C. People may not contribute financially without limit to political campaigns, and when they get caught "slipping an envelope" or receiving said envelope they should be tried and convicted for bribery. Criminals can and do get caught committing crimes now and again, in case you hadn't noticed.
If the campaign contributions are open, how is it "getting caught"? The whole point is our being able to support our candidates in a process that is expensive. Elimination of that would means that only Candidates like Trump with great personal wealth could run.
I could see a system where the government supplies vouchers to political candidates to be used for ads. However that would require that all candidates including unheard of independents and minor parties be included. More public expense.
Originally posted by normbenign If the campaign contributions are open, how is it "getting caught"? The whole point is our being able to support our candidates in a process that is expensive. Elimination of that would means that only Candidates like Trump with great personal wealth could run.
I could see a system where the government supplies vouchers to political candidates to be ...[text shortened]... andidates including unheard of independents and minor parties be included. More public expense.
If murder is legal, how is it "getting caught"?
A cursory glance at the real world reveals that it is NOT true that in places where campaign funding is much more restricted "only candidates like Trump [can] run."
I could see a system where the government supplies vouchers to political candidates to be used for ads. However that would require that all candidates including unheard of independents and minor parties be included. More public expense.
Similar systems exist and result in much fewer expenses. Actually, during the Dutch election season you will see almost no TV ads because politicians and political parties simply cannot afford them.
Originally posted by Wajoma Doesn't Trump make a lot of noise about using his own money? The anti-trump whiners wouldn't be the same ones whining about money in politics.
Surely not.
Trump makes a lot of noise about a lot of things - in any case, a large part of his campaign fund comes from donors.
Originally posted by twhitehead It most certainly is not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery
Bribery is the act of giving money, goods or other forms of recompense to a recipient in exchange for an alteration of their behavior (to the benefit/interest of the giver) that the recipient would otherwise not alter.
The US political system legalizes, and in fact encourages, a significant amount of bribery.
How does that definition apply to people giving money to a politician who's ideology they agree with in order for him to try to convince others to vote for him? It fails the last requirement which requires the politician to act in a way he otherwise wouldn't have.
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.
"It really doesn't matter, because people will find ways around such limits anyway."
drug laws don't matter because people will find ways to do drugs
murder laws don't matter because people will still kill other people
Originally posted by quackquack This money is the root of all problems is a convenient lie. 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 sh ...[text shortened]... groups like unions which group together to try to "buy" influence with politicians all the time.
"People should have the opportunity to voice their opinions."
they should. they voice their opinion through casting a vote.
right now they don't. because a million dollars buys you a lot of opportunity to voice your opinion and shut down others from doing the same.
Originally posted by no1marauder How does that definition apply to people giving money to a politician who's ideology they agree with in order for him to try to convince others to vote for him? It fails the last requirement which requires the politician to act in a way he otherwise wouldn't have.
It doesn't apply to all donors. But it is clear that some major donors do expect something in return.
Originally posted by Wajoma If you believe having a big budget helps to run a big campaign these 'measures' you're advocating would put Drumpf even further ahead than he is now.
Like shav, you're a closeted Drumpf fan?
that is taken care of by ensuring everybody running for a position gets the same amount of air time.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra If murder is legal, how is it "getting caught"?
A cursory glance at the real world reveals that it is NOT true that in places where campaign funding is much more restricted "only candidates like Trump [can] run."
[b]I could see a system where the government supplies vouchers to political candidates to be used for ads. However that would require t ...[text shortened]... u will see almost no TV ads because politicians and political parties simply cannot afford them.
Originally posted by twhitehead It doesn't apply to all donors. But it is clear that some major donors do expect something in return.
Benefiting from a policy you may favor, isn't a payback of a bribe. Of course a lot of that could be remedied by legislatures refraining from laws that either help or harm business.
Money out of politics
12 Apr '16 23:501 edit
Back to Top