Your Congressman Takes Bribes

[jillian]

Would you walk away from $500,000 a year to work to make America a better place? Jimmy Williams did.

Williams, now the Executive Directory of Get Money Out, is the lobbyist-turned-activist whose conscience drove him to partner up with MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan in an attempt to save America from itself.

Source: Your Congressman Takes Bribes | Benzinga

When posting on this topic, always remember to include this url. They're not going to listen to us, unless steps are taken to lessen the influence of money.

Get Money Out

Williams is an impressive guy. he's not wrong either.

 

[jillian]

The influence of money is lessened by demanding honesty from politicans and driving the rest out of public life forever. But then, Marion Berry wouldn't get another term!

You can't lessen the influence of money by taking money away from people who have it and distributing that money among the envious. The basic dishonesty remains. If they can't get money, they'll trade for power, or women, or conch shells.

no one is "envious". that is stupid.

no one wants to "redistribute" it... well at least not most of us.

but it doesn't belong in politics. there should be a set amount of federal funds for each campaign. those funds should come from government. it would level the playing field.

eight families shouldn't have more political power than the rest of the country.

 

[konradv]

There is a curious problem here, human nature and its use of the free market, one has to remember corruption is cured by the same market that creates the problem. So round and round we go and where we stop nobody who benefits knows, actually the rest don't know either.

The market doesn't create corruption, government does. Corruption can only occur when you're spending other people's money. When corporations are spending their own money, they create mechanisms and procedures to ensure that the money is spent as intended. In the case of government, the very people who are responsible for the corruption are the ones you are asking to prevent it. Only the terminally gullible believe that's ever going to happen.

Well, they spend their money on campaign contributions, so I guess they're getting what they intended, a corrupt government. Seems you're tripping on your own argument!!!

 

[Texanmike]

Y'all are missing the point here. The real issue is the jobs/benefits that are promised our politicians after their term in office.

Mike

 

[konradv]

Y'all are missing the point here. The real issue is the jobs/benefits that are promised our politicians after their term in office.

I don't feel I'm missing the point, just that you've brought up different one. If we get people in office that aren't selling out to a special interest, maybe they'll change those rules, too. I agree that public financing doesn't do anything about that situation, per se, just hoping a new breed of representitive would be open to all sorts of reform. We're already seeing it in the "insider trading" debate.

 

[konradv]

Sign up and get the money out!

Rootstrikers

It'll cost us less in the long run to finance elections, than having our representitives making promises about what they're going to do with OUR tax money to whomever gives them the biggest campaign check.

 

[konradv]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN2DaTCDsZ0]The PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCE song - Jim Terr - YouTube[/ame]

 

[konradv]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a38LnLVX9Ow]Jim Hightower - Why We Need Public Financing for Elections - YouTube[/ame]

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

Your Congressman takes bribes, but the Republicans would rather distract us with votes on the natinal motto!!!

or which party has the prettiest girls.

 

[konradv]

Your Congressman takes bribes, but the Republicans would rather distract us with votes on the natinal motto!!!

or which party has the prettiest girls.

Give me some Hillary in '16.

 

[Mr. Jones]

That could still happen. There's nothing wrong with a lobbyist talking to a representitive, it's when money changes hands that the trouble starts.

Maybe money does "change hands" but that really ain't what it's about. Bribery is illegal. The fake outrage is about the money lobbyists legally spend in making politicians aware of tens of thousands of issues. Americans chip in their hard earned dollars to get the ear of a politician and lobbyists are licensed and there are rules they have to follow. The issue is phony.

The issue is money going from the lobbyists' hands to campaign coffers in return for support. That's where the trouble starts. That's not making people aware of an issue. It's not a phony concern. Lobbyists would still be able to lobby; they'd just have to check their wallets at the door.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." -- Thomas Jefferson

 

[konradv]

Maybe money does "change hands" but that really ain't what it's about. Bribery is illegal. The fake outrage is about the money lobbyists legally spend in making politicians aware of tens of thousands of issues. Americans chip in their hard earned dollars to get the ear of a politician and lobbyists are licensed and there are rules they have to follow. The issue is phony.

The issue is money going from the lobbyists' hands to campaign coffers in return for support. That's where the trouble starts. That's not making people aware of an issue. It's not a phony concern. Lobbyists would still be able to lobby; they'd just have to check their wallets at the door.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." -- Thomas Jefferson

So, would Jefferson be pro- or anti-public funding, given the situation we have today?

 

[konradv]

The issue is money going from the lobbyists' hands to campaign coffers in return for support. That's where the trouble starts. That's not making people aware of an issue. It's not a phony concern. Lobbyists would still be able to lobby; they'd just have to check their wallets at the door.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." -- Thomas Jefferson

So, would Jefferson be pro- or anti-public funding, given the situation we have today?

I'd like to think he'd look warily at the creation of a new nobility of those who can afford to pay for access to the people in power.

 

[whitehall]

I saw an intense true story about a plane crash recently. The flight attendant was forced to follow procedure and tell passengers who had toddlers to lay the children on the floor to prepare for a crash. She instinctively knew it was not the best advice she could give but she was bound by regulations. The plane crashed in Salt lake City and the flight attendant survived as did a woman who had a small child. The woman was blocked by the flight attendant from going back into the burning plane and heard the woman say "you told me to put my child on the floor". The flight attendant, now retired, says she will remember that encounter for the rest of her life. The point of the story is that the flight attendant has become ....gasp.... a lobbyist, lobbying congress for better safety standards for children. The question seems to be which lobbying does the ignorant left want to outlaw?

