within our means. The government should have to make do with the money WE say it can have.

Also I suggest that corporate welfare is not always what it seems. I recommend Peter Scheweizer's book Extortion--a short quick read and it really makes you thinks about how a whole bunch of those corporate donations are likely not to buy favors but are given to protect themselves from what politicians threaten to do if the money is not forked over.

What if the government is running one big protection racket for the benefit of those in government who are there primarily to increase their own power, influence, prestige, and personal wealth?

 

[shadow355]

Billionaires bankrolling 2016 campaign to unprecedented degree Fox News

"Billionaires are bankrolling the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign to an unprecedented degree, with at least 40 of the wealthiest Americans plowing $60 million into super PACs aligned with the top tier of candidates.

The torrent of super PAC money is revolutionizing presidential politics in the wake of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals into these outside groups.

Super PACs backing 17 presidential candidates raised more than $250 million in the first six months of this year, roughly doubling the $125 million raised by the candidates for their campaigns, disclosure reports filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission show."


This is stupid. Corporations and the wealthy elites are trying to buy our elections.

Not going to happen. To much money to be made for the lawyers.

Politics, lobbying and lawyers go hand in hand. Politics is a money making process. One of the best things a person can do before entering politics...or to be associated ( lobbyist - assistant to a politician ) with politics...is get a Law Degree,

Lawyers get 70% and the clients get 30%. Not to many politicians look out for their constituents and do what is right for them. It is about getting reelected for politicians - making money - scratching another politicians back and receiving hidden gratuities from contributors.


Shadow 355

 

[JimBowie1958]

Billionaires bankrolling 2016 campaign to unprecedented degree Fox News

"Billionaires are bankrolling the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign to an unprecedented degree, with at least 40 of the wealthiest Americans plowing $60 million into super PACs aligned with the top tier of candidates.

The torrent of super PAC money is revolutionizing presidential politics in the wake of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals into these outside groups.

Super PACs backing 17 presidential candidates raised more than $250 million in the first six months of this year, roughly doubling the $125 million raised by the candidates for their campaigns, disclosure reports filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission show."


This is stupid. Corporations and the wealthy elites are trying to buy our elections.

Not going to happen. To much money to be made for the lawyers.

Politics, lobbying and lawyers go hand in hand. Politics is a money making process. One of the best things a person can do before entering politics...or to be associated ( lobbyist - assistant to a politician ) with politics...is get a Law Degree,

Lawyers get 70% and the clients get 30%. Not to many politicians look out for their constituents and do what is right for them. It is about getting reelected for politicians - making money - scratching another politicians back and receiving hidden gratuities from contributors.


Shadow 355

Ah, but it will change, because it is part of a cycle that empires go through in their declining years.

Once they achieve dominance over people on a large enough scale that the ambassadors and trade lobbyists sent to the imperial capital outnumber or dominate the representatives of the native born people, the people lose their voice in the system and the lobbyists for major trade groups and ambassadors of dominated or allied nations get all the political oxygen.

That starts things on a downward spiral as these lobbyists muck up the normal functioning of the government, exploiting it where they can and defending their own going profiteering where necessary. This finally reaches a crisis when a major difficulty appears that threatens national survival, and the lobbyists, being more loyal to their own interests at the capital than the home country or corporation, they take measures to fix the threat, and it is the set of solutions that has the lowest cost to them. This typically involves them conceding territory, rights and talking on an even tighter control of the system than before, reducing the people to peasantry over time.

We have the pattern down and we now through technological communications can organize far more effectively to our own interests. So the next existential crisis that emerges, like the immigration fiasco that is going on today, we make sure that when we are called upon to fix their problems we keep control and do not let it go back to the parasites that are intent on sucking everything they can from the life of our country.

And that looks like a certainty at this point. 'If we fix it, we keep it' should be our guiding motto.

I think it will be.

 

[Mac1958]

Politics and politicians are distorted and polluted by donors. Politicians make critical decisions in part based on what their donors will think. Politicians burn time in office fundraising. Big donors get and receive influence for their money. I can't imagine anyone would disagree with any of that.

We don't need ads. Between the media and the internet there is already an unmanageable flood of information available on all candidates, and all advertising does is add to the flood of lies and misinformation.

Publicly-funded elections. Short, strict term limits. Balanced Budget Amendment. We either want to take back control of this horrific mess or we're fine with it.
.

 

[dblack]

Publicly funded elections is an obvious conflict of interest. Does it really make sense for government to decide who gets to run for government?

 

[dblack]

Publicly funded elections is an obvious conflict of interest. Does it really make sense for government to decide who gets to run for government?

On second thought, I guess it really depends on what one means by "publicly funded elections". Actually public funding of elections would, in my estimation, mean that anyone can fund campaigns any way they like as long as it's done publicly. But I suspect that what Mac was referring to was government funded elections, which is another matter.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Publicly funded elections is an obvious conflict of interest. Does it really make sense for government to decide who gets to run for government?

But the government wouldn't be deciding who was elected; the voters would do that.

All the government would be doing is providing a free forum for the discussion and funding.

It would also undermine the two party system which I very much like.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Publicly funded elections is an obvious conflict of interest. Does it really make sense for government to decide who gets to run for government?

On second thought, I guess it really depends on what one means by "publicly funded elections". Actually public funding of elections would, in my estimation, mean that anyone can fund campaigns any way they like as long as it's done publicly. But I suspect that what Mac was referring to was government funded elections, which is another matter.

Yeah, that is likely what he meant, but there is no point to restricting donations to the public, especially not if you are going to let corporate 'persons' into that group as well.

I am simply surprised that so many people are so naïve as to think there is no harm to foreign contributions.

 

[dblack]

Publicly funded elections is an obvious conflict of interest. Does it really make sense for government to decide who gets to run for government?

On second thought, I guess it really depends on what one means by "publicly funded elections". Actually public funding of elections would, in my estimation, mean that anyone can fund campaigns any way they like as long as it's done publicly. But I suspect that what Mac was referring to was government funded elections, which is another matter.

Yeah, that is likely what he meant, but there is no point to restricting donations to the public, especially not if you are going to let corporate 'persons' into that group as well.

I am simply surprised that so many people are so naïve as to think there is no harm to foreign contributions.

I'd be opposed to foreign contributions, and campaign funding should be fully transparent and reported, in part for that reason. But in practical fact, a politician on the take will get their bribes one way, or another.

 

[dblack]

Publicly funded elections is an obvious conflict of interest. Does it really make sense for government to decide who gets to run for government?

But the government wouldn't be deciding who was elected; the voters would do that.

Government is one way voters can decide things. But it's limited by majority rule. If we truly want "the people" to decide who gets election funding, the simplest, most flexible and least corrupting means is to simply let them fund campaigns as they see fit.

All the government would be doing is providing a free forum for the discussion and funding.

Well, it wouldn't be "free". It would be funded by taxes. And again, the way to maximize public control of election funding is to simply stay out of the way.

It would also undermine the two party system which I very much like.

Why would you assume that? If your complaint is that the two-party system dominates government and uses it to exclude challengers (a complaint I share), why would you trust them create an election funding system that worked against their interests?