View Poll Results: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

Voters
176. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    66 37.50%
  • No

    110 62.50%
Page 29 of 45 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 443

Thread: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

  1. #281
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    10-29-17 @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,684

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Private voting makes it EASIER to bribe a voter. Think about it.
    No they don't. You could take a bribe for everyone in a private vote and still vote for the one who didn't pay you. In a private vote you vote for your best option.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post

    In the U.S., all donations to candidates are publicly reported and easily accessed by anyone, by the way. And they are donations to the campaign - to support their election. Much like one would, say, volunteer to help with an election, because you want the candidate to win. Donations don't go in the politician's pockets for personal use - that's actual bribery and it is illegal.
    I am aware they are donations to the campaign. The desire to get elected can make someone subject to bribery. That is enough. The job goes in their pocket so to speak.
    George Monboit "Neoliberalism is inherently incompatible with democracy, as people will always rebel against the austerity and fiscal tyranny it prescribes. Something has to give, and it must be the people. This is the true road to serfdom: disinventing democracy on behalf of the elite."

  2. #282
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,910
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    Simon W. Moon
    I've read two of your posts on this subject. They are very salient, accurate, informative etc.; all goood stuff. But my simple point that you may have missed in this thread is the following. And quoting myself "I voted No for a practical reason. That is I don’t think such a law could be effectively enforced. Money moves so easily from person to person and place to place, that is the intent of money. So tracking it close to an election and enforcing a law in courts is not going to work."; and the only solution I see is "What we have to rely on are a sufficient number of educated voters that are resistant to dogma, advertising, and the ilk that they effectively decide elections." Do you have another solution that would work better? Thanks.
    If we wanted to, we could simply require all donations to campaigns be recorded. Using the donation limits, even if entity A gave money to person B to donate to the campaign, we'd still be much better off than the current situation. and in effect, because of the donation limits, that would be Person B's choice of what to do with their "voice." And, we would still be better off than the current system even if we don't create a perfect one.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    No, I'm saying that's what you're saying even if you don't know it.
    w/e. That's an empty allegation if ever I heard one.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    There's no practical difference between the two.
    That is also untrue. There're reasons why lobbying efforts are directed at the govt instead of the electorate. The reasons involve the practical differences between lobbying several hundred people who have a direct hand in the matter versus lobbying a few hundred millions who only affect things indirectly.
    Last edited by Simon W. Moon; 11-23-11 at 12:47 PM.
    I may be wrong.

  3. #283
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,910
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Private voting makes it EASIER to bribe a voter. Think about it.
    The increased ease of bribing a single individuals who isn't being monitored is outweighed by the general ineffectiveness of having to bribe so many more people. The electorate more than an order of magnitude larger than the legislature.
    I may be wrong.

  4. #284
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by alexa View Post
    No they don't. You could take a bribe for everyone in a private vote and still vote for the one who didn't pay you. In a private vote you vote for your best option.
    On the other hand, you can't prosecute someone for taking a bribe if you don't know how they voted for.

    I am aware they are donations to the campaign. The desire to get elected can make someone subject to bribery. That is enough. The job goes in their pocket so to speak.
    The desire to get elected can make someone subject to thousands of different things, some (but not most, since most are in full view of the voters) that may be contrary to the interest of the voters. This is merely one of them.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  5. #285
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    The increased ease of bribing a single individuals who isn't being monitored is outweighed by the general ineffectiveness of having to bribe so many more people. The electorate more than an order of magnitude larger than the legislature.
    Doesn't seem to be affected by the secret ballot though.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  6. #286
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    w/e. That's an empty allegation if ever I heard one.
    No, it's simply pointing out the fundamental flaw in your logic.

    That is also untrue. There're reasons why lobbying efforts are directed at the govt instead of the electorate. The reasons involve the practical differences between lobbying several hundred people who have a direct hand in the matter versus lobbying a few hundred millions who only affect things indirectly.
    Okay, so how do you make a law that clearly distinguishes between the two, i.e. defines lobbying in a way that doesn't encompass the other?
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  7. #287
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    10-29-17 @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,684

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    On the other hand, you can't prosecute someone for taking a bribe if you don't know how they voted for.
    and you are not going to pay someone money when you don't know who they voted for. Private voting ends bribery on voting.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post

    The desire to get elected can make someone subject to thousands of different things, some (but not most, since most are in full view of the voters) that may be contrary to the interest of the voters. This is merely one of them.
    We hear that American's are subject to the wishes of a band of people who dish out the money. In the UK there are people funding all three main parties. Why on earth would that be.....obvious. If we want proper politics for the people, then the corruption which has become ingrained into funding of elections has to end.
    George Monboit "Neoliberalism is inherently incompatible with democracy, as people will always rebel against the austerity and fiscal tyranny it prescribes. Something has to give, and it must be the people. This is the true road to serfdom: disinventing democracy on behalf of the elite."

  8. #288
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by alexa View Post
    and you are not going to pay someone money when you don't know who they voted for. Private voting ends bribery on voting.
    So do you want to make votes in Congress private too?

    We hear that American's are subject to the wishes of a band of people who dish out the money. In the UK there are people funding all three main parties. Why on earth would that be.....obvious. If we want proper politics for the people, then the corruption which has become ingrained into funding of elections has to end.
    No, you simply vote for someone who doesn't take the money. Pretty simple.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  9. #289
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,910
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    No, it's simply pointing out the fundamental flaw in your logic.
    You didn't point anything out. You made an unsupported accusation. If you had said something and then provided some sort of supporting evidence, then you MAY have done what you think you have done.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Okay, so how do you make a law that clearly distinguishes between the two, i.e. defines lobbying in a way that doesn't encompass the other?
    Is there some difficulty in distinguishing between the legislature the electorate and the govt? I am not sure there's a real problem with that.
    I may be wrong.

  10. #290
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    10-29-17 @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,684

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    So do you want to make votes in Congress private too?
    That is a different question.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post

    No, you simply vote for someone who doesn't take the money. Pretty simple.
    So you will only vote for multi millionaires who can afford to fund themselves?
    George Monboit "Neoliberalism is inherently incompatible with democracy, as people will always rebel against the austerity and fiscal tyranny it prescribes. Something has to give, and it must be the people. This is the true road to serfdom: disinventing democracy on behalf of the elite."

Page 29 of 45 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... 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
  •