Page 1 of 2
Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Tue Sep 29, 2015 8:01 amby notyou2
This is attributed to Robert Reich
Last night, at the University of Chicago, Bernie Sanders pledged that “no nominee of mine to the United States Supreme Court will get that job unless he or she is loud and clear that one of their first orders of business will be to overturn Citizens United.” Bernie couldn’t be clearer, or righter. The Supreme Court’s 2010 “Citizens United” decision has done exactly what we feared it would do -- unleash an even larger torrent of money into our political system. Most of it is from the rich, who expect something in return. In 2012, just 400 people – mostly top corporate executives, Wall Street moguls, and billionaires -- provided 40 percent of all campaign contributions.
What did they get for their efforts? Laws giving them more tax breaks and subsidies, and the blockage of laws and regulations that would reduce their profits and wealth. They've thereby further rigged the so-called “free market” to their benefit and against the interests of most Americans. Which, in turn, has enhanced their wealth, enabling them to rig the system even more. It’s a vicious cycle that can only get worse unless we get big money out of politics. “American democracy is not supposed to be about billionaires buying elections,” Bernie said last night. “It is not supposed to be about super PACS collecting huge amounts of money from the wealthiest people in the country having more power over the candidate’s campaign that the candidate himself or herself.” Exactly.
Generally, I don’t like political litmus tests for Supreme Court candidates. But Bernie’s litmus test is absolutely necessary.
What do you think?
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Tue Sep 29, 2015 8:11 amby mrswdk
Angry Bernie wrote:It is not supposed to be about super PACS collecting huge amounts of money from the wealthiest people in the country having more power over the candidate’s campaign that the candidate himself or herself.
No one is forcing people to vote for that candidate. If people elect someone who they are well aware is a shill for oligarchical interests then we must presume they are okay with having a shill in charge.
Money does not win elections. Votes win elections. That's democracy, Bernie. Suck it up.
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Tue Sep 29, 2015 8:59 amby notyou2
mrswdk wrote:Angry Bernie wrote:It is not supposed to be about super PACS collecting huge amounts of money from the wealthiest people in the country having more power over the candidate’s campaign that the candidate himself or herself.
No one is forcing people to vote for that candidate. If people elect someone who they are well aware is a shill for oligarchical interests then we must presume they are okay with having a shill in charge.
Money does not win elections. Votes win elections. That's democracy, Bernie. Suck it up.
Seriously, you actually believe that??? You don't think money has any influence on elections?
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:01 amby mrswdk
notyou2 wrote:mrswdk wrote:Angry Bernie wrote:It is not supposed to be about super PACS collecting huge amounts of money from the wealthiest people in the country having more power over the candidate’s campaign that the candidate himself or herself.
No one is forcing people to vote for that candidate. If people elect someone who they are well aware is a shill for oligarchical interests then we must presume they are okay with having a shill in charge.
Money does not win elections. Votes win elections. That's democracy, Bernie. Suck it up.
Seriously, you actually believe that??? You don't think money has any influence on elections?
http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does ... e-podcast/
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Tue Sep 29, 2015 12:03 pmby /
The problem with the system isn't that it's too corrupt, it's that it's not corrupt enough to benefit the common citizen. Hurry up and abolish vote-buying laws, I want some of that bribe money!
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Tue Sep 29, 2015 12:25 pmby tzor
notyou2 wrote:Bernie Sanders pledged that “no nominee of mine to the United States Supreme Court will get that job unless he or she is loud and clear that one of their first orders of business will be to overturn Citizens United.”
Bernie Sanders is a national socialist (in lower case, as he places the need of the nation first). He doesn't respect the fundamental nature of "inalienable rights" which include speech. Does money in politics cause undue influence? HELL YES. Now what are you going to do about it?
Citizens United didn't do anything that wasn't already being done. It just make things different. The decision is only 5 years old. Look at how long members of Congress and the Senate have been in office. They were in there before and they are in there after the decision. It has done practically nothing. But it doesn't make a nice complaint on the campaign trail.
The biggest influence has always been very rich people and unions (who for all intents and purposes are very rich people). Having corporations added to the mix only adds more fuel to already blazing fire. The ones who profit from all this money are ... political consultants.
The biggest problem with undoing this is that we have such a tight campaign schedule (literally every two years for congress) that issue advocates can't get their message across without it sounding like a political endorsement. It costs money to get your message out and thus any limitations on spending money to get your message out significantly hurts free speech for the small issue groups.
You can't lower the river, you have to raise the bridge. A proper government as envisioned by the founders with limited enumerated powers, combined with the traditional principle of subsidiarity - where government is lowered to the lowest level that can support it - makes influence impossible; it literally becomes impossible to influence everyone. There is currently one congress in the United States. There are 50 states. There are over 3 thousand counties. Imagine trying to influence that many people to get a global agenda.
I'd rather have free speech and limited government than no speech and supreme government. But you can't have free speech and supreme government.
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Tue Sep 29, 2015 12:33 pmby tzor
/ wrote:The problem with the system isn't that it's too corrupt, it's that it's not corrupt enough to benefit the common citizen. Hurry up and abolish vote-buying laws, I want some of that bribe money!
There was a sci fi role playing game where such a law was passed and it became the equivalent of welfare. Companies would "pay" you to give them your vote. I forget which one it was, unfortunately. So many games, I've played.
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Tue Sep 29, 2015 2:18 pmby Bernie Sanders
Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government. Oil companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, Wall Street bankers and other powerful special interests have poured money into our political system for years. In 2010, a bad situation turned worse. In a 5-4 decision in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for corporations and the wealthy to spend unlimited and undisclosed money to buy our elected officials. The Supreme Court essentially declared that corporations have the same rights as natural-born human beings.
