• 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!

Teddy Roosevelt tried to reform campaign finance, but also lined his own pockets!

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We love Teddy

He was the famous trust buster who took up the cause of campaign finance reform by supporting the Tillman Act of 1907, which banned corporate contributions to federal campaigns.

He also amassed a $2.2 million war chest ($52 million in today's dollars), mainly by hitting up businessmen who had reason to fear him. The donations included $150,000 from Wall Street banker J.P. Morgan, $100,000 from railroad tycoon George Jay Gould, $125,000 from Standard Oil, and $150,000 from three insurance companies.

Ironic, isn't it?
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We love Teddy

He was the famous trust buster who took up the cause of campaign finance reform by supporting the Tillman Act of 1907, which banned corporate contributions to federal campaigns.

He also amassed a $2.2 million war chest ($52 million in today's dollars), mainly by hitting up businessmen who had reason to fear him. The donations included $150,000 from Wall Street banker J.P. Morgan, $100,000 from railroad tycoon George Jay Gould, $125,000 from Standard Oil, and $150,000 from three insurance companies.

Ironic, isn't it?

Source? (Ten characters)
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Source? (Ten characters)

It's been well documented. Read Henry F. Pringle's biography of Teddy, or Nathan Millers'. Lincoln Steffens also made note of it in his 1938 letters (vol. 1).
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's been well documented. Read Henry F. Pringle's biography of Teddy, or Nathan Millers'. Lincoln Steffens also made note of it in his 1938 letters (vol. 1).

I wouldnt doubt it could very well be true, but I'd still think its common courstasy to provide a source rather than insist people do your research.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
True, but the fact that you actually asked for the sources means you couldn't believe it at face value. It probably shakes at the very core of progessivism, as T.R. is often seen as the iconic leader of this movement.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
True, but the fact that you actually asked for the sources means you couldn't believe it at face value. It probably shakes at the very core of progessivism, as T.R. is often seen as the iconic leader of this movement.

Ya its got nothing to do with politics, I just demand sources for everything. Just cause something sounds plausible doesnt mean its true.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ya its got nothing to do with politics, I just demand sources for everything. Just cause something sounds plausible doesnt mean its true.

Whatever. Now that you know it's true, would you like to share your thoughts? Or must I wait for the others to respond (that is, if they will :)
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We love Teddy

He was the famous trust buster who took up the cause of campaign finance reform by supporting the Tillman Act of 1907, which banned corporate contributions to federal campaigns.

He also amassed a $2.2 million war chest ($52 million in today's dollars), mainly by hitting up businessmen who had reason to fear him. The donations included $150,000 from Wall Street banker J.P. Morgan, $100,000 from railroad tycoon George Jay Gould, $125,000 from Standard Oil, and $150,000 from three insurance companies.

Ironic, isn't it?

And when were all those contributions made? Before or after the Tillman Act?
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And when were all those contributions made? Before or after the Tillman Act?

Before. The only reason reason he took on the cause of campaign finance reform was because his opponent, Alton Parker, embarrassed him by publicizing his financial support from big business. Parker claimed corporations wee trying to curry the president's favor by donating heavily to his campaign, and Roosevelt called it a "wicked falsehood."
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Before. The only reason reason he took on the cause of campaign finance reform was because his opponent, Alton Parker, embarrassed him by publicizing his financial support from big business. Parker claimed corporations wee trying to curry the president's favor by donating heavily to his campaign, and Roosevelt called it a "wicked falsehood."

So he followed the law until the law he advocated was changed. No big deal. That's like calling out libertarians for accepting Social Security checks or taking public transportation or being educated in the public school system. No biggie.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So he followed the law until the law he advocated was changed. No big deal. That's like calling out libertarians for accepting Social Security checks or taking public transportation or being educated in the public school system. No biggie.

So, hypocrisy is no big deal?

And btw, libertarians do not have a choice on Social Security. They invest in that ill-fated ponzi scheme because they're forced to. And being a libertarian doesn't mean you're forced to conform to YOUR idea of what libertarianism should be. Many poor libertarians are also forced to send their kids to a public school system, because in this country, only the wealthy and the politicians get to send their kids anywhere else.

Thanks for proving the fact that liberals, or whatever paleo-neothlic progressivism you stand for, are full of hypocrisy.
 

