Dorks_--

Hypothetical situation.

Bill Gates gives a Senator two billion dollars. Who is Bill Gates' new googley-eyed butt kissing monkey?

Real world and paper two very different things. Very different. It's also the difference between success and failure for Communism.

Just to be fair, here's a Democratic one:

This guy gave the most to state political parties in 2000 for the "backdoor" in campaign finance. He's was also one of the most outspoken people against campaign finance... until this report came out.

Steven T. Kirsch* - $2.1 million
Kirsch founded Mouse Systems in 1982 and Frame Technology in 1986 before launching Infoseek, an Internet navigation service. After selling the company to Disney in 1999, Kirsch started a new e-commerce company called Propel. He and his wife Michele, a law school student, have set records for charitable giving: they are but a handful of donors younger than 50 who rank among the nation's 100 most generous philanthropists, as measured by lifetime giving. Kirsch divided his contributions among Democratic party committees in 10 states.

"He's was also one of the most..."

Pardon my asshatian grammar.

LesPhilky

Yeah, none of them are untainted it seems.

One big problem with that quote too. Giving to a political party makes one a philanthropist? I thought it made one a favor seeker. What do political parties do to help anyone really? Are they implying that giving to the Dems or Repubs is akin to giving to UNICEF/Nature Conservancy/church charities/disease research/etc etc etc? That's stupid.

I used philanthropist in this case meaning "generous donor."

One last one, another Democrat:

Peter G. Angelos $208,000
A Baltimore attorney and owner of the Baltimore Orioles professional baseball team. He is a significant contributor to the Democratic Party who made a fortune off of asbestos and tobacco class-action lawsuits. He contributed to Democratic state party committees in six states.

Again, the negative stuff is left out. Angelos is buddies with Fidel Castro and funnels his money through North Dakota, Nevada and Vermont... three states with some of the worst campaign finance disclosure laws in the nation. In fact, if you give to North Dakota, they are not required to report where your money went.

Peter Angelos has never been to North Dakota, has never met the North Dakota Democratic Party officials, yet he pumps in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in contributions.

If campaign finance is so okay, why is it so secretive?

It seems to me that in 300+ posts someone would have refuted the primary assumption of all campaign finance restrictions: That politicians are craven whores who sell their votes for contributions. The fact that many candidates actually receive contributions from advocates of both sides of an issue refutes that bad logic.

Stoke:

communism fails on paper if it is drawn correctly. It only works on paper, if the human element is left out.

SpeedBuggy--

Yes, I know.

HighHardOne
I'm sure that happens, but you'll have to back it up with facts if you want me to believe it's more common than the craven whores premise. I think on a local level, when one actually has more physical access to the politicians instead of having to trek across the country, that you can get some people really working for the people that they represent. I think they burn out before they get beyond state level, though, and either quit in disgust of all the corruption and games or they give in and become one of the players so they can 'go all the way'.

Besides, just because both sides give you some money doesn't mean they aren't trying to buy your vote or that your vote can't be bought. It just means there's a bidding war and maybe one will get more generous or more creative to win the politician's support.

Impaler

Substitute "premise" for "assumption." Also, I didn't say contributions had no effect, just that there seemed to me that the thread had an over-riding "corporations buy and sell politicians" theme.

Urbn

I think the contribution lists are on Common Cause's site and, sure, local/state politicians are more likely to respond to my needs, which is one of the reasons I'm a libertarian.

GEAH
Thanks okay, I'm disgusted with the left's anti-patriotism and lack of support for our troops.

Hope you don't recover.

Ah yes... I hate those soldiers so much, I actually wanted them to stay home and live.

I hate my country so much, I actually want us to solve our problems on our own soil before we go trying to police the rest of the world.

I'm so damn unpatriotic, so far LEFT and LIBERAL, so UNSPEAKABLY CRAVEN, that it actually annoys me to see images of the American flag and the American military used in shameless advertising for a TV network.

HighHard:

Check out this site... I have a feeling you'll apperciate it.

