“Can’t control politicians anymore? Nooooo!”
Of, course, they’ve been this doing since, well, the beginning. Bribing for influence… er, um… contributing to campaigns was a staple in Roman times. It’s just that it’s now so woven into the fabric of our political process that the process pretty much exists solely for those who benefit from those bri… er, contributions. I’m an avowed capitalist, but I just want the little guy to occasionally get a real say in how his world is run, too. Yeah, I know. What have I been smokin’?
The most important issue to young people in the 2008 campaign is one that no presidential candidate will discuss. In fact, even touching on this subject is taboo for anyone with aspirations to Congress or the White House. Anyone who has the temerity to mention this political third rail will almost certainly lose the campaign.
The issue is the curtailing of corporate power, and as long as corporations continue to finance major candidates, it will remain unspoken. No one running for office wants to be blacklisted by corporate lobbyists in Washington.
That’s a shame, because this issue is connected to almost every other problem facing America today. As long as corporations have no incentive to avoid polluting, we will continue to poison this planet at an alarming rate, and as long as corporate lobbyists hold an inordinate amount of influence in Washington, there will be no substantive solutions to problems like income inequality or our woefully inadequate healthcare system.
It’s funny, I was always under the impression that corporations were established and run by people. If the corporations are bad, it’s because of the people in them.
To the issue of mandatory public funding of campaigns – Yes, lets totally throw away any semblance of people having property rights and instead make the government the arbiter of who does and does not qualify for campaign funds provided through the coerced taxation of people who may or may not agree with the views of those receiving them. Sounds like a perfect system to me :-/
It’s funny, I was always under the impression that corporations were established and run by people. If the corporations are bad, it’s because of the people in them.
This is true. However, the people are not accountable in the same way that people usually are. For example, no one was tried for mass murder or criminally negligent homicide or any other criminal charges when Union Carbide dumped Methyl Isocyanate on Bhopal, India.
In fact, corporate officers are held accountable only for maximizing shareholder profit.
Yes, lets totally throw away any semblance of people having property rights and instead make the government the arbiter of who does and does not qualify for campaign funds provided through the coerced taxation of people who may or may not agree with the views of those receiving them.
The idea that people have a say in how their tax dollars are spent other than by electing their officials is a complete myth. I do not get to say that I will not allow my taxes to be used for any of: the Iraq war, corporate welfare, subsidizing oil drilling, or faith based initiatives, even though all of these are abhorrent to me.
It’s a bit like complaining:
“My wife sleeps around and it’s every guy she’s slept with’s fault.”
To me it makes way more sense to say:
Every guy in the world can approach her but I expect her to act within the boundries of the oath she swore. If she fails, it’s her fault for failing. It’s not my obligation to go beat up every guy I see because he’s a guy and *might* sleep with my wife. She is supposed to keep her integrity.
I think the same standard should be held for our representatives. I think part of the problem is that every one want to excuse ‘their guy’ without actually looking at their guy and saying, “Hey – he hosed us over!” To be fair, though, politicians have learned that if they sling enough mud people will only pay attention to the last bit of mud that was slung (regardless of if that mud holds merit or not). It’s also our fault for not paying attention and holding them accountable with they hose up.
I remember about 2 years ago when Harry Reid was caught in a land deal. I was at lunch with guys who said, “Oh, this is it for him.” I told them, “Nothing will happen to him and this will all be forgotten within 2 weeks.” That’s pretty much what happened. I just chose him because I picked him off the top of my head. I’m sure someone someone could name a republican.
I think the key to all of this would be for the population to realize that the government isn’t their friend or (worse yet) parental figure, but, instead, a very slippery adversary that shouldn’t be trusted. That’s where the focus should be. I’m not saying anarchy, I’m saying, the more power we give them through letting them split us with crazy tax laws and take more tax money away from us and reward others the more entrenched they’ll be and the more we’ll have to deal with the reduction of our freedoms.
They’re the ones who are supposed to have their rights limited, not us.
