• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

So one millionaire is worth 10 of you and your friends. And you think that's equal? Why is the millionaire more worthy of governmental representation than you?
Click to expand...
Explain how a campaign button is "governmental representation".

I would assume you're smart enough to understand lobbying is simply another name for bribing, correct? Oh, I know theoretical differences exist, but if Big Oil has put millions of dollars over the years into your campaign fund, you're going to help them out.
Click to expand...
If I visit my Congressman, or call his office, to express my opinion, that is lobbying. If I donate money to a group, who in turn sends a representative to talk to my Congressman, to express the group's opinion, that's lobbying.

How is any of that bribing?

If a politician decides that campaign contributions sway his opinion, then the problem is with the politician.

Slyfox696 said:
No, you don't. Everyone has a voice. Everyone can walk out to their street corner and sing the praises of a candidate. But not everyone can donate millions of dollars to a politician for support on legislation.
Click to expand...

I see you ignored my example of why you must put value on in-kind donations, or are you stating that non-official capacity campaigning by anyone is allowed?

I understand what you are arguing. Your view is all politicians are corrupt, and any avenue to restrict their acceptance of cash is high value. In each example we've talked about, you eventually return to money = bribes = do what I say. Not sure why you don't just address corrupt politicians.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
If you are incapable of recognizing that so long as we legislate buying and selling, the first things bought and sold will be legislators, I'm not sure you belong here. Want to get the money out of politics? Make it unprofitable by getting the politicians out of the money.
Click to expand...

I'll just address that - we have legislators and their JOB is to make laws, regulate, tax, spend. So how does one eliminate the legislating of "buying and selling" when we have government and their entire reason to exist is to do just that? So to the extent that it's unprofitable for Big Money if somehow politicians did get out of the money, they're willing to spend massive amounts making sure that does not happen.

Ironically, by reducing the reach of government and it's power to effect who wins and who loses in the marketplace, Cruz would actually reduce the incentives for the Big Money Folks to invest in politicians, reducing their extent to which "a wealthy few control the government."
Click to expand...

You're not that naive. As often as not, the reason to 'invest' in a politician is to legalize what is or should be illegal. Pollution is always a good example - reduce the reach of government and its power to prevent it, and polluters offload their costs onto the rest of us, without limits or with fewer limits. The "big money folks" seek to privatize profits, and socialize losses. As any bought sheriff knows, that can happen when the sheriff simply does NOT do things, such as worry why a helicopter is making regular trips to a farm at the end of that road (example from near where I am).
 
Slyfox696 said:
No, I didn't get why you post such an absurd comment or why you used guns to make the point when we aren't banning speech.
Click to expand...

You are attempting to ban speech. Specifically you are attempting to ban it beyond an arbitrary threshold.

The effect will occur. Your argument that it doesn't is lacking any credibility. Will the law be violated? Sure, just like laws against theft and murder are violated. But it wouldn't change the fact that MOST people would abide by the law, which is the point.
Click to expand...

The effect will certainly not occur - and my argument has the credibility of having already happened. We can say with the perfect vision of hindsight that I am, in fact, correct on this. Which is why you chose to cut that point out of my reply when you responded :)

The idea we can't legislate because the law might be violated is absurd.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That is why the "you'll just push them into illegal abortions!" argument is invalid.

I'm not arguing to make it more difficult, I'm arguing to set a limit. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Oh. So what If I were to not donate to a candidate, but instead donate to a group of like-minded individuals who believe in pooling their resources to benefit the public mind, and believe that the best way in which the public mind can be benefited is that it be adequately educated concerning the dangers of Candidate X, who just so happens to oppose my preferred Candidate Y? What if I were not even to donate in the context of an election, but rather to a cause that does political lobbying, such as the Sierra Club? What if I were to stand up my own advocacy organization, as Bill and Melinda Gates have done? Am I not exercising more speech than those who do not do this?

No, I am not. I find it funny someone who isn't making sense tries to tell me what I'M arguing.
Click to expand...

