It isn't preventing reform from passing, just making the odds longer.
If Obama doesn't put his weight behind it, real reform will die. Even then, it might still not make it without being watered down. I have no faith in the senate, regardless of which party controls it. Too many corporatists. Thomas Jefferson so called this shit.
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
"Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence."
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
1) All elections/political parties are run on public financing (mandatory). Private companies or individuals may not contribute to these parties/candidates or run advertisements that even mention a candidate, party, or election.
Done.
Unconstitutional.
It's unconstitutional for your political parties to be run on public financing? Up here in Canuckistan, while political parties are free to raise their own funds, they also receive an amount of money for each vote they receive as a partial way to implement the idea behind dots' plan.
I am also confused as to how this in unconstitutional. Other than the "free speech" argument - but we've already been able to limit how corporations/interests can run ads for politicians.
I didn't mean to imply that I'll be storming the the place tomorrow. Just that people must be sovereign and informed. I don't think we meet either of those conditions right now - maybe in the future. *shrug*
1) All elections/political parties are run on public financing (mandatory). Private companies or individuals may not contribute to these parties/candidates or run advertisements that even mention a candidate, party, or election.
Done.
Unconstitutional.
It's unconstitutional for your political parties to be run on public financing? Up here in Canuckistan, while political parties are free to raise their own funds, they also receive an amount of money for each vote they receive as a partial way to implement the idea behind dots' plan.
I am also confused as to how this in unconstitutional. Other than the "free speech" argument - but we've already been able to limit how corporations/interests can run ads for politicians.
It's free speech. No way will the Supreme Court uphold a ban on political contributions of privately financed political ads.
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited June 2009
Oh, the second part regarding advertising by politically-affiliated groups would be constitutional, not necessarily the public funding of political parties.
I didn't mean to imply that I'll be storming the the place tomorrow. Just that people must be sovereign and informed. I don't think we meet either of those conditions right now - maybe in the future. *shrug*
I think it was the word "revolution".
We have all the tools available in our current system that we need to fix this mess. The missing piece is, as you have said, people being informed.
1) All elections/political parties are run on public financing (mandatory). Private companies or individuals may not contribute to these parties/candidates or run advertisements that even mention a candidate, party, or election.
Done.
Unconstitutional.
It's unconstitutional for your political parties to be run on public financing? Up here in Canuckistan, while political parties are free to raise their own funds, they also receive an amount of money for each vote they receive as a partial way to implement the idea behind dots' plan.
I am also confused as to how this in unconstitutional. Other than the "free speech" argument - but we've already been able to limit how corporations/interests can run ads for politicians.
It's free speech. No way will the Supreme Court uphold a ban on political contributions of privately financed political ads.
It's concievable, though, to require a higher level of transparency in regards to where the ad is coming from.
I mean, the first amendment ISN'T carte blanche during political campaigns. There are still regulations that affect things. Remember how they couldn't play Terminator movies during the California gubernatorials?
Evander on
0
Options
HarrierThe Star Spangled ManRegistered Userregular
1) All elections/political parties are run on public financing (mandatory). Private companies or individuals may not contribute to these parties/candidates or run advertisements that even mention a candidate, party, or election.
Done.
Unconstitutional.
Yes. It would require a constitutional amendment, hence the impossibility part.
The states could call a constitutional convention to propose the amendment, bypassing the national government's intransigence.
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
1) All elections/political parties are run on public financing (mandatory). Private companies or individuals may not contribute to these parties/candidates or run advertisements that even mention a candidate, party, or election.
Done.
Unconstitutional.
Yes. It would require a constitutional amendment, hence the impossibility part.
The states could call a constitutional convention to propose the amendment, bypassing the national government's intransigence.
I personally think free speech is a pretty cool thing that we shouldn't be putting limits on.
1) All elections/political parties are run on public financing (mandatory). Private companies or individuals may not contribute to these parties/candidates or run advertisements that even mention a candidate, party, or election.
Done.
Unconstitutional.
Yes. It would require a constitutional amendment, hence the impossibility part.
The states could call a constitutional convention to propose the amendment, bypassing the national government's intransigence.
I personally think free speech is a pretty cool thing that we shouldn't be putting limits on.
There are already other limits to free speech, and this one isn't exactly egregious. It's just forbidding electioneering with paid advertisements/buying candidates via campaign contributions. They can still say whatever the hell they want. Just can't use their wealth/power to drown out all other voices and buy influence.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
There are already other limits to free speech, and this one isn't exactly egregious. It's just forbidding electioneering with paid advertisements/buying candidates via campaign contributions. They can still say whatever the hell they want. Just can't use their wealth/power to drown out all other voices and buy influence.