The idea that people have a say in how their tax dollars are spent other than by electing their officials is a complete myth. I do not get to say that I will not allow my taxes to be used for any of: the Iraq war, corporate welfare, subsidizing oil drilling, or faith based initiatives, even though all of these are abhorrent to me.
Good job latching on to the least significant of the points I brought up about the issue. The abolishment of property rights and government being the one to effectively decide who can even run for office because it controls the money are much more serious problems with this incredibly stupid plan. If restrictions on the sources of contributions are to be enacted, then those restrictions should be to require that only individual people may contribute to a campaign, with a record of those contributions always being available to the public upon request.
Again, liberals misdiagnose the problem because they started with the wrong premise. Saving democracy by stripping people of their freedom – all I can do is laugh.
Please check the definition of “fascism” .
———————————————————————————-
Corporations are unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over the social and economic life of their respective areas.
Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.
1.
the problem comes with a strange idea…
Can a democracy RULE over a Monarchy(based system).
for some reason, someone THINKS that democracy HAS to be ALL democratic. It doesn’t. PARTS need to run as Necessary, and do what is needed.
Someone needs to make a Business Form, and ENFORCE it, that ALL business has to Follow. Otherwise they will be as screw’d up as the whole society..
the difference between Democracy and Anarchy, tends to be HOW MANY laws are made. In Anarchy, the Laws are simple and BASIC, and enforced. In democracy, we have law makers TRYING(supposedly) to IMPROVe the laws, all the time.
#35 – Sea Lawyer,
Good job latching on to the least significant of the points I brought up about the issue.
Given that I pasted in your entire post and responded to it, I don’t see how you think I did that.
But, let me explain what I would hope for (and never really expect to get) from public campaign financing.
I would expect that for each level of office, a specific amount would be allocated to run a campaign. Everyone who gets enough signatures to run gets that pool of money (and must, of course, account for how it is spent). If the money runs out, they’re done campaigning.
All candidates that get the appropriate number of signatures are thus on completely equal footing. None may spend their own money. None may receive any contributions to spend.
As a side effect, ability to manage money is a candidate criterion because those who can’t will blow the entire amount too quickly or save it too long to be effective.
This might also create the opportunity to get rid of parties altogether and vote for candidates on their own merit.
#38,
How do these prospective candidates of yours collect these signatures? Do they personally collect them all or are there volunteers involved? The time donated by a volunteer is a near equivalent to a money donation as the alternative is to hire workers using campaign funds… so again, how were those signatures collected? So you are not only telling me that it be illegal for anybody to use their own property to be, or help another to be, elected to public office, but I am also to infer that it will be illegal to donate your time and labor to that cause as well? So you are going to fix the very hallmark of our society built on self-government by taking away our freedom as individuals to change and influence it?
Ultimately, your overly simplistic and silly plan falls down because you just haven’t thought it out beyond what you think your immediate goal is. But of course that really shouldn’t surprise me, because our government is full of foolish programs and policies devised by people like you who never seem to think beyond first base.
“Further, how many other government programs have 2 trillion dollars in treasuries backing them? Sounds stable to me.”
About as stable as any program whose assets consist of promissory notes to repay from a debtor who borrowed the money because he couldn’t afford his other obligations either.
39–Sea Lawyer==not often do I see faulty logic running at as full a gallop as you demonstrate here.
YES–political candidates get their own required signatures by themselves or by those who volunteer their time. Time is not money.
Since public financing of elections has been a recurrent theme, I assume there are several models that consider the first stages of getting qualified. From you posting, you may even know what these models are but prefer to obfuscate just for the hey of it?
Not only is “time” not money, but money is not speech. The election process has no need to be “fair” to the candidates==it is the election process, the electorate, the Country that needs to be foremost.
Have to agree about those government securities though. Have always and still assume a huge round of inflation will screw just about every one of us not in the top 1%–?
29. “Isn’t that picture out of the hudsucker proxy?”
Good catch Captian G. I had the same notion, as it’s a favorite of mine.
