http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance?hp&ref=politics#canda=barack-obama&candb=mitt-romney
So please, please. Can Dems stop whining about Citizens United and the big money donors of the GOP?? Please.
Whatever the system is, it's given the Dems a big advantage in 2008 and is going to give them another big advantage in 2012. So do we still have to hear about how the Supreme Court and evil big corporate donors are stealing the government for Republicans?
Originally posted by sh76I never complained about evil big corporate donors stealing the government for Republicans.
Whatever the system is, it's given the Dems a big advantage in 2008 and is going to give them another big advantage in 2012. So do we still have to hear about how the Supreme Court and evil big corporate donors are stealing the government for Republicans?
I think they are stealing government for themselves from both Democrats and Republicans.
Originally posted by SleepyguyI tend to blame the SOB politician.
So who do you blame more for the corruption? The SOB politician who sells earmarks and tailored laws for campaign contributions, or the corporation who buys what's for sale?
I think the system itself lends itself to that corruption and you need some real fundamental changes to the incentive structure.
I tend to be in favor of public financing of elections because even though we taxpayers will be paying for it, we pay for it in other ways now due to the corruption. With public financing and limits on private contributions then no matter how much a politician panders/bends over to a corporation they won't earn any more contributions to their election coffers. There are other specifics that I don't have time to get into right now.. but I think that's a start.
Right now the system is broken and who do you blame when the system is essentially set to reward the corrupt?
Originally posted by SleepyguyThe system that enables this to happen, and the SOB politicians who don't want to change it.
So who do you blame more for the corruption? The SOB politician who sells earmarks and tailored laws for campaign contributions, or the corporation who buys what's for sale?
Originally posted by sh76Can't we whine just a little??😀
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance?hp&ref=politics#canda=barack-obama&candb=mitt-romney
So please, please. Can Dems stop whining about Citizens United and the big money donors of the GOP?? Please.
Whatever the system is, it's given the Dems a big advantage in 2008 and is going to give them another big advantage in 2012. So do we still have ...[text shortened]... ow the Supreme Court and evil big corporate donors are stealing the government for Republicans?
Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I tend to blame the SOB politician.
Me too.
I think the system itself lends itself to that corruption and you need some real fundamental changes to the incentive structure.
Yep, as long as money = speech I don't see how we change the dynamic.
I tend to be in favor of public financing of elections because even though we taxpayers will be paying for it, we pay for it in other ways now due to the corruption.
I've been coming around to this point of view, but it has to be all or nothing. If corporate money doesn't equal speech, then neither does union money. I don't see this ever changing though. The foxes have moved into the hen house and added a sun-room, sauna, bar, and pool. Money will always find a way in to buy influence as long as the SOB politicians have the govt up for sale. The only way to change it is to replace them, and throw in some term limits for good measure.
Right now the system is broken and who do you blame when the system is essentially set to reward the corrupt?
I think we can blame the SOB politicians, and we can blame ourselves for allowing it to continue. I don't really blame the corporations though. As long as the SOB politicians are selling, I think we can expect the corporations to make the investment.
Originally posted by SleepyguyI wouldn't completely take away the ability for corporations to donate (and I include unions with corporations) but I would severely restrict it so that it couldn't be a deciding factor in the amount and it would have to be 100% public.
I've been coming around to this point of view, but it has to be all or nothing. If corporate money doesn't equal speech, then neither does union money. I don't see this ever changing though. The foxes have moved into the hen house and added a sun-room, sauna, bar, and pool. Money will always find a way in to buy influence as long as the SOB politicia ...[text shortened]... The only way to change it is to replace them, and throw in some term limits for good measure.
Of course, this would mean breaking the money=speech equation that seems to be there as you mentioned. There are groups organizing to help do this (http://movetoamend.org/ for example). I'm hoping they can get some real traction.
Politicians are easily corrupted, which is precisely why a prerequisite for having a well-functioning democracy is to reduce, as much as is possible, the influence of money in government policy. The Citizens United decision inflicted great injury on that ideal. A constitutional amendment should not be necessary to remedy the situation, as a sage reformation of corporate law should suffice instead.
Originally posted by sh76An incumbent president almost always has an asymmetric advantage in that regard.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance?hp&ref=politics#canda=barack-obama&candb=mitt-romney
So please, please. Can Dems stop whining about Citizens United and the big money donors of the GOP?? Please.
Whatever the system is, it's given the Dems a big advantage in 2008 and is going to give them another big advantage in 2012. So do we still have ...[text shortened]... ow the Supreme Court and evil big corporate donors are stealing the government for Republicans?
Originally posted by SoothfastMany of the big donors are individuals anyway, which Citizens United had no effect on. Individuals have been able to donate to PACs as much as they've wanted since Buckley v. Valeo in 1975.
Politicians are easily corrupted, which is precisely why a prerequisite for having a well-functioning democracy is to reduce, as much as is possible, the influence of money in government policy. The Citizens United decision inflicted great injury on that ideal. A constitutional amendment should not be necessary to remedy the situation, as a sage reformation of corporate law should suffice instead.
The effect of Citizens United is way overrated.
Originally posted by sh76Wait.. you mean we're standing on principle even IF what we're against gives us the advantage?
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance?hp&ref=politics#canda=barack-obama&candb=mitt-romney
So please, please. Can Dems stop whining about Citizens United and the big money donors of the GOP?? Please.
Whatever the system is, it's given the Dems a big advantage in 2008 and is going to give them another big advantage in 2012. So do we still have ...[text shortened]... ow the Supreme Court and evil big corporate donors are stealing the government for Republicans?
Boy we are so busted!
We don't just support policies for the sake of helping the party. We're not Republicans.