:shrug: it is not my fault you are self contradicting, first seeking equal speech, and then admitting that you are fine with unequal speech; insisting that exercising a right is the same as having a right, and then admitting that not exercising a right does not mean that you do not have it.

Nonsense. It's simple mathematics.

Let's say one family has only $500 they can spend in a year and another family has $20 million they can spend. If there are no limits, the first family's donation is a minute percentage of what is spent between the two families. If the limit is $750, then that $500 is 33% of what is spent.

This creates a far more equal situation of speech.
Click to expand...

So you are not actually in favor of equal speech, you are in favor of limiting the speech of others down to where it is closer to the speech of the lowest common denominator.... which is pretty much what I described with Joe Schmoe. You wish to limit my speech to something more in line with his capability to come up with disposable cash.

Unfortunately, the concept is the same - the ability and willingness of my family to spend more on pro-life causes does not mean that either Bill Gates or the homeless bum on the street are having their right to do so limited.

Additionally, it is worth noting, what happens here is not that the family's both spend $500 on political speech. What happens here is that one family spends $500 on political speech, and another spends $100,000 on lawyers and $1.9 million on political speech.

The ability of a right is not removed if a person chooses not to use it. It IS removed it they are denied using it.
Click to expand...

Precisely correct.

And being able to only spend $500 compared to $20 million is, in essence, being denied from using it.
Click to expand...

Precisely incorrect, just as being able to spend only $500 compared to $750 is not being denied from using it. Nobody is denying anyone without $20 million from donating it. No one is restricting them. They are restricted only by themselves.

Are you really trying to claim my position is faulty because of a 100% equal standard? That's asinine.
Click to expand...

I agree, it would be asinine, which is why I so strongly opposed your defense of Equal Speech earlier. :) I am happy to see that you have decided to abandon that standard for one that feels better to you, even if it is logically incoherent.

Not once have I said it has to be 100% the exact same amount of money.
Click to expand...

...What does "equal" mean, in your world?
 
Slyfox696 said:
The point isn't so that everyone spends EXACTLY the same amount of money and for you to build that strawman to knock down is dishonest. The point is that everyone has equal speech, not equal ability to spend.
Click to expand...

:doh, except that if money is speech, then equal speech does require equal money.

I don't know if you went to a public school where they didn't cover this, or not, but in mathematics this is known as: "If A=B, and B=C, then A=C".

Obviously some people will choose to spend less of the limit, no one argues that. But that doesn't mean they would be denied the opportunity to, which is what currently happens.
Click to expand...

:lol: Really. So let us say that the limit is lowered, and I choose to spend less than the limit - let us say I choose to spend only $50.

Now, let us say that the law is suddenly reversed, and the current laws are put back on the books. What, exactly, is denying me the opportunity to spend $50?

You are confusing the effects of a floor, with those of a ceiling. If we were to say (for example) that you have to spend a minimum of $750 in order to donate, then your opportunity would be restricted. If we were to say that you have to spend exactly $750 (gotta be equal, after all!), then your opportunity would be restricted. But so long as you are free to spend whatever you please, your opportunity is not restricted.


But do you see here how "Unequal Money"="Unequal Speech", if "Speech"="Money"?


Everyone can scrape together a sizeable percentage of $750 (again, just a random number). Not everyone can scrape together a sizable percentage of $200 million.
Click to expand...

:shrug: so? So long as everyone is free to spend what they please, their opportunity to speak is not restricted :)

If it comes down to what Mark Cuban wants or what I want, Mark Cuban will always win, regardless of the merits of his position. This is not equal.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, politicians do not win seats based off of how much money they have - they win them based off of how many votes they get. If you are effective at convincing more of your neighbors (or, if more of your neighbors simply agree with you, and value the topic as strongly as you do), then you will indeed defeat Mark Cuban.
 
JasperL said:
I'll just address that - we have legislators and their JOB is to make laws, regulate, tax, spend. So how does one eliminate the legislating of "buying and selling" when we have government and their entire reason to exist is to do just that?
Click to expand...

Where in the world did you get this idea?

