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.
If you decentralize/limit power of the Fed gov't, what's stopping lobbyist from targeting state legislators?
They already do, which is why most governmen should be local. And before you ask whats to stop them from targeting local legislators, they do that already as well. The difference being its a lot more difficult on a local level to allow that to happen since you live in those regions and are directly affected by it, along with your neighbors.
Its much easier for Washington to say, yep.. we'll do x in Colorado, over there, far, far, away from us, where we dont need to deal with it..
Let's use banking as an example. The Fed has the power to regulate banking activities, so it has the option to force banks to separate its banking & investing sides. The banks lobby Congressmen to fall on the side of allowing banks to continue to invest AND perform their traditional banking duties, and so the Congressman do.
Your solution is to remove that power to regulate banks from the Fed gov't in order to stop lobbyists from influencing regulatory policy. So who's regulating bank activities now, if anyone? And what stops a group of banks from getting together now and targeting a state Senator instead of a Congressman to get their agenda passed?
Well first, congrats on a thoughtful (possibly fiendishly clever) reply.
I have to plead ignorance on the whole fractional banking thing. Generally there is a place for gov't in legislating against and enforcing against fraud. Due to the unique nature of banking perhaps there is a unique role for gov't oversight. Also most people (including me) recognize issuing of currency as a legit function of gov't and so there may be a necessity for gov't regulation in connection with that.
Let's take a specific example of banking regulation. Last year recall there was a controversy over debit card fees and Bank of America. It turned out that it started when WalMart lobbied Dick Durbin (D, IL) and got him to slip in a law limiting card swipe fees. WalMart could have offered cash discounts, or in-house cards to avoid the fees, as many businesses do, but they didn't want to do that, so they went to Dick Durbin and Congress in essence to pick BOA's pockets for them. And Durbin & Congress obliged.
Thank Wal-Mart for your new bank card fee | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/thank-wal-mart-your-new-bank-card-fee - broken link)
Now in this case, we all would have been better off if Congress didn't have the power to regulate the swipe fees. It should have been left as a voluntary negotiation between WalMart and BOA. Then WalMart would have had no reason to donate campaign cash to Durbin, and they would not have done so. And in turn BOA would have no reason to go off and buy a powerful Senator of their own, as they have doubtless since done.
What do you mean by 'go the way of California?' I don't see a mass migration from California. 38 million people live there -- the largest in the nation.
It isn't so hard to pick up and move, especially over something like corruption in State legislatures. I would surmise that most (if not all) state governments are more corrupt that at the federal level.
So IL was the better example--they did lose one seat. I recall reading in another news story that Chicago lost 17 percent of its black population from 2000-2010. An even better example would have been NY state, which lost 2 congressional districts after the 2010 census.
Well first, congrats on a thoughtful (possibly fiendishly clever) reply.
I have to plead ignorance on the whole fractional banking thing. Generally there is a place for gov't in legislating against and enforcing against fraud. Due to the unique nature of banking perhaps there is a unique role for gov't oversight. Also most people (including me) recognize issuing of currency as a legit function of gov't and so there may be a necessity for gov't regulation in connection with that.
Let's take a specific example of banking regulation. Last year recall there was a controversy over debit card fees and Bank of America. It turned out that it started when WalMart lobbied Dick Durbin (D, IL) and got him to slip in a law limiting card swipe fees. WalMart could have offered cash discounts, or in-house cards to avoid the fees, as many businesses do, but they didn't want to do that, so they went to Dick Durbin and Congress in essence to pick BOA's pockets for them. And Durbin & Congress obliged.
Thank Wal-Mart for your new bank card fee | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/thank-wal-mart-your-new-bank-card-fee - broken link)
Now in this case, we all would have been better off if Congress didn't have the power to regulate the swipe fees. It should have been left as a voluntary negotiation between WalMart and BOA. Then WalMart would have had no reason to donate campaign cash to Durbin, and they would not have done so. And in turn BOA would have no reason to go off and buy a powerful Senator of their own, as they have doubtless since done.
All that is true, but all this is like arguing for locking away all the valuables in a safe, so the thieves find nothing worth taking, rather than stopping the thieves from getting into the house in the first place.
I don't agree w/ a small & weak Fed gov't b/c there's more good to be done with strong, impartial oversight.
Was the Citizens United SCOTUS decision a good one or bad one for the country?
One of the worst decisions ever. It ranks right up there with Dred Scott.
The 1st Amendment does not protect newspapers nor does it imply that newspapers have a right to "free speech."
It is the editor(s), not the newspaper, who is protected. I would hope people can see the difference (but perhaps I'm expecting too much).
The solution here is quite simple, and will resolve multiple issues and protect people.
You need a constitutional amendment that states in no uncertain terms that only those people eligible to vote in an election or on a ballot/campaign issue may vote.
That would automatically bar unions, corporations, PACs, Think-Tanks, special interest groups and an host of others from dumping money into the election process.
I chose that specific wording because it also restores the integrity of the Constitution and the sovereignty of each State.
As a Democrat or Republican, you would be barred from contributing money to elections and ballot issues outside of your State. That means that people and other entities in California would no longer be able to dump money into Ohio to influence elections or ballot issues there -- and yes, it does and has happened.
If Americans truly want to regain control of their country, then the first step is removing the money from the equation.
Since Congress would never introduce a bill for an amendment such as that (they will not bite the hand that feeds them), it will be up to the State legislatures to do it. And since they won't for the same reason, it would be up to citizens to form groups and have the measure introduced and passed by popular referendum.
You can, naturally, expect intense anti-ballot measure initiatives and a media blitz of glitzy commercials on radio and television to block your attempts sponsored by unions, PACs corporations, Think-Tanks, and special interest groups, since they have no desire to give up their power.
Has anybody seen a scorecard that adds up numbers of groups and totals their membership, and then adds in money donated? Somehow, I think the Chamber of Commerce has more people and money to spend than whatever Acorn is now. I sure would like to know who is on what team and how much money they are throwing in.
It does not really matter. Looks to me like rich white men still call the shots for everybody else. Democracy is an illusion.
Right, only white men are rich and own businesses.
...You need a constitutional amendment that states in no uncertain terms that only those people eligible to vote in an election or on a ballot/campaign issue may vote.
That would automatically bar unions, corporations, PACs, Think-Tanks, special interest groups and an host of others from dumping money into the election process.
I chose that specific wording because it also restores the integrity of the Constitution and the sovereignty of each State.....
This is an interdiction strategy and destined to spectacularly fail.
To take the drug analogy, only licensed medical outfits are allowed to import and distribute opiates. Automatically barred are random individuals, businesses, clubs, and a host of others from dumping drugs into the community. What is the result? As long as the huge demand for drugs is there, the drugs find their way into the community in unending supply. It would be the same with campaign money, which is really just the buying and selling of political power. As long as the virtually unrestrained power is there, the money will find paths to access it.
ACORN was a tiny organization. Union funding, which can't use dues to fund campaign advertising, is minor compared to corporate funding -- even in previous elections. Thus, your assertions that this levels the playing field is false. It just makes an already unlevel playing field more tilted.
The Koch brothers already are on record as pledging $200 million in anti-Obama ads. Surely, they are doing so to bestow favorable status from the winner.
This isn't leveling the playing field. It's selling government favors to the highest bidder and the only ones able to play are the elite and the corporations.
How much did purchsing theSupreme Court cost the Koch Brothers?
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.