The limits to free speech in the United States are extremely limited. And political speech is one of the most important forms to protect. Banning citizens from airing their views via a public medium simply because it involves money is indeed egregious. Even McCain-Feingold, which is far less radical, only passed muster by a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court. Luckily, such a wide reaching abridgement of free expression has zero chance of being enacted. You may as well propose that a council of omniscient unicorns watch over our elections to ensure fairness.
1) All elections/political parties are run on public financing (mandatory). Private companies or individuals may not contribute to these parties/candidates or run advertisements that even mention a candidate, party, or election.
Done.
Unconstitutional.
Yes. It would require a constitutional amendment, hence the impossibility part.
The states could call a constitutional convention to propose the amendment, bypassing the national government's intransigence.
I personally think free speech is a pretty cool thing that we shouldn't be putting limits on.
There are already other limits to free speech, and this one isn't exactly egregious. It's just forbidding electioneering with paid advertisements/buying candidates via campaign contributions. They can still say whatever the hell they want. Just can't use their wealth/power to drown out all other voices and buy influence.
Except, you're not talking about limiting speech (which we already do as it applies to political contributions, by the way). You're talking about restricting free speech altogether. "Individuals may not contribute to parties/candidates or run advertisements that even mention the candidate, party, or election." So the lowly pamphleteer couldn't even stand on a street corner handing out fliers he printed saying why people should vote for candidate X and not Y? Yeah, thanks, but I'll keep my marketplace of ideas and free speech. Point out one other area where there is such a blanket prohibition on allowing people to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.
Great study in Freakonomics about this. Peer-reviewed published study, not just some made-up stuff. Anyway, it basically showed that saying that donations control elections is like saying that the money bet on a horse is what caused it to win the race. It's completely backwards. Corporate donations basically look like an odds market, with candidates getting more money based on how likely they are to win; not being more likely to win because they got more money.
That doesn't necessarily invalidate anything. If anything it strengthens the notion that politicans are corrupt. Donations wouldn't go to the person likely to win if they didn't assume that having donated will earn them favor.
In my opinion, once the dust settles and the winner of a seat is in place, he or she basically starts lining lobbyists up in column A next to how much campaign contribution they represent in column B. Corporations just want to be sufficiently high on that list, no matter who wins, and hedge bets accordingly. I think that's standard operating procedure.
At the extremes you have things like Obama and his insane Internet individual fundraising. Or at the other end you have politicians who go full bore and even after taking office just want money and power and gifts and will vote any whichaway to get it.
1) All elections/political parties are run on public financing (mandatory). Private companies or individuals may not contribute to these parties/candidates or run advertisements that even mention a candidate, party, or election.
Done.
Unconstitutional.
Yes. It would require a constitutional amendment, hence the impossibility part.
The states could call a constitutional convention to propose the amendment, bypassing the national government's intransigence.
I personally think free speech is a pretty cool thing that we shouldn't be putting limits on.
There are already other limits to free speech, and this one isn't exactly egregious. It's just forbidding electioneering with paid advertisements/buying candidates via campaign contributions. They can still say whatever the hell they want. Just can't use their wealth/power to drown out all other voices and buy influence.
Except, you're not talking about limiting speech (which we already do as it applies to political contributions, by the way). You're talking about restricting free speech altogether. "Individuals may not contribute to parties/candidates or run advertisements that even metion the candidate, party, or election." So the lowly pamphleteer couldn't even stand on a street corner handing out fliers he printed saying why people should vote for candidate X and not Y? Yeah, thanks, but I'll keep my marketplace of ideas and free speech. Point out one other area where there is such a blanket prohibition on allowing people to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.
Ok my original statement was not worded well. I'm talking about stopping the guys who buy 3rd party radio tv ads to blanket the airwaves, the guys who pay signature gathering companies to put propositions on the CA ballot, the companies that legally donate millions of dollars via back doors and alternate routes that allow them to easily buy/manipulate politicians and direct policy.
The dude who prints out some pamphlets to hand out in front of walmart isn't the problem, and should definitely be allowed and encouraged.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
Things like the Mormons basically buying Prop 8 shouldn't happen and if it was illegal to do that I wouldn't be shedding any tears for freedom of speech
Ok my original statement was not worded well. I'm talking about stopping the guys who buy 3rd party radio tv ads to blanket the airwaves, the guys who pay signature gathering companies to put propositions on the CA ballot, the companies that legally donate millions of dollars via back doors and alternate routes that allow them to easily buy/manipulate politicians and direct policy.
The dude who prints out some pamphlets to hand out in front of walmart isn't the problem, and should definitely be allowed and encouraged.
