If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Tired of bribing public officials indirectly, rich Americans petition SCOTUS to let them bribe public officials directly   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 140
    More: Scary, Citizens United, Nixon White House, supreme courts, objectives, humans, U.S. Supreme Court, John McCutcheon, Restore Our Future  
•       •       •

4065 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jul 2013 at 2:18 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-31 12:37:04 PM  
I wonder how much longer our illusion of freedom can last?
 
2013-07-31 12:48:16 PM  

Weaver95: I wonder how much longer our illusion of freedom can last?


I dunno, there's been an awful lot of cracks coming through the last few years
 
2013-07-31 12:55:26 PM  
"Since then, the FEC has levied fines against fewer than 10 donors, all of whom reported themselves as having violated the limits. There have been no fines against any donor since the limits were increased under the 2002 McCain-Feingold law. "

LOLOLOLOL

somedude210: Weaver95: I wonder how much longer our illusion of freedom can last?
I dunno, there's been an awful lot of cracks coming through the last few years


We need a few brave souls to stand their ground.
 
2013-07-31 12:57:38 PM  

somedude210: Weaver95: I wonder how much longer our illusion of freedom can last?

I dunno, there's been an awful lot of cracks coming through the last few years


Didnt Presidents Obama's campaign "prove" that a lot of small donations could beat a few massive donations?
In the end, the poor white trash voting for the GOP didnt donate as often, nor as much as the poor DEMs.
 
2013-07-31 01:01:41 PM  

namatad: We need a few brave souls to stand their ground.


Already planning that

namatad: Didnt Presidents Obama's campaign "prove" that a lot of small donations could beat a few massive donations?
In the end, the poor white trash voting for the GOP didnt donate as often, nor as much as the poor DEMs.


It also showed that if you've got the young, charismatic leader, you're gonna go far.
 
2013-07-31 01:08:02 PM  

Weaver95: I wonder how much longer our illusion of freedom can last?


Hopefully at least until Scalia,Thomas, Alito, Roberts, or Kennedy dies. I hate to say I wish someone dead but...I do.
 
2013-07-31 01:26:55 PM  
Fine.  Let them give to their hearts' content.  But in exchange we have to start holding corporations personally responsible for their actions.  You want all the rights of a person?  Then you must accept all the responsibilities and liabilities.
 
2013-07-31 01:30:05 PM  

Weaver95: I wonder how much longer our illusion of freedom can last?


What? Its obituary is almost 12 years old!
 
2013-07-31 01:33:02 PM  

Diogenes: Fine.  Let them give to their hearts' content.  But in exchange we have to start holding corporations personally responsible for their actions.  You want all the rights of a person?  Then you must accept all the responsibilities and liabilities.


I think the problem is shadow contributions. If the Koch brothers want to finance Sarah Palin's campaign, fine. As a voter, I want to know who's supporting the candidates I have to choose from so I'll know who'll be pulling the strings later. It's not like politicians act on their own, so why not make them wear their personal and corporate sponsorships on their suits like NASCAR drivers?
 
2013-07-31 01:35:39 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Diogenes: Fine.  Let them give to their hearts' content.  But in exchange we have to start holding corporations personally responsible for their actions.  You want all the rights of a person?  Then you must accept all the responsibilities and liabilities.

I think the problem is shadow contributions. If the Koch brothers want to finance Sarah Palin's campaign, fine. As a voter, I want to know who's supporting the candidates I have to choose from so I'll know who'll be pulling the strings later. It's not like politicians act on their own, so why not make them wear their personal and corporate sponsorships on their suits like NASCAR drivers?


I agree.  The idea of anonymous free speech is bizarre to me.  But again, it's intended to skirt any of the consequences of your "speech."

Anonymous free speech is like graffiti.
 
2013-07-31 01:38:59 PM  

Diogenes: Anonymous free speech is like graffiti.


Kilroy was here...so vote Republican!
 
2013-07-31 01:44:57 PM  

Diogenes: The idea of anonymous free speech is bizarre to me.


Says someone posting anonymously on an Internet forum.

That's not meant to be an attack on you, just pointing out that anonymous free speech has a place, and should be protected, but campaign donations are not speech. They do not convince or persuade the voters to a particular idea or position, anonymous contributions obscures whose interests the candidate has at heart. At least with the Citizens United decision the money was going to actual attempts at persuading the populace, direct contribution isn't about winning the voters, but winning the candidate. That's not right.
 
