Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 66

Thread: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

  1. #31
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    10-10-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,073

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    We have a system corrupted by money, so, by all means, let's take away any and all controls over how much money may be used/donated.
    The system is not corrupted by money anymore, because it is a plutocracy--so the use of money to control the govt. is the current norm, and everything else (including the notion that people control it) is a an exception to the norm. This is because the majority of voters in the US are apathetic or completely uneducated about the actions/motives of their elected officials, and have been for several decades.

    The equation that describes the degree of monetary influence affluent groups/individuals have over a city, state, of national regime in which legislative bodies are elected is

    P = 1 - D = I/(E + I)

    D is the democracy factor (ranging from 0 - 1)
    P is the plutocracy factor (ranging from 0 - 1)
    E is the no. of educated voters in the city, state, or nation in question
    I is the no. of ignorant/apathetic voters in the city, state, or nation in question

    The more plutocratic the society is, the higher the value of P
    The more democratic the society is, the higher the value of D

    I believe P in the US is around 0.93.
    Last edited by solletica; 03-17-15 at 01:32 PM.

  2. #32
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,895
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    We have a system corrupted by money, so, by all means, let's take away any and all controls over how much money may be used/donated.

    The best hope we have is technology. As more people use a DVR to skip commercials, TV ads declaring one's opponent to be Satan incarnate will have less influence. As more people use the internet, television will have less and less influence.

    Money still talks, but it doesn't have quite as loud of a voice as it once did.
    I'd have to agree. The present system is far too influenced by money, most notably gaining direct access to the legislator.

    However, I did catch an NPR report (now wishing I had snagged it for reference) asserting that statistically the money spent on campaign ads didn't sway the voting results, or if it did only in a very small marginal amount. I suppose you can infer this, from large spending campaigns that go to defeat.
    the Fix-is-in Bureau of Investigation

  3. #33
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,807

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Where in the world did you get this idea?

    Might I suggest some light reading?
    If a legislator isn't passing laws, regulating, taxing and/or spending, what is his role? What else is there - naming post offices?

    Pollution is indeed an excellent example - big businesses use EPA regulations to protect themselves from competition all the time.
    And they were all the time poisoning air, water, and land until the EPA forced them not to as well. Go to China and come back and tell us all we don't need an EPA.... Can't see a quarter mile on clear weather days in some cities.

    Another good example would be the Corn and Sugar industries. Alternative Energies donate massive amounts to candidates, who, in turn, ensure massive federal aid to Alternative Energies. Public Unions are another good example of the giant-money-cycle wherein politicians get themselves taxpayer money by laundering it through a third party.... but can only do so because of their ability to use political power to defend and strengthen that third party. Break the ability to distribute taxpayer largess, whether in cash or other economic advantages, and you break the cycle.
    How is that done, exactly? Laws or absence of laws can confer economic advantages. Legislators make laws, tax, spend money, regulate. Any or all of them are intended to create advantages for some group or another. Laws against pollution benefit the public, for example.....

    Bill Gates, for example, donated roughly $0 to political causes. Until his competitors hired enough congresscritters, and the like to get monopoly charges brought up against Microsoft. Now, Bill Gates owns half the Senate. Because it was made worth his while to do so.
    So, do away with laws against monopolies? What's your suggestion?

  4. #34
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    If a legislator isn't passing laws, regulating, taxing and/or spending, what is his role? What else is there - naming post offices?
    That is a fine thing for them to do. Post offices have to get named, after all.

    But passing laws and increasing the regulatory burden for the sake of doing so is so far from the task of good governance as to be farce.

    And they were all the time poisoning air, water, and land until the EPA forced them not to as well. Go to China and come back and tell us all we don't need an EPA.... Can't see a quarter mile on clear weather days in some cities.
    Now that's funny. Go to China to learn what life is like where the economy isn't controlled by the government

    How is that done, exactly?
    Enforce the actual Constitutional limitations of the Federal Government. It's not Federal Governments' job to be ensuring loans to favored companies with the right political connections. It's not the Federal Government's job to subsidize corn or sugar. Most of what the Federal Government does to interfere in the market it has no business doing.

    Laws or absence of laws can confer economic advantages.
    Absence of laws do not represent government choosing winners and losers, and from a business standpoint only justify investment when someone decides to try to get it to do so.

    Laws against pollution benefit the public, for example.....
    Actually most EPA regulations at this point are designed to protect Big Businesses from Small Business competition by raising the threshold costs of doing business, pricing the competition out of the market.

    So, do away with laws against monopolies? What's your suggestion?
    That is merely a single example of a business making a rational decision to invest in politics. The fact that Microsoft A) had competitors who B) had the resources to purchase enough government to get it to launch a suit is evidence enough that the monopoly charges were fatuous.

  5. #35
    Guru
    JohnWOlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    01-17-17 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,594

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Im all for limiting it completely, along with limiting stuff such as congressional terms and organizations that claim to be one thing need to somewhere out there clearly show where they come from so you don't have to go down a rabbit hole to figure out if they are really legit.
    "We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy." -Reagan

  6. #36
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,807

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    That is a fine thing for them to do. Post offices have to get named, after all.

    But passing laws and increasing the regulatory burden for the sake of doing so is so far from the task of good governance as to be farce.
    You made up "for the sake of doing so." But legislators legislate, lawmakers make laws, government taxes and spends and regulates. It's the point of having a government.