So where do you draw the line? For the most part the only difference between the pamphleteer and the 3d party tv spots is scale. Besides, there will always be loopholes to any restrictions (like the infamous "issue" ads). The harm from limiting free expression would be worse than any gain from removing special-interest influence of the election process, in my opinion.
Great study in Freakonomics about this. Peer-reviewed published study, not just some made-up stuff. Anyway, it basically showed that saying that donations control elections is like saying that the money bet on a horse is what caused it to win the race. It's completely backwards. Corporate donations basically look like an odds market, with candidates getting more money based on how likely they are to win; not being more likely to win because they got more money.
That doesn't necessarily invalidate anything. If anything it strengthens the notion that politicans are corrupt. Donations wouldn't go to the person likely to win if they didn't assume that having donated will earn them favor.
In my opinion, once the dust settles and the winner of a seat is in place, he or she basically starts lining lobbyists up in column A next to how much campaign contribution they represent in column B. Corporations just want to be sufficiently high on that list, no matter who wins, and hedge bets accordingly. I think that's standard operating procedure.
At the extremes you have things like Obama and his insane Internet individual fundraising. Or at the other end you have politicians who go full bore and even after taking office just want money and power and gifts and will vote any whichaway to get it.
For once, I find myself agreeing with Yar (in general terms)
It is NOT uncommon to see a corporation donating to BOTH sides of an election, because they want favor from WHOEVER gets elected.
Great study in Freakonomics about this. Peer-reviewed published study, not just some made-up stuff. Anyway, it basically showed that saying that donations control elections is like saying that the money bet on a horse is what caused it to win the race. It's completely backwards. Corporate donations basically look like an odds market, with candidates getting more money based on how likely they are to win; not being more likely to win because they got more money.
That doesn't necessarily invalidate anything. If anything it strengthens the notion that politicans are corrupt. Donations wouldn't go to the person likely to win if they didn't assume that having donated will earn them favor.
In my opinion, once the dust settles and the winner of a seat is in place, he or she basically starts lining lobbyists up in column A next to how much campaign contribution they represent in column B. Corporations just want to be sufficiently high on that list, no matter who wins, and hedge bets accordingly. I think that's standard operating procedure.
At the extremes you have things like Obama and his insane Internet individual fundraising. Or at the other end you have politicians who go full bore and even after taking office just want money and power and gifts and will vote any whichaway to get it.
For once, I find myself agreeing with Yar (in general terms)
It is NOT uncommon to see a corporation donating to BOTH sides of an election, because they want favor from WHOEVER gets elected.
I think Yar and I agree on this and immigration policy and little else. But it does feel nice to agree
Ok my original statement was not worded well. I'm talking about stopping the guys who buy 3rd party radio tv ads to blanket the airwaves, the guys who pay signature gathering companies to put propositions on the CA ballot, the companies that legally donate millions of dollars via back doors and alternate routes that allow them to easily buy/manipulate politicians and direct policy.
The dude who prints out some pamphlets to hand out in front of walmart isn't the problem, and should definitely be allowed and encouraged.
So where do you draw the line? For the most part the only difference between the pamphleteer and the 3d party tv spots is scale. Besides, there will always be loopholes to any restrictions (like the infamous "issue" ads). The harm from limiting free expression would be worse than any gain from removing special-interest influence of the election process, in my opinion.
The line must be drawn, as the special-interest influence is directly harming our nation as a whole. Look at all of the problems we have in our system. Then look at the massive amount of money poured into maintaining the status quo even though it directly conflicts the best interests of the majority of the public. The direct contributions to political campaigns needs to be stopped at the very least.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
Great study in Freakonomics about this. Peer-reviewed published study, not just some made-up stuff. Anyway, it basically showed that saying that donations control elections is like saying that the money bet on a horse is what caused it to win the race. It's completely backwards. Corporate donations basically look like an odds market, with candidates getting more money based on how likely they are to win; not being more likely to win because they got more money.
That doesn't necessarily invalidate anything. If anything it strengthens the notion that politicans are corrupt. Donations wouldn't go to the person likely to win if they didn't assume that having donated will earn them favor.
In my opinion, once the dust settles and the winner of a seat is in place, he or she basically starts lining lobbyists up in column A next to how much campaign contribution they represent in column B. Corporations just want to be sufficiently high on that list, no matter who wins, and hedge bets accordingly. I think that's standard operating procedure.
At the extremes you have things like Obama and his insane Internet individual fundraising. Or at the other end you have politicians who go full bore and even after taking office just want money and power and gifts and will vote any whichaway to get it.
I thought we already knew this.
Especially if you look at races that are tight, plenty of interest groups donate big sums to both candidates. It's all about hedging your bets.