2013-07-31 01:48:33 PM  
Yeah. Okay. That's scary.
 
2013-07-31 01:51:57 PM  

nmrsnr: Diogenes: The idea of anonymous free speech is bizarre to me.

Says someone posting anonymously on an Internet forum.

That's not meant to be an attack on you, just pointing out that anonymous free speech has a place, and should be protected, but campaign donations are not speech. They do not convince or persuade the voters to a particular idea or position, anonymous contributions obscures whose interests the candidate has at heart. At least with the Citizens United decision the money was going to actual attempts at persuading the populace, direct contribution isn't about winning the voters, but winning the candidate. That's not right.


I admit I may not be making an iron clad logical argument because this whole idea pisses me off to no end.  Speech should have equal value and not be dependent on a dollar amount to increase its volume.

But to your point that "campaign donations are not speech," isn't that exactly what the petitioners are arguing?

"The case of McCutcheon v. FEC is being managed by a team of attorneys who have made careers out of working a long game to roll back campaign finance laws, including lead counsel, the first lawyer on the Citizens United case, and Backer and Stephen Hoersting. The challengers argue that the aggregate limits are an unconstitutional burden on free speech and do not serve the purpose of reducing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance thereof."
 
2013-07-31 02:02:54 PM  
The idea that money is speech does have a basis in reality.

We see it all the time. Someone is calling for a boycott of something, and someone is asking to spend money to support someone.

Chick-fil-a is a recent example of this.

There is no other way to put it: spending money and not spending money basically says how you feel about something.

Now that I got that out of the way, on to my second point. There are those who wish to limit campaign contributions because they believe that it is unfair that one can have more resources than the other. This is part of the greater picture of trying to screw the other side over. If the shoe was on the other foot with Dems getting all of big-businesses money then the Republicans would be fighting for limits. Republicans like to fark over the Dems with attempting to limit voter access via discriminatory laws. It is about getting a leg up against the other and to play it as anything else is simply wrong.

The reason why I brought that up is because we need to be truthful with ourselves if we are gonna entertain campaign finance reform. We need to back up and look at the big picture and ask ourselves why we fight for what we fight for.


However, we live in a democratic society, and one of the most important parts about it is compromise and balance. While Republicans should get their voter ID law, Democrats should get their campaign finance reform law. That is compromise. That way both sides are happy and pissed. That is balance.
 
2013-07-31 02:07:48 PM  

SphericalTime: Yeah. Okay. That's scary.


Also it was inevitable.

The proverbial "second shoe drop" after Citizens United.
 
2013-07-31 02:10:58 PM  

gilgigamesh: SphericalTime: Yeah. Okay. That's scary.

Also it was inevitable.

The proverbial "second shoe drop" after Citizens United.


Wait, wait, wait...you mean there's such a concept as legal precedent?!?

;-)
 
2013-07-31 02:19:21 PM  

cman: However, we live in a democratic society, and one of the most important parts about it is compromise and balance. While Republicans should get their voter ID law, Democrats should get their campaign finance reform law. That is compromise. That way both sides are happy and pissed. That is balance.


You are equating billionaires being able to anonymously buy elected officials with conscious GOP efforts to keep people from exercising their right to vote. Those things are not remotely comparable.
 
2013-07-31 02:25:12 PM  

gilgigamesh: cman: However, we live in a democratic society, and one of the most important parts about it is compromise and balance. While Republicans should get their voter ID law, Democrats should get their campaign finance reform law. That is compromise. That way both sides are happy and pissed. That is balance.

You are equating billionaires being able to anonymously buy elected officials with conscious GOP efforts to keep people from exercising their right to vote. Those things are not remotely comparable.


They are if you believe the rich are our betters and natural rulers.
 
2013-07-31 02:26:03 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Weaver95: I wonder how much longer our illusion of freedom can last?

What? Its obituary is almost 12 years old!


thank you
THIS

the day they passed and signed "the patriot act" was the death of america,
 
2013-07-31 02:26:05 PM  

Weaver95: I wonder how much longer our illusion of freedom can last?


Hunger.

People are complacent when they're not hungry.

Let enough people go hungry, let them see the plates of the wealthy...

Then things will start. Unorganized riots at first. Heavy handed suppression tactics.

