Is there anyone in the GOP who advocates to remove money from elections?

NiftyNiblick said:
There's going to be public and private sectors no matter which party is in control.

The private sector is perfectly appropriate for providing goods and services that people acquire through discretionary spending---
as long as it's regulated enough to provide reasonable protection to workers, consumers, and investors.

For necessities like health care, just to site one example, the private sector is a waste. Money that should go to the actual health care services is instead wasted on huge insurance company profits. Do you think it would be that hard tom develop a safe appetite suppressant for obese people? Of course not, but no development goes into that because illnesses arising from obesity are so profitable to pharma, to insurance, and even to physicians alike. That's just one small example how socialized medicine makes more sense.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of appetite suppressing agents (you can even do it with accupuncture). The issue is you cannot make people use them.

What are insurance sector companies usual profit margins? The insurance industry's net margin in 2017 ranged between 3 and 10.5%. Life insurance had the widest range between quarters, from 3% to 9.6%; property and casualty insurance were at 3% to 8%; and health insurance had the narrowest range of 4% to 5.25%.May 7, 2018

Hardly huge.
 
Nordberg said:
The first thing a candidate has to do is prove they have the financial backing to run for president. The candidates are often compared by how much money they have in the bank. To deny the power of money is foolish and wrong. Money is necessary to get into the debates. Money is needed to develop and pay for an organization in each state to get out the vote. You have to provide equipment, pay for and office and supplies and have to train workers. When the election nears, you need to pay for incredibly expensive ads to get out the vote.
The advantage of having lots of money is clear. It is a benefit to provide better quality organizational tools and putting your ads into every commercial break week after week. Money is powerful in American elections and that is why the wealthy can run without qualifying for the job.
Click to expand...

so you do or don't want the money out of politics?
 
Hi Flash,

Flash said:
Then if all those liberal policies were not favored by the super rich, they must not run the country because their views did not prevail.

If you look at campaign finance reports you will see both Democrats and Republicans get large campaign contributions form the super wealthy.

About100 billionaires have contributed to current Democratic presidential candidates (46 to Harris).

As of the August, 2019, reporting data the topo 10 donors had given $47 million to candidates, parties and groups. 7 of those 10 gave to Democrats.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/08/81419-donors-giving-the-most-2020/
Click to expand...

This is encouraging. And I am glad to see it. It is good to know there are plenty of people out there with money and mental clarity. As was stated in the article, it is early in the campaign season. I find it encouraging that plenty of people, even some with big money, are so motivated to defeat Trump that there is this much giving this early in the campaign and to Democrats. That is not the usual case, and has not been the history. More rich Republicans have supported business-friendly Republican agendas, traditionally.
 
Hello Celticguy,

Celticguy said:
Not according to their website.
Click to expand...

They never claim it is an instant fix. What are you talking about? It is THE fix. There is no 'easy' about it. Nothing worth while comes easy.

[url]https://represent.us/[/URL]

They never claim to get the money out of politics. If you have a plan for that I am all ears. They are going to get the dirty money out. That can be done, and needs to.

Here is what they are calling for:


Let voters rank their top candidates
End gerrymandering
Let all voters participate in open primaries
Change how elections are funded
Make it illegal for politicians to take money from lobbyists
Ban lobbyist bundling
Close the revolving door
Prevent politicians from fundraising during working hours
Immediately disclose political money online
Stop donors from hiding behind secret-money groups

The details for the plan to accomplish each of these is here.

The organization is a coalition of Republicans and Democrats who are tired of the corruption.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hi Flash,



This is encouraging. And I am glad to see it. It is good to know there are plenty of people out there with money and mental clarity. As was stated in the article, it is early in the campaign season. I find it encouraging that plenty of people, even some with big money, are so motivated to defeat Trump that there is this much giving this early in the campaign and to Democrats. That is not the usual case, and has not been the history. More rich Republicans have supported business-friendly Republican agendas, traditionally.
Click to expand...

In 2008 I checked the campaign contribution data for the large law firms in my area because I was curious whether they were donating to Obama or Clinton. Surprisingly, but very understandable, they were contributing to John Edwards--a trial lawyer.
 
Hello Celticguy,

Celticguy said:
No. It removes money you dont like. It is neither a fix nor a path to NO MONEY.
Click to expand...

If you have a path to no money spill it. I don't think that's possible.

This is going to work. It is going to get the corruption out of government.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Celticguy,



If you have a path to no money spill it. I don't think that's possible.

