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.
The history of campaign finance reform has been that 'reforms' are generally enacted in response to problems which, when traced back, are the result of previous 'reforms. Law of unintended consequences.
Suppose that we could pass an effective law to keep corporate money out. I'd be all for it. But the predicatable result would be the creation of a black market for buying and selling of influence. As long as there is so much power and money flowing to & from DC, people will find a way to get to it.
Think of the war on drugs. We've passed various interdiction laws to keep drugs out of the hands of druggies. We even force people to take laxatives at airports if they're suspected of having swallowed balloons full of drugs. But still the drugs flow.
We would eventually get Mexican style corruption where politicians with $30,000 /yr nominal salaries end up as billionaires. Think it can't happen here? Why? Is our different skin tone going to protect us? No, human nature & dynamics are the same everywhere. It can and will happen here.
The only solution is to take the power away from DC. Dry up the power and the money will go also. But of course if you're a liberal, that's an unacceptable solution, so you're doomed to one set of unintended consequences after another.
We have the government the founders gave us. Everything is decided by rich, white men.
The public owns the airwaves. We have a right to control them. Last I checked, politicians are public figures. Libel and slander take on a different meaning for them. You can pretty much say what you want regarding a public figure.
I think only registered voters should be able to make campaign contributions.
I have been in conversations with 2 grown, university educated, well employed people this week who believe that O is a Kenyan born Muslim and that Newt never ran around on his wives. One of them used to run a bank in Chicago for Brazil. So much for people being able to detect BS.
The history of campaign finance reform has been that 'reforms' are generally enacted in response to problems which, when traced back, are the result of previous 'reforms. Law of unintended consequences.
Suppose that we could pass an effective law to keep corporate money out. I'd be all for it. But the predicatable result would be the creation of a black market for buying and selling of influence. As long as there is so much power and money flowing to & from DC, people will find a way to get to it.
.
The argument seems to be that some will still do it so why even try. Well people still murder people even though we have laws against it. Should we just get rid of those laws as well. Donations by corporations is no more than bribery. Lets call it for what it is. We already have laws on the books for this. If they do it, put them in jail. That would be a good start. Right now it is legal bribery.
The history of campaign finance reform has been that 'reforms' are generally enacted in response to problems which, when traced back, are the result of previous 'reforms. Law of unintended consequences.
Suppose that we could pass an effective law to keep corporate money out. I'd be all for it. But the predicatable result would be the creation of a black market for buying and selling of influence. As long as there is so much power and money flowing to & from DC, people will find a way to get to it.
.
The argument seems to be that some will still do it so why even try. Well people still murder people even though we have laws against it. Should we just get rid of those laws as well.
We have the government the founders gave us. Everything is decided by rich, white men.
Yes, just as Marx said. That is the ultimate fate of all governments: they end up serving the bourgeoisie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crone
The public owns the airwaves. We have a right to control them. Last I checked, politicians are public figures. Libel and slander take on a different meaning for them. You can pretty much say what you want regarding a public figure.
That is a bizarre quirk in US [case] law that is non-existent in the rest of the world.
If I cannot libel or slander a common person, how is it logical that I should be able to libel and slander someone just because they are more renown?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
The history of campaign finance reform has been that 'reforms' are generally enacted in response to problems which, when traced back, are the result of previous 'reforms. Law of unintended consequences.
That is exactly right.
It should be abundantly clear to everyone that Congress cannot and will not police themselves, except when forced under extreme public pressure and outrage, and even then they do a half-fast job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Suppose that we could pass an effective law to keep corporate money out. I'd be all for it. But the predicatable result would be the creation of a black market for buying and selling of influence. As long as there is so much power and money flowing to & from DC, people will find a way to get to it.
Not if you cut off all loop-holes, and also exact excruciatingly painful penalties for violations of the law.
As I pointed out the fatal flaws in Deutch's poorly written legislation, it appears to ban money, but it does not ban "in kind equivalents."
I'm much more intelligent than Deutch ever hopes to be in a million life-times.
Take a lesson from the framers of the Bill of Rights. They had the intelligence (that Deutch doesn't have) and the foresight to do two things, one prohibit Congress from enacting any law respecting an establishment of religion --- to prevent Congress from creating a National Religion -- and then prohibiting the free exercise thereof -- because they were smart of enough to understand that merely banning Congress from declaring a National Religion wasn't sufficient -- Congress could simply prohibit the free exercise of any number of religions and by default, that religion which has not been banned then becomes the de facto National Religion.
So banning the money is not enough. You have to ban "in kind equivalents" otherwise there is no difference between giving a member of Congress $30,000 in cash or paying for $30,000 worth of air time, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Think of the war on drugs. We've passed various interdiction laws to keep drugs out of the hands of druggies. We even force people to take laxatives at airports if they're suspected of having swallowed balloons full of drugs. But still the drugs flow.
