Politics

[Buster Bluth]

Honestly though what is the solution to Citizens United? They aren't donating to the candidates directly, they are buying advertising time themselves.

 

[connor_in]

What if I told you that I think that level of donating by anyone or any corporation is absurd...

see my...

Originally Posted by connor_in
Not really happy about this myself

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Honestly though what is the solution to Citizens United? They aren't donating to the candidates directly, they are buying advertising time themselves.

Money and power are two sides of the same coin. Progressives are kidding themselves if they think they can simultaneously expand the size/ scope of the Federal government while also reducing corruption. Devolution of power away from Washington is the only plausible solution.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Honestly though what is the solution to Citizens United? They aren't donating to the candidates directly, they are buying advertising time themselves.

While this scenario is more likely than ndnation.com clamoring for a tron, it would be a solution.

You would need Congress and the FCC to regulate how much time is available to political ads and limit said time to one month before elections.

Obviously would never happen given the self interest of politics as well as the massive amount of revenue communications companies receive.

 

[MartyIrish]

Funny, the left whines about the Koch's....

But Unions and their own Super PAC's are doing the same exact thing. And Soros spends as much as the Kochs, he's just better at hiding it though other ratholes. Don't be naïve.


Money in politics is a repub AND Dem problem. It's not exclusive to republicans...at all.

 

[MartyIrish]

Honestly though what is the solution to Citizens United? They aren't donating to the candidates directly, they are buying advertising time themselves.

There is no solution. As neither party really wants that money to go away.

 

[ND NYC]

McCain-Feingold’s devastating legacy - The Washington Post

 

[MJ12666]

What is interesting about Koch Industries is that little if any revenue comes from government contracts and since it is private, and the businesses fail, the Koch brothers lose everything.

Additionally, based on data published by Politico, both Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg spent approximately $100M (in total) of their personal money this past election on Democrat candidates and liberal causes while the David Koch spent only $6M. I don't believe that any of the major candidates or issues backed by Steyer or Bloomberg won or passed.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Funny, the left whines about the Koch's....

But Unions and their own Super PAC's are doing the same exact thing. And Soros spends as much as the Kochs, he's just better at hiding it though other ratholes. Don't be naïve.


Money in politics is a repub AND Dem problem. It's not exclusive to republicans...at all.

Literally no one here thinks this is one party's fault. It's an American issue that Congress is owned by monied interests and not the citizens it governs.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Money and power are two sides of the same coin. Progressives are kidding themselves if they think they can simultaneously expand the size/ scope of the Federal government while also reducing corruption. Devolution of power away from Washington is the only plausible solution.

In a larger sense yes I agree with you. I still think there is room for congressional and election reform though. Election funding, gerrymandering, etc. It's unreal how unaware most people are of these issues and almost shameful that I couldn't immediately point to a prepared bill and be like "we need this specific bill prepared by X thinktank, here's a fun YouTube video explaining its importance." I mean we're sorta stuck at square 0.

You would need Congress and the FCC to regulate how much time is available to political ads and limit said time to one month before elections.

Now we're talkin'!

 

[pkt77242]

What is interesting about Koch Industries is that little if any revenue comes from government contracts and since it is private, and the businesses fail, the Koch brothers lose everything.

Additionally, based on data published by Politico, both Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg spent approximately $100M (in total) of their personal money this past election on Democrat candidates and liberal causes while the David Koch spent only $6M. I don't believe that any of the major candidates or issues backed by Steyer or Bloomberg won or passed.

Um, why only bring up one of the Koch brothers. Spin away.

The Koch brothers may spend $290 million on this election. That’s how much 5,270 American households make in a year. - The Washington Post

Both sides spend way too much money on the elections and "selling" their narrative. This is bad for the future of the US no matter who is doing it.

 

[phgreek]

Money and power are two sides of the same coin. Progressives are kidding themselves if they think they can simultaneously expand the size/ scope of the Federal government while also reducing corruption. Devolution of power away from Washington is the only plausible solution.

Yup...some forced legislation dealing with campaign finance. Then move the Federal leadership every 6 years to a different State capital, and turn DC into a "museum" and give it to virginia.

 

[pkt77242]

Yup...some forced legislation dealing with campaign finance. Then move the Federal leadership every 6 years to a different State capital, and turn DC into a "museum" and give it to virginia.

I am a huge fan of term limits. I have always found it weird that we term limit the President but not Congress.

 

[ND NYC]

I am a huge fan of term limits. I have always found it weird that we term limit the President but not Congress.

agree

 

[DonnieNarco]

I am a huge fan of term limits. I have always found it weird that we term limit the President but not Congress.

I'd like to see presidents have a limit of 1 term that's 6 years long. I just hate presidents campaigning while in office. I hate campaigning in general.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'd like to see presidents have a limit of 1 term that's 6 years long. I just hate presidents campaigning while in office. I hate campaigning in general.

That's how the CSA drew it up.

