the RNC , the FBI and the FEC

Superfreak said:
It is not giving them an opportunity you do not have, but it is most certainly giving those with more money the ability to have more influence on policy of politicians. Just so you understand Water.... you have the ability to toss as much money as you want into a 527, a PAC or a special interest group and thus pump as much money into elections as you wish. The same as those corporate owners do.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with banning them from spending money, but Desh's argument that it's like giving business owners two votes is beyond retarded.
 
Desh said:
They are less likely to be purchased by the monied interests because the are easier to spot when they do and then are more likely to not get relected.

Tell me what kinds of things that enities with money want to see happen?

They are all the things that Rs already stand for huh?
Click to expand...

bullshit. Do you really think all the money funnelled into the Dems by PACs and unions is not for special influence?
 
I would limmit them along with the corporations.

I would make it so that an individual could give no more than two thousand to any candidate and the same to any party.

The unions and Pacs could raise money to send someone to talk to the congressmembers but could give no money.

This would make our elections much cleaner.

I would also give free airtime to the candidates and then not allow them to buy commercials. They all get their airtime to stand in front of the camera and tell us their platform.
 
Superfreak said:
bullshit. Do you really think all the money funnelled into the Dems by PACs and unions is not for special influence?
Click to expand...

Yeah, like trial lawyers, unions, environmental groups, Wall St and the tech industry etc. aren't 'special interests' that can 'corrupt'?

Political parties exist to win elections. That is there number one concern. It is not about what is best for America. They exist to win. So they are all (or both) corruptable and to try and argue 'my' side is a little less corruptable than 'your' side is to miss the big picture.
 
Desh said:
I would limmit them along with the corporations.

I would make it so that an individual could give no more than two thousand to any candidate and the same to any party.

The unions and Pacs could raise money to send someone to talk to the congressmembers but could give no money.

This would make our elections much cleaner.

I would also give free airtime to the candidates and then not allow them to buy commercials. They all get their airtime to stand in front of the camera and tell us their platform.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But if you allow the unions and pacs to raise money to send someone to talk to Congress, then you have to allow corporations the same.
 
Superfreak said:
Agreed. But if you allow the unions and pacs to raise money to send someone to talk to Congress, then you have to allow corporations the same.
Click to expand...

They can spend money to go talk to them if they wish. It should not be a tax write off though.
 
Watermark said:
Congratulation, you've already done that, and incumbents are ecstatic that they will no longer face any real opposition.
Click to expand...


If they incumbant cant get pac , corporate or other money and only gets the individuals money than they dont have any real advantage.

Then challenger gets free airtime too.
 
Think about it for a minute.

Are you going to spend your time listening to some guy who owns a company who can only influence a few votes or a union guy who represents hundereds of votes?

The only packs you would pay attention to are the ones that really represent voters and not some fucking interest group who represents a few rich people.
 
Desh said:
Think about it for a minute.

Are you going to spend your time listening to some guy who owns a company who can only influence a few votes or a union guy who represents hundereds of votes?

The only packs you would pay attention to are the ones that really represent voters and not some fucking interest group who represents a few rich people.
Click to expand...

Absurd.

A business owner cannot deliver the votes of his employees anymore than the union boss can deliver his workers' votes.
 
Desh said:
If they incumbant cant get pac , corporate or other money and only gets the individuals money than they dont have any real advantage.

Then challenger gets free airtime too.
Click to expand...

Limiting the amount of funds available in an election obviously disadvantages the opposition. The incumbent is already well known. If you restrict the ability of both candidates to spread their name, then the incumbent has the advantage, because merely being in office has spread his name. The opposition would only be known by the fact that's he's present on the ballot. Incumbency rates went up exponentially after McCain Feingold was passed.
 
Watermark said:
Limiting the amount of funds available in an election obviously disadvantages the opposition. The incumbent is already well known. If you restrict the ability of both candidates to spread their name, then the incumbent has the advantage, because merely being in office has spread his name. The opposition would only be known by the fact that's he's present on the ballot. Incumbency rates went up exponentially after McCain Feingold was passed.
Click to expand...


Did you miss the free airtime part of the equation?

A vast amount of the cash spent in elections is spent on airtime.

If you gave any candidate who can get enough signatures on petition then you can bet you will get many more real citizen legislators in the mix.
 
Watermark said:
Limiting the amount of funds available in an election obviously disadvantages the opposition. The incumbent is already well known. If you restrict the ability of both candidates to spread their name, then the incumbent has the advantage, because merely being in office has spread his name. The opposition would only be known by the fact that's he's present on the ballot. Incumbency rates went up exponentially after McCain Feingold was passed.
Click to expand...

I might have agreed with you 15 years ago on that point, but with the internet, you can email, blog, youtube etc.... to spread the word about a candidate. Not to mention go into as much detail on each policy position as you wish via a personal web site.
 
Superfreak said:
I might have agreed with you 15 years ago on that point, but with the internet, you can email, blog, youtube etc.... to spread the word about a candidate. Not to mention go into as much detail on each policy position as you wish via a personal web site.
Click to expand...

Half of America doesn't have internet, and probably about 90% of those that do don't ever bother to use it for political purposes. TV medium and other advertising techniques are by far more efficient ways to get your name spread, and limiting that to the incumbent is idiotic.
 
Desh said:
Did you miss the free airtime part of the equation?

A vast amount of the cash spent in elections is spent on airtime.

If you gave any candidate who can get enough signatures on petition then you can bet you will get many more real citizen legislators in the mix.
Click to expand...

Why would you give them free airtime instead of just straight cash? Becuase you can hide the cost by shifting it off to business?
 
Watermark said:
Why would you give them free airtime instead of just straight cash? Becuase you can hide the cost by shifting it off to business?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if i'm on the right lines here but, if the proposal is anything like the UK system then it would be cheaper as you'd just legislate that the networks had to show X amount of political broadcasts for each candidate/party. No compensation...no money paid over.
 
You got it Charver.

You maybe give the stations a tax write off for doing it but the fact remains that the airwaves belong to the people anyway.
 
charver said:
I'm not sure if i'm on the right lines here but, if the proposal is anything like the UK system then it would be cheaper as you'd just legislate that the networks had to show X amount of political broadcasts for each candidate/party. No compensation...no money paid over.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be cheaper. It'd be a tax on broadcasters. I understand, anyway, that almost all of your media in Britian is owned by the government.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top