That's because you don't have a War on Drugs. What you have instead is a slick pys-ops warfare program that leads you to believe there is a war on drugs when in fact it is just an excuse for the US to maintain a military presence in Central/South American and to set up and operate intelligence gathering activities, so that the US can overthrow governments, just like when Obama illegally overthrew the Honduran government 2 years ago.
You want a War on Drugs? I'll give you one. Give me about 3 years set up an operation to gather intelligence on the supply and distribution network and I guarantee that after the take down you won't see anything in the US other than an occasional pot plant in someone's home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Then how dare them write a constitution that gave the public so much power.
But they didn't give the public any power -- only the illusion of power.
Senators were originally appointed by the State legislatures, not elected through direct election. So you have the mere illusion of power in that you can elect your State legislators who ostensibly will listen to you when it comes to choosing Senators, except it never actually worked that way.
Senators serve 6 years, but Congress members serve only 2 years. Why?
Because the framers of the Constitution were smart enough to understand human nature, and it is human nature that sentiments blow in the wind and change often. It's a wonder you don't have a nation of cripples seeing how you all constantly jump off the bandwagon onto another bandwagon, from which you will jump off shortly only to jump onto another bandwagon from which you jump soon enough (onto another bandwagon).
All that jumping around is rough on the knees (unless you PLF).
The Electoral College was designed in part to limit your power by electing a president indirectly through the Electoral College.
Why? Because people are fickle and easily swayed by slick-talking people in suits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
To recap, you don't trust the people of the country.
That would sum it up nicely and you have proven me right year after year after year for the last 30 years that I have been paying attention.
Simply put, you aren't capable and don't have the intestinal fortitude or wherewithal to make the hard choices.
You don't even have the education or knowledge-base to make the hard choices, nor do people have the ability to exercise foresight.
Every choice Americans have made since, well, the last 70-80 years has been wrong. That's the main reason why you're in the mess you're in now, and you don't know how to fix it, and you cannot fix it, so you'll continue to make all the wrong choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
We have a thing called freedom of speech. It allows news agencies to tell outright lies, if they so choose.
Obviously you aren't aware that General Westmoreland sued CBS in court for telling "outright lies."
Freedom of Speech only protects you from government restrictions. It is not a license to spread false information and tell lies to advance a particular social, political, economic or religious agenda.
In one of the greatest signs yet that the 99 Percenters are having an impact, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, today introduced an amendment that would ban corporate money in politics and end corporate personhood once and for all.
Deutch’s amendment, called the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment, would overturn the Citizens United decision, re-establishing the right of Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance laws, and to effectively outlaw the ability of for-profit corporations to contribute to campaign spending.
“No matter how long protesters camp out across America, big banks will continue to pour money into shadow groups promoting candidates more likely to slash Medicaid for poor children than help families facing foreclosure,” said Deutch in a statement provided to ThinkProgress. “No matter how strongly Ohio families fight for basic fairness for workers, the Koch Brothers will continue to pour millions into campaigns aimed at protecting the wealthiest 1%.
No matter how fed up seniors in South Florida are with an agenda that puts oil subsidies ahead of Social Security and Medicare, corporations will continue to fund massive publicity campaigns and malicious attack ads against the public interest. Americans of all stripes agree that for far too long, corporations have occupied Washington and drowned out the voices of the people. I introduced the OCCUPIED Amendment because the days of corporate control of our democracy. It is time to return the nation’s capital and our democracy to the people.”
Great thread, a while back I started a few as well about the need for public campaign finance reform.
They may now be a little dated but if anyone is interested in more info about the issues related to campaign finance reform, they can find them here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert
One simple solution that for some reason people always ignore.
I remember as well that Chris Dodd & Tom Udall sponsored an amendment that would allow Congress to regulate funding for federal elections while states would be able to create their own campaign finance systems.
I think this is a great idea but if the amendment was tweaked to allow states to have authority over devising their own public campaign finance system for elected officials AT ALL levels of government, from municipal all the way up to federal and likewise for all 3 branches at each level, executive, legislative and judicial; THAT, I feel, could generate appeal and support across the board.
I don't trust most americans to be able to sift through all the propaganda that they are exposed to constantly by corporate advertising. That is why I am for eliminating corporate paid political ads.
You wrongly assume that most Americans are able to make informed decisions without corporate advertising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
The thread was about limiting corporate political propaganda advertisements. If corporations control all the information people receive how are people going to make an intelligent informed decision. If all things were equal, then I would trust them to make the correct decision, but when the information is not equal because only the corporations can afford to pay for political advertisements then everything is not equal.
There is information available. People are too lazy and stupid to make informed decisions. You aren't going to change that with a constitutional amendment.
You wrongly assume that most Americans are able to make informed decisions without corporate advertising.
There is information available. People are too lazy and stupid to make informed decisions. You aren't going to change that with a constitutional amendment.
If they are lazy and stupid, as you say, then they will believe everything they hear and their vote will be prejudiced so they vote for the candidate that has the largest money backing. At least with no advertising, they have a chance of guessing at the right candidate.
I actually have a higher opinion of American intelligence than you do, but that is just my opinion.
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.
