PDA

View Full Version : gotta love elizabeth warren!


peacepipe
06-15-2013, 10:41 AM
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/14/1216307/-Elizabeth-Warren-blasts-corporatization-of-federal-courts

Here in Washington, power is not balanced,” Warren said on the opening day of the 2013 ACS Convention. “Instead, power is becoming more concentrated on one side. There are powerful, deep-pocketed corporate interests lined up to fight to protect their privilege and to resist any change that would limit corporate excesses.” [...]

“These big corporate interests are savvy,” Warren continued. “They fight every day on Capitol Hill and in the agencies, devoting enormous resources to the task of bending legislation to benefit themselves. But they also devote enormous resources toward influencing the courts.

“Why? Because they know that influencing those who interpret the law is another extremely effective way to achieve their goals. In our democracy, when we write our laws, reasoned debate, public opinion, and political accountability are all factors that can thwart the efforts of powerful interests.” [...]

“Follow this pro-business trend to its logical conclusion, and sooner or later you'll end up with a Supreme Court that functions as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chamber of Commerce,” Warren said.

Now,if we can just get the rest of congress & the president to realize this.

DenverBrit
06-15-2013, 12:03 PM
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/14/1216307/-Elizabeth-Warren-blasts-corporatization-of-federal-courts


Now,if we can just get the rest of congress & the president to realize this.

Until we have public funded elections and exclude the corporations and others from pouring in millions, our politicians remain bought and paid for.

Our politics have become a 'third world' model of open bribes and corruption with a foreign policy dictated by the military industrial complex.

We urgently need campaign finance reform just to get the ball rolling.

houghtam
06-15-2013, 12:41 PM
Until we have public funded elections and exclude the corporations and others from pouring in millions, our politicians remain bought and paid for.

Our politics have become a 'third world' model of open bribes and corruption with a foreign policy dictated by the military industrial complex.

We urgently need campaign finance reform just to get the ball rolling.

Corporations are people, my friend.

Rohirrim
06-15-2013, 02:50 PM
“Follow this pro-business trend to its logical conclusion, and sooner or later you'll end up with a Supreme Court that functions as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chamber of Commerce,” Warren said.

And that is a hundred times more dangerous to this republic than Al Queda could ever hope to be.

We've got to run Elizabeth for president.

cutthemdown
06-16-2013, 04:58 AM
How does she feel about the Redskin name? I figure since she is part American indian she would have a thought on it. Oh thats right she lied about that!

BroncoBeavis
06-16-2013, 07:17 AM
How does she feel about the Redskin name? I figure since she is part American indian she would have a thought on it. Oh thats right she lied about that!

Shame on you for Denigrating our Nation's first duly elected Fake Native American Senator. LOL

Anyway, its becoming clear why people like her want to do away with having to listen to business interests. They want as little interference for Leviathan as possible.

txtebow
06-16-2013, 07:54 AM
How does she feel about the Redskin name? I figure since she is part American indian she would have a thought on it. Oh thats right she lied about that!

touche'!

txtebow
06-16-2013, 07:55 AM
Until we have public funded elections and exclude the corporations and others from pouring in millions, our politicians remain bought and paid for.

Our politics have become a 'third world' model of open bribes and corruption with a foreign policy dictated by the military industrial complex.

We urgently need campaign finance reform just to get the ball rolling.

Government funded elections...where by the powers that be get to select our candidates for us to a higher degree than they already do? NO THANKS.

peacepipe
06-16-2013, 08:21 AM
Taxpayer funded elections...where by the powers that be get to select our candidates for us to a higher degree than they already do? NO THANKS.
So politicians being accountable to all citizens is something you have a problem with?
You do realize the powers that be are you and I, it's a thing called elections,you don't like who represents you/runs government, vote them out.

peacepipe
06-16-2013, 08:23 AM
How does she feel about the Redskin name? I figure since she is part American indian she would have a thought on it. Oh thats right she lied about that!

And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China.

houghtam
06-16-2013, 08:36 AM
So politicians being accountable to all citizens is something you have a problem with?
You do realize the powers that be are you and I, it's a thing called elections,you don't like who represents you/runs government, vote them out.

How cute.

He thinks the "powers that be" that "decide elections" are the government.