 

[irishog77]

I am a huge fan of term limits. I have always found it weird that we term limit the President but not Congress.

I was staunchly opposed to this for a long time. There's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it and it goes against the idea of a "free market."

Now, however, due to the total ineptness and corruption of both houses of congress, I am strongly in favor of it. The American people would be the winners in enacting this and the only potential losers are life-long politicians using their office to advance their own agendas and wealth.

 

[MartyIrish]

I am a huge fan of term limits. I have always found it weird that we term limit the President but not Congress.

I agree....

Same with the SCOTUS

 

[MartyIrish]

Literally no one here thinks this is one party's fault. It's an American issue that Congress is owned by monied interests and not the citizens it governs.

I was just pointing out that it seems the "Koch" name always comes up when the issue of campaign spending is discussed.


Poorly worded. My apologies

 

[GoIrish41]

I was just pointing out that it seems the "Koch" name always comes up when the issue of campaign spending is discussed.


Poorly worded. My apologies

It comes up because the are the worst offenders. Don't be surprised to see Sheldon Addleson's name thrown around in pretty short order as well. Clearly they are not the only offenders, but their donations are at an absurd level that everyone in this country should be protesting.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

It comes up because the are the worst offenders. Don't be surprised to see Sheldon Addleson's name thrown around in pretty short order as well. Clearly they are not the only offenders, but their donations are at an absurd level that everyone in this country should be protesting.

I've got zero issue pointing out those mind boggling numbers from the Kochs. Let's just not play with the narrative that the right has all the money and buys elections. A couple huge unions have been filling Democratic coffers for decades that on paper the Kochs would still have to catch up to.

Again, as long as everyone's playing by the same rules (until they're changed), there's no room for crying about "they have more money than we do." I can promise you there wasn't one conservative after the 2008 election that said, "Damn...if only we had more money."

 

[Whiskeyjack]

In a larger sense yes I agree with you. I still think there is room for congressional and election reform though. Election funding, gerrymandering, etc. It's unreal how unaware most people are of these issues and almost shameful that I couldn't immediately point to a prepared bill and be like "we need this specific bill prepared by X thinktank, here's a fun YouTube video explaining its importance." I mean we're sorta stuck at square 0.

Things like gerrymandering, closed primaries, lack of term limits, etc. benefit politicians at the expense of the governed by insulating them from competition. But the first two are largely state issues, so how do we fix it? By handing even more power to the Feds over this process? The more we concentrate power in Washington, the easier it is for lobbyists to buy influence.

And while I won't insist on a stark dichotomy of "corrupt empire v. virtuous republic", I don't see how the election funding issue can be improved incrementally. The problem arises from three primary causes: (1) our First Amendment jurisprudence; (2) growing inequality creating outrageously wealthy individuals/ corporations; and (3) an increasing concentration of power in Washington. So the solution will involve compromising our commitment to freedom of speech, somehow getting rid of the ultra-wealthy, or devolving power away from Washington.

The first option has been tried, and it's failed miserably. Even if you can somehow manage to effectively regulate political speech without trashing the First Amendment, the money will ultimately flow to less regulated channels. It ends up being an endless game of whack-a-mole.

The second option seems completely implausible, but aggressively taxing intergenerational transfers of wealth might help in the long run.

The third option is the only one we haven't tried, which is why I think it's our only realistic hope for addressing this issue.

 

[GoIrish41]

I've got zero issue pointing out those mind boggling numbers from the Kochs. Let's just not play with the narrative that the right has all the money and buys elections. A couple huge unions have been filling Democratic coffers for decades that on paper the Kochs would still have to catch up to.

Again, as long as everyone's playing by the same rules (until they're changed), there's no room for crying about "they have more money than we do." I can promise you there wasn't one conservative after the 2008 election that said, "Damn...if only we had more money."

We do not disagree.

 

[DonnieNarco]

That's how the CSA drew it up.

The South will rise again!

 

[MartyIrish]

I've got zero issue pointing out those mind boggling numbers from the Kochs. Let's just not play with the narrative that the right has all the money and buys elections. A couple huge unions have been filling Democratic coffers for decades that on paper the Kochs would still have to catch up to.

Again, as long as everyone's playing by the same rules (until they're changed), there's no room for crying about "they have more money than we do." I can promise you there wasn't one conservative after the 2008 election that said, "Damn...if only we had more money."

Yup.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I agree....

Same with the SCOTUS

The point of having SCOTUS have lifetime appointments is that they aren't swayed by politics. They never have to campaign. Unfortunately, I think it's pretty clear that it has become political.

 

[Wild Bill]

Things like gerrymandering, closed primaries, lack of term limits, etc. benefit politicians at the expense of the governed by insulating them from competition. But the first two are largely state issues, so how do we fix it? By handing even more power to the Feds over this process? The more we concentrate power in Washington, the easier it is for lobbyists to buy influence.

