It's not about the money

[Ransom]

Hillary Clinton is asking supporters to chip in a buck. In an email this afternoon, Clinton writes, "I’m asking you to step up today, give just $1, and become a Launch Donor -- one of the tough, essential supporters who stood with me from the very beginning."

Just give a buck


"It's not about the money. It's about knowing that when I step on the stage on Saturday, you’re with me. You have my back -- just like I’ll have yours."

No no...not about the money at all, that is why.....


The ask is a lot less expensive than the one Clinton is making (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/livin-prayer-hillary-fundraise-bon-jovi_967852.html) of those who want to attend the fundraiser with singer Jon Bon Jovi. A ticket to that event costs between $1,000-$2,700.

I've always thought Bon Jovi was an overrated joke.

Give one dollar....after the $2,700 ticket that is.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hillary-asks-donors-1_968242.html

[Common Sense]

Citizens United has only further entrenched the reality that politics in America is losing battle without vast sums of money.

[Ethereal]

Citizens United has only further entrenched the reality that politics in America is losing battle without vast sums of money.

It's the law, and it ain't going to change.

:wink:

[Common Sense]

It's the law, and it ain't going to change.

:wink:

But you know that was never my argument. I said that it was the law because it reflected the will of the people.

I really don't think Citizens United reflects the will of the people. It reflects moneyed interests who have a disproportionate say in governance. A disproportionate say that has been increased.

[Ransom]

But you know that was never my argument. I said that it was the law because it reflected the will of the people.

I really don't think Citizens United reflects the will of the people. It reflects moneyed interests who have a disproportionate say in governance. A disproportionate say that has been increased.

But a disproportionate say....that the government has no business in. A government by and for the people are free. Free to incorporate, unionize, community organize, and it's none of the government's business. Money talks...that's far from a secret. It influences. It corrupts. But it cannot be oppressed and 'banned' by a government, the people have every right to combine monies or give through their corporations......and corporations have that right as well....just as unions and community organizations do. Just as PETA or the NRA. The NAACP or religious based foundations.

You....as a government....shouldn't have an interest, it's none of your business. Government....must derive it's powers from the consent of those it governs, CS, not the other way around.

[Ransom]

But you know that was never my argument. I said that it was the law because it reflected the will of the people.

I really don't think Citizens United reflects the will of the people. It reflects moneyed interests who have a disproportionate say in governance. A disproportionate say that has been increased.

If it is the will of the People to incorporate....and then give money to a political campaign.....what is the government's interest. Hands off my money.

[Bob]

Citizens United has only further entrenched the reality that politics in America is losing battle without vast sums of money.

Citizens United benefits unions. I am shocked you don't approve that.

[Chris]

But a disproportionate say....that the government has no business in. A government by and for the people are free. Free to incorporate, unionize, community organize, and it's none of the government's business. Money talks...that's far from a secret. It influences. It corrupts. But it cannot be oppressed and 'banned' by a government, the people have every right to combine monies or give through their corporations......and corporations have that right as well....just as unions and community organizations do. Just as PETA or the NRA. The NAACP or religious based foundations.

You....as a government....shouldn't have an interest, it's none of your business. Government....must derive it's powers from the consent of those it governs, CS, not the other way around.




But a disproportionate say....that the government has no business in. A government by and for the people are free. Free to incorporate, unionize, community organize, and it's none of the government's business.

No, most people do not mid-stride switch subjects. You begin talking about the state and then switch subjects to society.

Many people, from liberal progressives to neocons, do confuse the state with society. And I agree, society should have liberty of association and it should be none of government's business.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Common Sense http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1128475#post1128475)
But you know that was never my argument. I said that it was the law because it reflected the will of the people.

I really don't think Citizens United reflects the will of the people. It reflects moneyed interests who have a disproportionate say in governance. A disproportionate say that has been increased.


If it is the will of the People to incorporate....and then give money to a political campaign.....what is the government's interest. Hands off my money.

Interesting he is against citizens united. Now if the name was progressive citizens united, then he would be just fine.

[Common Sense]

Money has corrupted politics to the point that the main goal of politicians is to raise money. Not to govern.

What that has done is to distract from the real job of government and to further entrench established parties making it nearly impossible for true competitive politics. New parties, new ideas etc...

Most of the civilized word puts limits on campaign spending an contributions. What that has done is made much more efficient and competitive political processes where the role of the government is to govern, not throw parties.

But lets yell freedom and liberty while being controlled by monied interests. "Merica! Fuck yeah!"

