creativedreams
Weaver
- Nov 15, 2009
- 1,165
- 28
- 71
Replacing remocrats with depublicans isn't kicking anyone out.....It's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
I love that! Hope you don't mind but that's my new signature in all my forums!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Replacing remocrats with depublicans isn't kicking anyone out.....It's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
LOL and yet according to the recent Supreme Court decision don't they have the RIGHT to spend their money how they see fit?
Right leaning court with a right leaning activist decision. If you have a problem with these activist justices and their decision then blame the republicans that put them there. LOL
This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .
or. . .
We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.
And that removes all the payola from the system right there.
I honestly don't understand how you relate government benifitting individuals, etc to lobbyists?? "corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else" are not the federal government so how does your prohibition on the federal government apply to them??
For example, Oil companies lobby for expanding drilling, so IF the government decides to support such expansion, including opening up federal land for drilling after being lobbied, how can your prohibition on the federal government prevent the oil companies from benefitting from the expansion gained through their lobbying??
I just don't see how a restriction on the federal government that does not affect or limit lobbying can remove all the payola from the system.
The Kick Them All Out Project - Take The "Kick Them All Out" Pledge!
I hope all of you on this forum join us. Democrat, Republican, independent, and all others please join us and take back our country from the fat cats and crooked politicians. We currently have 2,100 confirmed signers.
Isn't there already an individual limit to how much one can donate to a candidate?
IMO the problem isn't with the individual limit that an individual or entity that counts as an individual can donate to a candidate but that an entitiy that counts as an individual with billions of dollars in funding could flood the airwaves, press and internet with ads supporting or railing against a candidate and it is all protected under freedom of speech. Isn't that what the recent supreme court decision was all about??
This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .
or. . .
We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.
And that removes all the payola from the system right there.
I honestly don't understand how you relate government benifitting individuals, etc to lobbyists?? "corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else" are not the federal government so how does your prohibition on the federal government apply to them??
For example, Oil companies lobby for expanding drilling, so IF the government decides to support such expansion, including opening up federal land for drilling after being lobbied, how can your prohibition on the federal government prevent the oil companies from benefitting from the expansion gained through their lobbying??
I just don't see how a restriction on the federal government that does not affect or limit lobbying can remove all the payola from the system.
My concept would not reward say Exxon or Conoco Phillips from successfully lobbying Congress for a contract to do oil exploration unless they did it on behalf of all oil producers. There is no problem for lobbyists representing all oil producers to present information and evidence of oil reserves in such and such a place and persuade Congress that it was in the interest of the general welfare (a benefit to ALL Americans) to open federal lands to such exploration and production. Those oil companies who then bid for the drilling rights would of course benefit--without an expectation or informed hope of profit they would not be able to do the work. But ALL oil companies would have equal right to bid on the contracts, not just one or two favored entities. And the resulting increased oil reserves would then benefit all Americans as all benefit from plentiful energy resources and also the economic activity that would require nothing from the national treasury.
There would be no advantage for anybody to funnel excess monies into campaign coffers because the law would prevent the legislator from providing any benefit exclusively for the contributor. And THAT is how you eliminate payola.
Isn't there already an individual limit to how much one can donate to a candidate?
IMO the problem isn't with the individual limit that an individual or entity that counts as an individual can donate to a candidate but that an entitiy that counts as an individual with billions of dollars in funding could flood the airwaves, press and internet with ads supporting or railing against a candidate and it is all protected under freedom of speech. Isn't that what the recent supreme court decision was all about??
Yes as George Soros has done consistently in promoting an agenda dear to Moveon.org and other leftwing groups. Yes as T. Boone Pickens has done running a massive ad campaign promoting use of natural gas and wind power, which of course he invests heavily in, as beneficial to America. Yes as GM and Ford and Toyota and KIA and Hundai spend billions in advertising promoting their cars, trucks, and SUVs.
SCOTUS was quite right, however, that all these groups are perfectly entitled to use their own money to promote whatever they want to promote through whatever medium is willing to take it. It isn't even an issue of fairness. It is an issue of unalienable rights to ones own opinion and one's own thoughts and ideas and the pursuit of one's own fortune by legal means. Whether it is one billionaire with more money than God spending it on some cause or whether it is millions of everyday Americans pooling their funds, it is a First Amendment issue. If you silence one, you give the government the right to silence anybody.
