Your Congressman Takes Bribes

[whitehall]

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.

You actually think government financing of elections would work? Look how Social Security turned out. Incumbents would like nothing better than be in charge of financing their opponents campaigns. Meanwhile Americans would be forced to sit on the sidelines while hollywood slipped in some propaganda before the election or we see "trusted" news sources like CBS using forged documents to try to influence an election. The Supreme Court determined that money is speech and the 1st Amendment to the Constitution guarantees free speech. The teachers in Wisconsin called in sick and left their classrooms to riot in order to try to lobby the Wisconsin government by intimidation. Their actions were guaranteed by the 1st Amendment even if their conduct broke a couple of state rules. The problem with the left is that they want the 1st Amendment to be about rioting and occupying and burning the Flag but they want to silence everyone else.

 

[konradv]

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.

You actually think government financing of elections would work? Look how Social Security turned out. Incumbents would like nothing better than be in charge of financing their opponents campaigns. Meanwhile Americans would be forced to sit on the sidelines while hollywood slipped in some propaganda before the election or we see "trusted" news sources like CBS using forged documents to try to influence an election. The Supreme Court determined that money is speech and the 1st Amendment to the Constitution guarantees free speech. The teachers in Wisconsin called in sick and left their classrooms to riot in order to try to lobby the Wisconsin government by intimidation. Their actions were guaranteed by the 1st Amendment even if their conduct broke a couple of state rules. The problem with the left is that they want the 1st Amendment to be about rioting and occupying and burning the Flag but they want to silence everyone else.

What part of everybody gets the same, don't you understand. Enjoying Obama's billion dollar war chest, half of which he'll leave to Hillary for '16, because the current crop of Reps is so pathetic? I wonder why so many people riot? Maybe it's because the pols don't listen to the little guy. This isn't a right-left thing, but the average guy against a rigged game. If we pay, they have to listen to us. Right now the 1st amendment isn't really working for you, if your speech isn't being listened to. Sure it's free, but that doesn't buy you a seat at the table. CASH does.

 

[konradv]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEsjDdk8vpg]Rep. Pocan launches 100% public financing bill - YouTube[/ame]

 

[CausingPAIN]

Will my congressman take bribes..... Well he better be, or I want a new congressperson!

 

[konradv]

Will my congressman take bribes..... Well he better be, or I want a new congressperson!

ME, I'd want a new government.

 

[konradv]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAKAsdTzbY]Public Financing of Election Campaigns CEPersVid-16 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr. Jones]

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?

If we had real leaders and patriots like Jefferson today the nation would be much better off, instead we have "the legalized version of the first" per his quote.
I do not believe he would be against public funding as long as such would not tilt power away from the people.
Think about why so much is spent on running for a position that doesn't pay nearly what it cost to run for...
The money spent by the lobbyists groups, corporations, and banks on their candidate is "paid back" by the candidate by pushing through legislation that benefits them many times over.
It's a rigged system, a special club, that you aren't a member of.

New York Times writer Eric Lichtblau commented in his article headlined, “Economic Downturn Took a Detour at Capitol Hill,” saying:
In 1991, Representative Ed Pastor (D. AR) entered Congress with around $100,000 in savings and as much debt owed banks. Now he’s a millionaire, one of 250 in Congress.

They do it through stock trades and privileged business deals. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert earmarked funding for a federal highway project on land he owned. He later sold it for $2 million.

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi profited from eight IPOs, including some “that had business before her House.” So have other congressional members, past and present.

Former Senator Bob Dole bought shares in Automatic Data Processing four days before GHW Bush signed legislation with new military data processing rules benefitting the company handsomely.

Former Speaker and Republican presidential aspirant Newt Gingrich bought Boeing stock just before he helped kill amendments to cut International Space Station funding. It helped Boeing secure a lucrative contract.

Money Power Runs America | BobTuskin.com

Perhaps if the little money got together, (the average citizen), instead of bickering over the BS they want us to, to distract us and separate us, we would have a better chance of advancing candidates, and causes that would benefit the average person instead of the elite. Or perhaps disallow the PACS loophole, and enforce the caps on campaign donations.