State Secrets (yes, another shameless plug, but Jesus, it's informative)

I can't say that I see what soft money has to do with free speech. In fact, I'd say soft money is antithetical to the democratic process. It gives people with money a much louder voice than those without it. But isn't that in opposition to one of the founding principles of "one person, one vote?"

LesP

Thanks, I will when the Pilsner Urquell wears off.

I love how the article says that it's a win for the Republicans even though Democrats were fighting it also and actually under the campaign finance law, the Republicans got a better deal than the Democrats.

The Democrats were poised to have a much harder time under the new rules since they get a considerably larger percentage of their campaign donations as soft money.

Damn_Conservative_Media

In 1781, the founding principle was "one-white-adult-property-owning-male-who-can-pass-a-literacy-test-and-pay-the -poll-tax, one vote.

/Ah, good times....

Stoke

Hypothetical situation.

Bill Gates gives a Senator two billion dollars. Who is Bill Gates' new googley-eyed butt kissing monkey?


I do understand what happens with many things in the world, and I like to think that at least in that manner I am not ignorant, but for some reason, the why of many things like that don't come to me. Perhaps it is just me being ignorant of information that is out there, or maybe I just don't have access to that kind of information yet. Whatever it is, perhaps as I age, and grow in mentally, societal, and physical manner in this world, things like that will became more clear to me, rather than more mudled. I do try.

Oops, in 1781 they passed the Articles of Confederation....

/dopeslap

Damn_Conservative_Media, Joe Sixpack doesn't have equal access to the editorial page of the Washington Post, either, but he still has free speech. The loudness of his voice is purely a function of genetics and training.

I can see your point though, because the American Association of Retired Persons has a lot more money and power per capita that young voters, and receive a disproportionate number of tax dollars back in benefits.

Epoophoron
Ah yes... I hate those soldiers so much, I actually wanted them to stay home and live.

I hate my country so much, I actually want us to solve our problems on our own soil before we go trying to police the rest of the world.


brilliantly spoken.
I'm always amazed that this rational philosophy can not be understood by the 'right'.
I guess a more accurate assesment would be "how can you support the troops when you send them to die, not for democracy, or world safety, but for cheap gas?"

CatchrNdRy

Holy CRAPP!

[pitcher o' smiling poochie here]

This affects me in absolutely no WAY!

PS
I like steak.

I really liked that post. It has a certain je ne sais quoi.

While I see that this was to protect free speach, I just don't believe that that was the underlining intent. Once again Republicans have found a way to protect special interests. Yes, Democrats can benefit from this..

But as is seen with the current Iraqi contracts, good friends of Bush are doing quite well. And of course, this will help him a great deal come election. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

So, in conclusion.. Free Speech = good. Special Interests and Ulterior Motives = bad. What solution there is, I know not. I rather liked the Campaign finance reform bill. It was a good leveler.

I ask you, What about the Green party??

Dorks_

My aplogies, Dorks_

I just looked at your profile and yes I do need to explain a little better. What's the best way to put it?

Hrmmm....

The older you become, the less idealistic you become as well. Another thing that comes with age; the older you become and the more assets you gain, the more protective you become.

You're a freshman. You really don't have a whole heck of a lot to lose right now. You can afford to be idealistic and go out on limbs and fight the good fights because even if you lose the fight, it's going to cost you relatively nothing but some time.

Now take a typical Senator, we'll say around late 30's. After he graduated college, he started working on his political career. He's put a lot of effort into it and done a lot of crap jobs and worked his way through town councils or whatever. He's managed to buy himself a house, probably has a wife and a kid by the time he's elected senator. Now all of a sudden, if makes a slip of the tongue he could easily lose all that in the blink of an eye. Everything he's worked so hard to build up is actually kind of fragile.

He starts looking for ways to cement his position and in case he does make that screw up he's also looking for a safety net. The constituents are pretty fickle and a total pain in the butt to deal with. Their minds could possibly change with the wind and next election he might be out of office if they changed their mind about him.

Well, what's going to ensure that he can keep the things he's earned up to that point and keep his wife happy and giving his kids everything they want/need? Money.