And while I won't insist on a stark dichotomy of "corrupt empire v. virtuous republic", I don't see how the election funding issue can be improved incrementally. The problem arises from three primary causes: (1) our First Amendment jurisprudence; (2) growing inequality creating outrageously wealthy individuals/ corporations; and (3) an increasing concentration of power in Washington. So the solution will involve compromising our commitment to freedom of speech, somehow getting rid of the ultra-wealthy, or devolving power away from Washington.

The first option has been tried, and it's failed miserably. Even if you can somehow manage to effectively regulate political speech without trashing the First Amendment, the money will ultimately flow to less regulated channels. It ends up being an endless game of whack-a-mole.

The second option seems completely implausible, but aggressively taxing intergenerational transfers of wealth might help in the long run.

The third option is the only one we haven't tried, which is why I think it's our only realistic hope for addressing this issue.

It wouldn't help much and the limited help it may provide wouldn't justify the damage done to the economy.

I'm with you on option three. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.

 

[MartyIrish]

The point of having SCOTUS have lifetime appointments is that they aren't swayed by politics. They never have to campaign. Unfortunately, I think it's pretty clear that it has become political.

True...keep them from campaigning, but make them appoint new ones every 5-10yrs

make it long term, but good God, a lifetime seat is ridiculous.

 

[palinurus]

Things like gerrymandering, closed primaries, lack of term limits, etc. benefit politicians at the expense of the governed by insulating them from competition. But the first two are largely state issues, so how do we fix it? By handing even more power to the Feds over this process? The more we concentrate power in Washington, the easier it is for lobbyists to buy influence.

And while I won't insist on a stark dichotomy of "corrupt empire v. virtuous republic", I don't see how the election funding issue can be improved incrementally. The problem arises from three primary causes: (1) our First Amendment jurisprudence; (2) growing inequality creating outrageously wealthy individuals/ corporations; and (3) an increasing concentration of power in Washington. So the solution will involve compromising our commitment to freedom of speech, somehow getting rid of the ultra-wealthy, or devolving power away from Washington.

The first option has been tried, and it's failed miserably. Even if you can somehow manage to effectively regulate political speech without trashing the First Amendment, the money will ultimately flow to less regulated channels. It ends up being an endless game of whack-a-mole.

The second option seems completely implausible, but aggressively taxing intergenerational transfers of wealth might help in the long run.

The third option is the only one we haven't tried, which is why I think it's our only realistic hope for addressing this issue.

I agree. If you decrease the concentration of power in Washington, you render #2 less potent and #1 less important. With less legislative activity and political power concentrated in Washington, you make the state and local governments (and government processes) MORE important, and these processes (and elected officials) are MORE responsive to the voters (for reasons similar to why the Catholic Church has favored subsidiarity (big government schemes of certain clerics notwithstanding): because the people at the state level have more control of the state political process because each voter or group of voters is a larger percentage of the whole than at the national level and has a greater chance to be heard (directly and indirectly), and there's less of a chance to be the victim of the widescale horsetrading involving issues of no importance to a particular state that occur in national politics, pork spending and vote trading.

 

[GoIrish41]

Things like gerrymandering, closed primaries, lack of term limits, etc. benefit politicians at the expense of the governed by insulating them from competition. But the first two are largely state issues, so how do we fix it? By handing even more power to the Feds over this process? The more we concentrate power in Washington, the easier it is for lobbyists to buy influence.

And while I won't insist on a stark dichotomy of "corrupt empire v. virtuous republic", I don't see how the election funding issue can be improved incrementally. The problem arises from three primary causes: (1) our First Amendment jurisprudence; (2) growing inequality creating outrageously wealthy individuals/ corporations; and (3) an increasing concentration of power in Washington. So the solution will involve compromising our commitment to freedom of speech, somehow getting rid of the ultra-wealthy, or devolving power away from Washington.

The first option has been tried, and it's failed miserably. Even if you can somehow manage to effectively regulate political speech without trashing the First Amendment, the money will ultimately flow to less regulated channels. It ends up being an endless game of whack-a-mole.

The second option seems completely implausible, but aggressively taxing intergenerational transfers of wealth might help in the long run.

The third option is the only one we haven't tried, which is why I think it's our only realistic hope for addressing this issue.

I'm not sure I completely agree with this. I could make an argument that it would be easier (and cheaper) for lobbiests to buy influence at the state level. Further, it might also happen with much less scrutiny. I live in Pennsylvania. How much am I going to care if the Koch Brothers are buying political influence in New Mexico or Nevada if it has no bearing on influencing national policy? Probably not much. And, many state governments are notoriously corrupt. Would that problem not just expand if the size and scope of state government is increased?

I think we should start with erasing the notion that corporations are people and that money is free speech. People are people and money is money. How did we get so far from what that reality? It is not difficult to draw a straight line between corporate influence and posiitions of candidates on issues. That isn't solved by cutting the problem into 50 pieces, IMHO. In fact, it may make the problem worse.