Topic: Follow the money (Read 4666 times)

Demosthenes · « **on:** January 27, 2004, 12:50:03 PM »

<rant>

Okay, here's an idea I've been kicking around to approach the problem with politics in the United States these days.

The biggest problem is MONEY.

Politicians in the US make their decisions on policy, prospective laws, taxes, funds for pet projects, et cetera in the following order of preference:

1) Who they get their money from, so they can have a huge presence in the next election (corporations)

2) Who they get their money from, so they can have a huge presence in the next election (other organizations/groups)

3) Who they can do lots of favors for that they know will vote for them in the next election (religious zealots, women, minorities, other people to pander to)

4) People they actually represent (i.e., their actual constituents).

This is a problem. #4 should be #1, and #'s 1 and 2 shouldn't even be on the board.

Now don't get me wrong here... I understand that politicians need an enormous amount of money to run for office.

But do they?

I see a company contribute $3,000,000 to a candidate's campaign and I don't see the political process in action. I see bribery.

It's easy to see because of the laws these people enact... it's quite clear where their priorities lie. They lie with those who fund their campaigns, well and above all else.

I propose we outlaw bribery in our political system. Period.

By that, I mean that corporations and organizations (i.e., "special interest groups", such as the NRA, MADD, the American Family something-or-other that's always trying to get video games and R-rated movies outlawed, et cetera) should not be permitted to contribute money, favors, or any other gifts to people running for public office, or people currently serving in such a position.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!? you might ask in shock.

This doesn't violate the First Amendment. Corporations and special interest groups are not individuals. The Bill of Rights only refers to people as individuals. Individual people can have rights.

Individual people can still contribute money if they want to. As is their right.

But no more of Congress making crap like the DMCA because their pockets are lined by the entertainment industry. No more of the soft environmental laws because of pockets being lined by companies that insist on polluting our air and water.

Do I sound like a Green yet? Hardly. One of the main reasons I don't like companies contributing to political campaigns is because it then causes politics to play favoritism to those companies, which upsets the free market.

In short, it's bad for business, and for the economy as a whole.

Discuss.

</rant>

pbsaurus · « **Reply #1 on:** January 27, 2004, 01:38:26 PM »

Yeah, me too

You know I feel similarly. But if such 'donations' (read bribes) were banned, 'individuals' would take up the slack and the 'individuals' would be identified by which former monied interest they belong too. Passing new laws or regulations only makes the people in the current system find a way around the law or regulation. And even if the law or regulation was constucted to be bulletproof, we would have the problem of enforcement. Yep, I'm afraid the cookie monster is in charge of guarding the cookie jar, here.

Anonymous · « **Reply #2 on:** January 27, 2004, 01:57:28 PM »

my solution:

First off, abolish all forms of political contributions and use the following system.

What if there was a fixed budget for all political figures where everyone would be allocated an identical amount of money to run their campaign?

The funding still comes for coorporation who wish to "sponsor" healthy political campaigns. They dont get to pick who it goes to or what political party it goes too. What ever is in the pot before every election is divided up in equal shares to all elegible candidates. There should be a clause for a minimum amount. If there's not enough funds in the pool, you tax the businesses and citizens. Everyone contributes because everyone benefits.

What does this do? First off, it allows for people to be elected without having to do the any deals with corporations. If corporations cannot contribute in direct political contributions, they cannot influence politics with their wallet. No body "owns" nobody anything.

I think it would be a good thing for democracy because now, the guy with the most cash to blow on advertising benefits the most. That leads to uninformed voters screwing up the democratic system which in turn leads to Demosthenes ranting about it.

Think something like that could solve the issue?

Anonymous · « **Reply #3 on:** January 27, 2004, 03:09:49 PM »

What ever happened to the good old days? Oh wait, it was the same thing then as it was now, except they didn't spend millions of dollars on campaigns.

I agree that they shouldn't let corporations donate ludacris sums of money like they currently do, but take a look at Bill Gates. The man himself can do nate a few millions dollars and not even notice it's missing. There should be a limit on the amount that a candidate can receive like Judge said, or a limit on how much a person can give to a candidate.

Either way, it's sick to think that our government is run by one thing, and one thing only: Money. It was designed to give everyone the chance to run for office provided that they met a certain criteria, which is nothing extreeme. Even from the start of things it was said that only the rich should be allowed to run the government. I believe it was Jefferson who had that notion. It's gotten to the ponint where there isn't strength in numbers, but there is strength in money. As long as you have money, your voice will be heard, if not, tough luck.

JohnnyFive · « **Reply #4 on:** January 27, 2004, 05:14:26 PM »

Thought you might find interesting: Reform Politics Stats

I agree with you, mostly, except for one thing.

These "political contributions" help to weed out some of the minor players. Granted, if everyone had to come up with their own money, the "playing field" would be more level and everyone would have a chance to get into a position of power. But can you imagine a ballot if that was the case? There would be 10 times as many names on that ballot as there are now. And this would be a problem.