But then the police, the workers, etc., will run out of food, too. Some will go private and work for the robber barons, but not enough. Never enough.

Then they'll organize. Labor will be reunified under a vanguard that will take the hungry and angry masses and make of them a dagger aimed straight at the heart of capitalist excess.

Then we march.
 
2013-07-31 02:26:55 PM  

gilgigamesh: cman: However, we live in a democratic society, and one of the most important parts about it is compromise and balance. While Republicans should get their voter ID law, Democrats should get their campaign finance reform law. That is compromise. That way both sides are happy and pissed. That is balance.

You are equating billionaires being able to anonymously buy elected officials with conscious GOP efforts to keep people from exercising their right to vote. Those things are not remotely comparable.




You missed the point

It's about us farking each other over.
 
2013-07-31 02:27:44 PM  

Diogenes: But to your point that "campaign donations are not speech," isn't that exactly what the petitioners are arguing?


Indeed they are, I was just expressing my personal opinion, if I were on the court I could do more, but alas. I disagreed with the Citizens United decision, but there I at least could accept the argument that by stopping a private individual from being able to purchase ad time to promote an idea or candidate you were curtailing their free speech. I disagreed, but I at least could see the logic in it. With direct campaign contributions there is no speech. No attempt to persuade the electorate is being made. Anonymous donations are even worse, since the electorate doesn't even know who gains from the candidate's election, so even less information (which I believe is the inherent value of speech) is disseminated. So while I understood but disagreed with the position in Citizens United, I don't even understand the logic behind arguing that direct campaign donations are speech.
 
2013-07-31 02:29:33 PM  

cman: However, we live in a democratic society, and one of the most important parts about it is compromise and balance. While Republicans should get their voter ID law, Democrats should get their campaign finance reform law. That is compromise. That way both sides are happy and pissed. That is balance



No.  That is not balance. That is stacking the deck in your favor.  Voting is far more important to the democratic process than money.  Money corrupts the system, forcing lawmakers to always be campaigning instead of legislating.

Balance isn't you get a law and I get a law.

So fark you, mr. compromise.  No more compromise. Conservative refuse, I'm gonna refuse.
 
2013-07-31 02:30:26 PM  
We tried this already, folks, about 125 yrs ago.  It failed spectacularly.

cman: The idea that money is speech does have a basis in reality.


You can't compare a private market transaction to election spending.  Completely different things.

Unlimited ability to cast dollar votes for chicken sandwiches isn't a problem that interferes with others' ability to cast dollar votes for chicken sandwiches -- and even if the one consumer buys out all of the chicken sandwiches, there exist numerous substitute goods for other consumers to dollar vote on, like fried chicken, hamburgers, etc etc.

Voting has no substitute.

Unlimited ability to spend on elections is a significant problem that drowns out others' voices in the marketplace of ideas and influences elections: the data clearly shows that money wins elections, which is antithetical to the whole idea of voting. One's ability to persuade others to vote for a particular candidate is supposed to be based on skill and merit of argument, not on how much money one flings around.
 
2013-07-31 02:32:41 PM  
It's simple: We need a campaign fund that is equal for EVERYBODY who runs. No more money can be added, and you can't have in dependent commercials, PACs, none of that bullshiat. Increase the number of public events that they can attend each year, but make it an option for ALL candidates to attend every event. They can debate, they can speak in turn, they can speak at different parts of the event, whatever. The deal is, everyone gets a 100% even chance to get their message out, and our politicians are in no way bought and paid for before they've even gotten elected. Shoot all of the lobbyists in the street at high noon, and you'd fix the OTHER half of that problem.

Seriously, campaign finance is so farked up, our politicians are already in someone's pocket before they're even on the ballot. I'm willing to pay more to level the playing field.
 
2013-07-31 02:33:57 PM  

Weaver95: I wonder how much longer our illusion of freedom can last?


My illusions of freedom ended the day St. Ronald of California mounted the greatest assault on property rights since 1865, and for nowhere near as good a reason.
 
2013-07-31 02:35:25 PM  
Don't worry, guys. Justice Kennedy has assured the world that mixing large amounts of money with campaign ads can never lead to even an appearance of corruption.

It's all good. Kennedy has decreed, and the world obliges.
 
2013-07-31 02:38:06 PM  
Money is speech, so bribery is just a form of talking. You're not against talking, are you?
 
