Why Can't We Fix It Ourselves?

[fmw]

And do what?

Introduce single term limits. It will reduce the corruption at least by some degree.

 

[JasperL]

Cool. Try to publish a book without spending money. Let us know how it goes.

We're not talking about publishing a book, but running ads for a candidate for office. Can Bank of China spend a $billion to elect Hillary? Why not? They have U.S. offices, probably U.S. incorporated subsidiaries, and if not that's easily done and if they do so aren't they a U.S. "person" with protected rights to speech? Heck, the right to free speech isn't limited to citizens, so clearly if those rights extend to political activity, then why can't the "person" Bank of China contribute directly to campaigns all across this country?

 

[cpwill]

We're not talking about publishing a book

Actually we are. Because we are talking about spending money in the furtherance of speech, and, as was made clear in Citizens United, when the Government claimed the power and right to limit our freedom of speech, it also claimed the right to ban books.

If you want to try to convince your fellow citizens of the rightness of a cause (political, social, or otherwise), then you are free to pursue that as much as you possibly can. If you want to print a million books and give them away for free - do it. If you want to buy billboards - do it. If you want to purchase TV time - do it. If you want to purchase time on the radio - do it. If you want to purchase space on Facebook - do it. If you want to hire dance troupes to put on shows to serve as "awareness raisers" - heck - do it. In this country, we believe in the marketplace of ideas - if you really believe in something, go nuts. Dedicate your life to it.

What you are worried about is the notion that money is being used to purchase political influence, stripping away democracy.

1. That's part of Democracy. If I'm a firm believer in Gun Rights, and I donate to the NRA to lobby on my behalf, then they are representing me when they do so. The story is the same if I'm a donor to the Sierra Club. Allowing interest groups to form allows individual citizens who may be outnumbered by those who disagree with them where they live to still have representation at government. If I'm an NRA member in New York, my Representatives don't care about my feelings about guns. But the NRA rep does.

2. The much-balleyhoo'd Power Of Money is greatly exaggerated in these discussions. You want to know who had the absolute massive monetary advantage in the GOP primary? Jeb. That money was supposed to guarantee him at least a slot in the Final Few. It sure did him a lot of good. You know who else got a bunch of money? Rubio. Across the country, candidates that bring a lot of money are losing.

3. The Barrier-to-Entry is lower than ever, even as the big-ticket items are becoming less valuable. It's estimated that Trump received a massive advantage in television over his rivals during the Primary. How much did he spend on that? Almost nothing - he just provided entertainment, so the media honed in on him and stayed there. It costs less and less to start a movement, to advocate, to form platforms. Ben Carson's campaign raised large sums of money and stayed afloat mostly through internet ads on places like Facebook. How much does it cost Ben Carson to put out a facebook post and ask his followers to repost it? If your intent is to remind and motivate your followers to get to the polls.... you can buy an ad in venues.... or you can tweet out a reminder, with a link to directions to their polling place. What you are worried about is already being torn apart.

but running ads for a candidate for office. Can Bank of China spend a $billion to elect Hillary?

If they wanted to, they could take out all the ads they liked in the NYTimes, on Google, Facebook, etc. I imagine that would probably backlash against Hillary, mind you.

why can't the "person" Bank of China contribute directly to campaigns all across this country?

Because campaigns aren't allowed to take donations from companies or foreign entities.

 

[Ntharotep]

So you both wish to post without saying anything. Amazing.

They said things. Just not necessarily things you agree with or wish to hear.
Firstly, the ziel heil comment was to elude to your ideas being akin to Nazism though it was delivered in a bit of a schoolyard class clown fashion.
Then the idea was fascism in general and how terribly that works.

Since the idea is to not limit the speech of the people to depend on money (or power I would imagine) then your idea of removing democracy which without further explanation and as a blanket statement eludes to removing these freedoms altogether then I would say that is a bit of a defeat since the idea of the thread is to keep the people's freedom of speech and expression.
I have seen little or no Government that limits democracy as lending itself to more freedom for its people. Please demonstrate and we can discuss further.

What rights we do have are unlimited and cannot be infringed on in any way? :shock:

You can choose how you die if you are quick enough about it. Beyond that I can't think of any right that does not have the possibility of being infringed on.
Oh. Free thought. No one has yet developed a way to keep us from thinking for ourselves (outside of brain washing which is still very easily resisted by those who don't strap themselves in to the TV).