I wouldn't say knowing this invalidates the idea that having more money gives you an advantage in an election - more money allows you more visibility in every way.
Great study in Freakonomics about this. Peer-reviewed published study, not just some made-up stuff. Anyway, it basically showed that saying that donations control elections is like saying that the money bet on a horse is what caused it to win the race. It's completely backwards. Corporate donations basically look like an odds market, with candidates getting more money based on how likely they are to win; not being more likely to win because they got more money.
That doesn't necessarily invalidate anything. If anything it strengthens the notion that politicans are corrupt. Donations wouldn't go to the person likely to win if they didn't assume that having donated will earn them favor.
In my opinion, once the dust settles and the winner of a seat is in place, he or she basically starts lining lobbyists up in column A next to how much campaign contribution they represent in column B. Corporations just want to be sufficiently high on that list, no matter who wins, and hedge bets accordingly. I think that's standard operating procedure.
At the extremes you have things like Obama and his insane Internet individual fundraising. Or at the other end you have politicians who go full bore and even after taking office just want money and power and gifts and will vote any whichaway to get it.
I thought we already knew this.
Especially if you look at races that are tight, plenty of interest groups donate big sums to both candidates. It's all about hedging your bets.
I wouldn't say knowing this invalidates the idea that having more money gives you an advantage in an election - more money allows you more visibility in every way.
The lobbyists are of course smart enough to money up both sides. Their influence is there regardless of who wins.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
Great study in Freakonomics about this. Peer-reviewed published study, not just some made-up stuff. Anyway, it basically showed that saying that donations control elections is like saying that the money bet on a horse is what caused it to win the race. It's completely backwards. Corporate donations basically look like an odds market, with candidates getting more money based on how likely they are to win; not being more likely to win because they got more money.
That doesn't necessarily invalidate anything. If anything it strengthens the notion that politicans are corrupt. Donations wouldn't go to the person likely to win if they didn't assume that having donated will earn them favor.
In my opinion, once the dust settles and the winner of a seat is in place, he or she basically starts lining lobbyists up in column A next to how much campaign contribution they represent in column B. Corporations just want to be sufficiently high on that list, no matter who wins, and hedge bets accordingly. I think that's standard operating procedure.
At the extremes you have things like Obama and his insane Internet individual fundraising. Or at the other end you have politicians who go full bore and even after taking office just want money and power and gifts and will vote any whichaway to get it.
I thought we already knew this.
Especially if you look at races that are tight, plenty of interest groups donate big sums to both candidates. It's all about hedging your bets.
I wouldn't say knowing this invalidates the idea that having more money gives you an advantage in an election - more money allows you more visibility in every way.
the point, though, is that it doesn't matter where that money comes from. Corporations aren't the cause of that problem, the money is. Cutting down the money won't really change the issue of porporate interests. It will just remove one of the MANY ways that they have to influence politicians.
In regards to fighting corporate interests, it would be like cutting a single head off of a hydra.
Whatever, you guys agree with me all the time. Every reg here has told me a dozen times that they can't beleive they're agreeing with me. Except AngelH, that dude has no love for teh Yar.
But part of the point I was making was that the idea that coroporations buy whichever candidate they want isn't exactly true. We still get to vote for who we want.
Ok my original statement was not worded well. I'm talking about stopping the guys who buy 3rd party radio tv ads to blanket the airwaves, the guys who pay signature gathering companies to put propositions on the CA ballot, the companies that legally donate millions of dollars via back doors and alternate routes that allow them to easily buy/manipulate politicians and direct policy.
The dude who prints out some pamphlets to hand out in front of walmart isn't the problem, and should definitely be allowed and encouraged.
So where do you draw the line? For the most part the only difference between the pamphleteer and the 3d party tv spots is scale. Besides, there will always be loopholes to any restrictions (like the infamous "issue" ads). The harm from limiting free expression would be worse than any gain from removing special-interest influence of the election process, in my opinion.
The line must be drawn, as the special-interest influence is directly harming our nation as a whole. Look at all of the problems we have in our system. Then look at the massive amount of money poured into maintaining the status quo even though it directly conflicts the best interests of the majority of the public. The direct contributions to political campaigns needs to be stopped at the very least.
You talk about special-interest influence like it's automatically bad thing. I mean, if special-interest groups actions conflict with the best interest of the "majority of the public" then where are they getting all their money in the first place? I can guarantee without knowing anything about you that there are more than a couple special interest groups that represent your concerns and are able to much more effectively influence change than you could yourself.
So again I ask, where do you draw the line? Can the Iraq and Afganistan Veterans of America contribute money to politicians who have pledged to support their interests in Congress? How about AARP? How about the National Educators Association? The NAACP? The NRA? And if you decide that no group should be able to support politicians friendly to their causes, then how exactly do the individuals represented by those groups make their voices heard?