[Common Sense]

Interesting he is against citizens united. Now if the name was progressive citizens united, then he would be just fine.

I'm against all of it.

At this point however I can't blame either side for fundraising. It's simply the nature of the game now. Money wins. People loose.

[Ethereal]

But you know that was never my argument. I said that it was the law because it reflected the will of the people.

I really don't think Citizens United reflects the will of the people. It reflects moneyed interests who have a disproportionate say in governance. A disproportionate say that has been increased.

Then would it be fair to say that when a law does happen represent the will of the people, it is merely coincidental and not necessarily a reflection of democracy in action?

[Peter1469]

If it is the will of the People to incorporate....and then give money to a political campaign.....what is the government's interest. Hands off my money.

That accounts for Citizen United- a corporation created explicitly to raise funds for political campaigns.

That doesn't account for Ford- a corporation created to make and sell cars.

[Common Sense]

Then would it be fair to say that when a law does happen represent the will of the people, it is merely coincidental and not necessarily a reflection of democracy in action?

I'd say both scenarios exist. But I wouldn't say that laws that the public support being enacted are just coincidental.

Some laws are due to popular demand, others are due to corporate demands and others still are due to court rulings.

[Ethereal]

I'd say both scenarios exist. But I wouldn't say that laws that the public support being enacted are just coincidental.

Some laws are due to popular demand, others are due to corporate demands and others still are due to court rulings.

So which group has more influence over the state? The masses or the moneyed interests? When their agendas conflict, who will win the political battle?

[Common Sense]

So which group has more influence over the state? The masses or the moneyed interests? When their agendas conflict, who will win the political battle?

Depends which aspect you're talking about.

Look, I get that you're trying to do something here. Trying to somehow get me to negate my own point. It's sort of transparent.

[Ransom]

That accounts for Citizen United- a corporation created explicitly to raise funds for political campaigns.

That doesn't account for Ford- a corporation created to make and sell cars.

No Peter...if the car manufacturer wants to contribute to any federal campaign......the government has no interest in trying to ban that money. And note I said campaign, your legal lessons will come in handy here. Corporations giving to a particular candidate have limitations. If that corporation wants to give to a PAC or other 501c.......it's none of the government's business.

[Common Sense]

...and look how well that system has worked out for America.

They are estimating that upwards of $5 billion will be spent on this election.

[Peter1469]

No Peter...if the car manufacturer wants to contribute to any federal campaign......the government has no interest in trying to ban that money. And note I said campaign, your legal lessons will come in handy here. Corporations giving to a particular candidate have limitations. If that corporation wants to give to a PAC or other 501c.......it's none of the government's business.

I disagree. Fundamentally a corporation is not a person. They are afforded the right of person hood for some things. There is no reason for them to be given person hood for political donations (they have lobbying which is much more effective from a corporation's pov anyway).

Ford is incorporated to make and sell cars. Its executive board is likely not in agreement on politics. Its employees are likely not in agreement on politics. Its shareholders are likely not in agreement on politics. But each executive, employee, and shareholder is free to donate to the politician of their choice ending conflicts.

[Ransom]

I'm against all of it.

At this point however I can't blame either side for fundraising. It's simply the nature of the game now. Money wins. People loose.

The people vote for the candidates, Common Sense.

Take for example Barack Obama. He had record setting campa$gns. Both his 2008 and 2012 campaigns.....set records.

But those who normally are screaming about $ stepped right up and voted for him.......while criticizing Romney for being the money candidate.

Full disclosure is the answer. We the People win, the person we elect.......sits in office. We just ignore the $'s when it's a (D).

[Ransom]

I disagree. Fundamentally a corporation is not a person. They are afforded the right of person hood for some things. There is no reason for them to be given person hood for political donations (they have lobbying which is much more effective from a corporation's pov anyway).

There was a disagreement yes. It went to the Supreme Court.


Ford is incorporated to make and sell cars. Its executive board is likely not in agreement on politics. Its employees are likely not in agreement on politics. Its shareholders are likely not in agreement on politics. But each executive, employee, and shareholder is free to donate to the politician of their choice ending conflicts.

It's employees may in fact not be in agreement. The stockholders either. However if Ford wants to donate to say......a candidate promoting the oil pipeline or a candidate opposing strict regulations on emissions, the government has no business denying those funds.

[Common Sense]

The people vote for the candidates, Common Sense.

Take for example Barack Obama. He had record setting campa$gns. Both his 2008 and 2012 campaigns.....set records.

But those who normally are screaming about $ stepped right up and voted for him.......while criticizing Romney for being the money candidate.