 

[konradv]

Perhaps if the little money got together, (the average citizen), instead of bickering over the BS they want us to, to distract us and separate us, we would have a better chance of advancing candidates, and causes that would benefit the average person instead of the elite. Or perhaps disallow the PACS loophole, and enforce the caps on campaign donations.

That's just tinkering. I think we need a complete overhaul. Tinkering in the past has often made things worse, e.g. unlimited PAC money.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

If my Congressman isn't taking bribes I'm gonna be pissed.

 

[konradv]

If my Congressman isn't taking bribes I'm gonna be pissed.

So it's been said.

 

[CausingPAIN]

Will my congressman take bribes..... Well he better be, or I want a new congressperson!

ME, I'd want a new government.

You can get new Congressperson with a little chance of change....

YOU! ARE! STUCK! WITH! NO! CHANCE! IN! HELL!
Getting a new Goverment!

 

[konradv]

Will my congressman take bribes..... Well he better be, or I want a new congressperson!

ME, I'd want a new government.

You can get new Congressperson with a little chance of change....

YOU! ARE! STUCK! WITH! NO! CHANCE! IN! HELL!
Getting a new Goverment!

If you're willing to give up, that's you. What's cuckoo about wanting a government that isn't bought by the highest bidder? Got any solutions?

 

[CausingPAIN]

ME, I'd want a new government.

You can get new Congressperson with a little chance of change....

YOU! ARE! STUCK! WITH! NO! CHANCE! IN! HELL!
Getting a new Goverment!

If you're willing to give up, that's you. What's cuckoo about wanting a government that isn't bought by the highest bidder? Got any solutions?

What's cuckoo, is entertaining any hope of change now or in future. Not possible, see our past history. No way will the so called 1 % be giving anything up or back, that is the reality of the future. When a civil war breaks out, I will entertain thinking over any possible new outcomes or possible changes to this reality of government. As for giving up, or wanting new government. Hmm. Not wasting my time with unrealistic thoughts of impossible changes in the future. These fantasy are not a part of my understanding what the reality is now and into the future! So please keep dreaming and enjoy wasting your time.

 

[konradv]

You can get new Congressperson with a little chance of change....

YOU! ARE! STUCK! WITH! NO! CHANCE! IN! HELL!
Getting a new Goverment!

If you're willing to give up, that's you. What's cuckoo about wanting a government that isn't bought by the highest bidder? Got any solutions?

What's cuckoo, is entertaining any hope of change now or in future. Not possible, see our past history. No way will the so called 1 % be giving anything up or back, that is the reality of the future. When a civil war breaks out, I will entertain thinking over any possible new outcomes or possible changes to this reality of government. As for giving up, or wanting new government. Hmm. Not wasting my time with unrealistic thoughts of impossible changes in the future. These fantasy are not a part of my understanding what the reality is now and into the future! So please keep dreaming and enjoy wasting your time.

Isn't that what we're all doing here or are you just here to be a douchebag? Might as well just give up, I guess.

 

[stans]

The "right to petition the government" is guaranteed in the Constitution. We can't all call up our representatives or barge inbto their offices or even invite them to lunch so what do we do? We hire lobbyists like the NRA or the Sierra club to try to persuade them to do the right thing. Some politicians might be crooks and that's why the Founding Fathers gave us the option to fire them every two years.

Problem is that almost no one calls up their rep. Most lobbyists work for industry groups or the extremely wealthy, not for the little guy.

 

[stans]

The "right to petition the government" is guaranteed in the Constitution. We can't all call up our representatives or barge inbto their offices or even invite them to lunch so what do we do? We hire lobbyists like the NRA or the Sierra club to try to persuade them to do the right thing. Some politicians might be crooks and that's why the Founding Fathers gave us the option to fire them every two years.

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.

Of course, the money does not usually exchange hands directly, it is filtered through the party boss and then into the campaign treasury of the poltician being lobbied.

This is the problem with campaign financing. It is indirect bribery, though bribery nontheless, and it effectively squelches the voice of the people as it amplifies the voice of the lobbyist.