2013-07-31 02:39:35 PM  

Diogenes: gilgigamesh: SphericalTime: Yeah. Okay. That's scary.

Also it was inevitable.

The proverbial "second shoe drop" after Citizens United.

Wait, wait, wait...you mean there's such a concept as legal precedent?!?

;-)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/campaign-contribution-limit s_ n_3132474.html

The last major enforcement action for violating the overall limits came in 1990 after the Los Angeles Times found at least nine wealthy donors to be in excess of what was then a $25,000 annual limit. The FEC ultimately levied a total of $64,000 in fines against 10 donors.

Since then, the FEC has levied fines against fewer than 10 donors, all of whom reported themselves as having violated the limits. There have been no fines against any donor since the limits were increased under the 2002 McCain-Feingold law. 

so even though it is against the law, nothing is ever done to enforce the law.
TADA - they have already won.
 
2013-07-31 02:45:04 PM  
No PAC, corporate or party donations, only personal non-anonymous donations with no maximum.  Every candidate has to completely disclose all donations.

A PAC or party that runs an add in favor of a certain candidate gets fined into oblivion.  They can go negative on a candidate, but no going positive for any.

The Koch brothers can fund anyone they want, for as much as they want.  The only condition is I and everyone else get to know.
 
2013-07-31 02:45:10 PM  

Mikey1969: It's simple: We need a campaign fund that is equal for EVERYBODY who runs. No more money can be added, and you can't have in dependent commercials, PACs, none of that bullshiat. Increase the number of public events that they can attend each year, but make it an option for ALL candidates to attend every event. They can debate, they can speak in turn, they can speak at different parts of the event, whatever. The deal is, everyone gets a 100% even chance to get their message out, and our politicians are in no way bought and paid for before they've even gotten elected. Shoot all of the lobbyists in the street at high noon, and you'd fix the OTHER half of that problem.

Seriously, campaign finance is so farked up, our politicians are already in someone's pocket before they're even on the ballot. I'm willing to pay more to level the playing field.


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Ok I am running for president. 
YAY I get an equal amount!!!

while I HATE the current ballot stuffing by donating huge amounts of money, I dont see us ever having a viable alternative.

and while I HATE their argument that spending private money on an ad or newspaper or movie or radio station is legal and protected under the first amendment, for different reasons.

we have a LONG tradition of a free press, owned by whoever wants to own a paper.
and now we have a NEW tradition of websites. anyone can make a website, pro candidate or con candidate.

TECHNICALLY, if you implemented these "limits", it would also have to include the internet, right?
So you would have to ban youtube videos and what not.

shudder
While I might hate what we have, it is better than the alternatives.
We should just work harder and harder to force the names of who is spending the money.
No more secret PACS.

/sigh - insert quote about light in dark places
 
2013-07-31 02:47:35 PM  

palelizard: No PAC, corporate or party donations, only personal non-anonymous donations with no maximum.  Every candidate has to completely disclose all donations.


THIS

A PAC or party that runs an add in favor of a certain candidate gets fined into oblivion.  They can go negative on a candidate, but no going positive for any.

Negative only would still suck. They would jsut shift the money to "OBAMA IS DESTROYING THE UNVIERSE" ads. Which are just as much of a problem. And would free up the campaign from having to spend money on negative ads.

The Koch brothers can fund anyone they want, for as much as they want.  The only condition is I and everyone else get to know.

THIS. PERIOD.
It is cute how hard they go to HIDE what they are doing. Almost like they are afraid of people knowing who they are and what they stand for. Shudder
 
2013-07-31 02:48:24 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Money is speech, so bribery is just a form of talking. You're not against talking, are you?


Scalia is that you?
 
2013-07-31 02:48:37 PM  

cman: Now that I got that out of the way, on to my second point. There are those who wish to limit campaign contributions because they believe that it is unfair that one can have more resources than the other. This is part of the greater picture of trying to screw the other side over. If the shoe was on the other foot with Dems getting all of big-businesses money then the Republicans would be fighting for limits. Republicans like to fark over the Dems with attempting to limit voter access via discriminatory laws. It is about getting a leg up against the other and to play it as anything else is simply wrong.


