The Democrat Thread

[Rex Kickass]

also their entire production dept. got the boot. When Breitbart does that...

 

edit: it should be mentioned that people WERE raising concerns in the CBS editorial dept. and were being ignored. That producer deserved to get the boot.

 

IIRC, the forged documents that CBS News used fortified rather than created the story that they reported beyond that. There was seemingly a story with or without those fake documents.

[Balta1701]

The Senate has filibustered the DISCLOSE act, the proposed response to the Campaign Finance Supreme Court ruling that would require corporations and unions funding ads to reveal themselves and require groups to reveal their donors.

 

I'll bet you'll never guess who the 41 Senators voting to Filibuster it were.

 

This would have been an excellent response to the Citizens United decision. The only possible reason why you'd oppose it is if you thought a key part of your support would be made up by money coming from business or union interests who's support you didn't want to acknowledge publicly.

[mr_genius]

Can we start implementing IQ tests in elections?

 

i support this. IQ test for voters too.

[FlaSoxxJim]

IQ test for voters too.

 

Gawd Yes!

[bmags]

well yeah. There is a huge difference between the operations of huffpo and tpm then pajamas media, etc. The former seem to want to go back to 19th century ideological newspapers, but newspapers, the others are just hit and run commentators.

[kapkomet]

The Senate has filibustered the DISCLOSE act, the proposed response to the Campaign Finance Supreme Court ruling that would require corporations and unions funding ads to reveal themselves and require groups to reveal their donors.

 

I'll bet you'll never guess who the 41 Senators voting to Filibuster it were.

 

This would have been an excellent response to the Citizens United decision. The only possible reason why you'd oppose it is if you thought a key part of your support would be made up by money coming from business or union interests who's support you didn't want to acknowledge publicly.

 

Why do you hate "freedom of speech"?

 

Think about that before you answer... at least a little...

[lostfan]

Corporations and unions are constitutionally protected since they're basically a form of assembly/petition. I don't like it, but at least there is something like legal logic behind it. Still, only a moron would think a corporation is literally the same thing as a person, with completely the same sets of rights, and the same role in society. A person, or even a group of people, can't influence the government anywhere near as effectively as a large entity with billions of dollars at its disposal can. There are people like that, but only a tiny handful.

Edited July 28, 2010 by lostfan

[StrangeSox]

Corporations have more rights than people in this regard.

[lostfan]

Corporations have more rights than people in this regard.

Exactly.

[NorthSideSox72]

Companies don't vote, people vote. One person, one vote, one ENTITY in the election world. Corporations should not, in my view, be part of it. They don't have a vote in and of themselves, and they shouldn't be able to donate to campaigns or parties. I do however think that corporations should be able to lobby - and yes that difference is important. Businesses should be able to protect their interests, and if they want to spend money on people's time to try to convince officials of things, I have no issue with that. Just make the lobbying laws such that those elected officials can't take gifts of any kind from lobbyists, period.

 

This stuff COULD be made much simpler than it is, if the people elected to office wanted it to be. They generally do not.

 

[Balta1701]

Just make the lobbying laws such that those elected officials can't take gifts of any kind from lobbyists, period.

 

This stuff COULD be made much simpler than it is, if the people elected to office wanted it to be. They generally do not.

So, if BP noticed that Representative Joe Barton thought it was a horrible thing that BP had to pay for the oil spill cleanup and the government did not, and they decided to spend $50 million dollars to elect Joe Barton behind the scenes, and did so with absolutely no coordination with Joe Barton, you'd have no problem with that? That's not a gift, that's them supporting a candidate who's belief that BP shouldn't have to pay for the cleanup happens to line up with their belief that BP shouldn't have to pay for the cleanup.

[NorthSideSox72]

So, if BP noticed that Representative Joe Barton thought it was a horrible thing that BP had to pay for the oil spill cleanup and the government did not, and they decided to spend $50 million dollars to elect Joe Barton behind the scenes, and did so with absolutely no coordination with Joe Barton, you'd have no problem with that? That's not a gift, that's them supporting a candidate who's belief that BP shouldn't have to pay for the cleanup happens to line up with their belief that BP shouldn't have to pay for the cleanup.

That isn't what I said at all. Where are you even getting that? If BP wanted to pay for an advertisement saying, GOVERNMENT BAD!!!, they can do that. If they wanted to meet with every senator and house rep they could, talk with them, try to tell them what actions they'd take to avoid this in the future, etc., they could do that. They could NOT donate money to the candidate, or to a PAC, or to the GOP. I thought I was pretty clear.

 

[Balta1701]

That isn't what I said at all. Where are you even getting that? If BP wanted to pay for an advertisement saying, GOVERNMENT BAD!!!, they can do that. If they wanted to meet with every senator and house rep they could, talk with them, try to tell them what actions they'd take to avoid this in the future, etc., they could do that. They could NOT donate money to the candidate, or to a PAC, or to the GOP. I thought I was pretty clear.

