Go back
Money out of politics

Money out of politics

Debates

Z

Joined
04 Feb 05
Moves
29132
Clock
12 Apr 16

It is a simple concept. Most (i mean not just americans) agree that when politicians have so little accountability anyway, the last thing we need is to allow wealthy groups to give them campaign money (and so much at that). Politicians have admitted time and time again that their main goal is to get reelected , that they have to devote time each day not to work for the people but to call donors on the phone and ask for more money.


Is there anyone who thinks money is free speech?

Wajoma
Die Cheeseburger

Provocation

Joined
01 Sep 04
Moves
78933
Clock
12 Apr 16

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
It is a simple concept. Most (i mean not just americans) agree that when politicians have so little accountability anyway, the last thing we need is to allow wealthy groups to give them campaign money (and so much at that). Politicians have admitted time and time again that their main goal is to get reelected , that they have to devote time each day not to ...[text shortened]... nors on the phone and ask for more money.


Is there anyone who thinks money is free speech?
Politics out of the economy. You're beginning to sound like a libertarian, you're beginning to see the light, a testament to my patience.

A favourite P J O'Rourke quote: "When buying and selling are controlled be legislation the first to be bought and sold are the legislators."

You think they're on the phone looking for donations, tsk tsk, how naive you are z, they're on the phone selling out their principles and pre-selling political favors, you think those millions don't come with strings attached. When the pollies have got nothing to sell there will be fewer buyers.

shavixmir
Lord

Sewers of Holland

Joined
31 Jan 04
Moves
89790
Clock
12 Apr 16

You can take the money out of politics, but you won't take the politicians out of the money.

They'll be bought by promises of trustfundeeship and a chair at the executives table when their selling out has finished.

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
Clock
12 Apr 16

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
It is a simple concept. Most (i mean not just americans) agree that when politicians have so little accountability anyway, the last thing we need is to allow wealthy groups to give them campaign money (and so much at that). Politicians have admitted time and time again that their main goal is to get reelected , that they have to devote time each day not to ...[text shortened]... nors on the phone and ask for more money.


Is there anyone who thinks money is free speech?
If only government could take over all aspects of the private sector. Then everyone would have a $20 trillion debt.

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
Clock
12 Apr 16

Originally posted by shavixmir
You can take the money out of politics, but you won't take the politicians out of the money.

They'll be bought by promises of trustfundeeship and a chair at the executives table when their selling out has finished.
All we need to do is find politicians who are angels, pure as the wind driven snow.

You know, like Bernie.

Walla! Problem solved.

Z

Joined
04 Feb 05
Moves
29132
Clock
12 Apr 16

Originally posted by Wajoma
Politics out of the economy. You're beginning to sound like a libertarian, you're beginning to see the light, a testament to my patience.

A favourite P J O'Rourke quote: "When buying and selling are controlled be legislation the first to be bought and sold are the legislators."

You think they're on the phone looking for donations, tsk tsk, how naive y ...[text shortened]... me with strings attached. When the pollies have got nothing to sell there will be fewer buyers.
is this one of the times where you missed the point on purpose or because you are too dim? just curious, i don't really care

Z

Joined
04 Feb 05
Moves
29132
Clock
12 Apr 16

Originally posted by whodey
If only government could take over all aspects of the private sector. Then everyone would have a $20 trillion debt.
making a law forbidding anyone from donating more than 1000 dollars to someone's campaign is somewhat different than your idiotic paranoia about guvamint taking over.

in case you too are dim (which i strongly suspect) to notice, i am being sarcastic and money out of politics has NOTHING to do with your idiotic paranoia about guvamint taking over.

K

Germany

Joined
27 Oct 08
Moves
3118
Clock
12 Apr 16
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
making a law forbidding anyone from donating more than 1000 dollars to someone's campaign is somewhat different than your idiotic paranoia about guvamint taking over.

in case you too are dim (which i strongly suspect) to notice, i am being sarcastic and money out of politics has NOTHING to do with your idiotic paranoia about guvamint taking over.
A limit of 10 dollars sounds more reasonable to me.

n

The Catbird's Seat

Joined
21 Oct 06
Moves
2598
Clock
12 Apr 16

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A limit of 10 dollars sounds more reasonable to me.
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.

q

Joined
05 Sep 08
Moves
66636
Clock
12 Apr 16
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
It is a simple concept. Most (i mean not just americans) agree that when politicians have so little accountability anyway, the last thing we need is to allow wealthy groups to give them campaign money (and so much at that). Politicians have admitted time and time again that their main goal is to get reelected , that they have to devote time each day not to ...[text shortened]... nors on the phone and ask for more money.


Is there anyone who thinks money is free speech?
This money is the root of all problems is a convenient lie. People should have the opportunity to voice their opinions. 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 should regulate groups like unions which group together to try to "buy" influence with politicians all the time.

q

Joined
05 Sep 08
Moves
66636
Clock
12 Apr 16
Vote Up
Vote Down

What is the logic in limiting the amount a person can spend on politics unless they buy a news organization and then can spend unlimited amount of money preaching in the editorial section?

Ponderable
chemist

Linkenheim

Joined
22 Apr 05
Moves
670020
Clock
12 Apr 16
Vote Up
Vote Down

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.
What you can do is to make donations to political parties not tax-deductible...

K

Germany

Joined
27 Oct 08
Moves
3118
Clock
12 Apr 16
Vote Up
Vote Down

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.
Good point norm, why have any laws at all? People will find ways around them anyway.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the influence of money in politics and/or corruption are not equally problematic everywhere.

How is banning bribery more "control freak" than setting prices in the private advertising market?

Wajoma
Die Cheeseburger

Provocation

Joined
01 Sep 04
Moves
78933
Clock
12 Apr 16
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
is this one of the times where you missed the point on purpose or because you are too dim? just curious, i don't really care
Money out of politics, politics out of money, same difference right. So long as the pollies have something to sell they will be bought. Make it do they don't have anything to sell, get the pollies out of the economy.

K

Germany

Joined
27 Oct 08
Moves
3118
Clock
12 Apr 16
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
Money out of politics, politics out of money, same difference right. So long as the pollies have something to sell they will be bought. Make it do they don't have anything to sell, get the pollies out of the economy.
How would you make sure that politicians "have nothing to sell" specifically?

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.