Now, bill Gates comes along and offers him a ton of cash up front and all he has to do throw a bill out on the floor and make a couple calls. The cash is his to keep (as long as no one really finds out about it.) Gates knows the bill might not go through immediately and isn't going to really hold him accountable if it doesn't make it through right away. The bill fails and and life goes on.

The guy spends a chunk of that cash or his plans and aspirations got a whole lot bigger and there Gates is next year with a little more cash to push that bill some more. By this time, Gates has a few more Senators in his pocket who are going to vote for it too. It might not pass again. In the end, it's going to pass and by the time it does, Gates has enough Senators in his pocket voting how he wants them that he can really push a lot of obscure little things through as riders on major bills that made to appease society at large.

That's basically the simplified version but it's close enough to reality for the sake of this argument.

www.realcampaignreform.com is where you will find... REAL campaign reform.

Stoke

So, Gates can buy a senator for a couple million?
At those rates, he can buy the Senate, House and Presidency for a small portion of his net worth. He must be using the rest of his fortune to keep that secret.

Public policy should be dictated by the greenbacks, so sayeth the Constitution

HighHardOne--

I didn't say he was doing it. I was giving an example of how a senator can be corrupted.


But I did find it strange that Microsoft keeps dodging pretty some certain bullets with the monopoly trials. The Bells were nowhere the revenue size of Microsoft and it didn't take long to smash with them with a hammer. Not saying they should be broken up... just seems they're getting awful lucky that whenever breakup is brought up it gets quietly calmed back down again.

I'm not seeing a whole lot of OS's really gaining any real market share since those rulings. The personal market, by and large, is still Windows. But there could be a lot of reasons for that but that's a threadjacking debate.

05-02-03 08:24:15 PM HighHardOne
Damn_Conservative_Media

In 1781, the founding principle was "one-white-adult-property-owning-male-who-can-pass-a-literacy-test-and-pay-the -poll-tax, one vote.

I know. I was going for the neutral modern interpretation.

05-02-03 08:33:20 PM Young_Fart
Damn_Conservative_Media, Joe Sixpack doesn't have equal access to the editorial page of the Washington Post, either, but he still has free speech. The loudness of his voice is purely a function of genetics and training.

I don't think that excuses so called soft money contributions. That may be similar to buying a commercial endorsing a candidate... but handing money to a political party committee to do with as it will, seems rather different.

300 odd posts and not one solution. Instead of biatching I offer this.

A Bill for campaign finance reform.

Only citizens of the United States that are elligible to vote may contribute money to a cadidate or his party. No elected official or candidate shall take any money or any other compensation or donation from any source other than a legal, voting citizen and all such monies shall be reported to election officials immediately.

Any elected representative or candidate that takes monies from any non-elligible person or organization, in an attempt to circumvent this law, or by accident shall spend not less than 10 years in maximum security federal prison and shall forfeit any government pension or benefits and be fined 100 times the amount donated.

05-02-03 08:01:16 PM Epoophoron

Ah yes... I hate those soldiers so much, I actually wanted them to stay home and live.

I've noticed a trend. The majority of right wing war mongerers would NEVER think about joining the military, but they have no problem sending out these middle/lower class kids to die, just as long as it isn't his a$$ on the line.

Maybe I have to get out the chickenhawk website which lists the majority of right wingers who are pro-war always find excuses when draft day/enlist day comes.

I think you would have to actually read the law before you can make an informed, intelligent opinion on the courts decision.

"but they have no problem sending out these middle/lower class kids to die, just as long as it isn't his a$$ on the line."

Guess we need to do away with forced enlistment.

abc, ap and cnn have it WRONG! the conservertive court up held the law!

Diogenes
ZipBeep: Would that apply to PACs, too? I think they run independent of the business, so the stockholders have no say over them. Honestly I don't know.

If it's company money, the stockholders ARE the company.

But, having said that, I'm sure there is a loophole so the CEO/Board of Directors can contribute as much of the company's money that they want to whomever they want without any input from the stockholders.