Might I suggest some light reading?

You're not that naive. As often as not, the reason to 'invest' in a politician is to legalize what is or should be illegal. Pollution is always a good example - reduce the reach of government and its power to prevent it, and polluters offload their costs onto the rest of us, without limits or with fewer limits. The "big money folks" seek to privatize profits, and socialize losses. As any bought sheriff knows, that can happen when the sheriff simply does NOT do things, such as worry why a helicopter is making regular trips to a farm at the end of that road (example from near where I am).
Click to expand...

Pollution is indeed an excellent example - big businesses use EPA regulations to protect themselves from competition all the time. 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.

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.
 
Dittohead not! said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Dittohead not! said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
cpwill said:
Where in the world did you get this idea?

Might I suggest some light reading?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

So, do away with laws against monopolies? What's your suggestion?
 
JasperL said:
If a legislator isn't passing laws, regulating, taxing and/or spending, what is his role? What else is there - naming post offices?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Now that's funny. Go to China to learn what life is like where the economy isn't controlled by the government :roll:

How is that done, exactly?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.....
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :roll:
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Dittohead not! said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Samhain said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dittohead not! said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Summerwind said:
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.
Click to expand...

Both people could say the same thing, but depending on their circle of friends, the impact is different.
 
"Hello Forest, can't see you, I'm looking at this tree..."


That's most of the discussion on this thread. The problem, in the end isn't the money spent in political campaign donations. It's not which side get's more from which cause both have their cash cows. Dem's rely more on big single donations and the GOP get's theirs through massed smaller contributions through various groups. The problem is the people voting. Seriously. And no amount of complaining about the "Money in politics" is going to fix that. As long as we keep allowing power to congeal in DC, the worse the situation is going to get. That's why the nation was set up as a Representative Republic, to dilute the influence of wealth and keep the political class as it were, as accountable to the local level as possible.

The only real solution would be to limit campaign spending, not donations. But that again hits the wall of what you restrict outside groups to doing. And that's the rub. If only the campaign's can spend say, 5 million on senate campaign for example... how do you constitutionally justify telling a group of people not part of the campaign they cannot use speech to support the candidate? You cannot and it would immoral to try.

The people, need to be wiser voters, but that's not gonna happen with out current level of bribed stupidity and terribly divided country.
 
Samhain said:
Explain how a campaign button is "governmental representation".
Click to expand...
It's a campaign contribution and the millionaire's voice is much more likely to be heard than the 10 of yours.

If I visit my Congressman, or call his office, to express my opinion, that is lobbying. If I donate money to a group, who in turn sends a representative to talk to my Congressman, to express the group's opinion, that's lobbying.

How is any of that bribing?
Click to expand...
Because a politician is going to work for whomever makes him the most money. Politician A isn't going to say "well, Coca-Cola is responsible for half of my money, but I'm going to vote to make Pepsi the official soda". They are going to work for who gives them the money. At this point, there's little realistic difference between lobbying and bribing and you know it.

are you stating that non-official capacity campaigning by anyone is allowed?
Click to expand...
I'm stating that time and voice is, essentially, equal amongst everyone. Money is not. If I want to go campaign for my local Republican official, I can work as many hours as I want to do so. I can stand on the street corner and talk to anyone I want to. What I can't do, however, is donate a couple million dollars to his cause.

I understand what you are arguing. Your view is all politicians are corrupt, and any avenue to restrict their acceptance of cash is high value. In each example we've talked about, you eventually return to money = bribes = do what I say. Not sure why you don't just address corrupt politicians.
Click to expand...
Because it's the system which is corrupted. And sure, there are things we can do to mitigate those influences, but at the end of the day, most politicians care most about winning re-election. And you can only win re-election if you have the financial means to compete.
cpwill said:
You are attempting to ban speech.
Click to expand...
cpwill said:
:doh, except that if money is speech, then equal speech does require equal money.

