- 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
re: Tea Party fumes over campaign finance. Should there be any limits?
Posted on 12/12/14 at 10:09 am to a want
Posted on 12/12/14 at 10:09 am to a want
quote:
. Something like cutting .75% per year for 10 years...or something similar for every department in government. That's a start at least. Phasing it in is key.
That would be the 3/4 of a penny plan. The penny plan would be a whole percent. Then if the budget isn't balanced, another whole percent comes off, etc., until it gets into balance.
You're smarter than you think.
0
Posted on 12/12/14 at 10:12 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Assuming one party supports the corporation and the other plans to disadvantage it, political contribution is akin to fiduciary responsibility.
That's one way of putting it. But such monolithic blocks of support/opposition only exist because of massive amounts of $ in the first place, Right?
Posted on 12/12/14 at 10:14 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Assuming one party supports the corporation and the other plans to disadvantage it, political contribution is akin to fiduciary responsibility.
Or if that corporation requires goodwill and access to government officials, lobbying expenses, as well as campaign contributions would be likewise viewed as a fiduciary responsibility.
(e.g. Lockheed-Martin, General Electric, thousands of others)
Posted on 12/12/14 at 10:14 am to a want
A candidate without money has no chance to be elected. Most wealth is concentrated in a tiny fraction of the population. That tiny fraction is able to decide which candidates are heard, which candidates are taken seriously, and which candidates make it to the ballot. Does our system really qualify as a democracy?
With that said, I'm not sure how it can change.
With that said, I'm not sure how it can change.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 10:35 am to a want
quote:
I'm not familiar with the the penny plan. What is it??
A few of years ago (early 2012) I geeked out and did an analysis of the penny plan and here's what I found:
1.) The penny plan can get us to a balanced budget within 5 years.
2.) Once we reach a balanced budget we can abandon the penny plan see the first chart. Or,
3.) we can continue with the penny plan and pay down the debt around the year 2035.
4.) After that we can spend like an about to get divorced wife, again.
Note these charts are over two years old so the debt is greater and the time to pay down the debt is further out.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 11:00 am to a want
Anybody who sets up shop and calls themselves a spokesman of the Tea Party isn't necessarily talking about ALL of it. That's the point - there isn't any one leader, makes us a harder target to demonize, always a consideration with the leftist press.
As for campaign financing, let anybody donate what they want, just make it ALL public. Then voters are responsible for knowing who backs whom.
As for campaign financing, let anybody donate what they want, just make it ALL public. Then voters are responsible for knowing who backs whom.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 11:47 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
The only way to do this is the penny plan (or some variation), unfortunately. Nobody is going to budge on entitlements, defense spending, other pork, etc. So, everybody is going to have to take 1 penny on the dollar less - or 2 pennies, or however, many until the sheet is balanced.
We can at least put the whole "revenue" problem to bed, as we are experiencing historically high revenues and still running a deficit - agreed?
He wants to increase taxes.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 12:04 pm to moneyg
quote:
He wants to increase taxes.
But that won't increase revenues - we have to assume we're near maximum extraction rate - "increasing" taxes (i.e. shifting the tax burden more and more to the "rich") won't appreciably increase revenues.
However, I'm not sure you're being fair. a want seemed open to the idea of something like the penny plan.
It's a start. I'll take it.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 12:15 pm to a want
I recognize that big money to these PACs is harmful to democracy but I'm also for freedom. So, lift the restrictions, I say.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 1:02 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
IMO there should be no limits whatsoever, but it should be 100% transparent.
Absolutely!
Posted on 12/12/14 at 1:07 pm to a want
quote:
If a corporation's primary responsibility is the shareholder, how can anyone view corporate contributions to a political campaign as anything other than corruption...or an attempt to corrupt?
If USA Corporations were not taxed and regulated so much I wouldn't like them having so much of a say in government. But, they pay so much in taxes and have to follow so many regulations they should be able to have a dog in the fight.
This post was edited on 12/12/14 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 12/12/14 at 1:26 pm to a want
We've already gotten beyond this making a difference. The megawealthy have figured out how to cut out the traditional parties altogether and set up their own parapolitical entities.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 1:59 pm to a want
quote:
the new limits included in the omnibus only increase political speech for party insiders while silencing the majority of Americans who are fed up with Washington.” Why do you hate free speech, Ken?
He has a point. It's free speech. So why limit individuals donating to individual candidates? If a corporation wants to give a million dollars to the Dems or GOP, fine? But why can't I give a million dollars to Rand Paul?
Posted on 12/12/14 at 2:02 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
we despreately need campaign finance reform.
No! There are only 2 sources of information in a campaign:
a. The candidate
b. The MSM
If you limit the candidate's ability to raise money and get his message out then the balance of info shifts heavily to the MSM. And the MSM is a branch of the Democrat Party.
This is why the MSM has been hammering away at Campaign Finance Reform for 30 years. They want to be king makers and their choices will be between which Democrat they want to win.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 2:13 pm to a want
quote:They exist d/t corporate taxes, regulations, and subsidies in that order.
But such monolithic blocks of support/opposition only exist because of massive amounts of $ in the first place, Right?
Posted on 12/12/14 at 3:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
there is a difference in giving a political candidate/party money and contributing to a private body/entity
now i'm not saying i agree with it, but the candidate/party agrees to the rules and is part of a bigger regulatory scheme. compare this with, say, crossroads, which is completely separate from any party or candidate, who is running ads it desires. THAT is why those contributions are considered "speech"
They don't understand that. It goes over their heads.
Direct corporate campaign contributions are illegal.
Super PAC direct campaign contributions are also illegal.
PACs have stringent contribution limits.
Corporate, union, PAC and Super PAC spending independent of a political campaign is unlimited.
Somehow, all of that has been turned into "corporations have no limits on campaign contributions," which is false.
There's been lots of Grubering with campaign finance since Citizens United.
This post was edited on 12/12/14 at 3:12 pm
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News