You seem like you want to ignore the government, you're saying that we don't need the government. But then you say we may need to 'constitutionally get rid of the lobbyist'. How do we do change the Constitution without the government?
What you are saying all goes back to my 1st point. The Foxes are guarding the hen house. Until that changes(and without burning down the whole house it won't change) the lobbyists, the big money, the corruption will not go away.

War.
It isn't a solution I want to see happen in my life time or my little one's life time but it is one I see happening eventually.
The Second Civil War is not merely stuff of fiction I am afraid.

 

[JasperL]

Actually we are. Because we are talking about spending money in the furtherance of speech, and, as was made clear in Citizens United, when the Government claimed the power and right to limit our freedom of speech, it also claimed the right to ban books.

If you want to try to convince your fellow citizens of the rightness of a cause (political, social, or otherwise), then you are free to pursue that as much as you possibly can. If you want to print a million books and give them away for free - do it. If you want to buy billboards - do it. If you want to purchase TV time - do it. If you want to purchase time on the radio - do it. If you want to purchase space on Facebook - do it. If you want to hire dance troupes to put on shows to serve as "awareness raisers" - heck - do it. In this country, we believe in the marketplace of ideas - if you really believe in something, go nuts. Dedicate your life to it.

What you are worried about is the notion that money is being used to purchase political influence, stripping away democracy.

1. That's part of Democracy. If I'm a firm believer in Gun Rights, and I donate to the NRA to lobby on my behalf, then they are representing me when they do so. The story is the same if I'm a donor to the Sierra Club. Allowing interest groups to form allows individual citizens who may be outnumbered by those who disagree with them where they live to still have representation at government. If I'm an NRA member in New York, my Representatives don't care about my feelings about guns. But the NRA rep does.

Sure money is part of democracy, but what you're arguing is something different which is there can be no limits on money in the political process.

You mentioned the NRA which is at least an association made up of its members for the purpose of advancing gun rights in the U.S. or however you want to characterize their role, and obviously you like what they do. Are you still going to be OK with Bank of China forming a (c)(4) called "U.S.A. Freedom Fund" with $500 million and spends it all running against your favorite candidates? How about if they spend it on acquiring lists of voters, robocalls, voter registration efforts, etc.

2. The much-balleyhoo'd Power Of Money is greatly exaggerated in these discussions. You want to know who had the absolute massive monetary advantage in the GOP primary? Jeb. That money was supposed to guarantee him at least a slot in the Final Few. It sure did him a lot of good. You know who else got a bunch of money? Rubio. Across the country, candidates that bring a lot of money are losing.

I'm not sure how those results matter - they are anecdotes that prove if anything that money isn't sufficient to win an office, not that it has no influence or isn't in fact the dominant factor in the vast majority of elections. The POTUS elections are the ones hardest to affect since turn on any media outlet and there is wall to wall FREE coverage 24/7/365 for over a year. That's not true for state, local and even congressional elections. And the evidence is that if you want to bet on the winner of any race, and bet on the candidate with the most money, you'll win something like 9 times out of 10, depending on the year, always at least 8 times out of 10. So I don't think the "Power of Money" is greatly exaggerated - there is no evidence of that that I've seen, and every candidate running for office behaves as if it's CRITICAL, which is why members of Congress spend about half their working day in office raising money for the next election - nor can we assume that failures in the first few years after the spigots turned on will continue and that that those with money won't learn to better put it to work.

 

[JasperL]

3. The Barrier-to-Entry is lower than ever, even as the big-ticket items are becoming less valuable. It's estimated that Trump received a massive advantage in television over his rivals during the Primary. How much did he spend on that? Almost nothing - he just provided entertainment, so the media honed in on him and stayed there. It costs less and less to start a movement, to advocate, to form platforms. Ben Carson's campaign raised large sums of money and stayed afloat mostly through internet ads on places like Facebook. How much does it cost Ben Carson to put out a facebook post and ask his followers to repost it? If your intent is to remind and motivate your followers to get to the polls.... you can buy an ad in venues.... or you can tweet out a reminder, with a link to directions to their polling place. What you are worried about is already being torn apart.