First point: no, the issue is about corruption. The House was designed by the Framers to be dependent on their constituents alone. After the 17th Amendment, the same is true for the Senate. And though it is by a convoluted proxy method that doesn't always pick the popular vote winner, the same is largely true for the President. Allowing a small number of people to give millions of dollars to a candidate outright or by indirect ad purchasing corrupts that design and substitutes a different dependency for the people: the funders. This is not the same as quid pro quo corruption, but it is undeniably corruption, and it has a huge impact on what issues Congress takes up.

Second point: polls have consistently shown that Republicans, Democrats, and independents all agree with each other that the outcome of Citizens United v. FEC was terrible. Polls have also shown that Americans care about ending corruption in government more than any other issue outside of jobs, and this support is basically even between Romney and Obama supporters from 2012.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_repub li c_we_must_reclaim.html
 
2013-07-31 02:49:10 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Money is speech, so bribery is just a form of talking. You're not against talking, are you?


The problem with bribery is that it is typically hidden.
And it is typically to get an official to break the law. Or worse, not do their job and represent the people, but jsut represent the person paying the bribe.

MORE POLLUTION EVERYWHERE!!!
 
2013-07-31 02:52:36 PM  
Publicly-financed campaigns or term limits.  One or the other.
 
2013-07-31 02:56:06 PM  

Diogenes: But to your point that "campaign donations are not speech," isn't that exactly what the petitioners are arguing?


Let's say that we all accept that argument.  Fine, campaign donations are speech.
But even if that's true - they could and should be limited.  Free speech is not an absolute right; you can't shout FIRE! in a crowded theater, you can't stand up on a soap box and incite a riot, and you shouldn't be able to announce bids on a congressman.
 
2013-07-31 02:56:23 PM  
If you're going to use your money to put words in other peoples mouths they have to announce your sponsorship. Every time they speak on your behalf.

img126.imageshack.us

 I'm Secretary of State, brought to you by Carl's Jr.
 
2013-07-31 02:57:15 PM  

GoldSpider: Publicly-financed campaigns or term limits.  One or the other.


Term limits would do absolutely nothing to stem the flood of money into politics, and would make the system more corruptible by both placing power in the hands of lobbyists and staffers and removing the only reason an elected official has to listen to his constituents.
 
2013-07-31 02:57:46 PM  

namatad: TECHNICALLY, if you implemented these "limits", it would also have to include the internet, right?
So you would have to ban youtube videos and what not.


I'm not saying people can't support you, just that they can't give you "campaign money" to buy you, that's really what I'm on about. Let independent people set up websites, but no donations, and no actual link to the candidate at all. Newspapers can even back who they want, but no free full page ads, shiat like that.

I just want to keep the politicians from getting money at all in order to get elected. Anybody who wants to speak out independently is free to do so, IMHO.
 
2013-07-31 03:00:00 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Money is speech, so bribery is just a form of talking. You're not against talking, are you?


How about - money is speech, so soliciting a prostitute or purchasing drugs should be protected speech under the 1st Amendment to the constitution.
 
2013-07-31 03:00:44 PM  

qorkfiend: Term limits would do absolutely nothing to stem the flood of money into politics, and would make the system more corruptible by both placing power in the hands of lobbyists and staffers and removing the only reason an elected official has to listen to his constituents.


Incumbents have little to fear from their constituents under the current campaign finance/districting system.
 
2013-07-31 03:01:09 PM  

Serious Black: cman: Now that I got that out of the way, on to my second point. There are those who wish to limit campaign contributions because they believe that it is unfair that one can have more resources than the other. This is part of the greater picture of trying to screw the other side over. If the shoe was on the other foot with Dems getting all of big-businesses money then the Republicans would be fighting for limits. Republicans like to fark over the Dems with attempting to limit voter access via discriminatory laws. It is about getting a leg up against the other and to play it as anything else is simply wrong.

First point: no, the issue is about corruption. The House was designed by the Framers to be dependent on their constituents alone. After the 17th Amendment, the same is true for the Senate. And though it is by a convoluted proxy method that doesn't always pick the popular vote winner, the same is largely true for the President. Allowing a small number of people to give millions of dollars to a candidate outright or by indirect ad purchasing corrupts that design and substitutes a different dependency for the people: the funders. This is not the same as quid pro quo corruption, but it is undeniably corruption, and it has a huge impact on what issues Congress takes up.