Our democracy is under fierce attack. Billionaire families are now able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the candidates of their choice. These people own most of the economy. Now they want to own our government as well. The Koch brothers, the second wealthiest family in America, plan to spend some $900 million in the coming 2016 election — more money than either of our major parties spent in the last election. That is not democracy. That is oligarchy. To restore our one person-one vote democracy, Congress must pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and move toward public funding of elections.
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Tue Sep 29, 2015 6:53 pmby notyou2
In Canada there are spending limits the parties and candidates must follow during an election.However, some have exceeded those limits and some have been charged for it. One was found guilty. He won his seat btw.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dean-del-mastro-sentenced-to-month-in-jail-4-months-house-arrest-for-election-overspending-1.3126992
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Tue Sep 29, 2015 10:49 pmby subtleknifewield
mrswdk wrote:Angry Bernie wrote:It is not supposed to be about super PACS collecting huge amounts of money from the wealthiest people in the country having more power over the candidate’s campaign that the candidate himself or herself.
No one is forcing people to vote for that candidate. If people elect someone who they are well aware is a shill for oligarchical interests then we must presume they are okay with having a shill in charge.
Money does not win elections. Votes win elections. That's democracy, Bernie. Suck it up.
And votes can be influenced by major media presence which--unsurprisingly--takes money!
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Tue Sep 29, 2015 10:49 pmby subtleknifewield
He was allowed to keep his seat even after being found guilty of that?
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Tue Sep 29, 2015 10:51 pmby subtleknifewield
tzor wrote:/ wrote:The problem with the system isn't that it's too corrupt, it's that it's not corrupt enough to benefit the common citizen. Hurry up and abolish vote-buying laws, I want some of that bribe money!
There was a sci fi role playing game where such a law was passed and it became the equivalent of welfare. Companies would "pay" you to give them your vote. I forget which one it was, unfortunately. So many games, I've played.
LOL. That sounds like a fun RP
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Wed Sep 30, 2015 2:16 amby mrswdk
Bernie Sanders wrote:Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government.
The people of America elected those guys.
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Wed Sep 30, 2015 2:21 amby Metsfanmax
I have never seen someone give actual convincing evidence that Citizens United was responsible for increased campaign contributions from wealthy donors. It is usually just assumed without proof, which is unfortunate.
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Wed Sep 30, 2015 8:13 amby Bernie Sanders
Metsfanmax wrote:I have never seen someone give actual convincing evidence that Citizens United was responsible for increased campaign contributions from wealthy donors. It is usually just assumed without proof, which is unfortunate.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/09/five-fold-upsurge-super-pacs-dark-money-groups-spending-far-more-than-in-12-cycle-at-same-point-in-campaign/It's getting hard to trace the source of contributions with these super pacs.
"The billionaire class now owns the economy and they are working day and night to make certain that they own the United States government."
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Wed Sep 30, 2015 8:38 amby patches70
Says the guy who has received at least 2 million from PACs and 75% of his campaign contributors during his senate days were from individuals who were out of state.
Every politician is owned by someone, in Bernie's case he's owned by the unions. Is it ok to to be owned by certain special interests but not others? Hmmmmm.
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:04 amby Bernie Sanders
A unionized public employee, a teabagger, and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, then looks at the teabagger and says “Watch out for that union guy– he wants a piece of your cookie!”
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:51 amby patches70
A barber gave a priest a haircut one day. When the priest went to pay for the haircut the barber refused and said "you are doing God's work". The next day the barber found a dozen bibles at the door of his shop.
The barber gave a policeman a haircut one day. When the policeman went to pay the barber refused and said "you protect the public". The next day the barber found a dozen doughnuts at the door of his shop.
The barber gave a Senator a haircut one day. When the Senator went to pay the barber refused and said "you serve the public".
The next day the barber found 99 Senators waiting for a free haircut at the door of his shop.
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:57 amby subtleknifewield
*gets the popcorn*
Keep the jokes coming!
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:00 amby patches70
Bernie Sanders was walking down the street one evening when a mugger wearing a ski mask jumped out and shoved a gun in Sanders' ribs. "Gimme your money!" the mugger demanded. Indignant, Sanders said- "You can't do this, I'm a United States Congressman!"
"In that case" said the mugger, "Gimme back my money!"
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:03 amby patches70
Barry Black, the US Senate Chaplain was asked one day, "Do you pray for the Senators?"
Black replied, "No, after getting to know the Senators I pray for the people".
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:04 amby patches70
How many politicians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
At least two, one to assure the public that everything possible is being done while another screws the lightbulb into the water faucet.
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:05 amby patches70
Bernie Sanders philosophy-
"If it ain't broke, fix it til it is."
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:06 amby subtleknifewield
OK, now this is a bit ridiculous, give him a chance for rebuttal now and then
*throws a rotten tomato*
Re: Money in Politics - Does it cause undue influence?
Posted:
Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:13 amby patches70
Bernie Sanders was doing some house to house campaigning when he happened upon a grouchy man's front porch. After giving his little speech the grouchy fellow said-"Vote for you? I'd rather vote for Satan!"
Bernie replied, "I understand, but in case your friend isn't running for office, can I count on your support?"
If "pro" is the opposite of "con" then what is the opposite of "progress"?
Congress!
A man from Holland and and man from America were joking with each other one day. The man from Holland explained the Red White and Blue in the Netherlands flag. "Our flag symbolizes taxes" the man explained. "We get red when we talk about them, get White when we get our tax bill and turn Blue when we pay."
The American nodded, "Its the same in with us" said the American, "only we see Stars too."