Larry Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 when did legalizing bribery become part of the conservative platform? When they realized they were better at it. (Which, coincidentally, was also the time when the Democrats decided that it was Wrong.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 doesn't make it ok. I'd believe that people actual thought that way if there was equal outrage over SuperPacs giving money to Dems. This is a BS story making noise because the left needs to start attacking Romney. They need to see what mud will stick, so they fling it all. ---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 03:18 PM ---------- Yes there is. I'll mention you one: I can prove that the second, was an illegal million dollar donation, from a single individual, who deliberatly planned in advance to break the law. You can speculate about conspiracy theories, about how someone can't prove that it wasn't illegal. This is not a subtle distinction. Really? You can PROVE it was ILLEGAL? Go for it. This will be entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I don't like a lot of what is going on with Campaign Financing either but I don't think you can say that it's all the fault of one party or the other. John McCain, among others, have been calling for Campaign Reform for years. Neither side will pass the legislation. The President, has had something like 35 to 40 fundraisers in less then three years. I mean, that's absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I'd believe that people actual thought that way if there was equal outrage over SuperPacs giving money to Dems. No one's complaining about the existence of PACs. (Well, they might be. But it's not the purpose of the thread.) In fact, the only reason they're in the thread, was because you decided to try to argue that since the money passed through a PAC, that made this deal acceptable. The "outrage" in this thread (gee. Someone points out something crooked about a Republican, and in runs the professional victim to complain about "outrage".) is over disposable corporations being created for the sole purpose of allowing illegal, anonymous, donations to a candidate. They aren't complaining about where the money went to. They're complaining about where it came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Oh, not necessarily. For example: Does the NRA pay people to vote the way the NRA tells them to? Or do they pick the candidates who they think will vote the "right" way, and help them? Which came first, the candidate's position, or the donation? The answer is both. Lobbyists will let it be known that certain votes will result in their organization finding another candidate to support as well as simply supporting the candidate that votes their way already. The problem however isn't that they do so, the problem is that money is central to election meaning that elected officials have to spend 90% of their time fund raising . Fund raising is not now, and never will be, a one way street. They are actively finding groups to "agree with" in order to raise money. What they are not doing is asking "what is the best for the US" and considering special interests second. It's what they have to do to raise money and then maybe toss in some mental energy for the good ol' US of A. By the same token, I'm not convinced that all lobbying organizations are simply money launderers for illegal bribes. I observe that some "special interests" or "lobbying groups" are like the NRA, the ACLU, or the AARP. They are coalitions of citizens, banding together to attempt to support politicians they agree with. Some good things in a system that has elected officials chasing dollars most of the time doesn't make it better. Those same groups you cited could continue to gain influence by communicating how many voters they have in their ranks that will be important in a key battleground state or something similar. The cash aspect just makes them part of the problem. BTW - it isn't just the special interest groups. The parties themselves control a lot of funds and with those funds force their members to vote as they are told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 What about all campaign funds coming from taking a few dollars per person out an EXISTING tax we're already paying and putting it to campaigning, with every candidate having to show costs for every event/methodology and over-seeing to see the numbers match? All other contributions other than volunteer "labor" would be illegal. That's basically what McCain proposed. Cap how much, make it a Federally Funded deal, disallow War Chest Funds to be taken with you if you retire, get beaten by another candidate or move on to another post. Everybody gets funded equally and nobody gets more then any body else. Politicians might actually have to rely on good policy to win elections as opposed to mudd slinging and plain buying there way into office. I'd be for it but they won't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I'd believe that people actual thought that way if there was equal outrage over SuperPacs giving money to Dems. Good to know you believe me because I'd ban it all. Money in politics subverts the system. Especially in a day and age when it's all about media, branding, and message saturation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 No one's complaining about the existence of PACs. (Well, they might be. But it's not the purpose of the thread.) In fact, the only reason they're in the thread, was because you decided to try to argue that since the money passed through a PAC, that made this deal acceptable. The "outrage" in this thread (gee. Someone points out something crooked about a Republican, and in runs the professional victim to complain about "outrage".) is over disposable corporations being created for the sole purpose of allowing illegal, anonymous, donations to a candidate. They aren't complaining about where the money went to. They're complaining about where it came from. You keep saying it's illegal. I dont think it is. Can you prove how it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I'm really liking the idea of Politicians wearing NASCAR style suites more everyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Those same groups you cited could continue to gain influence by communicating how many voters they have in their ranks that will be important in a key battleground state or something similar. Oh, I agree with you. I've read that the reason that the two most powerful lobbies in DC are the NRA and the AARP isn't because those groups throw around the most money. No, their power comes because they deliver votes. The NRA and the AARP hav something that's more valuable in DC than cash. They have millions of people who will vote the way the organization tells them to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 That's basically what McCain proposed. Cap how much, make it a Federally Funded deal, disallow War Chest Funds to be taken with you if you retire, get beaten by another candidate or move on to another post. Everybody gets funded equally and nobody gets more then any body else. Politicians might actually have to rely on good policy to win elections as opposed to mudd slinging and plain buying there way into office. I'd be for it but they won't do it. I miss the pre-2005 McCain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 You keep saying it's illegal.I dont think it is. Can you prove how it is? Let's assume it's not. Let's assume that Dan Snyder (or whoever it is) could have just written a check, declared it is, and it all would have been legal, anyway. Let's say that the only reason he created a disposable corporation was to hide his identity. You saying you OK with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 What about all campaign funds coming from taking a few dollars per person out an EXISTING tax we're already paying and putting it to campaigning, with every candidate having to show costs for every event/methodology and over-seeing to see the numbers match? All other contributions other than volunteer "labor" would be illegal. I like it, but it doesn't solve the PAC issues like this Taxing them might cut it down a bit and create a better trial....but there is that pesky free speech issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Romney didnt get the money. Restore Our Future did. I loved you in Lethal Weapon 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I'm really liking the idea of Politicians wearing NASCAR style suites more everyday. Yup, best one I've heard in awhile. ---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 12:40 PM ---------- I like it, but it doesn't solve the PAC issues like thisTaxing them might cut it down a bit and create a better trial....but there is that pesky free speech issue Yup, my post is light-years from being a well-developed policy. PACs do require addressing too. BTW, anyone following Colbert's SuperPac? If it's up and running (I lost track and don't see the show much) we should have a thread on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Yes there is. I'll mention you one: I can prove that the second, was an illegal million dollar donation, from a single individual, who deliberatly planned in advance to break the law. You can speculate about conspiracy theories, about how someone can't prove that it wasn't illegal. This is not a subtle distinction. Since you cannot prove anything there is no distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I'd believe that people actual thought that way if there was equal outrage over SuperPacs giving money to Dems. there absolutely is (on my part at least). corporations donating money DILUTES and IMPEDES free speech, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 there absolutely is (on my part at least). corporations donating money DILUTES and IMPEDES free speech, in my opinion. Why do they differ from other groups of individuals except they have profit outside PACs narrower focus as a primary motive? Not a fan of corps,but I'm not a fan of PACs either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Why do they differ from other groups of individuals except they have profit outside PACs narrower focus as a primary motive?Not a fan of corps,but I'm not a fan of PACs either The difference between people and money. One is supposed to hold the ultimate power in our political system. The other is supposed to have no power whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I love it when Kilmer gets into his "I'll defend anything" mode. Hell, he would defend child sex tourism as a "boon to the economy of Thailand" if he thought it would peeve the liberals on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 The difference between people and money. One is supposed to hold the ultimate power in our political system. The other is supposed to have no power whatsoever. The ultimate power is the vote Money is not supposed to have any power is pure wishful thinking that ignores our entire history,especially the early yrs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Let's assume it's not. Let's assume that Dan Snyder (or whoever it is) could have just written a check, declared it is, and it all would have been legal, anyway. Let's say that the only reason he created a disposable corporation was to hide his identity. You saying you OK with that? Im not assuming anything. I know it's not illegal. You're claiming it is. Prove it. Now as to whether or not it's "ok", well that's a bit murkier. I know both sides are doing it with equal fervor, so I think starting articles with obvious pot shots at political opponents proves their is an agenda against the person, not the act. I like Des' ideas fwiw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Even that is true and the PAC does nothing but help Romney, it's not nefarious or illegal. If Romney created it, that's a problem. But you could start a PAC to solely support any candidate you like and collect money to do so.Super Pacs are perfectly legal and support both parties. What if this was done by foriegn nationals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Arguing over legal, when moral is obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 What if this was done by foriegn nationals? Again, not illegal for foreign nationals to give money to PACs (at least I dont think it is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.