BroncoBeavis
06-16-2013, 08:49 AM
How cute.

He thinks the "powers that be" that "decide elections" are the government.

What's cuter is people thinking that all it takes for a government to be accountable is an election between government candidate A and government candidate B every now and again.

DenverBrit
06-16-2013, 08:50 AM
Government funded elections...where by the powers that be get to select our candidates for us to a higher degree than they already do? NO THANKS.

LOL

Thank for the morning laugh.

DenverBrit
06-16-2013, 08:58 AM
What's cuter is people thinking that all it takes for a government to be accountable is an election between government candidate A and government candidate B every now and again.

There is a very simple point here. The system is currently corrupted to the point that we no longer live in a true Democracy/Democratic Republic.

The billions poured into elections, and the endless campaigning ensure that we get policy made to enrich the lobbyists and their masters.

It's interesting that 'public funding' has been morphed into 'government controlled elections,' why is that??

If you're happy having the corporations and various interest groups controlling government, then say so. I'm not, and neither is anyone else I know.

BroncoBeavis
06-16-2013, 09:49 AM
There is a very simple point here. The system is currently corrupted to the point that we no longer live in a true Democracy/Democratic Republic.

The billions poured into elections, and the endless campaigning ensure that we get policy made to enrich the lobbyists and their masters.

It's interesting that 'public funding' has been morphed into 'government controlled elections,' why is that??

If you're happy having the corporations and various interest groups controlling government, then say so. I'm not, and neither is anyone else I know.

Sorry man but after reading this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-partisanship-propaganda-prism

Anyone who believes that the problem with our government is one primarily of corporate influence is kidding themselves.

peacepipe
06-16-2013, 09:52 AM
Sorry man but after reading this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-partisanship-propaganda-prism

Anyone who believes that the problem with our government is one primarily of corporate influence is kidding themselves.
LOL nice try. Can't make an argument on the influence of corporations on our government so you attempt to distract from it.

BroncoBeavis
06-16-2013, 09:55 AM
LOL nice try. Can't make an argument on the influence of corporations on our government so you attempt to distract from it.

Wow. So quick you couldn't even have read what I posted. LOL

Not surprising that you don't listen... only parrot. Greenwald talks about your kind in there.

peacepipe
06-16-2013, 10:06 AM
Wow. So quick you couldn't even have read what I posted. LOL

Not surprising that you don't listen... only parrot. Greenwald talks about your kind in there.

There's already a thread on prism/NSA,go there and discuss it.

BroncoBeavis
06-16-2013, 10:18 AM
There's already a thread on prism/NSA,go there and discuss it.

Yeah because proving government corrupt completely aside from corporate influence is totally irrelevant.

The main point is that its Warren whos really guilty of distraction.

peacepipe
06-16-2013, 10:26 AM
Yeah because proving government corrupt completely aside from corporate influence is totally irrelevant.

The main point is that its Warren whos really guilty of distraction.

Warren is 100% correct in pointing out the corruption that arises from corporate influence in our government. Point out where she's wrong.

We can walk & chew gum at the same time.

DenverBrit
06-16-2013, 10:49 AM
Sorry man but after reading this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-partisanship-propaganda-prism

Anyone who believes that the problem with our government is one primarily of corporate influence is kidding themselves.

This has been going on for years.........decades even, and it doesn't diminish one bit, the corruption of our elected officials by lobbyist money.

Money that is essential to both parties ability to get elected. Do you honestly think that the ongoing snooping and climate of fear would continue if the military industrial complex didn't own our politicians?

cutthemdown
06-16-2013, 01:09 PM
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China.

We were discussing which one of the candidates is a liar and more fit for service right?

cutthemdown
06-16-2013, 01:11 PM
So what did gomez lie about Peace? We have ine big one proven for Warren. She claimed to be an Indian, and she wasn't. She lied about who she was and where she came from. meanwhile Gomez was defending our country as a Navy Seal.

cutthemdown
06-16-2013, 01:12 PM
But biden and Obama both huge liars also so maybe that is what dems are looking for. Good liars.

BroncoBeavis
06-16-2013, 01:18 PM
This has been going on for years.........decades even, and it doesn't diminish one bit, the corruption of our elected officials by lobbyist money.

