Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Lobbyist charges $30,400 to ‘raise a glass’ with Pelosi

  1. #11
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Lobbyist charges $30,400 to ‘raise a glass’ with Pelosi

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    I think the best thing would be to limit it at around $200 or so.
    Okay.

    If the candidate's party or the candidate wins an election, they will get public financing or if the candidate can collect the signatures of somewhere around 2 to 3% of the registered voting population's signatures in a petition than they will get it too. This will be a boon for smaller parties and put them on a more equal playing field.
    To put that in perspective - the average Congressional district has around 750,000 people in it. 3% of that is 22,500 people. It costs about $2/signature to hire people to petition, so under your framework, there would be a $45,000 upfront cost for petitioning alone before a candidate would have access to the same resources as major candidates. With a $200 limit per donor, nobody who is not part of a major party will be able to raise that much money.

    Let's set that aside for a minute - when these candidates qualify for public financing, how much are you going to give them? Remember that all of this money is coming out of our pockets.

    Unfortunately the supreme court threw a wrench in this one and it perverts free speech to be tainted with money, so I haven't come up with a good answer yet.
    Pretend that this decision and the 35 years of jurisprudence explicitly defining money as speech never happened. How it would work in your ideal world?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Lobbyist charges $30,400 to ‘raise a glass’ with Pelosi

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Filed under the category "Your hypocritical congresscritters in action":



    But aren't the Democrats the ones who are criticizing the Republicans for this kind of stuff? Oh yea, that's right. Do as I say, not as I do.

    Sorry, Dems, but your party really sucks. If you really believed that Republican fund raising was all that evil, you wouldn't be doing the same thing now, would you?

    Goes to show you that, when a politician is bought, he or she STAYS bought.

    Article is here.
    This type of lobbying needs to be banned.

  3. #13
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

    Re: Lobbyist charges $30,400 to ‘raise a glass’ with Pelosi

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Let's set that aside for a minute - when these candidates qualify for public financing, how much are you going to give them? Remember that all of this money is coming out of our pockets.
    David Duke used to make a pretty good living out of losing elections; almost all of the public funding money was paid to a political consultant company that he owned.

    At least with private donations, the people get to select the person they think can best represent them. With public financing we are simply funding fringe nutcases like Ralph Nader and David Duke whose messages are about as inspirational and sensible as the average street preacher.
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

  4. #14
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Lobbyist charges $30,400 to ‘raise a glass’ with Pelosi

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    Another good reason to throw private money out of politics entirely. If we have full public financing than there is no incentive for crap like this to happen for any party.
    Yea..... just like Obama did in the last election..... oh, wait.... never mind.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  5. #15
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Lobbyist charges $30,400 to ‘raise a glass’ with Pelosi

    [quote=RightinNYC;1058527572]Okay.



    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    To put that in perspective - the average Congressional district has around 750,000 people in it. 3% of that is 22,500 people. It costs about $2/signature to hire people to petition, so under your framework, there would be a $45,000 upfront cost for petitioning alone before a candidate would have access to the same resources as major candidates. With a $200 limit per donor, nobody who is not part of a major party will be able to raise that much money.
    Honestly, this is an excellent question and I had not considered that people were hired for what I thought was volunteer work. But I can think of a few solutions.
    Perhaps set the limit to $500 which most average people can still usually afford if they are passionate, or maybe allow $200 per quarter or month, or maybe have a more loose limit before the candidacy paperwork is turned in, I will have to think through this.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Let's set that aside for a minute - when these candidates qualify for public financing, how much are you going to give them? Remember that all of this money is coming out of our pockets.
    This depends on the race of course. Presidential would be about $300 million. The average cost of a senate and house election in 2008 was $5.3 million and $1.1 million respectively. With the senate (and somewhat for the house) there would need to be some flexing depending on exact populations, but that seems to be a good amount.

    Using 2008 as a standard, this (assuming 4 candidates for each race, 5 for presidency, which seems reasonable to me) works out to about $4.1 billion. I estimate about $2.6 billion in a nonpresidential year such as 2010. Not really that much given the scale of the US federal budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Pretend that this decision and the 35 years of jurisprudence explicitly defining money as speech never happened. How it would work in your ideal world?
    Obviously money has a lot to do with speech. I cannot deny that. Nor can I deny the reasoning that the courts use, which is pretty obvious to me. I do think that the way the money is generate is what causes what I believe a perversion of our system away from the average person and more to wealthy causes (or the causes of the wealthy) causing unequal representation of the citizenry, thus causing have some to have less speech than others.

    There should be nothing preventing a corporation, charity, etc from running ads saying stuff like "abortion is wrong" or "we dislike prayer in schools" as long as there is full disclosure of funding, and the message is not tied to another candidate, group, regulation, specific policy proposal or existing law. So they could not say person or group X is good or bad for Y reasons. Any facts used should be cited at the end of the commercial and accessible on the web or other inquiry. This, I believe, would direct advocacy towards citizens and not politicians but would cut out the inflammatory and inaccurate speech the both parties currently use, who would than vote for their priorities against a greater number of candidates. In the case of no majority, I don't know what would happen at the national level since I don't think it has ever happened, but at the local level, have a runoff of some type.

    In terms of affect, I don't know what would happen, but I think it would make the government more responsive to its citizen's concerns. Whether that means things go more conservative, liberal, or some other direction, like libertarian, I can not say and really isn't important as long as the government does a better job of representing its citizens.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 02-02-10 at 08:35 PM.

  6. #16
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Lobbyist charges $30,400 to ‘raise a glass’ with Pelosi

    Quote Originally Posted by Crunch View Post
    Yea..... just like Obama did in the last election..... oh, wait.... never mind.
    I know and it sucks.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Lobbyist charges $30,400 to ‘raise a glass’ with Pelosi

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    So only party members get the public financing? Sounds like you want to protect the Democrats and Republican establishment at the expense of insurgent candidates, third parties, and independents.

    No outside donations are allowed? What about donations to advocacy groups that are separate from the campaign? They're not donating to the candidate directly, so it looks like it would be a-okay in your book, right?
    I am for doing whatver is necessary to prevent politicians from being owned by business.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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