July 14, 2005
Floodgates of Political Corruption About to Open
We as voters, are all consumers of government and its services. Our consumer voices are about to be drowned by legislation being prepared in the House of Representatives. A Bill is being prepared which will open the floodgates of bribe money from wealthy corporations into politician’s hands. Public Citizen has this to report:
This legislation not only would legalize unlimited "soft money" once again by repealing parts of the recently passed Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, it would even erase some of the critical reforms enacted in 1974 after the Watergate scandal. Richard Nixon and Tom DeLay would both love this bill.Here's one flagrant example: Currently, wealthy individuals can give a total of no more than $101,400 to all candidates and parties in a two-year election cycle. The Ney-Pence-Wynn bill would raise this limit to $3 MILLION – a 30-fold increase. Imagine the corruption that a lobbyist for the big drug companies or the energy industry could buy with that kind of money!
If you want to protect the potency of your voice as a consumer of government and its services, click now on the Public Citizen link above to register your opposition to your Representative. Think about this, if you contribute $1000 per election cycle, and your opposition can contribute 3 million, who is your Representative going to be beholding to when it comes time for his/her vote?
Posted by David R. Remer at July 14, 2005 01:28 AMThe Congress, Senate and Presidency are ALREADY beholden to the Corporate Lobbies. Hell, the Republicans aren’t even pretending anymore to care for the common man. They just use the money to finance Fox, Talk Radio and Conservative Thinktanks to bombard Voters with mis-information come Election time.
This is why 40% of Americans STILL think Saddam did 9/11. You don’t get that stupid by accident, you know.
Posted by: Aldous at July 14, 2005 02:20 AMDavid,
I don’t want to sound apocalyptic, but it sounds like we may be just pissing in the wind.
Money just seems to begat more money.
The ruse is over.
Let’s say what we really are talking about here.
Bribes. There I said it. This isn’t about campaign money it’s about bribes, and any hope of reining in OUR representitives in Washington, is going right into the crapper.
It’s time to take the resent out of representitive government.
Posted by: Rocky at July 14, 2005 02:51 AMDavid:
From what I can see of this bill, it seems like it wont help. Unfortunately, McCain-Feingold was supposed to limit the amount of money in political campaigns, but seemed to have the opposite result.
Seems to me that transparency is what is required. A politician can get money, and a citizen or group of citizens can give money, but it all has to be made publicly available. With computer technology, this would be rather simple.
This way, we would KNOW if Joe Liberal gave Hillary Clinton $10 million, or if Bob Conservative gave Bill Frist $10 million. While it wouldnt stop the influence peddling (and I just dont have ideas of how to accomplish that), it would at least give the public the knowledge of who is buying what.
Heck, we might even be able to hold a politician responsible for it, by checking their voting record against their donations. Of course, as all politicians say, they are not influenced by the money they receive…….Suuuuuuure, and the check is in the mail, and Ive got a bridge for sale.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 14, 2005 08:43 AMDavid,
How many million did soros put in the last election? It was sure as hell more than 100k.
All McCain-Fiengold did was create 527 groups and ban the NRA from running ad’s on tv before elections.( McCain is anti-gun).
I say ban all the stuff. Private donations, written on a personal check, limited to 1,000$.
Posted by: Beagle at July 14, 2005 08:54 AMI agree with the basic argument- Political campaigns need to be more about issues and less about money. This is a big part of what keeps the 2 party system - 3rd parties don’t have the financial backing to compete regardless of their stances on the issues.
The few comments that have already popped up here seem to only downplay David’s criticizm simply because the money game is already well established through various other loopholes. Well rather than giving up and saying everything is already corrupt- why not start talking about all of these facets and how to address each and every one? Lets talk about how to take power away from lobbyists, 527s, private donors, etc, etc… This really needs to happen.
Posted by: pete at July 14, 2005 09:27 AMPoliticians, in time, learn all of the intricacies of the rules, and learn all the ways to break those rules.
Big money from the relatively few that really hold the reins of power, fund the multi-million dollar campaigns of those politicians. The politicians get rich, and all they have to do is vote a certain way.