Money that is essential to both parties ability to get elected. Do you honestly think that the ongoing snooping and climate of fear would continue if the military industrial complex didn't own our politicians?

So in essence what you're saying is its never the pimps fault. They was just corrupted by their clients' money.

peacepipe
06-16-2013, 01:24 PM
So in essence what you're saying is its never the pimps fault. They was just corrupted by their clients' money.

You got it backwards. The corp. Are the pimps & the pols are the hos

TonyR
06-16-2013, 01:30 PM
Greenwald talks about your kind in there.

Funny how up until this point I'd bet good money you hated Greenwald the same way you hate Sullivan and Barro and Klein and anyone else who sometimes has a different viewpoint than yours. He can be far more of a drama queen than Sullivan. Were you even familiar with Greenwald before this issue?

TonyR
06-16-2013, 01:33 PM
Curious, cut and Beavis. I know you're desperate both to change the subject and to not agree with the likes of Elizabeth Warren on something, but do you really think corporate influence and power isn't an issue? Fine, you can think Prism is a bigger issue. But does that mean corporate influence somehow isn't one at all?

DenverBrit
06-16-2013, 01:52 PM
So in essence what you're saying is its never the pimps fault. They was just corrupted by their clients' money.

Really? That's what you got from my post? ROFL!

cutthemdown
06-16-2013, 02:01 PM
Curious, cut and Beavis. I know you're desperate both to change the subject and to not agree with the likes of Elizabeth Warren on something, but do you really not think corporate influence and power isn't an issue? Fine, you can think Prism is a bigger issue. But does that mean corporate influence somehow isn't one at all?

Both parties the same it comes down to who you think is better for the markets and what party jives closer with your values. To say though that dems somehow are less influenced just isn't true. Sure they may talk about it more but thats only because thats what the liberal voter wants to hear.

I'm curious Tony. Let's say you are interviewing someone for a job. Applicant one tells you I was a Navy Seal. Applicant two tells you I am part American indian. Then you check and find out applicant 2 lied and she isn't an indian.

What person do you hire. Be honest.

cutthemdown
06-16-2013, 02:01 PM
and yes i know she isn't running vs Gomez its just an example.

peacepipe
06-16-2013, 02:31 PM
Both parties the same it comes down to who you think is better for the markets and what party jives closer with your values. To say though that dems somehow are less influenced just isn't true. Sure they may talk about it more but thats only because thats what the liberal voter wants to hear.

I'm curious Tony. Let's say you are interviewing someone for a job. Applicant one tells you I was a Navy Seal. Applicant two tells you I am part American indian. Then you check and find out applicant 2 lied and she isn't an indian.

What person do you hire. Be honest.
You're deflecting, answer the question. Is corporate influence an issue to you?

houghtam
06-16-2013, 02:32 PM
Both parties the same it comes down to who you think is better for the markets and what party jives closer with your values. To say though that dems somehow are less influenced just isn't true. Sure they may talk about it more but thats only because thats what the liberal voter wants to hear.

I'm curious Tony. Let's say you are interviewing someone for a job. Applicant one tells you I was a Navy Seal. Applicant two tells you I am part American indian. Then you check and find out applicant 2 lied and she isn't an indian.

What person do you hire. Be honest.

Is the position one that has a huge impact on fiscal policy, and that person who "lied" is an expert in finance?

Applicant 2. A Navy Seal doesn't necessarily know jack **** about fiscal policy.

TonyR
06-16-2013, 02:52 PM
I'm curious Tony. Let's say you are interviewing someone for a job. Applicant one tells you I was a Navy Seal. Applicant two tells you I am part American indian. Then you check and find out applicant 2 lied and she isn't an indian.

What person do you hire. Be honest.

Even if Elizabeth Warren is a serial killer that doesn't change the discussion of the issue she commented on and the subject of the thread. Stop focusing on who said it and focus on what was said.

cutthemdown
06-16-2013, 04:55 PM
Big deal she mentioned corp influence. The problem is she is untrustworthy and dems have showed once in office its business as usual. So we no longer want to sit and hear about how they are different. Instead lets focus on other issues where they are different. Like tax policy and how much money they want to spend.