    Now that's funny. Go to China to learn what life is like where the economy isn't controlled by the government
    The point is you can look around the world currently, or have a passing understanding of U.S. history, and understand that corporations will pollute unless laws prohibit them from doing it. They will poison the air, the water and the ground, with as much untreated waste as the laws allow them to dump. So you can whine about the EPA, but there is a long history of corporations offloading their costs onto the public, here in the U.S. or overseas. And you don't say you're a libertarian, but it's those guys who usually say something like let harmed individuals sue the polluters or some other silly and guaranteed to fail way to handle it other than national regulations.

    Enforce the actual Constitutional limitations of the Federal Government. It's not Federal Governments' job to be ensuring loans to favored companies with the right political connections. It's not the Federal Government's job to subsidize corn or sugar. Most of what the Federal Government does to interfere in the market it has no business doing.
    It's easy to say, but how are we supposed to "enforce the actual Constitutional limitations...."? The only option I know is to elect legislators with the same ideology you prefer. Well that's a little difficult when an industry that might profit by $10 billion from a certain set of laws or lack of laws, or spending, or taxing, can dump $500 million into the political system annually (this is the number I've seen that Wall Street spends per year across the board.) So with even fewer limits on campaign spending, and no actual constitutional prohibition against laws that favor Wall Street, what is your option?

    You seem to support removing all restraints on money. I don't see how that works out too well....

    Absence of laws do not represent government choosing winners and losers, and from a business standpoint only justify investment when someone decides to try to get it to do so.
    Absence can absolutely represent government picking winners and losers. Laws against fraud pick winners and losers, laws against dumping mercury into your creek out back pick winners (you and you family) and losers (the mercury user who has to clean his waste up first). So you're wrong that buying a government official must mean he DOES something. Child labor, workplace safety, etc....

    Looking the other way (doing nothing) while a pot distributor is operating out of a nearby farm will make a sheriff two or three times his yearly government salary - we saw a LOT of that in Tennessee a while back. One of them was my uncle's farm - he sold it to drug dealers. They paid off the sheriff. Operated for years until they got noticed by the Feds....

    Actually most EPA regulations at this point are designed to protect Big Businesses from Small Business competition by raising the threshold costs of doing business, pricing the competition out of the market.
    You have no basis for that kind of assertion. Give me a break. You're like libertarians who AFTER we mostly have clean air and water pretend that those things just happen, and that corporations would be good little boys and girls without any rules.

    That is merely a single example of a business making a rational decision to invest in politics. The fact that Microsoft A) had competitors who B) had the resources to purchase enough government to get it to launch a suit is evidence enough that the monopoly charges were fatuous.
    It's one example, but I don't really see how that example, even if you're correct and the U.S. and other governments were all wrong, proves any kind of a broader point. What you seem to not like is that government does stuff you don't like or disagree with. Well, goodness, that's life.

    Besides, this thread is about unlimited campaign spending. Do you think removing all the restraints on money flowing into government, a plutocracy, gets you BETTER government?

  7. #37
    Hot Flash Mama
    Summerwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Seen
    01-23-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,010

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    We have a system corrupted by money, so, by all means, let's take away any and all controls over how much money may be used/donated.

    The best hope we have is technology. As more people use a DVR to skip commercials, TV ads declaring one's opponent to be Satan incarnate will have less influence. As more people use the internet, television will have less and less influence.

    Money still talks, but it doesn't have quite as loud of a voice as it once did.
    Except you have to have some browser and computer (and perhaps smartphone now also) knowledge to block ads on the internet. It's actually harder to avoid ads on the internet than on a recorded show, or muting a live show. I do really well on the PC for blocking ads, but it's work and it's constantly allowing, using a site, and then disallowing upon leaving and so on. But on my smartphone, they are on every game I play with others, and on some that are strictly on my phone with no need for internet to play, and no internet to nearby, still somehow they've embedded some ads right into the damned phone.
    jallman: "It's all good. At least you have a thick skin and can take being poked fun back at without crying. "

  8. #38
    Hot Flash Mama
    Summerwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Seen
    01-23-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,010

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    Only way to do that is to ban political speech. If you don't, someone will need to arbitrarily put a dollar value on Person X's voice vs Person Y's voice.
    Or Person X and Person Y could just learn to speak for free, by opening their mouths instead of their wallets, that would be more transparent too as then we'd know who was speaking and be able to assess their remarks fairly.
    jallman: "It's all good. At least you have a thick skin and can take being poked fun back at without crying. "

  9. #39
    Hot Flash Mama
    Summerwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Seen
    01-23-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,010

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    The problem is, we have it backward.

    As it is, someone with a lot of money and a political ax to grind spends a few bazillion dollars so that I get to view political propaganda. Now, it's not that I don't appreciate the effort on my behalf, you understand, but there is the principle of each individual paying for his own benefits. Therefore, I propose we put all of the political ads on pay per view. If I feel a need to view such, then I'll pay for it myself. No third party will have to pay for my viewing pleasure, personal responsibility will be preserved, and the bazillionaires can keep their political donations.

    How's that for a good right wing solution?
    It's not very right wing if they aren't allowed by some government regulation to not put ads out via the usual media route. IF not some government regulation, then who is going to assure they are handled as you suggest?
    jallman: "It's all good. At least you have a thick skin and can take being poked fun back at without crying. "

  10. #40
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,887

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    Or Person X and Person Y could just learn to speak for free, by opening their mouths instead of their wallets, that would be more transparent too as then we'd know who was speaking and be able to assess their remarks fairly.
    Both people could say the same thing, but depending on their circle of friends, the impact is different.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •