tschu Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Romney's list scares the sh#t out of me Link to comment
lo country Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Money is a corrupting influence in politics. Until we do something to truly limit the amounts that can be given and/or spent during an election. This is what happens. We are trillions in debt, yet both parties find a way to spend tens of millions on a presidential election. Not to mention, the House, senate, Governor and local races. It boggles the mind. There is no real transparency in seeing who gives. Corporations and persons' can use businesses and other persons' as cut outs to funnel the monies to their respective candidates. If drug cartels can launder and structure billions of dollars yearly, I am sure that politicians, Super PACS and interest groups can circumvent current laws and provisions to do the same. Think about this. How many on this board live pay check to pay check. How many of you are are fiscally irresponsible with your money as the Federal gov't? Anyone running for office, IMO, is far from living pay check to pay check. No middle class person is getting elected. It costs too much money to run. One can argue SCOTUS allowed this to happen, but both sides eagerly accept the monies blaming the other guy as the reason they do. Conservatives and Liberal groups alike poor millions upon millions into campaigns in an attempt to gain favor with the "ruling" party and push their specific agenda. This election cycle shows it has reached epic proportions. I expect the next cycle to be even worse. 1 Link to comment
lo country Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Quick question. Has any person lost an election when spending less or does the old adage of "buying" and election hold true always. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Quick question. Has any person lost an election when spending less or does the old adage of "buying" and election hold true always. That's a good question. Pretty sure Obama out-spent Bush last time around, but before that, I'm not sure. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 Money is a corrupting influence in politics. Until we do something to truly limit the amounts that can be given and/or spent during an election. This is what happens. We are trillions in debt, yet both parties find a way to spend tens of millions on a presidential election. Not to mention, the House, senate, Governor and local races. It boggles the mind. There is no real transparency in seeing who gives. Corporations and persons' can use businesses and other persons' as cut outs to funnel the monies to their respective candidates. If drug cartels can launder and structure billions of dollars yearly, I am sure that politicians, Super PACS and interest groups can circumvent current laws and provisions to do the same. Think about this. How many on this board live pay check to pay check. How many of you are are fiscally irresponsible with your money as the Federal gov't? Anyone running for office, IMO, is far from living pay check to pay check. No middle class person is getting elected. It costs too much money to run. One can argue SCOTUS allowed this to happen, but both sides eagerly accept the monies blaming the other guy as the reason they do. Conservatives and Liberal groups alike poor millions upon millions into campaigns in an attempt to gain favor with the "ruling" party and push their specific agenda. This election cycle shows it has reached epic proportions. I expect the next cycle to be even worse. +1 Link to comment
Ziggy Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Quick question. Has any person lost an election when spending less or does the old adage of "buying" and election hold true always. That's a good question. Pretty sure Obama out-spent Bush last time around, but before that, I'm not sure. Bush? You mean Bush Lite Link to comment
sd'sker Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Imagine life where money is not involved with politics. I will always dream of that day but it will never happen. Thank you, Supreme Court, vis a vis, Citizens United. And word on the street is that in the next session or two, the Supremes are going to allow even greater freedom on political donations, allowing unlimited donations to campaigns directly from corporations, essentially eliminating the need for the layer of SuperPACs. Corporations are no different than organizations like Unions. what? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Corporations are no different than organizations like Unions. In what way? Corporations and special interest groups like unions, environmental groups...etc. are the same in that they take money, spend it on candidates to buy their power after they are elected. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 Corporations are no different than organizations like Unions. In what way? Corporations and special interest groups like unions, environmental groups...etc. are the same in that they take money, spend it on candidates to buy their power after they are elected. I guess . . . but in that sort of generality any person who donates to a campaign is no different than a corporation or a union. If we're looking at that big of a picture . . . corporations are people, my friend. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Not necessarily. When you have a large organization that can pool HUGE amounts of money and hire lobbyists...etc, that is totally different than an individual donating $100 or even a couple thousand to a candidate. The fact is, when you put large amounts of money in the hands of any organization for the intent to influence an election or candidate it isn't good for the country. That doesn't matter if you agree with the union, corporation or special interest group. It is not good when a candidate feels that he owes a certain group something after they get into office. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Not necessarily. When you have a large organization that can pool HUGE amounts of money and hire lobbyists...etc, that is totally different than an individual donating $100 or even a couple thousand to a candidate. The fact is, when you put large amounts of money in the hands of any organization for the intent to influence an election or candidate it isn't good for the country. That doesn't matter if you agree with the union, corporation or special interest group. It is not good when a candidate feels that he owes a certain group something after they get into office. I agree with this. This is a bad thing. But allowing foreign corporations to influence domestic elections with their money is an even worse thing. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 Not necessarily. When you have a large organization that can pool HUGE amounts of money and hire lobbyists...etc, that is totally different than an individual donating $100 or even a couple thousand to a candidate. The fact is, when you put large amounts of money in the hands of any organization for the intent to influence an election or candidate it isn't good for the country. That doesn't matter if you agree with the union, corporation or special interest group. It is not good when a candidate feels that he owes a certain group something after they get into office. I mostly agree but we have individuals who are pumping HUGE amounts of money into the election. One person (and his wife) have donated over $70 million to a campaign already. He's stated that he will spend up to $100 million. Most corporations, unions, and environmental groups don't even come close to those numbers. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Not necessarily. When you have a large organization that can pool HUGE amounts of money and hire lobbyists...etc, that is totally different than an individual donating $100 or even a couple thousand to a candidate. The fact is, when you put large amounts of money in the hands of any organization for the intent to influence an election or candidate it isn't good for the country. That doesn't matter if you agree with the union, corporation or special interest group. It is not good when a candidate feels that he owes a certain group something after they get into office. I agree with this. This is a bad thing. But allowing foreign corporations to influence domestic elections with their money is an even worse thing. Completely agree. It absolutely makes me sick to think that foreign interests can donate and influence our elections. Someone from another country doesn't have the freedom of speech in our elections that the constitution says. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Not necessarily. When you have a large organization that can pool HUGE amounts of money and hire lobbyists...etc, that is totally different than an individual donating $100 or even a couple thousand to a candidate. The fact is, when you put large amounts of money in the hands of any organization for the intent to influence an election or candidate it isn't good for the country. That doesn't matter if you agree with the union, corporation or special interest group. It is not good when a candidate feels that he owes a certain group something after they get into office. I agree with this. This is a bad thing. But allowing foreign corporations to influence domestic elections with their money is an even worse thing. Completely agree. It absolutely makes me sick to think that foreign interests can donate and influence our elections. Someone from another country doesn't have the freedom of speech in our elections that the constitution says. Which is why Citizens United was such a terrible ruling. Perhaps the worst ruling in our lifetime (we're about the same age, I believe). And to hear they're going to double-down on Citizen's United and allow any money, in any amount, directly to the candidates... that's just terrifying. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I am somewhat in favor of the decision on Citizens United. But, I am extremely uncomfortable with making that statement. Make sense??? Groups like Citizens United and Moveon.org have the right of free speech. BUT, they need to be held accountable for what they put out with that free speech. Meaning, I am all in favor of someone's ability to put out negative information about a candidate IF IT IS TRUE. It is an extremely slippery slope if we start making it illegal for someone to say something negative about a candidate. I personally believe this needs to come from the aspect of if a group like Citizen's United chooses to put out a movie about Hillary and it is a lie during a campaign, then they should be prosecuted and prison time should be the punishment. If it is true, then they should have all the freedom to do it. The problem is, these people can put out this propaganda and there are absolutely no consequences for their actions. Link to comment
Recommended Posts