Corp influence to me is no more a problem then union influence but you don't see her talking about that. What that tells me is she wants to attack her opponents funding and leave hers in place. Whats funny though is the corp give and influence whoever wins so its all moot. She is lying when she says she wants to do anything about it. Just like she lied about being a native American.

BroncoBeavis
06-16-2013, 09:05 PM
Funny how up until this point I'd bet good money you hated Greenwald the same way you hate Sullivan and Barro and Klein and anyone else who sometimes has a different viewpoint than yours. He can be far more of a drama queen than Sullivan. Were you even familiar with Greenwald before this issue?

Greenwald's been all over the President from pretty much the beginning for failing to live up to his promises.

Sully would call that being a Drama Queen. But fan club members would usually tend to see most rational people that way.

BroncoBeavis
06-16-2013, 09:09 PM
Really? That's what you got from my post? ROFL!

A corruptible government will be corrupted.

Contrary to popular belief, giving the government more power will not make them less corruptable. Big money influence is a symptom, not the disease.

cutthemdown
06-17-2013, 04:16 AM
I do believe corp influence is an issue. But I don't think Elizabeth Warren cares about it. She is a liar and just happens to think womens issues, guns, and talking about corp influence is the way to get elected. She is like the characters on Team America.

Errr corp influence, wall street bankers, Repub attack on women and I AM AN INDIAN PLEASE VOTE FOR ME!.

DenverBrit
06-17-2013, 08:06 AM
A corruptible government will be corrupted.

Contrary to popular belief, giving the government more power will not make them less corruptable. Big money influence is a symptom, not the disease.

What exactly has this to do with public funded elections?

They would take the lobbyists out of the system of campaign financing (assuming campaign finance reform is part of the change) and put politicians back in the cross-hairs of voters.
Add election time limits....90-120 days is enough, add 'question time' to make the POTUS, and their policies, accountable and we have the semblance of a government that works.

While we're at it, get rid of the silliness of the archaic 'electoral colleges' and the mid terms should be changed to match the general elections, that would avoid the constant campaigning.

BroncoBeavis
06-17-2013, 08:10 AM
What exactly has this to do with public funded elections?

They would take the lobbyists out of the system of campaign financing (assuming campaign finance reform is part of the change) and put politicians back in the cross-hairs of voters.
Add election time limits....90-120 days is enough, add 'question time' to make the POTUS, and their policies, accountable and we have the semblance of a government that works.

While we're at it, get rid of the silliness of the archaic 'electoral colleges' and the mid terms should be changed to match the general elections, that would avoid the constant campaigning.

OK so if you 'publicly' fund elections who decides who gets funded and who is essentially silenced?

DenverBrit
06-17-2013, 08:16 AM
OK so if you 'publicly' fund elections who decides who gets funded and who is essentially silenced?

You need to research the meaning, you're way off the mark.

TonyR
06-17-2013, 09:12 AM
Greenwald's been all over the President from pretty much the beginning for failing to live up to his promises.

If you actually read Sullivan you'd know that while generally being a supporter he's slammed Obama multiple times. Just recently he criticized Obama on Syria. See below.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/06/14/obama-caves-on-syria/

BroncoBeavis
06-17-2013, 09:20 AM
You need to research the meaning, you're way off the mark.

Educate me. There's generally a lot of window dressing, but the core point remains.

And don't forget, you can no longer rest on the old 'percent support in prior elections' or any kind of petition to qualify. It takes significant money just to get either one done. Meaning it would be next to impossible for an outsider to break in.

Unless it was with media backing, but that brings in a whole other set of favoritism and corporate/big money influence problems.

BroncoBeavis
06-17-2013, 09:27 AM
If you actually read Sullivan you'd know that while generally being a supporter he's slammed Obama multiple times. Just recently he criticized Obama on Syria. See below.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/06/14/obama-caves-on-syria/

Yeah, Andrew picks something here and there that's mostly grey area that literally nobody cares about (see Syria).

He is a 'conservative' (LOL) after all. Street Cred must be fed.

DenverBrit
06-17-2013, 09:30 AM
Educate me. There's generally a lot of window dressing, but the core point remains.

And don't forget, you can no longer rest on the old 'percent support in prior elections' or any kind of petition to qualify. It takes significant money just to get either one done. Meaning it would be next to impossible for an outsider to break in.