We may soon have no candidates that aren’t bought and paid for (if it’s not that way already). How many politicians in Congress refuse campaign donations, ignore all their donors, and pay no attention to their lobbyists? Currently, 90% of elections are won by those with the most money for their campaign.
Thus, government is for sale to the highest bidder.
Election reform is badly needed. The rules must also adapt over time to stay one step ahead of corruption, because the politicians will continue to learn how to break the rules. Currently, the voters are always one step (or more) behind, and the politicians have it just they way they want it. They can even vote themselves a raise. Hell, they’ve even made it so that their raises are now automatic, unless they vote against a raise.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now that the politicians have grown the government to nightmare proportions, achieved total fiscal and moral bankruptcy, what can the people do to change it? Keep doing what we’ve been doing, since it seems to be working so well?
What could disrupt this ingrained corruption?
____________________________________________
NOTE: All regulars … please skip the following part, since you’ve all heard it before.
____________________________________________
Perhaps, the only thing left to do is vote them all out? Only vote for non-incumbents/non-main-party candidates? And, get a lot more names on the ballots, to make it difficult for big money to know which politician to invest all their money into. Have you noticed how the main parties (Republicans and Democrats) have essentially limited the number of candidates ? Ralph Nader was prevented by these parties from getting on the ballots in many states, and he wasn’t even allowed to participate in any debates, and the media (also bought and paid for) allowed it. How much proof is required before people begin to see that the system is being carefully manipulated, and their choices are being reduced to only a few (two usually)? This is all by design, so that the big money that bought and paid for their candidate isn’t risked by the possibility of any other candidates on the ticket. The country would have probably been much much better off if we had all shocked the hell out of the politicians, and we all voted for Ralph Nader.
Until then, government is for sale,
and controlled by a relatively few with wealth and power that really hold the reins of power, and truly govern and control the nation, and continue to have things their way, not what the people want.
Suuuuuuure, and the check is in the mail, and Ive got a bridge for sale.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 14, 2005 08:43 AM
……and of course i’ll still love you in the morning and i’ll pull out before I c……. :-)
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at July 14, 2005 10:24 AMd.a.n., nobody will believe you, it’s far too outlandish this kind of conspiracy theorising. What I find interesting, is the seamless transfer of regime from Reagan to Bush 1 to Bush 11 - the Rummies, the Cheneys et al. Look at the interests they serve, or perhaps more simply, the interests who benefit. A rudimentary police attitude when seeking a wrongdoer, is who benefits? Follow the money back to where it comes from, and see how these interests benefit, and you will see who truly rules the US of A. The problem then is, can America face the nature of its democracy? It seems to me that Americans are raised to believe certain myths about America, in order to create cohesivness and generate the unity of many in a land of mass immagration from many cultures. This is a good and necessary process in achieving that purpose. However, it seems to me to be also possibly very dangerous if it blinds US citizens to corruption going on in the backgroud in its institutions and the usurpation of power by faceless people and corporations.
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at July 14, 2005 10:35 AMPaul:
Touche’.
I prefer the honest alternative.
“Respect you in the MORNING? Hell, i dont respect you NOW!”
Wouldnt it be great if a politician actually stepped up honestly and said….”Yeah, this guy did a lot for me to get elected and I owe him. That’s why I’m voting on his behalf.”
I might disagree with him, but at least I’d know he was being truthful.
Yeah yeah, I know thats an “I give up” position to take, and I dont really hold to it, but it would at least be one step better than where we are now.
Paul in Euroland,
Conspiracy theorizing?
Paul, it’s not just theory. It’s more true than you realize.
Big money is in politics.
90% of elections are won by those with the most money.
That money isn’t free. The politicians must do something for it.
I don’t see how that’s mere theory.
So, how many of you here who agree the bill goes in the wrong direction, actually contacted your Representatives to register your disapproval?
Talk is cheap, this bill will be expensive for us all. Take the step to contact your Representative while your voice can still be potentially heard over the din of money.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2005 11:01 AMFollowing is some information that I thought might be of some interest.
