Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For a party that is always harping about gov't overreach, slippery slopes to fascism, and maintaining vigilance against oppression, why have so few people on the Right complained about the massive influence that unlimited giving is having?
One big reason why unlimited giving is the scariest thing this country is facing are no money-making entity will voluntarily police itself. We saw this w/ the finance industry. They are almost wholly internally regulated. And the little outside regulation there is heavily in bed w/ the finance industry due to lobbying.
All it takes is one corporation or one billionaire to upend the rules for their industry, and a few more to unethically take advantage of the new system, for it to have a cascading effect.
As much as Conservatives hate the idea of someone scamming our welfare system, scammers will never have the power to ruin our economy or environment. Can you say the same thing about a company that wants to build a nuclear power plant outside NYC but lobbies to relax safety regulations?
Even if you're the most ardent capitalist, are there any Conservatives out there who see a downside to gov't being a vehicle to support unopposed Corporate interests? If there are, when are they going to come out w/ their message against it?
And the answer isn't take power away from the gov't b/c it's the same ball game that's heavily in favor of established players whether you have a small gov't or a gov't that caters to the mega rich.
Of the top 20 richest, the top 3 are democrats, and 60% are democrats.
I say take ALL their money!
And getting to the point of this thread, according to your link:
Quote:
Analyzing the data takes us even further. Not only are there more Democrats in the Top 20 list, but those Democrats are a lot more stingy with their money when it comes to campaign contributions. Republicans coughed up $5.2 million while Democrats squirted out only $2.1 Million. These statistics would indicate that the more you have, the less you give.
Just 3 billionaires individually spent more in this past Republican primary than anyone listed in that Top 20 list. Correction: One of the 3 billionaires is already on that list: Sheldon Adelson.
For a party that is always harping about gov't overreach, slippery slopes to fascism, and maintaining vigilance against oppression, why have so few people on the Right complained about the massive influence that unlimited giving is having?
This is a worthless arguement. There are negatives to our rights BUT they beat the alternatives. Nobody will argue that everything about our rights can be considered positive but again, it's better than not having such rights.
The odds are high that an amendment to the Constitution would pass though. Ask yourself why Congress has done absolutely nothing to further this? Nobody is even talking about it.
McCain/Feingold was never meant to stop the massive amount that is spent on campaigns. It was meant to stop anyone else from having a say.
Quote:
One big reason why unlimited giving is the scariest thing this country is facing are no money-making entity will voluntarily police itself. We saw this w/ the finance industry. They are almost wholly internally regulated. And the little outside regulation there is heavily in bed w/ the finance industry due to lobbying.
All it takes is one corporation or one billionaire to upend the rules for their industry, and a few more to unethically take advantage of the new system, for it to have a cascading effect.
As much as Conservatives hate the idea of someone scamming our welfare system, scammers will never have the power to ruin our economy or environment. Can you say the same thing about a company that wants to build a nuclear power plant outside NYC but lobbies to relax safety regulations?
Even if you're the most ardent capitalist, are there any Conservatives out there who see a downside to gov't being a vehicle to support unopposed Corporate interests? If there are, when are they going to come out w/ their message against it?
And the answer isn't take power away from the gov't b/c it's the same ball game that's heavily in favor of established players whether you have a small gov't or a gov't that caters to the mega rich.
If you believe that your representative is bought for by entities you do not like, do not vote for them. It's really simple.
No, the problem here is with those on the losing end having to come up with a reason that they are of the minority position and the only reason they can come up with is that others are being bought off.
You ask anyone whether or not the money Goldman Sachs spent influenced their decision and they say no. They feel they are somehow different than the rest of the unwashed. You aren't.
Well, there was a time when Tea Party was born as a result of a collusion between mega corporations and government. Now is the time, when Tea Party promotes the idea and is practically sponsored by them.
This is a worthless arguement. There are negatives to our rights BUT they beat the alternatives. Nobody will argue that everything about our rights can be considered positive but again, it's better than not having such rights.
I disagree with you, they don't beat all of the alternatives. Should we restrict some people from donating to political campaigns? No, that isn't right or fair. Should we restrict EVERYONE from donating to campaigns? Yes.
There should be no lobbying, no money, no anything in politics. Completely remove the money from the equation, and you remove the problem.
Instead, we should have completely, 100%, publically funded campaigns. Now, I know this isn't cool with some conservatives because it uses tax dollars for campaigns, but as I see it, its the only way to remove abuse from the system.
If the incumbent, whatever his party, and the challanger, whatever their party, both are granted the exact same dollar amount for their campaign, and have a dedicated amount of public debates, that should be enough for the public to make a fair decision on who is right, and who is wrong, to hold office.
If America doesn't learn from history, we are condemned to repeat it!
Quote:
When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Instead, we should have completely, 100%, publically funded campaigns. Now, I know this isn't cool with some conservatives because it uses tax dollars for campaigns, but as I see it, its the only way to remove abuse from the system.
.
I completely AGREE
give the canditdtaes a SET EQUAL AMOUNT, and let them campaign on their merits and tenacity
Obama said he would do the public funding in 08..then he flipped-flopped on it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
