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 41 of 45 FirstFirst ... 313940414243 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 443

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

  1. #401
    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
    Lobbying/attempting to influence members of the govt is not limited exclusively words. Mere words aren't really the issue. I am not sure how re-explain that in another way. I have already pointed out more than once what problems arise from our current system which [among several things] allows small groups to garner exclusive benefits with diffuse costs borne by the many. This is done in a manner that is not open and easily accessible to the electorate. The law makers make decisions based on their own concerns which are being met by various lobbyists. This is not what is intended nor what is desirable for a representative government. I am more than willing to link back to my previous posts which discuss this and a couple of other associated flaws if you like.
    You asked for definitions and I gave them, and I think they're best.

    That would be freaking awesome. I'm glad you're starting to come around.
    Great! Then stop trying to suppress speech. Glad you're starting to come around.

    It's totally not about "the people can't handle speech." It's about the people not being allowed to "hear" the "speech". The "speech" takes place between lobbyists and elected officials--the people are being excluded. That's the point where it all starts to get weird.
    We're talking about different things here - which is why you need to stop using definitions willy nilly, like I said.

    I was talking about independent ads. What are you referring to here?

    You're railing against something other than what I am talking about.
    Right - so stop mixing up definitions, like I asked you to.

    Take the sugar industry example posted earlier. Did the public discuss the issue and form an opinion that they would like to give an extra $5 apiece to the Fanul family? No. The Fanjul family didn't talk to the electorate about it. I suspect that upwards of 90% of the US electorate has no idea about it.
    And why is that? And how would you change that?

    The electorate doesn't care about that. Not enough to do much about it. Few people will go visit their congressmen about it. Yet the public might pay a few cents each to join a group that hires a LOBBYIST to work against sugar subsidies on their behalf.

    I am very much for the Fanjul family making their case and being heard. I am so totally for it that I want them to take their case out of the seclusion of only having to discuss it with Congresscritters and have them announce aloud to the nation and let the electorate hear it.
    Anyone is free to bring up the subject at any time, and even ask the congress member about it.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  2. #402
    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
    I am all for various groups et al lobbying the electorate.
    Could you answer the question please?
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  3. #403
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,953
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    You asked for definitions and I gave them, and I think they're best.
    My bad. I thought we agreed to use the one from the dictionary since it included teh meaning that is in common use and you didn't provide a term that fit the common use meaning.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    We're talking about different things here - which is why you need to stop using definitions willy nilly, like I said.
    I was talking about independent ads. What are you referring to here?
    Same thing as always. The activities that are undertaken to directly influence the actions of members of the govt, otherwise generally referred to as lobbying. This is a broad range of things that includes among them but is not limited to providing financing for campaigns and parties.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Right - so stop mixing up definitions, like I asked you to.
    My bad. I thought we agreed to use the one from the dictionary since it included teh meaning that is in common use and you didn't provide a term that fit the common use meaning.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    And why is that? And how would you change that?
    The subject of this thread...

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    The electorate doesn't care about that. Not enough to do much about it. Few people will go visit their congressmen about it.
    I know. That's exactly what I have been saying. Hence the need to change the system to one that doesn't allow an end run around the electorate.

    If you like I can re-post the reasons why the electorate is un-informed of the various goings on like the Fanjul one and why the electorate is comparatively insufficiently motivated to do something about it and the various other similar situations.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Yet the public might pay a few cents each to join a group that hires a LOBBYIST to work against sugar subsidies on their behalf.
    They might if they knew of it and there was someone who was organizing the whole affair to make sure that the awareness was able to be turned into a reasonable chance of action. Yet that's not happening.
    The system is flawed.
    I know it's working well enough for you and for the various people who're being lobbied, but it's not serving the needs of the electorate.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Anyone is free to bring up the subject at any time, and even ask the congress member about it.
    Yes, that's true. The next time I am out golfing with my senator I'll bring it up. Except, I don't have the same access to my senator that the various special interest groups do. Nor can I offer my senator the various benefits that the Fanjul family can offer. That presents a problem. People from another state, (or country for that matter) have more access and influence on my elected official on these certain matters than I do as a member of the electorate.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Could you answer the question please?
    I am not sure what you're asking exactly.
    I may be wrong.

  4. #404
    User
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    11-29-11 @ 12:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9

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

    We have the best government money can buy! When we get the politicians off the teat of the lobbyists, with some major changes to campaign finance, we can cool down the political climate. Washington is clogged with money! Its coming out of the sewers! Instead of making the government flow, it has clogged up the process. It is the elephant in the room of our democracy.