Second point: polls have consistently shown that Republicans, Democrats, and independents all agree with each other that the outcome of Citizens United v. FEC was terrible. Polls have also shown that Americans care about ending corruption in government more than any other issue outside of jobs, and this support is basically even between Romney and Obama supporters from 2012.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_repub li c_we_must_reclaim.html




Answer me this: do you want to hurt the GOP?
 
2013-07-31 03:02:14 PM  

Mikey1969: namatad: TECHNICALLY, if you implemented these "limits", it would also have to include the internet, right?
So you would have to ban youtube videos and what not.

I'm not saying people can't support you, just that they can't give you "campaign money" to buy you, that's really what I'm on about. Let independent people set up websites, but no donations, and no actual link to the candidate at all. Newspapers can even back who they want, but no free full page ads, shiat like that.

I just want to keep the politicians from getting money at all in order to get elected. Anybody who wants to speak out independently is free to do so, IMHO.


For reference, here's an example of such an independent advertisement that is 100% legal under current law.
 
2013-07-31 03:02:31 PM  
Backed by the RNC. Both sides bad though, am I right
 
2013-07-31 03:02:35 PM  

namatad: Mikey1969: It's simple: We need a campaign fund that is equal for EVERYBODY who runs. No more money can be added, and you can't have in dependent commercials, PACs, none of that bullshiat. Increase the number of public events that they can attend each year, but make it an option for ALL candidates to attend every event. They can debate, they can speak in turn, they can speak at different parts of the event, whatever. The deal is, everyone gets a 100% even chance to get their message out, and our politicians are in no way bought and paid for before they've even gotten elected. Shoot all of the lobbyists in the street at high noon, and you'd fix the OTHER half of that problem.

Seriously, campaign finance is so farked up, our politicians are already in someone's pocket before they're even on the ballot. I'm willing to pay more to level the playing field.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Ok I am running for president. 
YAY I get an equal amount!!!

while I HATE the current ballot stuffing by donating huge amounts of money, I dont see us ever having a viable alternative.


Simple, we use publicly funded campaigns.  Congress sets aside some dollar amount each election cycle to be used on whatever federal races are on that year.  Then they set up some (reasonable) number of names you have to get to sign a petition before you're eligible for an equal share of that money.

You want to be a senator?  Great!  Get 5000 people to sign on a piece of paper and you'll get the same number of dollars to campaign with as anyone else who can meet that requirement.  Your campaign is not allowed to accept any other donations of goods or services.  If you do accept such, then you get fined 10 times the value of that donation, payment required immediately.

That's how it could work, although you're right about no currently election officials ever changing to such rules.
 
2013-07-31 03:02:41 PM  

namatad: Negative only would still suck. They would jsut shift the money to "OBAMA IS DESTROYING THE UNVIERSE" ads. Which are just as much of a problem. And would free up the campaign from having to spend money on negative ads.


I agree, but I can't think of a better way.  First, they'd have to make sure the ads had to be close enough to truth that the candidate couldn't sue for slander/libel.  Second, knowing the source, a reasonable voter would tune out the negative ads a certain amount.  Thirdly, I really do think PACs serve a valuable role in the political process.  They, like unions, allow individuals with limited ability to effect change to combine their efforts into a collective to get more sway.  Also like unions, they're all too often corrupted and abused beyond their original purpose, but if you cripple their ability to present a message, you're saying voluntary association is acceptable so long as you don't use it to make speech.
 
2013-07-31 03:04:33 PM  

qorkfiend: GoldSpider: Publicly-financed campaigns or term limits.  One or the other.

Term limits would do absolutely nothing to stem the flood of money into politics, and would make the system more corruptible by both placing power in the hands of lobbyists and staffers and removing the only reason an elected official has to listen to his constituents.


It'd also make the system more susceptible to corruption by giving legislators the impression that they're never going to have an opportunity like this again, because it's a smaller window of time in which to milk.

Furthermore, in that universe, just as in this one, their post-legislative career options will be limited to taking advantage of their legislative career connections. If that's not a recipe for becoming even cozier with donors, I don't know that one exists.

There might be good arguments for imposing term limits on legislators, but fighting corruption is not one.
 
2013-07-31 03:04:47 PM  
Money isn't worth what it used to be.

Campaign contribution limits should have a built in increase like COLA or something attached.

It takes billions to run now...not millions, tens of, or hundreds of, like it used to.
 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report