Just more anecdotes, and outliers. Rare exceptions don't prove any rule. The guy running for state senate in Tennessee isn't going to get a $billion in free airtime like a celebrity and it's that campaign where a big donor can buy a candidate.

If they wanted to, they could take out all the ads they liked in the NYTimes, on Google, Facebook, etc. I imagine that would probably backlash against Hillary, mind you.

Why is that? They're sure as hell not going to run it under the name Bank of China. Easy enough to launder that money through a (c)(4).

Because campaigns aren't allowed to take donations from companies or foreign entities.

Right, which is a ridiculous distinction without a meaningful difference, and getting less relevant over time. There is nothing a (c)(4) can't do that a campaign can do, or what things there are are getting fewer and less relevant.

Bottom line is the SC ruled that this spending wasn't corrupting and didn't even give rise to the appearance of corruption, and it's a thin (aka f'ing absurd) basis for such a broad decision. Read any poll on the subject and the public believes there sure as hell is the "appearance of corruption." Look at any analysis of political results and whether the decisions reflect the interests of the wealthy and the data I've seen indicate that the system absolutely serves the interests of the wealthy.

 

[Cephus]

Introduce single term limits. It will reduce the corruption at least by some degree.

Or it will just make politicians be corrupt from day one because lobbyists will know they have to get started early so they'll just buy everyone running for every election.

 

[fmw]

Or it will just make politicians be corrupt from day one because lobbyists will know they have to get started early so they'll just buy everyone running for every election.

The buying to which you refer is generally money put into re-election campaigns. That is legal. It is a felony for a politician to accept money personally from a lobbyist. I'll stay with my concept.

 

[Paleocon]

They said things. Just not necessarily things you agree with or wish to hear.

No, "seig heil" "lol" and the like are not substantive comments. They're juvenile attempts at unsupported dismissal.

Since the idea is to not limit the speech of the people to depend on money (or power I would imagine) then your idea of removing democracy which without further explanation and as a blanket statement eludes to removing these freedoms altogether then I would say that is a bit of a defeat since the idea of the thread is to keep the people's freedom of speech and expression.

Well then the idea of the thread is dumb. Limiting freedom is what law does by definition. If you want to fix the problem of the rich being able to manipulate the government, you need to remove the ability of the easily manipulated masses to control the government.

 

[Cephus]

The buying to which you refer is generally money put into re-election campaigns. That is legal. It is a felony for a politician to accept money personally from a lobbyist. I'll stay with my concept.

Right, but if there are no re-elections, they will just move their attention to first time elections. You and I both know that lobbyists will find a way, legal or not.

 

[Ntharotep]

No, "seig heil" "lol" and the like are not substantive comments. They're juvenile attempts at unsupported dismissal.

Well then the idea of the thread is dumb. Limiting freedom is what law does by definition. If you want to fix the problem of the rich being able to manipulate the government, you need to remove the ability of the easily manipulated masses to control the government.

1) I pointed that out I think. It was juvenile though still a point being made.
2) I will have to agree to disagree. I think you can maintain freedom, limit the power of the rich, and not have to do these things purely by leaning on the Government to be "smarter than its people" as you suggest. The ideals our country was founded on is not overly dumb all in all. It has simply gone awry.

 

[Paleocon]

I think you can maintain freedom, limit the power of the rich

Think harder. Limiting people's ability to do something and maintaining people's ability to do what they want are contradictory goals.

and not have to do these things purely by leaning on the Government to be "smarter than its people" as you suggest.

Nearly every small group of rulers will be better able to resist bad reasoning (IOW be smarter) than the masses. If you want good decisions, you need to have a tangible connection between decision-making and the results. Casting one vote out of a hundred million doesn't cut it.

The ideals our country was founded on is not overly dumb all in all. It has simply gone awry.

Just like the Communists, you argue that it isn't the ideology that's the problem, just that no one seems to be able to apply it correctly. That is silly. If it were good, it would produce good fruit, that it produces bad fruit shows that it is bad.

 

[JasperL]

Right, but if there are no re-elections, they will just move their attention to first time elections. You and I both know that lobbyists will find a way, legal or not.

Plus it takes a significant period of time for a person to learn how government actually works, hire a staff that knows how it works, learn to draft legislation, navigate the rules processes, etc. and a first time office holder probably has no clue (unless he was an aide or something to that office holder).

