12 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf the campaign contributions are open, how is it "getting caught"? The whole point is our being able to support our candidates in a process that is expensive. Elimination of that would means that only Candidates like Trump with great personal wealth could run.
I prefer:
C. People may not contribute financially without limit to political campaigns, and when they get caught "slipping an envelope" or receiving said envelope they should be tried and convicted for bribery. Criminals can and do get caught committing crimes now and again, in case you hadn't noticed.
I could see a system where the government supplies vouchers to political candidates to be used for ads. However that would require that all candidates including unheard of independents and minor parties be included. More public expense.
13 Apr 16
Originally posted by normbenignIf murder is legal, how is it "getting caught"?
If the campaign contributions are open, how is it "getting caught"? The whole point is our being able to support our candidates in a process that is expensive. Elimination of that would means that only Candidates like Trump with great personal wealth could run.
I could see a system where the government supplies vouchers to political candidates to be ...[text shortened]... andidates including unheard of independents and minor parties be included. More public expense.
A cursory glance at the real world reveals that it is NOT true that in places where campaign funding is much more restricted "only candidates like Trump [can] run."
I could see a system where the government supplies vouchers to political candidates to be used for ads. However that would require that all candidates including unheard of independents and minor parties be included. More public expense.
Similar systems exist and result in much fewer expenses. Actually, during the Dutch election season you will see almost no TV ads because politicians and political parties simply cannot afford them.
13 Apr 16
Originally posted by WajomaTrump makes a lot of noise about a lot of things - in any case, a large part of his campaign fund comes from donors.
Doesn't Trump make a lot of noise about using his own money? The anti-trump whiners wouldn't be the same ones whining about money in politics.
Surely not.
13 Apr 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow does that definition apply to people giving money to a politician who's ideology they agree with in order for him to try to convince others to vote for him? It fails the last requirement which requires the politician to act in a way he otherwise wouldn't have.
It most certainly is not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BriberyBribery is the act of giving money, goods or other forms of recompense to a recipient in exchange for an alteration of their behavior (to the benefit/interest of the giver) that the recipient would otherwise not alter.
The US political system legalizes, and in fact encourages, a significant amount of bribery.
13 Apr 16
Originally posted by normbenign"It really doesn't matter, because people will find ways around such limits anyway."
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.
drug laws don't matter because people will find ways to do drugs
murder laws don't matter because people will still kill other people
13 Apr 16
Originally posted by quackquack"People should have the opportunity to voice their opinions."
This money is the root of all problems is a convenient lie. 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 sh ...[text shortened]... groups like unions which group together to try to "buy" influence with politicians all the time.
they should. they voice their opinion through casting a vote.
right now they don't. because a million dollars buys you a lot of opportunity to voice your opinion and shut down others from doing the same.
13 Apr 16
Originally posted by normbenignthose are the only options? there isn't a third of fifth?
Which is better?
A. People may freely support politicians or parties of their choice, and openly contribute to the campaign.
B. People slip an envelope full of cash in secret, along with a list of things they want done in return.
You do see the difference.
how about people only get to contribute a maximum of 1000 dollars and you put people in jail for slipping elected officials envelopes
13 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf you believe having a big budget helps to run a big campaign these 'measures' you're advocating would put Trump even further ahead than he is now.
those are the only options? there isn't a third of fifth?
how about people only get to contribute a maximum of 1000 dollars and you put people in jail for slipping elected officials envelopes
Like shav, you're a closeted Trump fan?
13 Apr 16
Originally posted by no1marauderIt doesn't apply to all donors. But it is clear that some major donors do expect something in return.
How does that definition apply to people giving money to a politician who's ideology they agree with in order for him to try to convince others to vote for him? It fails the last requirement which requires the politician to act in a way he otherwise wouldn't have.
13 Apr 16
Originally posted by Wajomathat is taken care of by ensuring everybody running for a position gets the same amount of air time.
If you believe having a big budget helps to run a big campaign these 'measures' you're advocating would put Drumpf even further ahead than he is now.
Like shav, you're a closeted Drumpf fan?
13 Apr 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo the Dutch vote blindly.
If murder is legal, how is it "getting caught"?
A cursory glance at the real world reveals that it is NOT true that in places where campaign funding is much more restricted "only candidates like Trump [can] run."
[b]I could see a system where the government supplies vouchers to political candidates to be used for ads. However that would require t ...[text shortened]... u will see almost no TV ads because politicians and political parties simply cannot afford them.
13 Apr 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadBenefiting from a policy you may favor, isn't a payback of a bribe. Of course a lot of that could be remedied by legislatures refraining from laws that either help or harm business.
It doesn't apply to all donors. But it is clear that some major donors do expect something in return.