Sources : Federal Register Data for 1789 to 2000, ICPSR election results for 1824 to 1972, FEC VAP and turnout figures for 1960 to 1996, FEC election results for 2000, Census 2000, Washington Post results for 2004, FEC VAP figures for 2004.
Beginning with election year 1960 and concluding with election year 2004 the Presidency has been held five (5) times by a Democrat and, seven (7) times by a Republican.
(In the election years 1932 through 1956, the Presidency was held five (5) times by a Democrat and, twice (2) by a Republican)
Going back to the 1960 through 2004 years the winning party candidate received an average of 51.2% of the popular vote. When the winning candidate was a Democrat, the margin of victory was 50.2% and when the Republican won the margin of victory was 52%.
I think it fair to say that since 1960 and the present that half the voters have supported each candidate equally (at least at the point of election). Allowing for liberty of authorship we could say that ½ the people are happy and half the people are not. Of course, the approval rating changes during the term of office depending upon actual and/or perceived performance of the President and those who are part of the administration.
Most would agree that Presidential campaigns (in fact all campaigns) have become extremely unpleasant. Impacted by who has the most money (although I believe that there are some regulations to help control that), the never ending smear tactics, sex, lies and videotape so to speak.
An interesting aspect however I believe is that while we seem to focus our attention on the result of the election based on people who voted, we often lose sight of the potential impact of a candidacy/election if all (which is unrealistic) or at least many more of the voting age eligible people did vote.
In the 1960 to 2004 elections an average of 54.8% of the voting age eligible people actually voted. (That is 45.2% of the eligible voters stayed home). When the Democratic candidate won the election 56.4% of the eligible people cast votes. When the Republican candidate won that figure drops slightly to 53.6% of the eligible actually voted.
Note: The eligible voter percentages are slightly distorted by the fact that during the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon years well over 60% of the eligible voters went to the polls.
Based on these statistics there would seem to be a vast untapped resource among the voting age eligible for huge inroads to be made for either (or both) major parties but, more importantly for advocates of a three party system.
Steve Smith,
That’s interesting.
I think a third party that has no candidate, but convinces voters to reject all incumbents and main-party bigots, could possibly resonate with an increasingly frustrated voter population that no longer know what to do. Such a party may gain more respect and support than they’ve ever dreamed of. The politicians are hoping the people never realize how easily and simply they could change the political landscape merely with their votes for only non-incumbent/non-main-party candidates. It’s really the easiest thing they could do, that’s easy to understand, easy to do, and has many potential benefits.
dan:
I think a third party that has no candidate, but convinces voters to reject all incumbents and main-party bigots, could possibly resonate with an increasingly frustrated voter population that no longer know what to do.
… a third party that has no candidate? What would be the point of that? “We don’t have anyone better, but whatever you do don’t vote for those guys!”
Posted by: Jarin at July 14, 2005 12:07 PMExactly.
Vote for anyone but incumbents or main-party candidates, because they’re bought and paid for.
That will get the money out of it.
But, you’ve got to keep doing it, so that those with wealth and power don’t know who to back or predict who will win.
Ralph Nader was kept off the ballot in some states by ONE party(Dem.’s) not two, lets correct that up front.
Lets adopt a law for getting on the ballot based on a % of population, registered to vote in any given state. If enough will sign, you’re in.
Keep that low enough to not exclude 3rd party candidates.
Anyone meeting that goal should be allowed in every freaking debate, to be broadcast on PBS free of charge. The MSM can still discuss the opinions and report on it, but doesn’t have much say beyond that.
Limit donations to an ammount given by any private citizen, written on a personal check, in whole or diveded among candidates or groups that support your issues.
Be it $1000 or $2000 per person, divide it anyway you wish.( yearly donation ammount).
The same rules for voting in any national election, no more single lever voting(dummy handle), if you don’t understand who or what you are voting for, stay home.
I personally would also remove the D,R,I, or anything like that at the end of the name on any ballot at the polling booth.
Any rules for national office(congress,Pres.) should be the same nation wide, ie; registering to vote beforehand, absentee ballots,ID,ect.
Posted by: Beagle at July 14, 2005 01:23 PMI like those ideas.
All but the donation part.
This may require an Amendment change, but
to end unfair influences by only those with money and power…
[X] Make it illegal for candidates to public office or government employees to solicit or accept money, gifts, favors, or future promises of any kind.
[X] Also, make it illegal for any family member, group or organization to solicit or accept money or gifts, or spend funds on the behalf of a candidate for office or government employee.
[X] Government should not be for sale. When money enters the election process, it is rotten. Peddling influence represents a flagrant conflict of interest, and must be eliminated. Violation and conviction of this law would also forfeit the employee’s government pension (if any).
[X] Make it illegal for government office holders or employees to accept outside employment during their employment by the government.
[X] Prohibit all government employees or office holders, for two years after leaving government employment, from accepting employment with any government contractor or sub-contractor, government consultant, lobbyist position, etc.
[X] All candidates for office will be provided free and equal media time during the election campaign (including print, radio, television, etc.). Remove the big money that allows only some to control the newspapers, radio stations and TV stations. Election statistics show that in over 90% of elections, the candidate that spends the most money wins !
[X] Hold elections on a week-end and/or declare important election days a national holiday.
[X] End voter-registration. Instead, all eligible voters should use a secure form of identification, such as biometrics.
[X] When each voter submits their vote(s), they will receive a computer printed slip of paper with a randomly generated number that can be used to find a record of their vote in a publicly listed record of all votes (e.g. on the internet, telephone, news paper, etc.). This will preserve anonymity, reduce election fraud, and provide a public record of each election.
[X] Make it illegal to start campaigning before a certain date prior to an election, so that all candidates have equal campaign time, so that campaigns will be less time consuming, and less costly to the tax payers.
I tend to lean more towards Beagle’s statements on this issue. The only way to restore power back to individuals is to eliminate all forms of campaign funding from corporations, unions, all of them. Though I do believe the dollar amount should be higher, I’d recommend a $2,500 dollar range.
I have contacted my representatives on this, so far none of them seem to like my idea.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at July 14, 2005 01:33 PMPaul in Euroland,
Conspiracy theorizing?
Paul, it’s not just theory. It’s more true than you realize.
Posted by: d.a.n at July 14, 2005 10:41 AM
Dan, I think maybe you understood me. I did not say it wasn’t real, just that it’s something that most people will draw back from considering. If you think about it, it’s a very scary prospect.
As to campaign donations, the only solution to that one is to ban them in totality. Have the state fund political parties based on reasonable criteria of support gathered in elections. I know that many citizens will have reservations about taxpayer Euros ( oops! Dollars ) being spent on political parties and candidates, but if is takes these guys out of the pockets of vested interests, then that is a huge gain for democracy, well worth the relatively minor cost of politcal funding.
Posted by: p at July 14, 2005 02:20 PMSorry, that last post signed p was from me. La Brea agat.
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at July 14, 2005 02:21 PMPaul in Eurolond wrote: As to campaign donations, the only solution to that one is to ban them in totality. Have the state fund political parties based on reasonable criteria of support gathered in elections.
I agree with that 100% .
Prohibit the donations of any kind.
When big money gets into politics, it is rotten thereafter.
However, there’s many that are going to make a Constitutional argument (free speech) to prevent the prohibition of donations.
The people need to decide if this is really a free speech issue, or whether they want politicians bought and paid for by a relatively few with wealth and power (that really hold the reins of power), which is giving rise to corporatism and government by elitists.
Exactly. Vote for anyone but incumbents or main-party candidates, because they’re bought and paid for. That will get the money out of it. But, you’ve got to keep doing it, so that those with wealth and power don’t know who to back or predict who will win.
Yeah, great idea, vote out everyone in office again and again, totally at random, without regard for their qualifications or abilities or voting record… after all, the ones already in are bought and paid for and after we vote new ones in they’ll try to bribe those too, so we keep voting in new ones and new ones until there are no politicians left who haven’t been in office at least once… and then… wait, then we’re kinda stuck….who do we vote in at that point?