Lobbyists can spend a career doing that and so will have more influence than ever if just after an office holder learns the system he's term limited out back to the private sector. Or the influence falls to career staffers who just switch from legislator to legislator as they get cycled in and out.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Just asserting that something is dumb isn't an argument. While you apparently had an argument, you didn't present it until now.

The stupidity of arguing that the way to removed money/power influence from the democratic process....is to eliminate democracy....is apparent to anyone with half a brain.

I've never said power needs to be kept from government, that but of incoherence seems to be your own.

Non-sequitur, the issue is controlling the effect of money/power within a democracy.....not that "power needs to be kept from govt", whateverTF that means.

The benefit of monarchy is that it makes so that it is not necessary for the ruler to have vaingloriously sought power, rather he receives it completely nonmeritoriously.

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with fixing the problem within a democratic system, you again are ignoring the debate while you go off on promoting monarchy. It is a non-sequitur.

And I didn't mean it'd keep money out of politics, I meant it would prevent private individuals with accumulated wealth from unduly influencing the government.

And again, the "govt" you are referring to is a monarchy, the subject is democracy.....once again, you posted a non-sequitur.

 

[cpwill]

Sure money is part of democracy, but what you're arguing is something different which is there can be no limits on money in the political process.

No, I am saying that when you keep someone from spending money on speech, you are keeping them from speaking. Try publishing a book with no money. Try putting out a mass-flier with no money. Try making an infomercial with no money. Try a newspaper, a magazine, without money. If I have a billion dollars, and I want to spend it convincing my fellow Americans about the need for us to end the drug trade, or slavery, or pollution, or whatever, then that's my money, and it's my speech.

You mentioned the NRA which is at least an association made up of its members for the purpose of advancing gun rights in the U.S. or however you want to characterize their role, and obviously you like what they do. Are you still going to be OK with Bank of China forming a (c)(4) called "U.S.A. Freedom Fund" with $500 million and spends it all running against your favorite candidates? How about if they spend it on acquiring lists of voters, robocalls, voter registration efforts, etc

So, you aren't willing to deal with the fact that you wish to muzzle American citizens of the NRA (or the Sierra Club. Or Unions. Take your pick), but wish to divert instead to the Bank of China, because they're meanies.

People get the right to speak regardless of how much you like them, JasperL. That's sorta why we enshrined that First in the Bill of Rights.

I'm not sure how those results matter - they are anecdotes that prove if anything that money isn't sufficient to win an office, not that it has no influence or isn't in fact the dominant factor in the vast majority of elections.

Then you aren't paying attention. It isn't the dominant factor in the vast majority of elections (name recognition is, as is favorability, incumbency, and demographics). You need money (you have to pay for a campaign), sure. But wild disparities in spending do not result in comparable differences at the ballot box. The "Oh, Money Determines Everything" trope is, like "we spend all our money on foreign aid to people to hate us" a common meme, that simply isn't accurate.

Just more anecdotes, and outliers. Rare exceptions don't prove any rule. The guy running for state senate in Tennessee isn't going to get a $billion in free airtime like a celebrity and it's that campaign where a big donor can buy a candidate.

You didn't click the link, did you.

The rise of social media isn't an anecdote, nor is the omnipresence of flattening communications an outlier - it's the dominant information change of our era.

Karl Rove rose up on expertise in Direct Mailers. Those are expensive and obsolete. It takes startup money to conduct Direct Mailing, and the ability to sustain operations before you get returns. It takes nothing to press "send" on an email, fulfilling the same function.

Why is that? They're sure as hell not going to run it under the name Bank of China. Easy enough to launder that money through a (c)(4).

Eh, it'll be a nice big fat story for the first person to break it - the Chinese got caught the last time they funneled money to the Clintons, and something that blatant would be outed as well.

Right, which is a ridiculous distinction without a meaningful difference, and getting less relevant over time. There is nothing a (c)(4) can't do that a campaign can do, or what things there are are getting fewer and less relevant.

Campaigns are getting more relevant - the parties are the ones who are losing power.