However, if you forbid Congress to use the people's money to provide any form of charity, benevolence, or reward to ANY individual, group, entity, special interest, corporation or whatever unless it provides the same benefit to all regardless of socioeconomic or political status, then there isn't much incentive for anybody to manipulate the system
And that's what we should be focusing on. Not trying to 'get' some group we disapprove of.
I'm shocked that so many of you are this happy with how our congress has been running things over the last several years. Very shocked.
To those who don't like this idea just keep on keeping on with the status quo. Pretend like your not part of the problem all you want...as the saying goes "ignorance is bliss". Keep putting the same deadbeats who passed the laws that caused our governmental problems in the first place in office, its america your free to vote how you want.
Me personally, I think re-electing the same failures of representatives over and over again is lemming like at best and idiotic at worse. But thats my opinion.
Keep on keeping on with the status quo you congress supporters.
This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .
or. . .
We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.
And that removes all the payola from the system right there.
I honestly don't understand how you relate government benifitting individuals, etc to lobbyists?? "corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else" are not the federal government so how does your prohibition on the federal government apply to them??
For example, Oil companies lobby for expanding drilling, so IF the government decides to support such expansion, including opening up federal land for drilling after being lobbied, how can your prohibition on the federal government prevent the oil companies from benefitting from the expansion gained through their lobbying??
I just don't see how a restriction on the federal government that does not affect or limit lobbying can remove all the payola from the system.
My concept would not reward say Exxon or Conoco Phillips from successfully lobbying Congress for a contract to do oil exploration unless they did it on behalf of all oil producers. There is no problem for lobbyists representing all oil producers to present information and evidence of oil reserves in such and such a place and persuade Congress that it was in the interest of the general welfare (a benefit to ALL Americans) to open federal lands to such exploration and production. Those oil companies who then bid for the drilling rights would of course benefit--without an expectation or informed hope of profit they would not be able to do the work. But ALL oil companies would have equal right to bid on the contracts, not just one or two favored entities. And the resulting increased oil reserves would then benefit all Americans as all benefit from plentiful energy resources and also the economic activity that would require nothing from the national treasury.
There would be no advantage for anybody to funnel excess monies into campaign coffers because the law would prevent the legislator from providing any benefit exclusively for the contributor. And THAT is how you eliminate payola.
Isn't there already an individual limit to how much one can donate to a candidate?
IMO the problem isn't with the individual limit that an individual or entity that counts as an individual can donate to a candidate but that an entitiy that counts as an individual with billions of dollars in funding could flood the airwaves, press and internet with ads supporting or railing against a candidate and it is all protected under freedom of speech. Isn't that what the recent supreme court decision was all about??
Yes as George Soros has done consistently in promoting an agenda dear to Moveon.org and other leftwing groups. Yes as T. Boone Pickens has done running a massive ad campaign promoting use of natural gas and wind power, which of course he invests heavily in, as beneficial to America. Yes as GM and Ford and Toyota and KIA and Hundai spend billions in advertising promoting their cars, trucks, and SUVs.
SCOTUS was quite right, however, that all these groups are perfectly entitled to use their own money to promote whatever they want to promote through whatever medium is willing to take it. It isn't even an issue of fairness. It is an issue of unalienable rights to ones own opinion and one's own thoughts and ideas and the pursuit of one's own fortune by legal means. Whether it is one billionaire with more money than God spending it on some cause or whether it is millions of everyday Americans pooling their funds, it is a First Amendment issue. If you silence one, you give the government the right to silence anybody.
However, if you forbid Congress to use the people's money to provide any form of charity, benevolence, or reward to ANY individual, group, entity, special interest, corporation or whatever unless it provides the same benefit to all regardless of socioeconomic or political status, then there isn't much incentive for anybody to manipulate the system
And that's what we should be focusing on. Not trying to 'get' some group we disapprove of.
What are you talking about?? I thought I asked a pretty straight forward question and yet for some reason I didn't get an answer. LOL
LOL at your "SCOTUS was quite right" argument. Giving the same rights of freedom of speech to a company is hardly a first amendment issue but since your talking heads are defending it I can see why you would follow suit. LOL Oh and since companies now have that human right what other human rights do companies qualify for? LOL Right to life?? LOL
And once again you present an argument that doesn't seem to make sense. You continue to believe that the problem lies with big government and present restricting that as an answer to all of your problems. LOL
As for what we should be focusing on you seem to contradict yourself with your statement about not trying to "get" some group that you disagree with because you seem to be going after big government at every turn. LOL
as long as they ban union money I agree.