Unless it was with media backing, but that brings in a whole other set of favoritism and corporate/big money influence problems.

The opposite should be true.

To get you started, a decent summary of some of the benefits.

Some highlights from The Brennan Center for Justice.

More than Combating Corruption: The Other Benefits of Public Financing

Public Financing Promotes More Contested and Competitive Elections

Few doubt that extraordinary Americans of ordinary means must have a meaningful ability to compete for elected office. Robust public funding programs open the door for qualified Americans who might not have personal wealth or high-powered connections by giving them the means to launch competitive campaigns. Several empirical studies confirm this conclusion.

A 2010 study by a University of Illinois professor found that, in each election since their public funding programs were implemented, both Maine and Arizona have enjoyed a general decline in races with unopposed incumbents. In other words, with public financing, elected officials in those states are increasingly more likely to face a challenger when they run for re-election. [7]

A 2008 study conducted by a Stanford Graduate School of Business professor similarly found that elections in Maine and Arizona between incumbents and publicly financed challengers are much more competitive than was true before public financing was adopted.[8] This finding confirms that public financing can provide newcomers with the ability to mount effective campaigns against incumbents.
Further underlining that public funding increases the likelihood an incumbent will have a competitive race, a team at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found in a 2006 study looking at public financing in several states that public financing increases the pool of candidates willing and able to run for state legislative office. [9]

A 2008 study by the director of the Yale Institution for Social and Policy Studies and a Fordham University professor found that radio advertisements which mentioned both major party candidates and encouraged listeners to vote resulted in incumbents’ vote shares falling six to eight percentage points.[10] By allowing challengers to get their names out in front of voters, public financing causes elections to become more competitive than they otherwise would be.

A 2010 study conducted by graduate students at New York University’s Wagner School of Public Service compared electoral data in Maine and Arizona with states that have no public financing. The study found that public financing meaningfully increased the likelihood that incumbents would face real competition.[11] Overall, Maine’s and Arizona’s legislative races were more contested and more competitive than those in comparable states.[12]

A study by a postdoctoral associate at Yale University concluded that public financing encourages experienced challengers within the incumbent party to run for open seats more often than they would without public financing.[13] Hence, public financing not only encourages more individuals to run, it also attracts high quality candidates.[14]

Consistent with these research findings, public financing is perceived as enhancing competition—both by candidates and the public. A Government Accountability Office study found that healthy percentages of candidates in states with public funding see it as a vehicle for spurring competition.[15] And a 2009 poll in North Carolina found that 85% of people surveyed agreed that “the high cost of campaigns means candidates must be good fundraisers to win—and the need to raise a lot of money keeps a lot of good people from serving in public office.”[16] As a recent New York Times story on Connecticut’s financing system put it, “For challengers, the appeal is obvious. Suddenly, they can have resources equal to an incumbent’s without hitting up major donors.”[17]

Worth reading.....
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/more-combating-corruption-other-benefits-public-financing

TonyR
06-17-2013, 09:43 AM
Yeah, Andrew picks something here and there that's mostly grey area that literally nobody cares about (see Syria).

He is a 'conservative' (LOL) after all. Street Cred must be fed.

That's how you look at it from your biased perspective. I see it as him "siding with" Obama more than he "sides against" him, which of course automatically puts him on your non-approved list.

As for his "conservatism" if you truly understood what conservatism was instead of assuming it is what it has become you wouldn't be laughing about it.

BroncoBeavis
06-17-2013, 09:50 AM
The opposite should be true.

To get you started, a decent summary of some of the benefits.

Some highlights from The Brennan Center for Justice.

With these you're comparing Apples and Horses. These programs don't lock out outside spending. Essentially, they're like the public funding we already have for Presidential candidates already today. There's just less big money competition for the public funding because there's little functional power to be bought in local elections (which is kinda my point)

BroncoBeavis
06-17-2013, 09:56 AM
As for his "conservatism" if you truly understood what conservatism was instead of assuming it is what it has become you wouldn't be laughing about it.

Yes, I'm clearly missing the boat on John Kerry Conservatism. LOL

DenverBrit
06-17-2013, 10:04 AM
With these you're comparing Apples and Horses. These programs don't lock out outside spending. Essentially, they're like the public funding we already have for Presidential candidates already today. There's just less big money competition for the public funding because there's little functional power to be bought in local elections (which is kinda my point)

Explain how I'm comparing 'apples to horses'? Whatever you think that means.