Bottom line is the SC ruled that this spending wasn't corrupting and didn't even give rise to the appearance of corruption, and it's a thin (aka f'ing absurd) basis for such a broad decision. Read any poll on the subject and the public believes there sure as hell is the "appearance of corruption." Look at any analysis of political results and whether the decisions reflect the interests of the wealthy and the data I've seen indicate that the system absolutely serves the interests of the wealthy.

:lol: I don't care what "the public" believes. Ad Populum is a fallacy. The public also thinks that we spend a large portion of our budget on foreign aid, and that we should balance the budget, but without reforming entitlements.

 

[Paleocon]

arguing that the way to removed money/power influence

I've never argues that power should be removed from politics, whatever that's supposed to mean. Perhaps if you bothered to actually read, you would know that. Then again, if reading and critical thinking skills were your skill, you probably wouldn't be a leftist.

this has absolutely nothing to do with fixing the problem within a democratic system

The problem with democracy, is democracy. It's like cancer, the best way to fix it is to get rid of it. Barring that, it should be prevented from spreading.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I've never argues 9sic) that power should be removed from politics, whatever that's supposed to mean. Perhaps if you bothered to actually read, you would know that. Then again, if reading and critical thinking skills were your skill, you probably wouldn't be a leftist.

I always love it when folks edit a post....and then claim the other has no reading skills, going full on ad hom. If you can't understand that answering the problem of money/power influence in a democracy is done by destroying the democracy....is an insane argument, then there is no point in continuing. Your position is completely irrational.

The problem with democracy, is democracy. It's like cancer, the best way to fix it is to get rid of it. Barring that, it should be prevented from spreading.

I understand this is your crazy bat **** position, hence the suggestion for you to leave the country.

 

[Paleocon]

If you can't understand

There's a word for people who continue to attribute an argument to someone after having been corrected. They're called liars.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

There's a word for people who continue to attribute an argument to someone after having been corrected. They're called liars.

This is the most nutty set of postings I have ever encountered, you just keep repeating your insane argument:

The problem with democracy, is democracy. It's like cancer, the best way to fix it is to get rid of it.

...and then you claim I need to be "corrected". Again, it is insane to argue that the way to stop the influence of money in the democratic process...is to wipe out the democracy. You have, by absolute default, removed yourself from being able to argue about how to fix a thing....by arguing that the thing should be killed. It is the same as arguing a patient with cancer should be cured....by killing the patient.....and then to create a Frankenstein monster called monarchy....that does not allow free speech....because free speech is totalitarian.

It is bat **** insane argument.

 

[Paleocon]

This is the most nutty set of postings I have ever encountered, you just keep repeating your insane argument:

The problem with democracy, is democracy. It's like cancer, the best way to fix it is to get rid of it.

...and then you claim I need to be "corrected". Again, it is insane to argue that the way to stop the influence of money in the democratic process...is to wipe out the democracy. You have, by absolute default, removed yourself from being able to argue about how to fix a thing....by arguing that the thing should be killed. It is the same as arguing a patient with cancer should be cured....by killing the patient.....and then to create a Frankenstein monster called monarchy....that does not allow free speech....because free speech is totalitarian.

It is bat **** insane argument.

You never were one for rational argument, were you?

All you've done is just assert that I'm wrong.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

You never were one for rational argument, were you?

All you've done is just assert that I'm wrong.

There is no possible expectation of rational argument being accepted on the means to fix a democratic process when the argument made by you is to end democracy. Your position has reached a conclusion prior to the hearing of argument, rational or otherwise. Further, again, you have no business being in a debate on fixing democracy when your position is that democracy should never, absolutely exist. It is a waste of time to have any discussion with you, debate on the matter of fixing democracy is an impossibility. why in the hell are you in this thread?

 

[Paleocon]

There is no possible expectation of rational argument

That's what I figured. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

That's what I figured. Thanks for clarifying.

You haven't figured out a single thing since you can't even finish reading a comment.

 

[fmw]

Right, but if there are no re-elections, they will just move their attention to first time elections. You and I both know that lobbyists will find a way, legal or not.

I didn't say single term limits would eliminate corruption. I said it would reduce it and I believe that.

 

[Southern Dad]

Term limits are changing the rules because you don't like results of the elections. You can beat them so you want new laws to exclude them. All term limits do is take one qualified choice away from the voters. I want more choice not less.

Want them out of office? Support another candidate and convince others to do the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone 6s Plus using Tapatalk