Whatever, you guys agree with me all the time. Every reg here has told me a dozen times that they can't beleive they're agreeing with me. Except AngelH, that dude has no love for teh Yar.
But part of the point I was making was that the idea that coroporations buy whichever candidate they want isn't exactly true. We still get to vote for who we want.
I'm certain you've said the same thing about me in the past, man.
I agree with your point, though. It is much simpler for the corporation to just buy BOTH candidates, and then sit back and not worry about the election.
Ok my original statement was not worded well. I'm talking about stopping the guys who buy 3rd party radio tv ads to blanket the airwaves, the guys who pay signature gathering companies to put propositions on the CA ballot, the companies that legally donate millions of dollars via back doors and alternate routes that allow them to easily buy/manipulate politicians and direct policy.
The dude who prints out some pamphlets to hand out in front of walmart isn't the problem, and should definitely be allowed and encouraged.
So where do you draw the line? For the most part the only difference between the pamphleteer and the 3d party tv spots is scale. Besides, there will always be loopholes to any restrictions (like the infamous "issue" ads). The harm from limiting free expression would be worse than any gain from removing special-interest influence of the election process, in my opinion.
The line must be drawn, as the special-interest influence is directly harming our nation as a whole. Look at all of the problems we have in our system. Then look at the massive amount of money poured into maintaining the status quo even though it directly conflicts the best interests of the majority of the public. The direct contributions to political campaigns needs to be stopped at the very least.
You talk about special-interest influence like it's automatically bad thing. I mean, if special-interest groups actions conflict with the best interest of the "majority of the public" then where are they getting all their money in the first place? I can guarantee without knowing anything about you that there are more than a couple special interest groups that represent your concerns and are able to much more effectively influence change than you could yourself.
So again I ask, where do you draw the line? Can the Iraq and Afganistan Veterans of America contribute money to politicians who have pledged to support their interests in Congress? How about AARP? How about the National Educators Association? The NAACP? The NRA? And if you decide that no group should be able to support politicians friendly to their causes, then how exactly do the individuals represented by those groups make their voices heard?
Most of this money comes directly from big business, not small donors. You can break it down with maths.
And yeah, no one should be able to buy influence, not just the guys I don't like. Lobbyists can and do serve a useful purpose when they keep lawmakers aware of how their actions/inactions will affect the people/way we do business. The problem is the buying of preferential treatment by those with the most cash. The insurance lobby should naturally have a seat at the negotiating table for health care policy. They should not be allowed to effectively buy a bunch of seats however.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
0
Options
HarrierThe Star Spangled ManRegistered Userregular
edited June 2009
I'd also point out that there is a bill in both the House and the Senate that would set up a system for the public financing of Congressional campaigns.
Anyone interested who lives in the U.S. might want to call their Senators and Representatives about it.
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
Participating candidates seek support from their communities, not Washington, D.C.
* Candidates would raise a large number of small contributions from their communities in order to qualify for Fair Elections funding. Contributions are limited to $100.
* To qualify, a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives would have to collect 1,500 contributions from people in their state and raise a total of $50,000.
* Since states vary widely in population, a U.S. Senate candidate would have to raise a set amount of small contributions amounting a total of 10% of the primary Fair Elections funding. The number of qualifying contributions is equal to 2,000 plus 500 times the number of congressional districts in their state. For example:
A candidate running for U.S. Senate in Maine, which has two districts, would raise 3,000 qualifying contributions – the base of 2,000 donations plus an additional 500 for each of the two congressional districts.
A candidate running for U.S. Senate in Ohio, with 18 districts, would require 11,000 qualifying contributions before receiving Fair Elections funding.
Qualified candidates would receive Fair Elections funding in the primary, and if they win, in their general election at a level to run a competitive campaign.
* Qualified House candidates receive $900,000 in Fair Elections funding split 40% for the primary and 60% for the general.
* The formula to determine the amount of Fair Elections funding for qualified Senate candidates is as follows:
* Qualified candidates receive $1.25 million plus another $250,000 per congressional district in their state. The funding is split 40% for the primary and 60% for the general election.
Qualified candidates would be also eligible to receive additional matching Fair Elections funds if they continued to raise small donations from their home state.
* Donations of $100 or less from in-state contributors would be matched by four dollars from the Fair Elections Fund for every dollar raised.
* The total Fair Elections Funds available is strictly limited to three times the initial allocation for the primary, and again for the general, available only to candidates who raise a significant amount of small donations form their home state.
* If a participating candidate is facing a well-financed or self-financed opponent, or is the target of an independent expenditure, they will be able to respond by utilizing this matching fund provision.
