- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why you've been suckered on the idea of Campaign finance reform
Posted on 4/2/14 at 10:24 am
Posted on 4/2/14 at 10:24 am
I Americans have been completely bamboozled on this subject to the point that you have people on both sides that want the govt to institute limits on contributions.
Here's the problem with that.
Influece comes in more forms than just money. Even if there were ZERO $$ in contributions allowed, those with ACCESS and private sector power would have GREAT influence on our government. IE, the Buffets, Kochs, Gates, Soros of the world would still greatly influence policy.
BUT, without allowance for contributions, the other 99% of the nation would have even LESS influence than they do now.
Today, because a million people making 60K a year can donate to a particular cause/organization, their voice actually carries some weight in the halls of congress. These organziations span the political spectrum. The list is long.
NRA
NEA
AARP
Unions
Chamber of Commerce
Environmental ORGs
etc etc etc.
For the most part, the members of these organziations would be completely invisible absent their ability to influence politics via their contributions. But, none of the folks with access will EVER be invisible.
And hell, we're not even delving into the fact that those with great wealth and access have influence in ways from media control to simly having their own bully pulpit. Not like the Dan Rathers of the world are going to sit with someone like me or anyone else in here for 20 minutes to put out what they think on issues.
The fact that the rank and file American is on board with restricting this stuff is funny to me because it damned sure will NOT be the top dogs who get screwed by such restrictions.
We seem very good at demanding our own fricking.
Here's the problem with that.
Influece comes in more forms than just money. Even if there were ZERO $$ in contributions allowed, those with ACCESS and private sector power would have GREAT influence on our government. IE, the Buffets, Kochs, Gates, Soros of the world would still greatly influence policy.
BUT, without allowance for contributions, the other 99% of the nation would have even LESS influence than they do now.
Today, because a million people making 60K a year can donate to a particular cause/organization, their voice actually carries some weight in the halls of congress. These organziations span the political spectrum. The list is long.
NRA
NEA
AARP
Unions
Chamber of Commerce
Environmental ORGs
etc etc etc.
For the most part, the members of these organziations would be completely invisible absent their ability to influence politics via their contributions. But, none of the folks with access will EVER be invisible.
And hell, we're not even delving into the fact that those with great wealth and access have influence in ways from media control to simly having their own bully pulpit. Not like the Dan Rathers of the world are going to sit with someone like me or anyone else in here for 20 minutes to put out what they think on issues.
The fact that the rank and file American is on board with restricting this stuff is funny to me because it damned sure will NOT be the top dogs who get screwed by such restrictions.
We seem very good at demanding our own fricking.
This post was edited on 4/2/14 at 10:25 am
5
Posted on 4/2/14 at 10:29 am to SettleDown
So in other words unions good, corporate interest bad.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 10:42 am to SettleDown
quote:
Chamber of Commerce
frick the Chamber of Commerce!
Posted on 4/2/14 at 11:40 am to SettleDown
quote:*ding*ding*ding*
Today, because a million people making 60K a year can donate to a particular cause/organization, their voice actually carries some weight in the halls of congress.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 11:43 am to SettleDown
I think we should remove the caps on giving money and instead make all donations anonymous.
Think of the free rider problem you introduce, and I think you move to the model where you give money to candidates who carry your message vs. giving money to influence their vote.
Think of the free rider problem you introduce, and I think you move to the model where you give money to candidates who carry your message vs. giving money to influence their vote.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 11:48 am to SettleDown
quote:
million people making 60K a year can donate to a particular cause/organization, their voice actually carries some weight in the halls of congress.
The $300 I donated back in 2012 to a losing cause is carrying absolutely zero weight in the halls right now. All I ended up getting for my money was a chance to express a high-priced opinion.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 12:16 pm to GumboPot
quote:Are you saying that's my assertion? I think you missed something.
So in other words unions good, corporate interest bad.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 12:20 pm to SettleDown
Get real.
The averag person doe not donate to campaigns.
The person donating wants something in return.
Why do banks and insurance companies donate to politicians who are on banking and insurance committees? Out of the goodness of their hearts?
Why do teachers unions donate to members of education committes?
People donate because they want a return on their donation (investment). Period. That is reality.
By the way the average Joe who earns 60k will never donate 2,500 to a candidate. He will donate a hundred bucks at most. You think that gives him any influence at all? It gets him one handshake at best and a thanks.
The averag person doe not donate to campaigns.
The person donating wants something in return.
Why do banks and insurance companies donate to politicians who are on banking and insurance committees? Out of the goodness of their hearts?
Why do teachers unions donate to members of education committes?
People donate because they want a return on their donation (investment). Period. That is reality.
By the way the average Joe who earns 60k will never donate 2,500 to a candidate. He will donate a hundred bucks at most. You think that gives him any influence at all? It gets him one handshake at best and a thanks.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 12:37 pm to Eurocat
So tell me again why the government has a right to restrict my free speech in the form of supporting a candidate or cause?
Posted on 4/2/14 at 12:39 pm to Qwerty
This is a case of two rights conflicting.
The right to free expression and the right to free and uncorrupted elections.
The right to free expression and the right to free and uncorrupted elections.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 12:50 pm to Eurocat
quote:
This is a case of two rights conflicting. The right to free expression and the right to free and uncorrupted elections.
Those two are not in conflict here. Nobody is talking about election fraud. You're talking about corrupt officials. The way to minimize corruption is to minimize their power. They will always tend towards corrupting influence, with or without this law.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News