Full disclosure is the answer. We the People win, the person we elect.......sits in office. We just ignore the $'s when it's a (D).

The people vote for the candidates with enough money to become the candidate.

The same goes for D's and R's.

The system is so fucked up and broken and people have been fooled into thinking it's about freedom by the same people who are rigging the game.

[Bob]

Money has corrupted politics to the point that the main goal of politicians is to raise money. Not to govern.

What that has done is to distract from the real job of government and to further entrench established parties making it nearly impossible for true competitive politics. New parties, new ideas etc...

Most of the civilized word puts limits on campaign spending an contributions. What that has done is made much more efficient and competitive political processes where the role of the government is to govern, not throw parties.

But lets yell freedom and liberty while being controlled by monied interests. "Merica! Fuck yeah!"

i guess you are talking about Obama the human money raising machine. That fucker holds so many $35,000 per plate dinners he ought to next be in the restaurant business.

[Common Sense]

i guess you are talking about Obama the human money raising machine. That fucker holds so many $35,000 per plate dinners he ought to next be in the restaurant business.

Yeah, him too.

[Bob]

The people vote for the candidates with enough money to become the candidate.

The same goes for D's and R's.

The system is so fucked up and broken and people have been fooled into thinking it's about freedom by the same people who are rigging the game.

This crap would end if we stopped this idiot process of voting for presidents.

I trust a very good group of citizens. We call them electors.

[Common Sense]

This crap would end if we stopped this idiot process of voting for presidents.

I trust a very good group of citizens. We call them electors.

Can you expand on that?

What do you mean by electors? The electoral college?

[Bob]

I disagree. Fundamentally a corporation is not a person. They are afforded the right of person hood for some things. There is no reason for them to be given person hood for political donations (they have lobbying which is much more effective from a corporation's pov anyway).

Ford is incorporated to make and sell cars. Its executive board is likely not in agreement on politics. Its employees are likely not in agreement on politics. Its shareholders are likely not in agreement on politics. But each executive, employee, and shareholder is free to donate to the politician of their choice ending conflicts.

Besides all that, let's look at the real power in DC.








An estimate from 2007 reported that more than15,000 federal lobbyists were based in Washington, DC; another estimate from 2011 suggested that the count of registered lobbyists who have actually lobbied was closer to 12,000.

Lobbying in the United States - Wikipedia, the free ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_StatesWikipedia

[Bob]

Can you expand on that?

What do you mean by electors? The electoral college?

Yes.

[Common Sense]

Yes.

...but what do you mean by that?

What do you mean by "this idiot process of voting for presidents"?

[Bob]

...but what do you mean by that?

What do you mean by "this idiot process of voting for presidents"?

The public has no more business picking presidents than you or I have picking Nobel prize winners.

[Bob]

I'm against all of it.

At this point however I can't blame either side for fundraising. It's simply the nature of the game now. Money wins. People loose.

Who will pay for the vast costs to run the campaign?

[Ransom]

The people vote for the candidates with enough money to become the candidate.

The same goes for D's and R's.

Not so, Scott Walker leads many of our polls and he's the least amount of money. Hillary leads the Dem polls and she's the most money.


The system is so $#@!ed up and broken and people have been fooled into thinking it's about freedom by the same people who are rigging the game.


the system is broken....because people don't do their homework. The money comes in and takes advantage of the sheep. The money candidate doesn't earn my vote, I listed my top 4 the other day.

Rubio, Walker, Carson, Graham.

Carson not the money candidate, neither are Walker, nor Rubio although I think big money would follow Graham.

and then.....if you were to vote in our election in 2016, you'd vote......Common sense....for Hillary! While you're moaning about money in politics!

Tell me I ain't right. You would have voted for Obama twice! Yes?

[Common Sense]

Who will pay for the vast costs to run the campaign?

Campaigns shouldn't cost that much.

The issue is that not limit is set.

Of course fundraising should be an element. But there should be limits.

That's why all the G7 countries except the US set spending limits. The elections are also much much shorter.

[Common Sense]

Not so, Scott Walker leads many of our polls and he's the least amount of money. Hillary leads the Dem polls and she's the most money.




the system is broken....because people don't do their homework. The money comes in and takes advantage of the sheep. The money candidate doesn't earn my vote, I listed my top 4 the other day.

Rubio, Walker, Carson, Graham.

Carson not the money candidate, neither are Walker, nor Rubio although I think big money would follow Graham.

and then.....if you were to vote in our election in 2016, you'd vote......Common sense....for Hillary! While you're moaning about money in politics!