Joint fundraising committees between candidates and parties would be prohibited.
Fair Elections helps offset fundraising for, and the excessive cost of, media.
* Participating candidates receive a 20% reduction from the lowest broadcast rates
* Participating Senate candidates who win their primaries are eligible to receive $100,000 in media vouchers per congressional district in their state. House candidates receive one $100,000 media voucher.
* Participating candidates may also exchange their media vouchers for cash with their national political party committee.
Participating candidates could set up leadership political action committees but would be limited to a $100 contribution limit per individual per year.
The cost of Fair Elections for Senate races would be borne by a small fee on large government contractors and for House races would come from ten percent of revenues generated through the auction of unused broadcast spectrum.
* The largest recipients of federal government contracts would pay a small percentage of the contract into the Fair Elections Fund.
* If the system proves popular like similar laws at the state level, the new system could cost between $700 and $850 million per year.
The general public of the US knows very little about the unpleasant details behind the companies whose products they buy. Not only are the actions undertaken by these companies heinous, but it is appalling that the media does not typically bring attention to these cases of corruption.
What can be done to reduce the amount of power that private industry has over the US legislative process?
I find the second article fairly fascinating because it sets up one huge logical fallacy. I could care less what that Mosanto did in the past. What they say is irrelevant to the debate. What the environmentalists say is irrelevant to that debate. What I care about is SCIENCE!!!!
It is deplorable that corporations hold so much power over the decision making processes of the United States. Many of the greatest problems facing both the United States and the world at large today (such as climate change, pollution and obesity) could be mitigated if it weren't for the influence of corporations whose sales of harmful products keep them afloat.
Wait what? No. People are starting to have a hard enough time to convince the idiots of the world to get their children vaccinated. Even with facts on your side the above won't be fixed anytime soon. Unfortunately, they use the same rational that you do.
Great study in Freakonomics about this. Peer-reviewed published study, not just some made-up stuff. Anyway, it basically showed that saying that donations control elections is like saying that the money bet on a horse is what caused it to win the race. It's completely backwards. Corporate donations basically look like an odds market, with candidates getting more money based on how likely they are to win; not being more likely to win because they got more money.
That doesn't necessarily invalidate anything. If anything it strengthens the notion that politicans are corrupt. Donations wouldn't go to the person likely to win if they didn't assume that having donated will earn them favor.
In my opinion, once the dust settles and the winner of a seat is in place, he or she basically starts lining lobbyists up in column A next to how much campaign contribution they represent in column B. Corporations just want to be sufficiently high on that list, no matter who wins, and hedge bets accordingly. I think that's standard operating procedure.
At the extremes you have things like Obama and his insane Internet individual fundraising. Or at the other end you have politicians who go full bore and even after taking office just want money and power and gifts and will vote any whichaway to get it.
I thought we already knew this.
Especially if you look at races that are tight, plenty of interest groups donate big sums to both candidates. It's all about hedging your bets.
I wouldn't say knowing this invalidates the idea that having more money gives you an advantage in an election - more money allows you more visibility in every way.
the point, though, is that it doesn't matter where that money comes from. Corporations aren't the cause of that problem, the money is. Cutting down the money won't really change the issue of porporate interests. It will just remove one of the MANY ways that they have to influence politicians.
In regards to fighting corporate interests, it would be like cutting a single head off of a hydra.
I've always disliked the hydra analogy, moreso in places where it doesn't work... Whilst stopping this method of corporate interest will not cease the others, it is most certainly a step in the right direction. Not just by damaging their ability to influence, but as a signal to the public that this shit isn't okay.
You know, Evander, I'm looking around this forum and I see we've got a long way to go. The people can't even talk to each other on a basic level, much less unite to correct government. I just don't see it. I don't think people can be informed unless they enter these discussions from a professional level, which can't happen on all issues. There is just too much disinformation to filter.
The general public of the US knows very little about the unpleasant details behind the companies whose products they buy. Not only are the actions undertaken by these companies heinous, but it is appalling that the media does not typically bring attention to these cases of corruption.
What can be done to reduce the amount of power that private industry has over the US legislative process?
I find the second article fairly fascinating because it sets up one huge logical fallacy. I could care less what that Mosanto did in the past. What they say is irrelevant to the debate. What the environmentalists say is irrelevant to that debate. What I care about is SCIENCE!!!!
You know, Evander, I'm looking around this forum and I see we've got a long way to go. The people can't even talk to each other on a basic level, much less unite to correct government. I just don't see it. I don't think people can be informed unless they enter these discussions from a professional level, which can't happen on all issues. There is just too much disinformation to filter.
first off, this forum isn't indicitive of anything. Half the people in here just want to argue for arguments sake.