The solution is quite simple: Each candidate should be allotted a fixed stippend of campaign funding from a single, non-partisan treasury that is funded exclusively by public tax dollars. No private contributions allowed (and before anybody says it, we should thus amend the Constitution).

Agreed. I used to think that educating the populace would do the job but things are too complicated and stuff will still get decided in private and snuck through.

 

[stans]

Yeah right, short sighted lefties think we should outlaw lobbyists until they want to save the earth. What they mean is that they want to outlaw conservative lobbyists. Dishonest lefties are a dime a dozen. They took civics 101 and now they want to outlaw everything they disagree with. "Moderate" republican John McCain teamed up with left wing Russ Feingold and announced that they fixed the "campaign finance law". Dumb assed McCain didn't realize that Feingold fixed it so that left wingers like George Soros would now be tax exempt to pump liberal propaganda through "media matters" and a dozen other venues. Meanwhile Americans would be restricted from buying air-time to support the candidate they liked during a period McCain and Feingold decided was too close to the election. If left wingers get their way everything but liberal propaganda will be outlawed. Lobbyists...R...us. We have a Constitutional right to petition the government. The left only becomes hysterical about it when it seems that they might lose an election.

This is NOT a Left v. Right issue. Shirley, there is enough lobbying from the Left to make everyone sick, including the most moonbat of liberal pansies.

The point is that there is no Left v. Right anymore, not as far as the average citizen is concerned. All of our elected officials are beholden to upper class nabobs who employ lobbying firms to get whatever they want, over the interests of the middle class citizen, whether he be liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between.

The middle class vote doesn't count anymore! Don't you get it?

Sig, no matter how realistic and logical your arguments are, Whitehall will never get it, because she doesn't want to. When someone falls back to name calling as an argument, as she has, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING will change her mind. Logic or real events don't count. Don't waste your breathe or your time.

 

[stans]

Lobbyists.. r.. us. Whether it's the greenie Sierra club or the NRA most of us chip in and hire people to speak to elected representatives for us regarding matters we think are important. That's the way it works. The problem is that we hate the lobbyists who work for the other guy. Grow up people.

...OR a constitutional amendment calling for public financing of elections. Do that and all lobbyists can do is pitch their position, NOT their money. We need to level the playing field or our representitives will never listen to us, just to those with the deepest pockets.

This of course is the solution if we want to keep our democracy which is on the borderline of failure. Gerrymandering, PAC's, voter disqualification by ARBITRARY identification requirements, and unneeded voting time limits will finish the job. Push the populace too hard. What comes next? Liberte, Equalite, Fraternite.

 

[stans]

"Public" financing of elections? You know what "public" means don't you? You want taxpayers to fund ads for politicians against their will? You think the politicians who wrecked Fannie Mae should be able to wreck the electoral system too? It goes back to my original statement. People who complain about lobbyists really like their own lobbyist but they hate the other guys lobbyist. Putting the government in complete control of their own elections is a recipe for disaster...or socialism.

Your lobbyist!!!

You ever think what they could be doing with that cash, if they weren't buying elections? Maybe giving us a discounts to pay for elections ourselves? Besides, can't you see the savings involved in our representives not being lured by the money tree? Why do you think the deficit's so high? It ain't all welfare.

There is nothing to LOL about. Lobbyists are doing what we pay them to do. I think we are drifting into another subject besides lobbying. Lobbyists approach elected representatives on behalf of people who are concerned about issues but they don't finance elections. Usually the major political parties solicit funding. It should be noted that the left snickered when Al Gore violated the campaign finance laws but he was a democrat so it didn't matter.

Who is "we"? Industry groups and the very wealthy who can afford to fund the lobbyists so the funders can obtain some financial advantage. Whirehall, if you're not connected to or are in one of these two groups then you're defending a process that's agianst your own economic interest.

 

[stans]

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.

Yep, the only way to get the money out of politics is to quite sending money to Washington. That means cut the federal budget by 95%. When politicians no longer have trillions of dollars to distribute, people will no longer have any incentive to bribe them.

Cut the budget by 95% and disband the military cause we can't pay for it. Are you sure that's what you want?