LOL and yet according to the recent Supreme Court decision don't they have the RIGHT to spend their money how they see fit?
Right leaning court with a right leaning activist decision. If you have a problem with these activist justices and their decision then blame the republicans that put them there. LOL
This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .
or. . .
We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.
And that removes all the payola from the system right there.
LOL and yet according to the recent Supreme Court decision don't they have the RIGHT to spend their money how they see fit?
Right leaning court with a right leaning activist decision. If you have a problem with these activist justices and their decision then blame the republicans that put them there. LOL
This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .
or. . .
We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.
And that removes all the payola from the system right there.
The solution is so simple it blows my mind neither one of you 2 suggest it.
CAP THE AMOUNT YOU CAN DONATE. Say $5,000 is the MAX an individual can donate to one specific politician. Therefore GE can only give $5,000 to a canidate if htey want to support said canidate and I can give a canidate up to 5,000 also.
Pretty easy solution guys.
Unless you see a big hole in it I am missing.
LOL and yet according to the recent Supreme Court decision don't they have the RIGHT to spend their money how they see fit?
Right leaning court with a right leaning activist decision. If you have a problem with these activist justices and their decision then blame the republicans that put them there. LOL
This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .
or. . .
We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.
And that removes all the payola from the system right there.
The rules have been strengthened concerning reporting where a lawmaker receives political donations from, and they also need to comply with stricter reporting on their financials. It's fairly easy now to track who receives what from where, but the public really doesn't seem to care. For example, where was the outrage that medical-affiliated lobbyists spent $3 million+ to put the kibosh on provisions they didn't want in the health care reform bill(s)? We can track who on capital hill benefited from that money, but did anyone care?
Too many politicians seem more concerned with re-election than with doing their jobs.
Thats EXACTLY why i'm so behind this idea. If we keep voting them out they will realize it is us the people that re-elect them and not their lobbyists/corporate sponsors.
Part of the elected's "job" is catering to their constituency back home, which is part of what helps them keep their "job." If the elected don't give the electors what they want then the electors should vote the elected out of office. Unfortunately the electors don't.
Unfortunately most of the electors don't look much further than the R or the D that is attached to the candidate's name. They don't take the time to know how the elected actually voted in the past and most vote for a candidate based on one or more issues that they believe their candidate supports or is disagrees with.
IMO, these people will not vote out anyone and will continue to vote for the devil they think they know.
I'm shocked that so many of you are this happy with how our congress has been running things over the last several years. Very shocked.
To those who don't like this idea just keep on keeping on with the status quo. Pretend like your not part of the problem all you want...as the saying goes "ignorance is bliss". Keep putting the same deadbeats who passed the laws that caused our governmental problems in the first place in office, its america your free to vote how you want.
Me personally, I think re-electing the same failures of representatives over and over again is lemming like at best and idiotic at worse. But thats my opinion.
Keep on keeping on with the status quo you congress supporters.
I'm shocked that so many of you are this happy with how our congress has been running things over the last several years. Very shocked.
To those who don't like this idea just keep on keeping on with the status quo. Pretend like your not part of the problem all you want...as the saying goes "ignorance is bliss". Keep putting the same deadbeats who passed the laws that caused our governmental problems in the first place in office, its america your free to vote how you want.
Me personally, I think re-electing the same failures of representatives over and over again is lemming like at best and idiotic at worse. But thats my opinion.
Keep on keeping on with the status quo you congress supporters.
The only problem with your premise, Pilgrim, is that you present no alternative. The Constitution sets forth the manner in which Congress operates, with specific rules for the House and the Senate. The corruption comes from those who broadly define "freedom of speech" to include influence peddling as opposed to simple advocacy. There IS nothing wrong with the system; it's adherence to that system, period, that has been bastardized.
This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .
or. . .
We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.
And that removes all the payola from the system right there.
The solution is so simple it blows my mind neither one of you 2 suggest it.
CAP THE AMOUNT YOU CAN DONATE. Say $5,000 is the MAX an individual can donate to one specific politician. Therefore GE can only give $5,000 to a canidate if htey want to support said canidate and I can give a canidate up to 5,000 also.
Pretty easy solution guys.
Unless you see a big hole in it I am missing.
There already ARE caps, and has been for a long time.
The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law Brochure