Posted by: Jarin at July 14, 2005 02:29 PMRenee,
I left the $ ammount open for a reason, let the voters determine a reasonable ammount for that.
The bottom line is, I understand that a 3rd party candidate might not get elected, but if they are allowed on the ballot and into the debates, some of their ideas might reasonate with voters, and have to be dealt with by the 2 major partys.
The dollar amount allowed to give to anything in politics or issues should be reasonable enough that anyone has the same say in the matter.
We all get one vote, mine should be just as freaking valid as George Soros OR Rush Limbaugh!
Pick any corp. influence and it means the same thing, mega bucks shouldn’t matter in elections.
I don’t really want to fund a new program, but free equal coverage on PBS would be fine, we already pay for that, and people can watch bugs “doing it” after the elections.
Posted by: Beagle at July 14, 2005 02:40 PMJarin wrote: ….who do we vote in at that point?
Jarin,
There’s over 280 million Americans.
Let’s say one fourth third are eligible for federal offices. That leaves 70 million.
Lets say there are 600 offices. Hmmm, that leaves 116,666 people per office. Yep, I’d say there’s plent of people to fill those offices.
And, there are lots of good people that could do better.
500 trained monkeys could do better.
Is what we’re doing now working?
The point is, it’s less important who you vote for, than whether they’ll be responsible and accountable after being elected.
Those bought and paid for, won’t be responsible.
Those that are not bought and paid for, probably will be responsible.
The point is, we must put many others on the ballots so that the few with wealth and power can’t easily control the election, and it will no longer be cost effective for them to attempt to control the government. It also gets rid of the career politicians (many are parasites).
Have you carefully considered the reasons and benefits ?
Short of something worse, this may be the last easy way to balance (not merely shift) the power between government the government and the people.
Otherwise, it’s not too far fetched that this nation is headed for an economic melt-down, as our many pressing problems go ignored decade after decade, because no politicians want to risk re-election by tackling any tough problems.
At any rate, who knows for sure.
Do you, Jarin, have a better way ?
Posted by: d.a.n at July 14, 2005 03:03 PMdan:
One fourth of the population may be eligible, but are they really qualified? Would they even be interested in running for office? I think the number of available candidates is much smaller than you hope.
Yes, I have considered the reasons and benefits. They don’t make as much sense as you seem to think they do. Reason three, for instance, saying it would promote peer pressure to do the job right… if you vote out even those incumbents who are doing right, there is no pressure to do the job right generated. Such pressure would only be generated in a scenario where you voted out those doing wrong. Reducing corruption? If politicians know that no matter what they do they will not be reelected, what is their incentive to not be corrupt? People can take bribes while in office, too. Reducing the influence of big money in elections? Not at all… corporations would just create and back their own candidates, serving their own interests, recruited from the ranks of joe-average-noncareerpolitician.
Do I have a better way? Yes. It’s called getting informed and voting out those who misuse their office, rather than voting everyone out indiscriminately. It’s not as simple as your idea, it takes education and effort, but it works. And would be a lot more likely to achieve your goals than just voting everyone out.
Posted by: Jarin at July 14, 2005 03:21 PMJarin wrote: dan:One fourth of the population may be eligible, but are they really qualified? Would they even be interested in running for office? I think the number of available candidates is much smaller than you hope.
No, there’s plenty of qualified people.
They’re just not rich or connected with the wealthy or powerful. We could change that.
Yes, I have considered the reasons and benefits. They don’t make as much sense as you seem to think they do. Reason three, for instance, saying it would promote peer pressure to do the job right… if you vote out even those incumbents who are doing right, there is no pressure to do the job right generated. Such pressure would only be generated in a scenario where you voted out those doing wrong. Reducing corruption? If politicians know that no matter what they do they will not be reelected, what is their incentive to not be corrupt?Jarin, No, it doesn’t go on forever. Perhaps you didn’t read all of it. The voting-out incumbents ends after they’ve implemented a few necessary changes.