I don't know if you went to a public school where they didn't cover this, or not, but in mathematics this is known as: "If A=B, and B=C, then A=C".
Click to expand...
I read just these two lines and it's obvious you have no desire to post honestly about my position. I don't understand why you feel the need to post dishonestly, but I grow tired of dealing with this nonsense.

If you wish to discuss my position, not some lie you've concocted to be my position, let me know. Until then, I'll just assume you enjoy bending over backwards to sell our government to the wealthy elite.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I read just these two lines and it's obvious you have no desire to post honestly about my position. I don't understand why you feel the need to post dishonestly, but I grow tired of dealing with this nonsense.

If you wish to discuss my position, not some lie you've concocted to be my position, let me know. Until then, I'll just assume you enjoy bending over backwards to sell our government to the wealthy elite.
Click to expand...

I accept your implicit recognition of defeat, and your acquiescence to the fact that you have proposed mutually contradicting standards. :) Enjoy attempting to ban speech, I will simply enjoy watching you fail.
 
MrVicchio said:
"Hello Forest, can't see you, I'm looking at this tree..."

That's most of the discussion on this thread. The problem, in the end isn't the money spent in political campaign donations. It's not which side get's more from which cause both have their cash cows. Dem's rely more on big single donations and the GOP get's theirs through massed smaller contributions through various groups. The problem is the people voting. Seriously. And no amount of complaining about the "Money in politics" is going to fix that. As long as we keep allowing power to congeal in DC, the worse the situation is going to get. That's why the nation was set up as a Representative Republic, to dilute the influence of wealth and keep the political class as it were, as accountable to the local level as possible.

The only real solution would be to limit campaign spending, not donations. But that again hits the wall of what you restrict outside groups to doing. And that's the rub. If only the campaign's can spend say, 5 million on senate campaign for example... how do you constitutionally justify telling a group of people not part of the campaign they cannot use speech to support the candidate? You cannot and it would immoral to try.

The people, need to be wiser voters, but that's not gonna happen with out current level of bribed stupidity and terribly divided country.
Click to expand...

Boom.

If you want to reduce the power of money, reduce the money that can be gained from power.
 
cpwill said:
I accept your implicit recognition of defeat
Click to expand...
When you can't address what I say honestly, it's obvious you are the one who is defeated. If you'd like a second chance, I'm more than happy to discuss it with you like I still am with others. But until you can quit posting lies about what I am saying and have said all along, there's no point in wasting time with someone who thinks poor people shouldn't get to participate in government.
 
I'm a fan of allowing unlimited contribution from private citizens and private associations, including publicly held corporations and mega corporations....unions too.
I loathe the idea of restricting the rights of Americans when it comes to political speech/political contributions.

but i'm also a big fan of fixing the problem of "too much money and corruption in politics"...which is why I only advocate that we provide limits on the politicians and candidates themselves.
 
I agree with this.

What is the point in trying to limit donations...corporations/the rich ALWAYS find a a way around them.

The only stipulation I would have is that every dollar a candidate takes in must be publicly declared from whom and how much it was. Other then that - no limit.
 
Slyfox696 said:
When you can't address what I say honestly, it's obvious you are the one who is defeated. If you'd like a second chance, I'm more than happy to discuss it with you like I still am with others. But until you can quit posting lies about what I am saying and have said all along, there's no point in wasting time with someone who thinks poor people shouldn't get to participate in government.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I only quoted you to demonstrate that what you were saying was foolish, ill-advised, a proven failure, and self-contradictory.


Which is part of why, instead of addressing the points I brought up, you block-quoted some of them and simply responded with a "I'm taking my ball and going home!" response.
 
DA60 said:
I agree with this.

What is the point in trying to limit donations...corporations/the rich ALWAYS find a a way around them.

The only stipulation I would have is that every dollar a candidate takes in must be publicly declared from whom and how much it was. Other then that - no limit.
Click to expand...

meh, i'm no a fan of mandated disclosure either.... some folks would like to remain anonymous to prevent retribution and i don't think anyone should be forced to identify themselves if hey wish to remain anonymous.

there might be other ways to provide insulation between donor and candidate, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom