Money out of politics

It is a simple concept. Most (i mean not just americans) agree that when politicians have so little accountability anyway, the last thing we need is to allow wealthy groups to give them campaign money (and so much at that). Politicians have admitted time and time again that their main goal is to get reelected , that they have to devote time each day not to work for the people but to call donors on the phone and ask for more money.


Is there anyone who thinks money is free speech?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
It is a simple concept. Most (i mean not just americans) agree that when politicians have so little accountability anyway, the last thing we need is to allow wealthy groups to give them campaign money (and so much at that). Politicians have admitted time and time again that their main goal is to get reelected , that they have to devote time each day not to ...[text shortened]... nors on the phone and ask for more money.


Is there anyone who thinks money is free speech?

Politics out of the economy. You're beginning to sound like a libertarian, you're beginning to see the light, a testament to my patience.

A favourite P J O'Rourke quote: "When buying and selling are controlled be legislation the first to be bought and sold are the legislators."

You think they're on the phone looking for donations, tsk tsk, how naive you are z, they're on the phone selling out their principles and pre-selling political favors, you think those millions don't come with strings attached. When the pollies have got nothing to sell there will be fewer buyers.

You can take the money out of politics, but you won't take the politicians out of the money.

They'll be bought by promises of trustfundeeship and a chair at the executives table when their selling out has finished.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
It is a simple concept. Most (i mean not just americans) agree that when politicians have so little accountability anyway, the last thing we need is to allow wealthy groups to give them campaign money (and so much at that). Politicians have admitted time and time again that their main goal is to get reelected , that they have to devote time each day not to ...[text shortened]... nors on the phone and ask for more money.


Is there anyone who thinks money is free speech?

If only government could take over all aspects of the private sector. Then everyone would have a $20 trillion debt.

Originally posted by shavixmir
You can take the money out of politics, but you won't take the politicians out of the money.

They'll be bought by promises of trustfundeeship and a chair at the executives table when their selling out has finished.

All we need to do is find politicians who are angels, pure as the wind driven snow.

You know, like Bernie.

Walla! Problem solved.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Politics out of the economy. You're beginning to sound like a libertarian, you're beginning to see the light, a testament to my patience.

A favourite P J O'Rourke quote: "When buying and selling are controlled be legislation the first to be bought and sold are the legislators."

You think they're on the phone looking for donations, tsk tsk, how naive y ...[text shortened]... me with strings attached. When the pollies have got nothing to sell there will be fewer buyers.

is this one of the times where you missed the point on purpose or because you are too dim? just curious, i don't really care

Originally posted by whodey
If only government could take over all aspects of the private sector. Then everyone would have a $20 trillion debt.

making a law forbidding anyone from donating more than 1000 dollars to someone's campaign is somewhat different than your idiotic paranoia about guvamint taking over.

in case you too are dim (which i strongly suspect) to notice, i am being sarcastic and money out of politics has NOTHING to do with your idiotic paranoia about guvamint taking over.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
making a law forbidding anyone from donating more than 1000 dollars to someone's campaign is somewhat different than your idiotic paranoia about guvamint taking over.

in case you too are dim (which i strongly suspect) to notice, i am being sarcastic and money out of politics has NOTHING to do with your idiotic paranoia about guvamint taking over.

A limit of 10 dollars sounds more reasonable to me.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A limit of 10 dollars sounds more reasonable to me.

It really doesn't matter, because people will find ways around such limits anyway. In principal, it's their money, and you can't tell them how to spend it, however foolish it may be.

If you really believe the control freak stuff, then limit how much media can charge for advertising. Bust up this free market, get rich quick on politicians thing.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
It is a simple concept. Most (i mean not just americans) agree that when politicians have so little accountability anyway, the last thing we need is to allow wealthy groups to give them campaign money (and so much at that). Politicians have admitted time and time again that their main goal is to get reelected , that they have to devote time each day not to ...[text shortened]... nors on the phone and ask for more money.


Is there anyone who thinks money is free speech?

This money is the root of all problems is a convenient lie. People should have the opportunity to voice their opinions. Some overzealous people do sit ins, other over zealous people give money. Your concern about one way of extending your influence but not others indicates that you are concerned more about the result than the process.
Perhaps if you are truly worried about votes being exchanged, maybe you should regulate groups like unions which group together to try to "buy" influence with politicians all the time.

What is the logic in limiting the amount a person can spend on politics unless they buy a news organization and then can spend unlimited amount of money preaching in the editorial section?

Originally posted by normbenign
It really doesn't matter, because people will find ways around such limits anyway. In principal, it's their money, and you can't tell them how to spend it, however foolish it may be.

If you really believe the control freak stuff, then limit how much media can charge for advertising. Bust up this free market, get rich quick on politicians thing.

What you can do is to make donations to political parties not tax-deductible...

Originally posted by normbenign
It really doesn't matter, because people will find ways around such limits anyway. In principal, it's their money, and you can't tell them how to spend it, however foolish it may be.

If you really believe the control freak stuff, then limit how much media can charge for advertising. Bust up this free market, get rich quick on politicians thing.

Good point norm, why have any laws at all? People will find ways around them anyway.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the influence of money in politics and/or corruption are not equally problematic everywhere.

How is banning bribery more "control freak" than setting prices in the private advertising market?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
is this one of the times where you missed the point on purpose or because you are too dim? just curious, i don't really care

Money out of politics, politics out of money, same difference right. So long as the pollies have something to sell they will be bought. Make it do they don't have anything to sell, get the pollies out of the economy.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Money out of politics, politics out of money, same difference right. So long as the pollies have something to sell they will be bought. Make it do they don't have anything to sell, get the pollies out of the economy.

How would you make sure that politicians "have nothing to sell" specifically?