I had already mentioned the need for campaign finance reform.

How about finding ways to make something work instead of just finding ways to say no while have nothing to contribute??

What have you got as an alternative to the blatant corruption??

houghtam
06-17-2013, 10:09 AM
What have you got as an alternative to the blatant corruption??

Making sure black people don't vote.

BroncoBeavis
06-17-2013, 10:14 AM
Explain how I'm comparing 'apples to horses'? Whatever you think that means.

I think I laid it out pretty plainly. At least based on what I understand you to mean by 'public' financing of campaigns.

Ordinarily (from a reform perspective) the common proposal comes down to the 'public' (government) funding all eligible candidates and forcing them to forgo any outside contributions. Is that your understanding as well?

There are no existing programs I know anywhere of that do that. (Not getting into whether it would be constitutional to try)


How about finding ways to make something work instead of just finding ways to say no while have nothing to contribute??

What have you got as an alternative to the blatant corruption??

Massively scaling down the government, or at the very least its ability to pick and choose winners and losers in industry. Quit making government influence so lucrative and the money will dry up overnight. It's the only realistic option. Government will not clean up its own corruption.

BroncoBeavis
06-17-2013, 10:17 AM
Making sure black people don't vote.

Kadouchhhhe. LOL

kappys
06-17-2013, 03:55 PM
Massively scaling down the government, or at the very least its ability to pick and choose winners and losers in industry. Quit making government influence so lucrative and the money will dry up overnight. It's the only realistic option. Government will not clean up its own corruption.

Chicken vs. Egg - Corporations are heavily funding politicians to ensure that their corporations continue to reap benefits from government, politicians continue to accept corporate money because it is the only way to compete/win in an election. Either public financing or severe limitations on government influence on corporations might help to clean this mess up - but in either case where is the incentive in a system that feeds on itself and excludes the American people from decision making.

Hotwheelz
06-17-2013, 11:47 PM
Until we have public funded elections and exclude the corporations and others from pouring in millions, our politicians remain bought and paid for.

Our politics have become a 'third world' model of open bribes and corruption with a foreign policy dictated by the military industrial complex.

We urgently need campaign finance reform just to get the ball rolling.
http://www.wolf-pac.com/

BroncoBeavis
06-18-2013, 08:10 AM
Chicken vs. Egg - Corporations are heavily funding politicians to ensure that their corporations continue to reap benefits from government, politicians continue to accept corporate money because it is the only way to compete/win in an election. Either public financing or severe limitations on government influence on corporations might help to clean this mess up - but in either case where is the incentive in a system that feeds on itself and excludes the American people from decision making.

Yeah if you look at world history its pretty tough to argue that political corruption began with the influence of large corporations.

DenverBrit
06-18-2013, 08:30 AM
I think I laid it out pretty plainly. At least based on what I understand you to mean by 'public' financing of campaigns.

Ordinarily (from a reform perspective) the common proposal comes down to the 'public' (government) funding all eligible candidates and forcing them to forgo any outside contributions. Is that your understanding as well?

There are no existing programs I know anywhere of that do that. (Not getting into whether it would be constitutional to try)




Massively scaling down the government, or at the very least its ability to pick and choose winners and losers in industry. Quit making government influence so lucrative and the money will dry up overnight. It's the only realistic option. Government will not clean up its own corruption.

Where? I posted exactly a response to your assertion that public financed elections would make it "next to impossible for an outsider to break in." The opposite is true, yet you choose to ignore that fact and respond with your bizarre 'apples to horses' comment.

The public financed option doesn't exclude people from contributing to their candidate of choice........even though too many choose party first, regardless the candidate.......it would mean limiting contributions to say, $1000. That's how you take the corporate influence out of the electoral process, amongst other reforms, not by sticking your head in the sand and denying it's the core problem.

DenverBrit
06-18-2013, 08:30 AM
http://www.wolf-pac.com/

Yep, it's understood by many who are interested in the democratic process.