This is going to work. It is going to get the corruption out of government.
Click to expand...

It hasnt worked for the libertarians, or had you not noticed its just a rehash of that ? Theyve been at it for 50 years.
 
Hello Flash,

Flash said:
In 2008 I checked the campaign contribution data for the large law firms in my area because I was curious whether they were donating to Obama or Clinton. Surprisingly, but very understandable, they were contributing to John Edwards--a trial lawyer.
Click to expand...

I don't give that much bearing on overall national political giving.

We should know who is behind the dark money.

Let's just bring it out into the open.

We can do that.

That way, we can ensure that no foreigners are involved in our domestic elections.
 
Hello Celticguy,

Celticguy said:
It hasnt worked for the libertarians, or had you not noticed its just a rehash of that ? Theyve been at it for 50 years.
Click to expand...

They have never convinced the nation to do it their way, so I don't see anything as conclusive there.
 
Hello Stardawg,

Stardawg said:
um, no they didn't?
Click to expand...

I heard they did. I wasn't there.

OK, I am no historian. Maybe somebody knowledgeable can chime in. Or perhaps you are knowledgeable of it. I did a little research and it's not exactly clear. I guess they didn't have a Constitution and the structure of government changed over time. The only lasting institution being the Senate, but it's powers changed over time. There were other councils which more directly represented the people but they also seemed to come and go in time.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Flash,



I don't give that much bearing on overall national political giving.

We should know who is behind the dark money.

Let's just bring it out into the open.

We can do that.

That way, we can ensure that no foreigners are involved in our domestic elections.
Click to expand...

Foreign contributions are already prohibited. Disclosure is not a bad idea but I think people should be able to give to non-profits for issue advocacy (dark money) without the public knowing who they contribute to. A person's business or personal life could be ruined if they gave to an unpopular cause.

Many years ago some states required its citizens to register if they were members of the communist party or NAACP which resulted in people losing their jobs.
 
Flash said:
Foreign contributions are already prohibited. Disclosure is not a bad idea but I think people should be able to give to non-profits for issue advocacy (dark money) without the public knowing who they contribute to. A person's business or personal life could be ruined if they gave to an unpopular cause.

Many years ago some states required its citizens to register if they were members of the communist party or NAACP which resulted in people losing their jobs.
Click to expand...

I admit to going back and forth on this. There are times I think disclosure is important but there are times like you mentioned where people should have privacy.
 
cawacko said:
I admit to going back and forth on this. There are times I think disclosure is important but there are times like you mentioned where people should have privacy.
Click to expand...

And, very few people are going to bother looking up who contributed to a certain non-profit organization. If we know what that organization advocates it seems that issue is what is important, not who is supporting it financially.

If there was some bill that everybody thought was a good idea they would change their mind if they found out it was being financed by someone they dislike. Liberals used to be obsessed with Koch money and Republicans threw a fit over Soros money.
 
Flash said:
Foreign contributions are already prohibited. Disclosure is not a bad idea but I think people should be able to give to non-profits for issue advocacy (dark money) without the public knowing who they contribute to. A person's business or personal life could be ruined if they gave to an unpopular cause.

Many years ago some states required its citizens to register if they were members of the communist party or NAACP which resulted in people losing their jobs.
Click to expand...

All political giving is monitored. Except on the PAC and 501 c levels. Every dime you give is reported and tabulated. if you don't believe it, give more than the law allows and see what happens. I did the bookkeeping for a political campaign and it was a pain in the ass . The paperwork had to be filled in a timely fashion.
Political non profit orgs, like 501cs do not have to reveal their donors. Their financial sources are unknown. That is how the wealthy get their claws into politicians.
 
Hello Flash,

Flash said:
Foreign contributions are already prohibited. Disclosure is not a bad idea but I think people should be able to give to non-profits for issue advocacy (dark money) without the public knowing who they contribute to. A person's business or personal life could be ruined if they gave to an unpopular cause.
Click to expand...

They they should not be supporting those causes. I see absolutely no reason to keep that private. And we need to know who is giving to what so that we can ensure no foreign money is influencing our politics. There must be oversight of political giving.

Flash said:
Many years ago some states required its citizens to register if they were members of the communist party or NAACP which resulted in people losing their jobs.
Click to expand...

That different old issue has no bearing on current foreign influence in our elections.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Celticguy,



They have never convinced the nation to do it their way, so I don't see anything as conclusive there.
Click to expand...

And what makes your little video different ?
Bear in mind that libertarians have more people in office than all other 3rd partys combined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top