People can take bribes while in office, too. Reducing the influence of big money in elections? Not at all… corporations would just create and back their own candidates, serving their own interests, recruited from the ranks of joe-average-noncareerpolitician.They already do that, but with more candidates, they could control all elections. As it is now, our choices are severely limited.
Do I have a better way? Yes. It’s called getting informed and voting out those who misuse their office,Yeah, who was that? Who did you vote out of office. How often does that happen? Even if they get caught and convicted, they’ll get a pardon.
…rather than voting everyone out indiscriminately. It’s not as simple as your idea,…
… it takes education and effort, but it works.No, it’s not working. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have these pressing problems that go ignored decade after decade, and no one willing to tackle them.
And would be a lot more likely to achieve your goals than just voting everyone out.
Not too sure about that, since what we’re doing now ain’t workin’ is it ?
Some potentially interesting information that will pertain to and possibly impact the political balance of power :
At this point in time there are ;
(17) Democratic Class 1 Senators
(15) Republican Class 1 Senators
(12) Democratic Class 2 Senators
(20) Republican Class 2 Senators
(15) Democratic Class 3 Senators
(20) Republican Class 3 Senators
(01) Independent Class 1 Senator
The Democrats at present hold only a slight edge (2 seats)in the class 1 catagory. They are (8) seats in the minority in the Class 2 group and (5) seats in the minority in the Class 3 group.
Total Senators : Democrats (44)
Republican (55)
Independent(01)
Type 1 Senators terms expire with 2007
Type 2 Senators terms expire with 2009
Type 3 Senators terms expire with 2011
An individual voters voice should not be less than a corporation’s. Why not set contributions low enough to be met by average voters, then let each company/corporation be limited to that amount as well. Also, an average voter can call, email, or write their representative to lobby for an issue. How about limiting a corporation to one lobbyist person, ID’s and registered. Now we are talking about leveling the playing field.
David that is a more fair suggestion than eliminating all non-individual contributions. Now how do we make that happen?
Posted by: Lisa Renee at July 14, 2005 04:09 PMsteve smith,
That’s interesting.
That means the Democrats need quite a few seats, to catch up with the Republicans.
Have you got anything that shows how similarly they vote?
I know that would take quite a bit of research, but they appear to vote a lot alike on many things.
The thing is, I have a hard time believing the problem is just one party, or the other, since they both get to take turns. I’d think people would start concurring that both of them are the problem.
David that is a more fair suggestion than eliminating all non-individual contributions. Now how do we make that happen?That would be much better than what we have now. However, that could still be an accounting nightmare. Perhaps, all direct contributions should banned, and then, all candidates for office will be provided free and equal media time during the election campaign (including print, radio, television, etc.). The money would come from tax payers. Remove the big money that allows only some to control the newspapers, radio stations and TV stations. Election statistics show that in over 90% of elections, the candidate that spends the most money wins !
Now, that would level the playing field (i.e. eliminate all contributions).
Posted by: d.a.n at July 14, 2005 04:18 PMd.a.n,
As you may have noticed I have made two posts in this thread pertaining to political party statistics. In both instances those posts were completely non-partisan and provided as general information.
I have done this for three reasons ;
1. To sharpen my research skills (and learn new ones)
2. To demonstrate that I can use reason and good judgement in posting and,
3) I am trying to condition myself to be less sensitive interpreting and responding to posts
I this very day have taught myself to write a post in Word and cut and paste it to the comments box. What I am still unable to figure out is how to send a post where I can make a reference site in red so the reader clicks on it and goes there.
Posted by: steve smith at July 14, 2005 04:25 PMd.a.n, banning contributions runs up against the 1st Amendment. The Courts have ruled contributions can be regulated, but, not banned since they constitute political speech.
The goal is to level the volume of voices between corporate board’s of directors and CEO’s and the average Joe/Joan.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2005 05:07 PMsteve:
I this very day have taught myself to write a post in Word and cut and paste it to the comments box. What I am still unable to figure out is how to send a post where I can make a reference site in red so the reader clicks on it and goes there.