 

[FactFinder]

Your Congressman Takes Bribes

Nah,,say it isn't so!

 

[FactFinder]

I saw an intense true story about a plane crash recently. The flight attendant was forced to follow procedure and tell passengers who had toddlers to lay the children on the floor to prepare for a crash. She instinctively knew it was not the best advice she could give but she was bound by regulations. The plane crashed in Salt lake City and the flight attendant survived as did a woman who had a small child. The woman was blocked by the flight attendant from going back into the burning plane and heard the woman say "you told me to put my child on the floor". The flight attendant, now retired, says she will remember that encounter for the rest of her life. The point of the story is that the flight attendant has become ....gasp.... a lobbyist, lobbying congress for better safety standards for children. The question seems to be which lobbying does the ignorant left want to outlaw?

If that is what it takes to clean up then "ALL OF IT".

 

[konradv]

I saw an intense true story about a plane crash recently. The flight attendant was forced to follow procedure and tell passengers who had toddlers to lay the children on the floor to prepare for a crash. She instinctively knew it was not the best advice she could give but she was bound by regulations. The plane crashed in Salt lake City and the flight attendant survived as did a woman who had a small child. The woman was blocked by the flight attendant from going back into the burning plane and heard the woman say "you told me to put my child on the floor". The flight attendant, now retired, says she will remember that encounter for the rest of her life. The point of the story is that the flight attendant has become ....gasp.... a lobbyist, lobbying congress for better safety standards for children. The question seems to be which lobbying does the ignorant left want to outlaw?

Lobbyists can still lobby. They just wouldn't be able to have an effect on a campaign. This is about MONEY, not talking. Lobbyists need to depend on their arguments, not promises exacted because they can bundle more cash than the next guy. This is also not a left-right issue, but a budget issue. Even if we finance elections, I think we come out ahead monetarily, because our representitives don't have as many expensive promises to keep.

 

[whitehall]

I saw an intense true story about a plane crash recently. The flight attendant was forced to follow procedure and tell passengers who had toddlers to lay the children on the floor to prepare for a crash. She instinctively knew it was not the best advice she could give but she was bound by regulations. The plane crashed in Salt lake City and the flight attendant survived as did a woman who had a small child. The woman was blocked by the flight attendant from going back into the burning plane and heard the woman say "you told me to put my child on the floor". The flight attendant, now retired, says she will remember that encounter for the rest of her life. The point of the story is that the flight attendant has become ....gasp.... a lobbyist, lobbying congress for better safety standards for children. The question seems to be which lobbying does the ignorant left want to outlaw?

Lobbyists can still lobby. They just wouldn't be able to have an effect on a campaign. This is about MONEY, not talking. Lobbyists need to depend on their arguments, not promises exacted because they can bundle more cash than the next guy. This is also not a left-right issue, but a budget issue. Even if we finance elections, I think we come out ahead monetarily, because our representitives don't have as many expensive promises to keep.

Maybe you have lobbyists confused with campaign donors who want to see their candidate elected. It's a different issue. The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech and lefties have been whining about it ever since. Live with it. The Constitution says that the people have the right to petition the government. That's lobbying. Live with that too.

 

[whitehall]

Has it even occurred to the radical left that the "occupy" movement is lobbying on steroids? The OWS rabble seems fine to lefties because they always prefer lobbying by intimidation rather than following the rules. OWS gets away with their antics because it's a free speech issue but the Supreme Court ruling that money is free speech doesn't seem to sink into their thick heads. The truly ignorant even have the nerve to suggest that government be in charge of financing elections while the rest of us are tied and gagged on the sidelines. I'm sure the incumbent candidates would love being in charge of doling out funds to their opponents campaigns. The bottom line is that we are all lobbyists. We donate money or or our time or voice our opinions to petition the government to do the things we want them to do within the rules set by the government and monitored by the Supreme Court. Would you rather have fascism or anarchy?

 

[konradv]

I saw an intense true story about a plane crash recently. The flight attendant was forced to follow procedure and tell passengers who had toddlers to lay the children on the floor to prepare for a crash. She instinctively knew it was not the best advice she could give but she was bound by regulations. The plane crashed in Salt lake City and the flight attendant survived as did a woman who had a small child. The woman was blocked by the flight attendant from going back into the burning plane and heard the woman say "you told me to put my child on the floor". The flight attendant, now retired, says she will remember that encounter for the rest of her life. The point of the story is that the flight attendant has become ....gasp.... a lobbyist, lobbying congress for better safety standards for children. The question seems to be which lobbying does the ignorant left want to outlaw?

Lobbyists can still lobby. They just wouldn't be able to have an effect on a campaign. This is about MONEY, not talking. Lobbyists need to depend on their arguments, not promises exacted because they can bundle more cash than the next guy. This is also not a left-right issue, but a budget issue. Even if we finance elections, I think we come out ahead monetarily, because our representitives don't have as many expensive promises to keep.

Maybe you have lobbyists confused with campaign donors who want to see their candidate elected. It's a different issue. The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech and lefties have been whining about it ever since. Live with it. The Constitution says that the people have the right to petition the government. That's lobbying. Live with that too.

Those campaign donors, if they're average, don't have the clout of a few big guys. It's those big guys that are blowing up the deficit. I don't even think it's a left-right issue. We'll never know who really won, if the game is rigged. I think it would cost the public less in the long run to finance elections. And once again, I have absolutely nothing against petitioning the government. It's the bribery and added cost of government, that concerns me.