No surprise that this pic turned up here. As I believe Dvorak once used a sound byte from the movie, as well. The “… AND THEY DOCK YOU!” one, referring to Apple bricking iPhones, I think.
#39 – Sea Lawyer,
I was going to say that you made some good points in your first paragraph when I still thought we were having a discussion. Then I read your pointless and insulting second paragraph that serves no point other than to say, ‘I’m a genius and anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.’ That kinda takes the wind out of your sails IMO.
#40 – Sea Lawyer again,
Since it’s U.S. Treasuries in the fund, I assume you’re essentially questioning the credit worthiness of the U.S. government. I do that too. Better get your money into Euros fast then. Obviously a genius like you would know that the cash in your pocket has exactly the same credit worthiness as the Treasuries.
#41 – bobbo,
Thanks for picking up the point about the signatures. I hadn’t thought it through to that level of detail, not being quite at the level of mental perfection as our esteemed (self-esteemed?) Sea Lawyer here, and like your answer.
Ahh, so the first amendment apparently applies to everything but political speech.
Well, this plan of public financing is very good for incumbents. You can’t knock these guys out unless you have the money to run a negative campaign to get the message out. Unless they do something really bad, and usually even that’s not enough. So basically you want to leave financing of campaigns in the hands of the candidates for one side. .The alternative is that the media is donating to your campaign with free airtime and coverage.
In #39, Sea Lawyer said: “So you are going to fix the very hallmark of our society built on self-government by taking away our freedom as individuals to change and influence it?”
The point is that individuals should be able to change and influence government, but not by bribing their way to a position of influence through campaign contributions. Money shouldn’t talk, but people should be able to air their opinions without fear that the guy with the PAC money can out talk him with his money.
When you have a government that controls so much of the wealth what the hell do you expect?
Note, f’rinstance, how warm, caring, liberal Dem Hilary sits on the board of Wal-Mart – helping Sam’s heirs increase their $16-billion-plus fortunes, like the saint she is – and yet this champion of the ‘little people’ hasn’t lifted a finger to do down WM’s employee-victimizing wage and hour policies.
That’s what passes for a Democrat these days. Pathetic.
#48 – Lauren,
I assume you’re being quite sarcastic, right? Neither Bill nor Hillary is a liberal. In fact, Hillary is, by far, the best Republican candidate in the running.
#49 “In fact, Hillary is, by far, the best Republican candidate in the running.”
Thus proving that the Republican party is no longer conservative.
#50 – HMS Beagle,
The republican party has not been conservative for many years. The democratic party has not been liberal for many years. In fact, one could make the case that the democrats are actually MORE FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE than the republicans at this point.
When democrats want to spend money, at least they raise taxes to pay for it. When republicans want to spend money, they just issue more debt and cut taxes. And, the republicans outspend the democrats these days. They give more corporate welfare; they spend more on wars; and then they cut taxes. Where does the money come from? Well, Papa Bush doubled the national debt in just 4 years. Baby Bush is doing more of the same.
#41,
Of course time equals money in the context we are discussing. If I donate 3 hours of my time licking envelopes for a political campaign, or I donate 20 dollars so they can pay somebody to do it, the campaign has received the exact same amount of benefit from my private donation. If this absurd plan is to be put into place, you would also be required to ban all other forms of donated service as well or you are not accomplishing your original goal.
#43, since my opinion is that your plan is completely without merit, I thought it best to just cut to the chase and discount it as foolish, and not waste any more of our time.
#52 – Sea Lawyer,
It’s somewhat of a gray area. Certainly, it would have to be limited to one’s own time. I wouldn’t want the wealthy or corporations to be able to hire a staff for a candidate.
#53 – Sea Lawyer,
Of course, it is not your plan, so it must be completely without merit. You should definitely discount as foolish anyone who disagrees with you. Of course, since that is indeed the way you have been behaving on this thread, it makes me wonder why you would bother to join a discussion. Is it just to see your own opinions in print? It certainly isn’t to share ideas and formulate new opinions and grow.