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.
But even campaign finance law cannot get around the number of politicians who get promised and receive the lucrative "consultant" and "board member" positions with their corporate cronies once out of office, as a reward for all their dutiful good deeds while in office.
Perhaps, but meaningful campaign finance reform would end that, because you'd no longer have career politicians.
AMENDMENT XXVIII
Section 1
No person or organization shall contribute money, or goods or services in kind, or tangible property to a campaign or candidate for political office, or to a ballot issue or ballot measure who shall not be legally eligible to vote for the candidate or to vote for the ballot issue or ballot measure.
Section 2
Political parties shall disburse monies only within the State in which the campaign funds were raised, donated or accumulated, and shall not transfer monies to other States.
Section 3
Any person who knowingly or willfully commits a violation of this Amendment shall be imprisoned for not less than 10 years and fined not less than 300 percent of the amount of money, goods or services or tangible property transferred or conferred upon the candidate, campaign or ballot measure.
Section 4
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
That's all you need.
That gives every person a fair chance and bolsters the position of 3rd Parties.
If you're running for mayor or city council, you're in the same position the other candidates are: The only people who can contribute to your campaign are the people who live in the city, and are eligible to vote.
That's important for cities like Sarasota, Florida. Lots of people "live" there, but they're not eligible to vote because they actually live in New York or Michigan or Ohio and they're just spending the Winter there.
Works the same in congressional districts. If you don't live there, you cannot contribute money. Lots of Democrats and Republicans would be unseated by Independents and 3rd Parties, and you might actually get a better government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aileesic
Lots of lower than average people out here who just don't want the same things out of life. They are not interested in your lifestyle or education, and no amount of prodding will change that. It is called "burden on society" or on the family and everyone else nearby. They don't care either about anyone's contempt for them because no matter where they are, even if far out of sight and mind, they are a burden on someone somewhere.
That's their choice, but I'm under no moral, ethical or legal obligation to subsidize their choice.
California is the liberal progressive , highly intelligent , trendsetter in putting the poor in their place .
And the white wealthy liberal government silence in that trendsetting state indicates the poor & homeless need a to be a lot more downtrodden .
Thank you for leading us in the proper circumscribing the poor & homeless California !
But what about the poor and homeless in highly conservative Oklahoma? There, conservatives believe strongly in keeping low income people in their place by opposing any more Medicaid for starters.
And Republicans where they rule absolutely refuse to enforce the law banning employers from hiring illegals.
I definitely think the nation is littered with RINOs. Which is why I don't claim to be a "republican" myself, I identify as a "conservative". Too many Flakes, McCains, Bushes, and so on (and that's just the politicians).
But what about the poor and homeless in highly conservative Oklahoma? There, conservatives believe strongly in keeping low income people in their place by opposing any more Medicaid for starters.
Holy cow, you didn't even listen to your own link? How are you any part of the solution or education of people when your depiction of reality in these posts is at best viewed through a kalidescope?
Make no mistake, both parties have pushed for illegal immigration and off-shoring.
That's been since Clinton was in office.
We used to have democrats posting here denying that he actually signed NAFTA. lol.
Repubs, being more corporately inclined were of course the instigators of such actions.
Thus the vast decline in US private sector unions as the democrats joined with the republicans and sold them out to the corporations.
So then you have a bunch of democratic leaning blue collar mostly white guys out of jobs desperate enough to vote for Trumps empty promises and in return, after years of mostly being a democrat bastion....they get called RACIST for looking out for their economic interests even if it was a fools errand that wasn't the predominant motivator.
That's my gripe. R's never cared about workers. D's joined with the R's to push globalization and pro-corporate policy...and when the workers revolted to a maverick candidate...the D's rebranded them as racists. This is absolutely no reason to vote republican, nor democrat for these workers but rather a sad realization that they've been abandoned as a voting block outside of rhetoric. They don't have money. They have declining numbers. So instead, they're targeted with false promises from both parties.
Make no mistake, both parties have pushed for illegal immigration and off-shoring.
That's been since Clinton was in office.
We used to have democrats posting here denying that he actually signed NAFTA. lol.
Repubs, being more corporately inclined were of course the instigators of such actions.
Thus the vast decline in US private sector unions as the democrats joined with the republicans and sold them out to the corporations.
So then you have a bunch of democratic leaning blue collar mostly white guys out of jobs desperate enough to vote for Trumps empty promises and in return, after years of mostly being a democrat bastion....they get called RACIST for looking out for their economic interests even if it was a fools errand that wasn't the predominant motivator.
That's my gripe. R's never cared about workers. D's joined with the R's to push globalization and pro-corporate policy...and when the workers revolted to a maverick candidate...the D's rebranded them as racists. This is absolutely no reason to vote republican, nor democrat for these workers but rather a sad realization that they've been abandoned as a voting block outside of rhetoric. They don't have money. They have declining numbers. So instead, they're targeted with false promises from both parties.
100% correct. Great post.
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.
