Originally posted by quackquack Everyone only gets one vote so technically that's not true. But if you are asking me do I have a problem that people with more money than me may have more influence than me the answer is no because there are thousands of ways people an influence policy more than I can and none of those ways bother me. For example, already people who have more free time ...[text shortened]... Why somehow people are so upset about money influences but not other influences is beyond me?
Because one is a bribe and the other isn't. A politician doesn't have to act on OCW or Tea Party protestors, or opinion articles in newspapers, TV programmes, etc. A politician DOES act on a bribe, obviously.
Originally posted by normbenign What is campaign spending by union government employees?
To some extent any campaign contribution which expects a particular vote or action in favor of the constituancy amounts to a bribe.
The only thing preventing the sale of legislators is not giving them anything to sell.
Like I said, unions should not be able to bribe either. Only people should be allowed to donate, up to a small amount... say $20.
The only thing preventing the sale of legislators is banning the sale of legislators. They will always have something to sell, namely legislation. If they have no power then you don't need any legislators in the first place.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Like I said, unions should not be able to bribe either. Only people should be allowed to donate, up to a small amount... say $20.
The only thing preventing the sale of legislators is banning the sale of legislators. They will always have something to sell, namely legislation. If they have no power then you don't need any legislators in the first place.
All political donations, of any amount, by anyone, should be banned. All elections should be publicly financed. Candidates should be given a fixed amount to spend and they would be prohibited from exceeding that amount.
Originally posted by rwingett All political donations, of any amount, by anyone, should be banned. All elections should be publicly financed. Candidates should be given a fixed amount to spend and they would be prohibited from exceeding that amount.
The disadvantage of such an approach is that it is prone to abuse by people who set up parties merely to collect the subsidy.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra The disadvantage of such an approach is that it is prone to abuse by people who set up parties merely to collect the subsidy.
You could set up some barrier against every Tom, Dick and Harry setting up a political party, such as requiring 'x' number of signatures to get on the ballot, or some such thing.
Originally posted by rwingett You could set up some barrier against every Tom, Dick and Harry setting up a political party, such as requiring 'x' number of signatures to get on the ballot, or some such thing.
It's a possible way of doing it. "Maximum small donation" seems more efficient to me, and it also makes people feel more involved with their party.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra It's a possible way of doing it. "Maximum small donation" seems more efficient to me, and it also makes people feel more involved with their party.
Even if you set up a plan where no one could give money (something I would support), wouldn't everyone including the media, individuals, organizations and corporations would have the right to comment on policy (free speech).
Originally posted by quackquack Even if you set up a plan where no one could give money (something I would support), wouldn't everyone including the media, individuals, organizations and corporations would have the right to comment on policy (free speech).
The line always get blurred though as you go from speech to verbally supporting a candidate who supports your views to indirectly monetarily supporting a candidate who supports your views to more directly financially supporting a candidate who supports your views.
Originally posted by quackquack The line always get blurred though as you go from speech to verbally supporting a candidate who supports your views to indirectly monetarily supporting a candidate who supports your views to more directly financially supporting a candidate who supports your views.
To an extent, yes. For example, corporations can buy into influence with media organizations and then you get excesses such as Fox News and MSNBC. That's why you also need an independent, well-funded public broadcaster like the BBC in the UK.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra To an extent, yes. For example, corporations can buy into influence with media organizations and then you get excesses such as Fox News and MSNBC. That's why you also need an independent, well-funded public broadcaster like the BBC in the UK.
Fox News and MSNBC are independent (though heavily biased) and people seem to like seeing their point of view. Unless you don't give people the freedom to get their choice of information, I don't see these excesses (as you call them) going away. In fact it seems to me that the trend in toward more radicalization of news information and not just because of money but because of access (more internet and cable).
Originally posted by quackquack Fox News and MSNBC are independent (though heavily biased) and people seem to like seeing their point of view. Unless you don't give people the freedom to get their choice of information, I don't see these excesses (as you call them) going away. In fact it seems to me that the trend in toward more radicalization of news information and not just because of money but because of access (more internet and cable).
I didn't say Fox News and MSNBC should be closed down. But it would be good to have an independent voice in the media landscape.
Originally posted by quackquack Unions are artificial creations which coerce union members to pay dues that go to support political candidates and political parties. The only difference I see between unions and corporation is that unions aren't taxes so unlike corporations they don't actually directly contribute to society and as such they deserve fewer rights/ freedoms. Thus, I would ...[text shortened]... ations the right to articulate their political position if unions were given the same ability.
Unions are free associations of human beings. They deserve more protection than artificial economic creations designed to protect owners from their own folly. Your anti-worker bias is on its usual ignorant display, but rationality could hardly be expected of someone who thinks the main cause of our economic problems is that the average worker gets paid too much.
Unions directly contributed to the rise in wages and living standards that transformed this country from a laissez faire Dickensian nightmare to a modern consumer orientated society to the immense benefit of the vast majority. The subsequent reduction in union membership which has accompanied governmental hostility towards worker protections over the last 30 years is a major component of our economic woes.
Originally posted by no1marauder Unions are free associations of human beings. They deserve more protection than artificial economic creations designed to protect owners from their own folly. Your anti-worker bias is on its usual ignorant display, but rationality could hardly be expected of someone who thinks the main cause of our economic problems is that the average worker gets paid t ...[text shortened]... ity towards worker protections over the last 30 years is a major component of our economic woes.
Your amazingly biased pro-union views are on display again. Take automobiles and airlines to see how unions cause low quality work and over payment of workers. See how even with the benefit of being an oligopoly that industries can't make profit despite government assistence. Unions are no more natural than corporations and certainly no more benefitical. There is no reason for corporations to not have the same free speech protections.
The last thirty years have not been hostile to worker protection at all. They are filled with workers demanding smaller work weeks, earlier retirement, more direct and indirect benefits and more holidays, earlier retirement and more causes of actions vs. employers. If workers feel they want more to keep up their lifestyle, some givebacks of the last thirty years is a logical starting point.
07 Nov '11 06:46
Revolution in Colorado
Back to Top