But, if you go to the stockholders' meeting and raise a stink, at least the other stockholders will know what the company is doing with THEIR money.

05-02-03 10:30:14 PM Shut........UP

Guess we need to do away with forced enlistment.

Remind me of all the conservatives in the government who entered service because of the draft.

And that doesn't matter about regular citizens, most are so vocal about war because they know theres almost zero chance of actually having a draft now

"And that doesn't matter about regular citizens, most are so vocal about war because they know theres almost zero chance of actually having a draft now"

Then someone needs to tell these kids that if they join the military there is the off chance they may actually have to go to war.

They must not state it clearly in the brochure.

Of course it's unconstitutional...it puts limits on speech!!!

Glad to see the courts recognize the obvious.

What crap.

okay, i'm about as far to the left as you can get, but farkin a, enough about republicans being the only ones who get kickbacks! the reason i'm not a democrat is for just that reason. the door swings through both parties on this one. well...i guess more technically, republican ~= democrat on capital hill...they both end up farking things up the same, so why bother...oh yeah, and i'm in texas, so my vote for anyone but a staunch republican is already filtered and burned at the voting booth...

(not reading entire thread so please forgive any duplicate comment)
I am all about free speech.
Citizens of the United States are protected from having their govt. limit their speech.
However, a corporation is not a citizen. It is not a person.
It can't be charged with treason, and it's not subject to the death penalty (or incarceration for that matter), as it is a legal concept, not an actual human being.
So, explain to me why it gets free speech? Seems to me that corps. are getting all the benefits of personhood, without (many of) the liabilities. Somehow I don't think that this is what our founding fathers intended.

05-02-03 05:54:00 PM Korovyov

Redrobot -- What I /would/ like to see would be a better disclosure system. For instance, it would be rather interesting if, say, someday touchscreen voting machines were used that could report the top individual and PAC donors to each candidate.

I've been saying this for years. Just give me the information, then I can make an informed choice as to whether I want to vote for General Motors or General Dynamics. Sadly, it seems that this is the best we can hope for.

How in the fark do you apply "Free Speech" to donating money to your congressman/woman?

And is this irony or what? The damn webpage has an ad for "The Small Business Center" LOL! After this bill was shot down, what small businesses will be left to be able to afford something like that?

You know, the beauty of the American capitalist system is that an organization can do whatever the hell it wants with it's money. Lord knows that if it wasn't like that, we wouldn't have a Bush, we'd have a Stalin. When the government controls everything, even what people are allowed to say and support, that is when we need to start reexamining our social ideals. That's why I don't trust Russians to this day. Whether we like that organization, corporation or legal entity is our own choice. Yet why biatch and moan about it if we aren't going to do anything about it? We all know the old saying "1% of the Population owns 99% of the Wealth." Well, sooner or later, that other 99% of the population is gonna get pissed as hell. I think we're ever-nearing that point of political critial mass. People forget that, if we band together, anything is possible. The government cannot turn a blind eye to brutality, political oppression and general dickheadedness... i.e. the civil rights and women's sufferage movements. What makes those times any better than these? The Guilded Age of American has come and gone, and we all know that Rockefeller was a dick with too much political power. Point is, money can only get you so far. You can only buy so many positions in congress. I don't wanan get into the old Democrat v. Republican debate because, as we all know, 99% of all of them are crooked. That includes all the presidents in recent years. Hell, if Gore had been elected, we'd be biatching about the fact that he ran off of tobacco money. Since it was Bush, it's the oil. I don't wanna get into that either.

I don't give a damn what party you are. If there is enough of a reason to complain, that's enough of a reason to fight the system. Sooner or later, enough people will realize that and fight back... I'm just itching for 6 or so years from now when it finally sets into the general populus that things such as the DMAC are corrupt. The other thing is that, we all know the media is corrupt and they don't cover what should be. That's why Fark exists...

I'll crawl back into my hole and prepare to get destroyed by all the legal geeks... cause I know everybody will know I'm wrong.

If the corporations control everything to the extent some folks in here want to believe, why did campaign finance reform ever pass in the first place?