Secondly, what is missing from this forum is apparent authority. You get the RIGHT people to come out and say things, and people will listen.
I'm not saying it's easy, but to declare it impossible and walk away is just silly.
You know, Evander, I'm looking around this forum and I see we've got a long way to go. The people can't even talk to each other on a basic level, much less unite to correct government. I just don't see it. I don't think people can be informed unless they enter these discussions from a professional level, which can't happen on all issues. There is just too much disinformation to filter.
first off, this forum isn't indicitive of anything. Half the people in here just want to argue for arguments sake.
Secondly, what is missing from this forum is apparent authority. You get the RIGHT people to come out and say things, and people will listen.
I'm not saying it's easy, but to declare it impossible and walk away is just silly.
If it were that easy, the industries spending millions and millions on PACs would just shift those millions to bribing the RIGHT people (who, not being elected officials, aren't remotely bound by campaign finance rules). Then what happens?
But there is very little federal oversight of whether any of these supplements actually do what they say — or whether they may cause harm. The sector remains one of the least regulated under current laws: the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 requires that the manufacturer of a dietary supplement, not the FDA, ensure its safety before it is marketed.
I simply cannot understand why public officials would be willing to take a company's word that their products are safe. Maybe if people were as cautious about what is allowed on store shelves as they are about what is allowed on a plane people would be better off.
Another big problem is that members of the general public often assume that products on the market are relatively safe. After all, that's what the FDA and similar organizations are there for, right?
I understand that the lack of regulation to protect people isn't entirely the fault of evil corporate overlords; there are people who believe that government should not interfere with private industry. Given the track record, though, I don't see how this stance could be anything more than a naive ideology that is based on the premise that companies wouldn't bear to put out products or use business practices that would harm the general public.
Posts
Best. Argument. Ever.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/special-interest-money-means-longer.html
It isn't preventing reform from passing, just making the odds longer.
If Obama doesn't put his weight behind it, real reform will die. Even then, it might still not make it without being watered down. I have no faith in the senate, regardless of which party controls it. Too many corporatists. Thomas Jefferson so called this shit.
I am also confused as to how this in unconstitutional. Other than the "free speech" argument - but we've already been able to limit how corporations/interests can run ads for politicians.
I didn't mean to imply that I'll be storming the the place tomorrow. Just that people must be sovereign and informed. I don't think we meet either of those conditions right now - maybe in the future. *shrug*
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I think it was the word "revolution".
We have all the tools available in our current system that we need to fix this mess. The missing piece is, as you have said, people being informed.
It's concievable, though, to require a higher level of transparency in regards to where the ad is coming from.
I mean, the first amendment ISN'T carte blanche during political campaigns. There are still regulations that affect things. Remember how they couldn't play Terminator movies during the California gubernatorials?
I personally think free speech is a pretty cool thing that we shouldn't be putting limits on.
There are already other limits to free speech, and this one isn't exactly egregious. It's just forbidding electioneering with paid advertisements/buying candidates via campaign contributions. They can still say whatever the hell they want. Just can't use their wealth/power to drown out all other voices and buy influence.
The limits to free speech in the United States are extremely limited. And political speech is one of the most important forms to protect. Banning citizens from airing their views via a public medium simply because it involves money is indeed egregious. Even McCain-Feingold, which is far less radical, only passed muster by a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court. Luckily, such a wide reaching abridgement of free expression has zero chance of being enacted. You may as well propose that a council of omniscient unicorns watch over our elections to ensure fairness.
Except, you're not talking about limiting speech (which we already do as it applies to political contributions, by the way). You're talking about restricting free speech altogether. "Individuals may not contribute to parties/candidates or run advertisements that even mention the candidate, party, or election." So the lowly pamphleteer couldn't even stand on a street corner handing out fliers he printed saying why people should vote for candidate X and not Y? Yeah, thanks, but I'll keep my marketplace of ideas and free speech. Point out one other area where there is such a blanket prohibition on allowing people to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.
That doesn't necessarily invalidate anything. If anything it strengthens the notion that politicans are corrupt. Donations wouldn't go to the person likely to win if they didn't assume that having donated will earn them favor.
In my opinion, once the dust settles and the winner of a seat is in place, he or she basically starts lining lobbyists up in column A next to how much campaign contribution they represent in column B. Corporations just want to be sufficiently high on that list, no matter who wins, and hedge bets accordingly. I think that's standard operating procedure.
At the extremes you have things like Obama and his insane Internet individual fundraising. Or at the other end you have politicians who go full bore and even after taking office just want money and power and gifts and will vote any whichaway to get it.