  5. #405
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rickety View Post
    We have the best government money can buy! When we get the politicians off the teat of the lobbyists, with some major changes to campaign finance, we can cool down the political climate. Washington is clogged with money! Its coming out of the sewers! Instead of making the government flow, it has clogged up the process. It is the elephant in the room of our democracy.
    It one of the reasons we have low congress approval and incumbents keep getting reelected. Incumbents have a money advantage.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  6. #406
    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
    Same thing as always. The activities that are undertaken to directly influence the actions of members of the govt, otherwise generally referred to as lobbying. This is a broad range of things that includes among them but is not limited to providing financing for campaigns and parties.
    Fine, but those activities are not in and of themselves "lobbying" nor are they required for lobbying. So if you are complaining about donations, you should say donations, not lobbying, because you can have lobbying without donations, and vice versa.

    The subject of this thread...
    Since corporate and union money is already legally banned as a source of funds for candidates, further discussion is required.
    I know. That's exactly what I have been saying. Hence the need to change the system to one that doesn't allow an end run around the electorate.
    Nothing enjoys an end-run around the electorate. All votes and proceedings in Congress (save a few national security items) are public record.

    why the electorate is comparatively insufficiently motivated to do something about it and the various other similar situations.
    I blame the electorate for any lack of motivation.

    They might if they knew of it and there was someone who was organizing the whole affair to make sure that the awareness was able to be turned into a reasonable chance of action. Yet that's not happening.
    Sure it is. Happens every day. List an issue and I'll find a group that's working on it.

    Yes, that's true. The next time I am out golfing with my senator I'll bring it up. Except, I don't have the same access to my senator that the various special interest groups do.
    You don't need to golf with him. You can write him, or meet him at a town meeting, or even visit his office in DC or at home and talk to his staff. I've done all these as a private citizen.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  7. #407
    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 rickety View Post
    We have the best government money can buy! When we get the politicians off the teat of the lobbyists, with some major changes to campaign finance, we can cool down the political climate. Washington is clogged with money! Its coming out of the sewers! Instead of making the government flow, it has clogged up the process. It is the elephant in the room of our democracy.
    Read through the thread before you bomb it with a comment please.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  8. #408
    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 Catawba View Post
    It one of the reasons we have low congress approval and incumbents keep getting reelected. Incumbents have a money advantage.
    Incumbents keep getting more votes. Why is that?
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  9. #409
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,953
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Fine, but those activities are not in and of themselves "lobbying" nor are they required for lobbying. So if you are complaining about donations, you should say donations, not lobbying, because you can have lobbying without donations, and vice versa.
    I thought just a few posts ago we agreed to use the dictionary definition of lobbying rather than your special definition because you didn't provide another word that describes the activity under discussion and because the dictionary definition is often a reasonable definition to use.


    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Since corporate and union money is already legally banned as a source of funds for candidates, further discussion is required.
    This would be one of those good times for you to provide some additional information. Like some sort of a citation which elaborates and confirms your assertion. Because, that money is getting into the revenue stream somehow. Just because it has to jump through hoops or be funneled into another entity on its way or w/e doesn't really negate its practical impact.
    So, if you can, please provide some educational information in this area.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Nothing enjoys an end-run around the electorate. All votes and proceedings in Congress (save a few national security items) are public record.
    As I have been pointing out, this is insufficient. The costs of securing this information effectively renders it secluded and obscured to the general public. Hence the wonky things that occur.
    I have discussed this in multiple posts relating to rational ignorance and rational irrationality. If you want to use a different phrase to describe the fact that the general electorate remains ignorant of these things and there's not much incentive for either the lobbying side nor the legislative side to fill them in on them, feel free. But end run around seems adequate.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    I blame the electorate for any lack of motivation.
    Of course you do. And rather than work on a way to involve the electorate and improve the country, you'd rather continue a system which benefits your profession at the expense of the electorate and the nation. To paraphrase one of your earlier comments, "Who do they think they are?" It
    's almost as if members of the electorate think that just power is derived from the consent of the governed--the uppity little ****s.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Sure it is. Happens every day. List an issue and I'll find a group that's working on it.
    Go for it. You can start with the example most recently listed of the Fanjul family. What lobbying group is specifically against that agenda and why are they failing?
    And then you can explain the significance of the needing to hire even more lobbyists to effectively influence our public servants rather than have them be inherently more responsive to the needs of their constituents. Why should we prefer to have even more lobbyists rather than a more responsive govt?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    You don't need to golf with him. You can write him, or meet him at a town meeting, or even visit his office in DC or at home and talk to his staff. I've done all these as a private citizen.
    Your response to the charge that my influence as a citizen is less than the influence of a lobbyist is to suggest things which are less effective than what lobbyists do. It's obvious that these things are less effective, or else lobbyists wouldn't have to do the other things that they do. That doesn't actually seem like much of a rebuttal--more of a chiming in.
    Last edited by Simon W. Moon; 11-29-11 at 10:47 AM.
    I may be wrong.

  10. #410
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,953
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Incumbents keep getting more votes. Why is that?
    I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that his answer to your question is actually contained in the snippet you quoted. Just a guess. Check the quote you used and see.
    I may be wrong.

Page 41 of 45 FirstFirst ... 313940414243 ... 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
  •