Donc

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,792
Reaction score
2,589
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
We love Teddy

He was the famous trust buster who took up the cause of campaign finance reform by supporting the Tillman Act of 1907, which banned corporate contributions to federal campaigns.

He also amassed a $2.2 million war chest ($52 million in today's dollars), mainly by hitting up businessmen who had reason to fear him. The donations included $150,000 from Wall Street banker J.P. Morgan, $100,000 from railroad tycoon George Jay Gould, $125,000 from Standard Oil, and $150,000 from three insurance companies.

Ironic, isn't it?

I believe that T. Roosevelt, in his 1912 presidential campaign also had as one of his main campaign planks was a form of national health insurance.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So, hypocrisy is no big deal?

And btw, libertarians do not have a choice on Social Security. They invest in that ill-fated ponzi scheme because they're forced to. And being a libertarian doesn't mean you're forced to conform to YOUR idea of what libertarianism should be. Many poor libertarians are also forced to send their kids to a public school system, because in this country, only the wealthy and the politicians get to send their kids anywhere else.

Thanks for proving the fact that liberals, or whatever paleo-neothlic progressivism you stand for, are full of hypocrisy.

Okay. So you ignore the hypocrisy of libertarians regarding public transportation? I also hope that all of the libertarians who are workers ignore the safety regulations from the state force on business owners that help provide safe working conditions for them. And why are you and other libertarians even using the internet, since much of it's development and the infrastructure for it was put in place with government dollars?

So thanks for proving the fact that libertarians are just as hypocritical as every other political philosophy out there.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Okay. So you ignore the hypocrisy of libertarians regarding public transportation?

I'm sorry I missed that one. But does that mean I've effectively responded to the other examples you gave?

Here's my response regarding public transportation:

AGAIN, a libertarian does not have to conform to your idea of libertarianism. It's almost useless to even bring up libertarianism, because there are socialistic libertarians who believe the state should have a fundamental role in the economy, and libertarianism is quite possibly the most diverse political ideology. Second, if you ask the majority of libertarians in this country, though they are quite diverse in thought, they will align themselves with "classical liberalism." Classical Liberalism is another broad ideology that encompasses a wide range of interpretations. Some classical liberals believe the government should only serve the function to protect against force and fraud, while others would include basic public infrastructure (roads, highways, canals, bridges, weights & measures, records management), and still others would even go a bit farther. I, myself, actually believe that the government has a role to protect the environment, and this is where I disagree with most libertarians. Many libertarians, when it comes to basic public infrastructure, believe in a public-private partnership. I'm personally afraid to support any sort of public-private partnership because I do not want to merge government and economic power. To me, public-private partnerships = corporatism. But not everybody agrees with me on that one, so let's move on.

I also hope that all of the libertarians who are workers ignore the safety regulations from the state force on business owners that help provide safe working conditions for them.

How can we? That would be against the law.

And why are you and other libertarians even using the internet, since much of it's development and the infrastructure for it was put in place with government dollars?

Though there may be some truth to that, it does not justify the government investment. Governments invest in a lot of things, and many of those investments are costly and unnecessary. This one just happened to be a good idea. But any good investment idea will be capitalized by private entrepreneurs. It's not like the Internet would have never existed had the government never invested in its development. But anyway, if we're going to continue this debate regarding the Internet, I would like to see statistical data. How much investment came directly from the government, and how much from private citizens (or businesses).

So thanks for proving the fact that libertarians are just as hypocritical as every other political philosophy out there.

So, let me get a few things straight. You believe in taxing libertarians for a government investment you deem appropriate (in which case, you are forcing your hand into my pocket), and then you expect libertarians to refuse any and all returns (if there are any) that come from that investment? So, I'm taxed a hundred times a day in order to finance some risky government investment, and then you expect me to surrender ALL returns on that investment? Not only are you stealing from me to finance your own investment, but you would also like to prevent me from receiving ANY gain from such investment?

The second thing I'd like to get straight is this idea of hypocrisy. Instead of directly responding to the hypocrisy of progressivism, I'm instead forced to defend my own political platform. Are you not diverting the entire topic this way?