Here is why. Think of it like the last presidential election. (Without political biase, just look at this for it's metaphorical value). In the last election, there were two candidates that would have been *acceptable* to become president. Atleast, from my parties view. What does this mean? That means that these votes were split (atleast somewhat). But, because the other party only had 1 candidate, (bush), he won. His parties votes were not split. If, for example, Nader had not run for President, then *most* of the people that had voted for him would have voted for Gore. This means that Gore would have won. Easily.

You see the problem? The more people we have run, the more the votes are split, and sometimes between *good* candidates. This causes problems and can cause a *terrible* candidate to be elected instead.

Not only that, but as I said before, it weeds out the weak. I don't want a candidate that can't work the political system, and if he can't even get support from big business, then he obviously can't work it well enough. Yea, there are a lot of guys out there that have the ideals and ideas that I would rather support, but what's the use of having someone run the place if he can't get any of his ideas into place? Even more so, is that many of the things that *need* to be changed are against such things as big business. You think a lot of people *with money* are going to support that? No, of course not, the business are going to fight back with their money, lobbying etc. So what do we have instead? We have suckups that do what the businesses want, get campaign contributions to them, and then make compromises. I would rather have a little bit of progress then none at all and have a white-cloaked figure head.

Now don't get me wrong, I am an avid left-winger, but I look at things realistically. What do you think would happen if the big players didn't get contributions from big business? In the real-world, what would happen? Play it out, i'm interested

Demosthenes · « **Reply #5 on:** January 27, 2004, 05:20:32 PM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

Yeah, me too

You know I feel similarly. But if such 'donations' (read bribes) were banned, 'individuals' would take up the slack and the 'individuals' would be identified by which former monied interest they belong too. Passing new laws or regulations only makes the people in the current system find a way around the law or regulation. And even if the law or regulation was constucted to be bulletproof, we would have the problem of enforcement. Yep, I'm afraid the cookie monster is in charge of guarding the cookie jar, here.

Yeah, I know... I'm just throwin' things out there for the sake of discussion. It's a problem that doesn't seem to have a clear solution, when it comes down to it. Money will always be tied to politics (unless you start getting really brutal and oppressive about your political system, in which case the whole thing's moot anyway).

Quote from: TheJudge

my solution:

First off, abolish all forms of political contributions and use the following system.

What if there was a fixed budget for all political figures where everyone would be allocated an identical amount of money to run their campaign?

The funding still comes for coorporation who wish to "sponsor" healthy political campaigns. They dont get to pick who it goes to or what political party it goes too. What ever is in the pot before every election is divided up in equal shares to all elegible candidates. There should be a clause for a minimum amount. If there's not enough funds in the pool, you tax the businesses and citizens. Everyone contributes because everyone benefits.

What does this do? First off, it allows for people to be elected without having to do the any deals with corporations. If corporations cannot contribute in direct political contributions, they cannot influence politics with their wallet. No body "owns" nobody anything.

I think it would be a good thing for democracy because now, the guy with the most cash to blow on advertising benefits the most. That leads to uninformed voters screwing up the democratic system which in turn leads to Demosthenes ranting about it.

Think something like that could solve the issue?

I've considered such ideas, and I think that they could in theory work... but the only way I'd back such an idea is if contributions are 100% voluntary. I am against forced "donations".

Voluntary political contributions that go into a central "pot" from which ALL candidates draw ALL of their political spending.

Not enough money to run your campaign like you want to? Too fucking bad. It's the same amount your opponents get, so deal.

Quote from: JohnnyFive

Thought you might find interesting: Reform Politics Stats

I agree with you, mostly, except for one thing.

These "political contributions" help to weed out some of the minor players. Granted, if everyone had to come up with their own money, the "playing field" would be more level and everyone would have a chance to get into a position of power. But can you imagine a ballot if that was the case? There would be 10 times as many names on that ballot as there are now. And this would be a problem.

Here is why. Think of it like the last presidential election. (Without political biase, just look at this for it's metaphorical value). In the last election, there were two candidates that would have been *acceptable* to become president. Atleast, from my parties view. What does this mean? That means that these votes were split (atleast somewhat). But, because the other party only had 1 candidate, (bush), he won. His parties votes were not split. If, for example, Nader had not run for President, then *most* of the people that had voted for him would have voted for Gore. This means that Gore would have won. Easily.

You see the problem? The more people we have run, the more the votes are split, and sometimes between *good* candidates. This causes problems and can cause a *terrible* candidate to be elected instead.

Not only that, but as I said before, it weeds out the weak. I don't want a candidate that can't work the political system, and if he can't even get support from big business, then he obviously can't work it well enough. Yea, there are a lot of guys out there that have the ideals and ideas that I would rather support, but what's the use of having someone run the place if he can't get any of his ideas into place? Even more so, is that many of the things that *need* to be changed are against such things as big business. You think a lot of people *with money* are going to support that? No, of course not, the business are going to fight back with their money, lobbying etc. So what do we have instead? We have suckups that do what the businesses want, get campaign contributions to them, and then make compromises. I would rather have a little bit of progress then none at all and have a white-cloaked figure head.

