Originally posted by KazetNagorra I don't see why corporations shouldn't have free speech or freedom of religion.
Of course, giving money to politicians has nothing to do with free speech, and paying some tax or complying with labour laws has nothing to do with freedom of religion. Indeed, an exemption for certain religious institutions can be regarded as a violation of the freedom of religion of people not belonging to said religion.
I see no reason why anyone should be treated differently under the law. All charities should be considered just like any other person or organization. The government should not be in the business of giving certain groups perks.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra By that logic, politicians don't care about votes because the voters are not specifically demanding a direct return on their vote. In a system where campaign contributions are unlimited, smart politicians try to maximize the contributions they get.
This is the exact problem we have in the US.
When you use those same politicians to pack the courts you pretty much have free reign over the country.
Originally posted by Eladar I see no reason why anyone should be treated differently under the law. All charities should be considered just like any other person or organization. The government should not be in the business of giving certain groups perks.
I agree. Tax-exempt status for charities is bizarre - what business of the government is it to say whether some cause is charitable or not?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra By that logic, politicians don't care about votes because the voters are not specifically demanding a direct return on their vote. In a system where campaign contributions are unlimited, smart politicians try to maximize the contributions they get.
Politicians try to get votes through their platform. If voters like the politician's platform, then they contribute to the politician's campaign to help the politician get his message out.
Of course smart politicians will try to maximize their fundraising. They know that getting their message out, i.e. free speech, wins elections.
Originally posted by MoneyManMike Politicians try to get votes through their platform. If voters like the politician's platform, then they contribute to the politician's campaign to help the politician get his message out.
Of course smart politicians will try to maximize their fundraising. They know that getting their message out, i.e. free speech, wins elections.
Don't you see that people and organisations with more money have more influence on this process, and that thus, effectively, they have more to say about who gets elected than under a system where campaign contributions are strictly restricted?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Don't you see that people and organisations with more money have more influence on this process, and that thus, effectively, they have more to say about who gets elected than under a system where campaign contributions are strictly restricted?
It works both ways. If the voters think a politician has been bought by a special interest group, then they probably will not vote for that politician.
As an aside, if politicians are inherently corrupt, do you really think they would comply with the contribution limits and reporting requirements? It is like gun control. Election laws only limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. It hardly impairs those who do not obey the law in the first place.
Originally posted by MoneyManMike It works both ways. If the voters think a politician has been bought by a special interest group, then they probably will not vote for that politician.
As an aside, if politicians are inherently corrupt, do you really think they would comply with the contribution limits and reporting requirements? It is like gun control. Election laws only limit ...[text shortened]... ts of law-abiding citizens. It hardly impairs those who do not obey the law in the first place.
Really?
Usually both people running for office have been bought. What do the voters do then?
Usually both people running for office have been bought. What do the voters do then?
Run for office themselves like some of the tea party people. Complain to the district attorney. Push for impeachment. Spread the word that the politician is corrupt. etc.
Originally posted by MoneyManMike It works both ways. If the voters think a politician has been bought by a special interest group, then they probably will not vote for that politician.
As an aside, if politicians are inherently corrupt, do you really think they would comply with the contribution limits and reporting requirements? It is like gun control. Election laws only limit ...[text shortened]... ts of law-abiding citizens. It hardly impairs those who do not obey the law in the first place.
It works both ways. If the voters think a politician has been bought by a special interest group, then they probably will not vote for that politician.
Reality appears to invalidate that hypothesis.
As an aside, if politicians are inherently corrupt, do you really think they would comply with the contribution limits and reporting requirements?
Originally posted by MoneyManMike Run for office themselves like some of the tea party people. Complain to the district attorney. Push for impeachment. Spread the word that the politician is corrupt. etc.
When vast majority of politicians are corrupt, including the district attorney you aren't going to get anywhere.
When the corrupt people have a huge advantage in money you aren't going to be very successful. Money also buys the news outlets and political commentators.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Don't you see that people and organisations with more money have more influence on this process, and that thus, effectively, they have more to say about who gets elected than under a system where campaign contributions are strictly restricted?
This works more often the not the other direction. The politicians expect tribute from large companies. They threaten to pass legislation that would be harmful to the company, and then invite them to a "fundraiser".
Often it is not so obvious to tell the difference between "bribery" and "extortion".
Originally posted by techsouth This works more often the not the other direction. The politicians expect tribute from large companies. They threaten to pass legislation that would be harmful to the company, and then invite them to a "fundraiser".
Often it is not so obvious to tell the difference between "bribery" and "extortion".
Yeah, unlimited fundraising is more like a redistribution scheme.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra [b]It works both ways. If the voters think a politician has been bought by a special interest group, then they probably will not vote for that politician.
Reality appears to invalidate that hypothesis.
As an aside, if politicians are inherently corrupt, do you really think they would comply with the contribution limits and reporting requirements?
If the law is properly enforced, sure, why not?[/b]
Reality appears to invalidate that hypothesis
Not really. It seems like there is a smear campaign in every election. Some voters are persuaded by it, some are not. If my memory serves me correctly, didn't the left argue that Romney was bought by the Koch brothers?
If the law is properly enforced, sure, why not?
It is kind of hard to (1) prove political corruption and (2) deter political corruption. I am not keen on the dragnet, or shoot from the hip, approach. I do not like limiting the rights of everyone in an attempt to stop one social evil. It hasn't worked with guns. We still have shootings in gun free zones.
Originally posted by Eladar When vast majority of politicians are corrupt, including the district attorney you aren't going to get anywhere.
When the corrupt people have a huge advantage in money you aren't going to be very successful. Money also buys the news outlets and political commentators.
The mainstream media can be beat in the internet age. You do not have to rely on them in order to get your message out.
At the end of the day, the corrupt politicians will solicit unlimited contributions and not report contributions in excess of campaign limits. The law-abiding politician will accept limited contributions, and thus, will be at a disadvantage against the corrupt politician. Why not level the playing field?
Originally posted by MoneyManMike The mainstream media can be beat in the internet age. You do not have to rely on them in order to get your message out.
At the end of the day, the corrupt politicians will solicit unlimited contributions and not report contributions in excess of campaign limits. The law-abiding politician will accept limited contributions, and thus, will be at a disadvantage against the corrupt politician. Why not level the playing field?
I don't that's true, but a majority of voters do. That's my point.
I'm saying that the system is corrupt. What Kaz is saying is just one aspect of the corruption. To turn a blind eye to it does nothing but make oneself feel better.
Obamacare Recreates the First Estate
04 Jan '14 16:07
Back to Top