Let's get back to T.R., shall we? Now that it is a confirmed fact that TR was no more honest in his campaign finance agenda, can we now agree that the Citizens United ruling was a just ruling based on constitutional grounds? If TR can accept millions of dollars in campaign contributions, why can't we all? If the head of the progressive movement, which is also spearheading "campaign finance reform", was a total hypocrite on this most pressing issue, isn't time the progressives re-examine the ruling?
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm sorry I missed that one. But does that mean I've effectively responded to the other examples you gave?

Here's my response regarding public transportation:

AGAIN, a libertarian does not have to conform to your idea of libertarianism. It's almost useless to even bring up libertarianism, because there are socialistic libertarians who believe the state should have a fundamental role in the economy, and libertarianism is quite possibly the most diverse political ideology. Second, if you ask the majority of libertarians in this country, though they are quite diverse in thought, they will align themselves with "classical liberalism." Classical Liberalism is another broad ideology that encompasses a wide range of interpretations. Some classical liberals believe the government should only serve the function to protect against force and fraud, while others would include basic public infrastructure (roads, highways, canals, bridges, weights & measures, records management), and still others would even go a bit farther. I, myself, actually believe that the government has a role to protect the environment, and this is where I disagree with most libertarians. Many libertarians, when it comes to basic public infrastructure, believe in a public-private partnership. I'm personally afraid to support any sort of public-private partnership because I do not want to merge government and economic power. To me, public-private partnerships = corporatism. But not everybody agrees with me on that one, so let's move on.



How can we? That would be against the law.



Though there may be some truth to that, it does not justify the government investment. Governments invest in a lot of things, and many of those investments are costly and unnecessary. This one just happened to be a good idea. But any good investment idea will be capitalized by private entrepreneurs. It's not like the Internet would have never existed had the government never invested in its development. But anyway, if we're going to continue this debate regarding the Internet, I would like to see statistical data. How much investment came directly from the government, and how much from private citizens (or businesses).



So, let me get a few things straight. You believe in taxing libertarians for a government investment you deem appropriate (in which case, you are forcing your hand into my pocket), and then you expect libertarians to refuse any and all returns (if there are any) that come from that investment? So, I'm taxed a hundred times a day in order to finance some risky government investment, and then you expect me to surrender ALL returns on that investment? Not only are you stealing from me to finance your own investment, but you would also like to prevent me from receiving ANY gain from such investment?

The second thing I'd like to get straight is this idea of hypocrisy. Instead of directly responding to the hypocrisy of progressivism, I'm instead forced to defend my own political platform. Are you not diverting the entire topic this way?

Let's get back to T.R., shall we? Now that it is a confirmed fact that TR was no more honest in his campaign finance agenda, can we now agree that the Citizens United ruling was a just ruling based on constitutional grounds? If TR can accept millions of dollars in campaign contributions, why can't we all? If the head of the progressive movement, which is also spearheading "campaign finance reform", was a total hypocrite on this most pressing issue, isn't time the progressives re-examine the ruling?

Okay fine.

Calling T.R. hypocritical for accepting campaign contributions from corporations while advocating campaign finance reform is about as stupid as calling Hillary Clinton hypocritical for conceiving, giving birth to, and raising Chelsea while advocating abortion rights for women.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Okay fine.

Calling T.R. hypocritical for accepting campaign contributions from corporations while advocating campaign finance reform is about as stupid as calling Hillary Clinton hypocritical for conceiving, giving birth to, and raising Chelsea while advocating abortion rights for women.

HOW ON EARTH DO YOU MAKE THAT CONCLUSION? Are you just trying to kill the debate because you have nothing intelligent left to say?
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
HOW ON EARTH DO YOU MAKE THAT CONCLUSION? Are you just trying to kill the debate because you have nothing intelligent left to say?

No. What I'm saying is that you didn't start an intelligent debate.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No. What I'm saying is that you didn't start an intelligent debate.

And what do you classify as an "intelligent debate?" Simply spewing false rhetoric that you agree with?

I started the OP with a basic premise and illustrated that premise with confirmed FACTS. And then you do nothing but divert the topic by using ridiculous metaphors and counter-accusations. Nice.

Would anyone else like to add their thoughts to the thread?
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
And what do you classify as an "intelligent debate?" Simply spewing false rhetoric that you agree with?