You need to use html to make a hyperlink. An example of how to make such a link is given under “HTML Formatting Tips” in the comment area, under the “Remember personal info?” option. The specific one you need to use is the second to last one, beginning “<a href=”. Hope that helps.
Posted by: Jarin at July 14, 2005 05:15 PMsteve smith, Excellent!
I like the interesting research you’ve done.
And, especially, the non-partisan approach too.
To post a reference, here is how that works:
(1) copy, cut, and paste the Address ( e.g. http://www.msn.com ) from the top of the Web Browser to you comment box, and
(2) surround it with the http codes (see tips above … include the angles and spaces just as shown below).
(3) and click Preview to test it…which should display in red: Microsoft
(4) if it looks OK and the link works, click the Post button.
Notice the other HTML (H(yper)t(ext) M(arkup) L(anguage) tips (above). There are other codes too that aren’t shown above (i.e. to display images, bold, fonts, spacing, etc.; search on HTML for more info about other codes).
Posted by: d.a.n at July 14, 2005 05:23 PMDavid R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, banning contributions runs up against the 1st Amendment. The Courts have ruled contributions can be regulated, but, not banned since they constitute political speech.The goal is to level the volume of voices between corporate board’s of directors and CEO’s and the average Joe/Joan.
That’s a good point.
Perhaps, it’s best to avoid the Constitutional Amendment quagmire.
OK. Make it say $500 (for any person or corporaiton). Make the account for every cent too (That will be an accounting nightmare).
Then, do the rest as follows.
I’d say let’s ban all outside contributions and add the dollar amount on your tax form. That way there is a paper trail, and there is no 1st amendment problems except for those that don’t pay taxes.
Posted by: Rocky at July 14, 2005 09:28 PMCapitalism is not Democracy.
Bush Sucks!!!!!!!
Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at July 15, 2005 01:58 AMd.a.n.,
Thanks for giving us the note to pass on the old stuff. Your efforts are appreciated.
David,
I clicked. I signed. I hope I don’t get sent a lot of crap for it.
Posted by: Stephanie at July 15, 2005 04:01 AMThis is a test to see if I have learned how to send a link. Will somebody please tell me if it worked.
Thanks
Posted by: steve smith at July 15, 2005 12:32 PMSteve, you got it in one! But you could always click on the link yourself to see for yourself!
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at July 15, 2005 12:55 PMThank you Paul in Euroland. Hopefully I will be able to figure it out to put the link in a sentance where I want to make the reference. But I guess I am off to a good start for a 62 year old with a terminal illness and never used a computer until a few years ago.
Cheers mate
Posted by: steve smith at July 15, 2005 03:52 PMMy pleasure steve. Sorry to hear about your illness. I hope the days of your finale are filled with joy. And as we say in Ireland, may you be in Heaven, an hour before the devil knows you’re dead! Slainte.
BTW, Cheers mate is a particularly British, even English expression. Are you British?
PS steve, we all suffer from a terminal illness, its called life. I’m not saying this to be smart, but none of us knows the days of our lives, so it’s not how long we live, but how we live, that counts. Live everyone as if it’s your last.
Dia Dhuit
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at July 15, 2005 06:38 PMPaul in Euroland,
Thanks for your words of encouragement.
No I am not British. For about 20 years however, until a few years ago where I could no longer do so, I owned and operated youth soccer camps here in the US. My staff during that period of time was made up from all of the UK countries. The original group were from Wales, hence the name of the company became Welsh Dragon Soccer Inc.
This program involved having the coaches stay at the homes of local families. At any given point in time I had several lads staying with me so I picked up a lot of the jargon.
Also many years ago when my son was thirteen (and an exceptional player) I send him to the UK for a summer with a very close friend/player from Wales to play and learn. It paid off because he went on to play at college on a partial scholarship.
Posted by: steve smith at July 16, 2005 09:29 AMGood for you Stephanie. I hope our effort is rewarded.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 17, 2005 06:58 AM