BroncoBeavis
06-18-2013, 09:10 AM
The public financed option doesn't exclude people from contributing to their candidate of choice........even though too many choose party first, regardless the candidate.......it would mean limiting contributions to say, $1000. That's how you take the corporate influence out of the electoral process, amongst other reforms, not by sticking your head in the sand and denying it's the core problem.

No offense, but that sounds mostly like how things were pre-Citizens United (2010)

DenverBrit
06-18-2013, 09:25 AM
No offense, but that sounds mostly like how things were pre-Citizens United (2010)

No offense, but I think you need to brush up on your understanding of US campaign financing. ;)

The supreme court simply took the lid off an already corrupt system.

BroncoBeavis
06-18-2013, 09:29 AM
No offense, but I think you need to brush up on your understanding of US campaign financing. ;)

The supreme court simply took the lid off an already corrupt system.

That's kinda my point. Corporations were prohibited from spending on campaigns pre-CU. What did that fix? There were also relatively modest individual-contribution limits. Can't say it produced anything we should've been proud of.

Obama broke campaign spending records under McCain Feingold, while refusing public funds. How would you go further?

Hotwheelz
06-18-2013, 10:47 PM
Yeah if you look at world history its pretty tough to argue that political corruption began with the influence of large corporations.

BTW, campaign finance reform would apply to unions as well.

Rohirrim
06-19-2013, 07:58 AM
That's kinda my point. Corporations were prohibited from spending on campaigns pre-CU. What did that fix? There were also relatively modest individual-contribution limits. Can't say it produced anything we should've been proud of.

Obama broke campaign spending records under McCain Feingold, while refusing public funds. How would you go further?

Ha! You know why John Boehner is Speaker of the House? He made his bones passing out corporate lobbyist checks on the floor. He was a bag man who worked his way up by proving his loyalty to the corporate masters, starting with the tobacco industry and then moving up through Exxon, Andarko, Comcast and finally, collecting the big bucks from AIG (right before they helped collapse our economy). What a clown. :rofl:

DenverBrit
06-19-2013, 08:42 AM
That's kinda my point. Corporations were prohibited from spending on campaigns pre-CU. What did that fix? There were also relatively modest individual-contribution limits. Can't say it produced anything we should've been proud of.

Obama broke campaign spending records under McCain Feingold, while refusing public funds. How would you go further?

The Supreme Court 'rejected limits' on contributions, corporations and Union have always spent money during elections.

BroncoBeavis
06-19-2013, 08:57 AM
The Supreme Court 'rejected limits' on contributions, corporations and Union have always spent money during elections.

Yes, 3 years ago. Point being... nothing was significantly better prior to that. I don't remember anyone cheering the refreshing rebirth of the popular control of government from 2002 to 2010.

Other than maybe one side vs the other being happy that their guy was now raking in the dough and winning elections.

txtebow
06-19-2013, 06:53 PM
How cute.

He thinks the "powers that be" that "decide elections" are the government.

Who decides who gets access to the federal money for an election?

Is it a field of 64 like the NCAA B-ball tourney used to be?

or is it a regional election held by a FEW parties to field candidates in national election?

and how many parties will be supported by federal money?

Can we form an OrangeMane party and receive federal funds?

and how much of the federal money do we get? Is it evenly split among the candidates?

More government oversight of who gets access to lead in that government? NO THANKS.

cutthemdown
06-19-2013, 08:27 PM
The idea of public money only could only work for the last election between two people. Otherwise how do we sort through the 1000's of people would ask for public money.

The smart thing to do is attack contributions with a tax. Then send that money into the public fund which gets divided between the last men standing.

So in primary dems could fund dems to get the person they want onto the ticket. But then in the end the last fight done with public money. The tax would severly curtial a companies desire to throw money around IMO. It wouldn't have to be a big tax so it it would sound small, but be big. I am a low tax person but companies and unions throwing money around to get influence in DC is not my idea of trickle down low tax.

Attack behavoir you don't like, that isn't good for the country with a tax. Attack things that are good for us with super low taxes. Thats why i dont really dislike cigg tax, alcohol tax. But gas tax bothers me sometimes ya know? Because you have to buy gas and in calif its a joke.

Missouribronc
06-19-2013, 08:32 PM
You're deflecting, answer the question. Is corporate influence an issue to you?

The "corporate influence" is only an answer to the unions.