Tell me I ain't right. You would have voted for Obama twice! Yes?

Walker does not have the least amount of money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/upshot/scott-walkers-strength-in-donors.html?abt=0002&abg=0

I don't know who I would vote for. Here in Canada I've voted for conservatives and liberals. I probably would have voted for Obama. I would probably vote for any Dem within reason because I haven't seen one Republican I agree with.

[Bob]

Campaigns shouldn't cost that much.

The issue is that not limit is set.

Of course fundraising should be an element. But there should be limits.

That's why all the G7 countries except the US set spending limits. The elections are also much much shorter.

We would save so much money by just letting our electors handle the job.

[Bob]

Walker does not have the least amount of money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/upshot/scott-walkers-strength-in-donors.html?abt=0002&abg=0

I don't know who I would vote for. Here in Canada I've voted for conservatives and liberals. I probably would have voted for Obama. I would probably vote for any Dem within reason because I haven't seen one Republican I agree with.

Well, you watch a failure and tell us you back him.

Say, can I say blat?:grin:

[Common Sense]

We would save so much money by just letting our electors handle the job.

I really don't know what you mean by this. Do away with the general election and leave it up to the electoral collage?

[Bob]

I really don't know what you mean by this. Do away with the general election and leave it up to the electoral collage?

Exactly. We don't need to be involved in who becomes president.

[Common Sense]

Exactly. We don't need to be involved in who becomes president.

Ah. I don't think you're going to get too much support for that.

[Bob]

Ah. I don't think you're going to get too much support for that.

Most arrogantly think voting matters.

[Common Sense]

Most arrogantly think voting matters.

In a sense it does. Votes instruct the electoral college.

You don't vote?

[Bob]

In a sense it does. Votes instruct the electoral college.

You don't vote?

I wasted my time voting.

[Peter1469]

There was a disagreement yes. It went to the Supreme Court.



It's employees may in fact not be in agreement. The stockholders either. However if Ford wants to donate to say......a candidate promoting the oil pipeline or a candidate opposing strict regulations on emissions, the government has no business denying those funds.

Neg.

Plus, as has been demonstrated elsewhere, if Ford wants a pipeline they are much better served lobbing congress- maybe even getting to write the law themselves, not donating to a campaign.

[Ransom]

Neg.

Plus, as has been demonstrated elsewhere, if Ford wants a pipeline they are much better served lobbing congress- maybe even getting to write the law themselves, not donating to a campaign.

they don't donate to the campaign, Pete. They donate to super PACS. 527s.

They don't give the candidate money, there are term limits for individual candidates, you seem to have a misunderstanding.

However, if you want to give to Party.....or a group that expresses a wish to become politically involved.....the government has no interest.

Would you like the government telling the following, you cannot involve yourselves, you're too rich and money corrupts.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

[Common Sense]

Nice loophole Super PAC's are...

[Ransom]

By the way......how many time have you heard "Koch money" in here? Study the donors I just listed for you.......does Bloomberg ever enter the discussion?

Soros. Look at this Steyer Cat, does anyone even know of him or his wife? He's clearly doing the most corrupting, is he not? Oh.....I'm sorry......he's a liberal billionaire, all about the people....all about the middle class.

Serious......when have you EVER heard ANYONE whine about "Steyer money?"

Common....ever heard of this Cat?

[Ransom]

Common Sense, allow me to ask you. I'll bet you've heard the name Koch fifty times as much as you've heard the name Steyer, yes?

[Ransom]

Nice loophole Super PAC's are...

The significance difference is the foundation of the Citizens United decision that also applied to unions, CS. If a union wants to get involved in politics....if it wants to donate to 527s or say...the Tea Party.....then the government has no interest whatsoever to prevent that. If the union wants to give to an individual's campaign there are limits. If they want to give to a groups that wants to runs ads......or push political agendas.....it is NONE of the government's business. Zero.

[Peter1469]

they don't donate to the campaign, Pete. They donate to super PACS. 527s.

They don't give the candidate money, there are term limits for individual candidates, you seem to have a misunderstanding.

However, if you want to give to Party.....or a group that expresses a wish to become politically involved.....the government has no interest.

Would you like the government telling the following, you cannot involve yourselves, you're too rich and money corrupts.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

You are clueless, again.

The discussion is donating for elections. When you parse it out between candidates and PACs you are feeding the corrupt system.

[Ransom]

Pete, the SCOTUS already ruled on this. Ford can and does donate to the election process those we elect have no business in our political campaigns. Those are decided by we the people, not governments.