Now don't get me wrong, I am an avid left-winger, but I look at things realistically. What do you think would happen if the big players didn't get contributions from big business? In the real-world, what would happen? Play it out, i'm interested

Oh, I don't know... personally, it bothers the hell out of me that we have a "two party system". Two parties in no way can suffice.

Three candidates on a presidential ballot are better.

Four are better still.

Fifteen would be excellent!

Ditto for state and federal legislature offices. The more the merrier!

What? You're confused by the number of candidates? You don't know who is who? You don't know who to vote for because there are too many to choose from and you didn't do your homework before going to the polls?

Then turn the hell around and go home! Nobody wants you voting anyway if you're not even going to be bothered to learn about a few things that AFFECT EVERYBODY'S LIVES in the district/state/nation in which you are voting.

JohnnyFive · « **Reply #6 on:** January 27, 2004, 05:24:56 PM »

Quote

Voluntary political contributions that go into a central "pot" from which ALL candidates draw ALL of their political spending.

Not enough money to run your campaign like you want to? Too fucking bad. It's the same amount your opponents get, so deal.

In that link I posted, it states that 47% of the people in the US would vote for candidates if their campaigns were government funded. I'm sure something along those lines and this *could* work.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #7 on:** January 27, 2004, 05:26:59 PM »

Quote from: JohnnyFive

Quote
Voluntary political contributions that go into a central "pot" from which ALL candidates draw ALL of their political spending.

Not enough money to run your campaign like you want to? Too fucking bad. It's the same amount your opponents get, so deal.

In that link I posted, it states that 47% of the people in the US would vote for candidates if their campaigns were government funded. I'm sure something along those lines and this *could* work.

Well, like I said, as long as the funding is voluntary, I think I could get behind such a notion.

EDIT

BTW, I don't get over to the new geek on the block forum much... welcome to teh geekery!!!1 OMFGLOL!!

JohnnyFive · « **Reply #8 on:** January 27, 2004, 05:28:38 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

Quote from: JohnnyFive
Quote
Voluntary political contributions that go into a central "pot" from which ALL candidates draw ALL of their political spending.

Not enough money to run your campaign like you want to? Too fucking bad. It's the same amount your opponents get, so deal.

In that link I posted, it states that 47% of the people in the US would vote for candidates if their campaigns were government funded. I'm sure something along those lines and this *could* work.

Well, like I said, as long as the funding is voluntary, I think I could get behind such a notion.

And once you were behind it, what would you do? That's right, give it hard, you know the politicians can take it

Demosthenes · « **Reply #9 on:** January 27, 2004, 05:29:40 PM »

Well, you know... if it has a purty mouth and all....

JohnnyFive · « **Reply #10 on:** January 27, 2004, 05:59:55 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

Well, you know... if it has a purty mouth and all....

That's the front

Demosthenes · « **Reply #11 on:** January 27, 2004, 06:00:55 PM »

Quote from: JohnnyFive

Quote from: Demosthenes
Well, you know... if it has a purty mouth and all....
That's the front

Don't sass me, boy.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #12 on:** January 27, 2004, 06:02:19 PM »

The problem with public funding is who decides who is a 'viable' candidate. There'd still be politics involved. Another problem would be if everyone who was serious did get on the ballot, only the two major party chosen ones would get any media coverage since the media companies would neglect any other candidates, and hence the media coverage would become the new quid pro quo.

Yeah I know, I'm just pointing out problems with any system and if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate...

BizB · « **Reply #13 on:** January 27, 2004, 09:55:04 PM »

Yeah, the more the better...
California ballot

Anyone that will spend $36,000,000 of his own money for a $200,000/year job should be in jail.

Anonymous · « **Reply #14 on:** January 28, 2004, 07:57:29 AM »

Quote from: BizB

Anyone that will spend $36,000,000 of his own money for a $200,000/year job should be in jail.

Anyone dumb enough to spend $36,000,000 of his own money for a $200,000/year job should be shot.

Anonymous · « **Reply #15 on:** January 28, 2004, 07:57:57 AM »

Quote from: BizB

Anyone that will spend $36,000,000 of his own money for a $200,000/year job should be in jail.

Anyone dumb enough to spend $36,000,000 of his own money for a $200,000/year job shouldn't have that kind of money to being with so it evens out.

TerrorDronze · « **Reply #16 on:** January 28, 2004, 08:27:10 PM »

not spamming, but still pushing a group that i agree with, that proves to be truly relevant, i give you linkage!

http://www.adbusters.org

and, on a slightly less related, but still relevant political note...

http://www.mediacarta.org

take a look, it's guaranteed to intrigue.

porcuswine · « **Reply #17 on:** February 27, 2004, 08:57:00 PM »

I think you should be able to donate any amount you wish.
Regulations only make people look for the backdoor way of doing business. Any donation must be accompanied by a 10% donation to a free forum station on the local cable services. This free forum station would only air third party candidate ads. Thus evening out the playing field.
This is a much better way of doing things.

Xeno Ghost · « **Reply #18 on:** February 27, 2004, 11:13:24 PM »

Yes, because we need to encourage rich people to ensure our government becomes a full fledged plutocracy.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Follow the money (Read 4666 times)

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

porcuswine