Ok my original statement was not worded well. I'm talking about stopping the guys who buy 3rd party radio tv ads to blanket the airwaves, the guys who pay signature gathering companies to put propositions on the CA ballot, the companies that legally donate millions of dollars via back doors and alternate routes that allow them to easily buy/manipulate politicians and direct policy.
The dude who prints out some pamphlets to hand out in front of walmart isn't the problem, and should definitely be allowed and encouraged.
So where do you draw the line? For the most part the only difference between the pamphleteer and the 3d party tv spots is scale. Besides, there will always be loopholes to any restrictions (like the infamous "issue" ads). The harm from limiting free expression would be worse than any gain from removing special-interest influence of the election process, in my opinion.
For once, I find myself agreeing with Yar (in general terms)
It is NOT uncommon to see a corporation donating to BOTH sides of an election, because they want favor from WHOEVER gets elected.
I think Yar and I agree on this and immigration policy and little else. But it does feel nice to agree
The line must be drawn, as the special-interest influence is directly harming our nation as a whole. Look at all of the problems we have in our system. Then look at the massive amount of money poured into maintaining the status quo even though it directly conflicts the best interests of the majority of the public. The direct contributions to political campaigns needs to be stopped at the very least.
I thought we already knew this.
Especially if you look at races that are tight, plenty of interest groups donate big sums to both candidates. It's all about hedging your bets.
I wouldn't say knowing this invalidates the idea that having more money gives you an advantage in an election - more money allows you more visibility in every way.
The lobbyists are of course smart enough to money up both sides. Their influence is there regardless of who wins.
the point, though, is that it doesn't matter where that money comes from. Corporations aren't the cause of that problem, the money is. Cutting down the money won't really change the issue of porporate interests. It will just remove one of the MANY ways that they have to influence politicians.
In regards to fighting corporate interests, it would be like cutting a single head off of a hydra.
But part of the point I was making was that the idea that coroporations buy whichever candidate they want isn't exactly true. We still get to vote for who we want.
You talk about special-interest influence like it's automatically bad thing. I mean, if special-interest groups actions conflict with the best interest of the "majority of the public" then where are they getting all their money in the first place? I can guarantee without knowing anything about you that there are more than a couple special interest groups that represent your concerns and are able to much more effectively influence change than you could yourself.
So again I ask, where do you draw the line? Can the Iraq and Afganistan Veterans of America contribute money to politicians who have pledged to support their interests in Congress? How about AARP? How about the National Educators Association? The NAACP? The NRA? And if you decide that no group should be able to support politicians friendly to their causes, then how exactly do the individuals represented by those groups make their voices heard?
I'm certain you've said the same thing about me in the past, man.
I agree with your point, though. It is much simpler for the corporation to just buy BOTH candidates, and then sit back and not worry about the election.
Most of this money comes directly from big business, not small donors. You can break it down with maths.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/special-interest-money-means-longer.html
And yeah, no one should be able to buy influence, not just the guys I don't like. Lobbyists can and do serve a useful purpose when they keep lawmakers aware of how their actions/inactions will affect the people/way we do business. The problem is the buying of preferential treatment by those with the most cash. The insurance lobby should naturally have a seat at the negotiating table for health care policy. They should not be allowed to effectively buy a bunch of seats however.
Anyone interested who lives in the U.S. might want to call their Senators and Representatives about it.
I've always disliked the hydra analogy, moreso in places where it doesn't work... Whilst stopping this method of corporate interest will not cease the others, it is most certainly a step in the right direction. Not just by damaging their ability to influence, but as a signal to the public that this shit isn't okay.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/pablocampy
Care to elaborate?
first off, this forum isn't indicitive of anything. Half the people in here just want to argue for arguments sake.
Secondly, what is missing from this forum is apparent authority. You get the RIGHT people to come out and say things, and people will listen.
I'm not saying it's easy, but to declare it impossible and walk away is just silly.
If it were that easy, the industries spending millions and millions on PACs would just shift those millions to bribing the RIGHT people (who, not being elected officials, aren't remotely bound by campaign finance rules). Then what happens?
I simply cannot understand why public officials would be willing to take a company's word that their products are safe. Maybe if people were as cautious about what is allowed on store shelves as they are about what is allowed on a plane people would be better off.
Another big problem is that members of the general public often assume that products on the market are relatively safe. After all, that's what the FDA and similar organizations are there for, right?
I understand that the lack of regulation to protect people isn't entirely the fault of evil corporate overlords; there are people who believe that government should not interfere with private industry. Given the track record, though, I don't see how this stance could be anything more than a naive ideology that is based on the premise that companies wouldn't bear to put out products or use business practices that would harm the general public.