I started the OP with a basic premise and illustrated that premise with confirmed FACTS. And then you do nothing but divert the topic by using ridiculous metaphors and counter-accusations. Nice.

Would anyone else like to add their thoughts to the thread?

Yeah. It's not hypocritical to follow a process while also advocating reform for that process.

Just as you advocate less taxes, you still pay for them. That doesn't make you hypocrite.

Just as I advocate Instant Run-off Voting, I don't rank the candidates on a ballot. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

Just as T.R. advocated campaign financing reform, he still accepted corporate contributions as the process allowed. That doesn't make him a hypocrite.

Lots of people are forced to compromise their core beliefs to some degree for the sake of societal order. Those who do aren't hypocrites.

Now if you want to talk about how it's wrong for progressives and liberals to try to institute campaign finance reform laws to limit contributions to candidates, that would be an intelligent debate. Go ahead and make a thread about it. You would be surprised to find that I would agree with you on this issue.

But calling someone a hypocrite for trying to institute reform on a policy while still adhering to the policy he wants reformed is stupid.
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The democratic candidate Alton Parker critisized president Roosevelt for the large campaign contributions by corporations in the 1904 elections, which prompted Roosevelt to pursue campaign finance reform in his annual messages to congress in 1905/1906, which eventually resulting in the Tillman act of 1907.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yeah. It's not hypocritical to follow a process while also advocating reform for that process.

There's a difference between following a process you want reformed and following a process you want abolished. Would you call republicans hypocrites for criticizing deficit spending while participating in deficit spending? I'd say they're hypocrites, and so do the democrats who are in power.

Just as you advocate less taxes, you still pay for them. That doesn't make you hypocrite.

I don't have a real choice. T.R. did.

Just as I advocate Instant Run-off Voting, I don't rank the candidates on a ballot. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

You don't have a choice. T.R. did.

Just as T.R. advocated campaign financing reform, he still accepted corporate contributions as the process allowed. That doesn't make him a hypocrite.

Then what does constitute hypocrisy? If anyone were to argue for prohibiting X,Y, and Z while privately being guilty of performing X, Y, and Z, then that person is a hypocrite. How can we take TR and the progressive movement seriously if TR and progressives secretly go against everything they stand for...right up until it becomes law? That's like a republican advocating for repeal of Roe v. Wade and then forcing his daughter to have an abortion. It's not hypocrisy, according to your logic. According to everyone else, it is hypocrisy.

Lots of people are forced to compromise their core beliefs to some degree for the sake of societal order. Those who do aren't hypocrites.

You're comparing people who have a choice and people who don't have a choice. The freedom to choose makes a big difference.

Now if you want to talk about how it's wrong for progressives and liberals to try to institute campaign finance reform laws to limit contributions to candidates, that would be an intelligent debate. Go ahead and make a thread about it. You would be surprised to find that I would agree with you on this issue.

You actually agree with the Citizens United ruling?!?!

But calling someone a hypocrite for trying to institute reform on a policy while still adhering to the policy he wants reformed is stupid.

Again, see the example of the conservative anti-abortion republican and his pregnant daughter.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The democratic candidate Alton Parker critisized president Roosevelt for the large campaign contributions by corporations in the 1904 elections, which prompted Roosevelt to pursue campaign finance reform in his annual messages to congress in 1905/1906, which eventually resulting in the Tillman act of 1907.

See Post #9. I've already publicized that fact. It doesn't help TR's reputation that he lied about it.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
My bad, did not see your post.

It also doesn't help his reputation that such a law as the Tillman Act was COMPLETELY and UTTERLY symbolic by nature. Literally NOTHING changed from 1907 to 1908. I imagine that the legislators intentionally made it this way, so that they could appear to be honest and forthcoming to the voting public, but in fact made the law without any enforement mechanism. Corporate owners and individuals could still donate as much as they want to politicians and there was no disclosure requirements.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,155
Reaction score
36,334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
True, but the fact that you actually asked for the sources means you couldn't believe it at face value. It probably shakes at the very core of progessivism, as T.R. is often seen as the iconic leader of this movement.

Why would this "shake at the very core" of progressivism? I'm a progressive, and my internal response was "Politician acts hypocritically and unethically. News at 11."

My views don't stem from some particular leader.
 
Top Bottom