And that's exactly what they can do right now...they just don't have to acknowledge that it was done by BP at any step. (one other note, your "They can't donate money to the candidate, PAC, or GOP line would be tossed out by the court, so yeah, it's a lot more complex than you want it to be)

[NorthSideSox72]

And that's exactly what they can do right now...they just don't have to acknowledge that it was done by BP at any step. (one other note, your "They can't donate money to the candidate, PAC, or GOP line would be tossed out by the court, so yeah, it's a lot more complex than you want it to be)

Tossed out by a court under current law. I believe the law can be made such that it wouldn't run afoul of that ruling. Also, no, they can do a lot more than that now, including donate directly to parties, candidates and PAC's. This is why its so important to re-write the laws on this.

 

Its a complex issue, but some simple solutions CAN give us a lot of progress.

 

[Balta1701]

Tossed out by a court under current law. I believe the law can be made such that it wouldn't run afoul of that ruling. Also, no, they can do a lot more than that now, including donate directly to parties, candidates and PAC's. This is why its so important to re-write the laws on this.

 

Its a complex issue, but some simple solutions CAN give us a lot of progress.

A simple solution like say, making it so that a company or a union can't give large sums of money to a PAC to fund an ad campaign without acknowledging in the ad that they were the donor?

[NorthSideSox72]

A simple solution like say, making it so that a company or a union can't give large sums of money to a PAC to fund an ad campaign without acknowledging in the ad that they were the donor?

I'm saying change the rules for PAC's, and require disclosure. No mixing of funds, ever, for any purpose, between parties/candidates and corporations.

 

[Balta1701]

I'm saying change the rules for PAC's, and require disclosure. No mixing of funds, ever, for any purpose, between parties/candidates and corporations.

Well, first of all, the bill in question here, the DISCLOSE act, does the first part (at least it's supposed to, until we figure out where the loopholes are).

 

The 2nd part is the complicated part, because as you've noted, BP can't give $10 million to Joe Barton, but BP's CEO can sit down in a room with his 500 rich friends, all of whom happen to be big investors in BP, and tell them that if Joe Barton becomes chair of the House Energy committee it'll be worth millions to the value of their stock, so each of them should max out and give $3000 to Joe Barton's campaign this year, and another $3000 to any other Republican they can find to try to help them win the majority.

 

That's the same argument we get for why Obama's been so lenient on BP, because of all of the individual donations coming from employees and friends of that firm.

 

Really, the only way you're going to stop that is to outright ban political contributions, because there's no way you can ban me from trying to convince my friend to support a cause that I support.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, first of all, the bill in question here, the DISCLOSE act, does the first part (at least it's supposed to, until we figure out where the loopholes are).

 

The 2nd part is the complicated part, because as you've noted, BP can't give $10 million to Joe Barton, but BP's CEO can sit down in a room with his 500 rich friends, all of whom happen to be big investors in BP, and tell them that if Joe Barton becomes chair of the House Energy committee it'll be worth millions to the value of their stock, so each of them should max out and give $3000 to Joe Barton's campaign this year, and another $3000 to any other Republican they can find to try to help them win the majority.

 

That's the same argument we get for why Obama's been so lenient on BP, because of all of the individual donations coming from employees and friends of that firm.

 

Really, the only way you're going to stop that is to outright ban political contributions, because there's no way you can ban me from trying to convince my friend to support a cause that I support.

I have no issue with that at all (bolded). Each person has a choice - they can listen to BP's request, and then do what they want with their $3000.

 

[Balta1701]

I have no issue with that at all (bolded). Each person has a choice - they can listen to BP's request, and then do what they want with their $3000.

Then basically, you're arguing in favor of the current system except with the DISCLOSE act passed.

[southsider2k5]

i support this. IQ test for voters too.

 

Can we start implementing IQ tests in elections?

 

I'm sure the reconstructionists will love you for this.

[NorthSideSox72]

Then basically, you're arguing in favor of the current system except with the DISCLOSE act passed.

No, not at all. I agree with some ASPECTS of the current system, but if read my posts instead of just pulling out certain parts, you will see I think there are other things that should be different.

 

[Balta1701]

No, not at all. I agree with some ASPECTS of the current system, but if read my posts instead of just pulling out certain parts, you will see I think there are other things that should be different.

The rest of it, the parts about not allowing things to be coordinated with a campaign and that corporations can't directly fund campaigns...are already on the books. They're hard to enforce, but they already exist. Laws against gifts from lobbyists already exist (ask Charlie Rangel). Laws against direct contributions from corporations to candidates already exist at least at the national level (some states do have different laws). You've said you want lobbying to be legal, and you've said you want private and private bundled contributions to be legal...both of which are already the case. You've said you don't want anything resembling a gift in exchange for support, which is already the case. Every other thing you've asked for is in the current system.

 

The only thing you've asked for in this thread which is not already on the books is disclosure of corporate and private PAC contributions, which is the essence of the DISCLOSE act.

[NorthSideSox72]

The rest of it, the parts about not allowing things to be coordinated with a campaign and that corporations can't directly fund campaigns...are already on the books. They're hard to enforce, but they already exist. Laws against gifts from lobbyists already exist (ask Charlie Rangel). Laws against direct contributions from corporations to candidates already exist at least at the national level (some states do have different laws). You've said you want lobbying to be legal, and you've said you want private and private bundled contributions to be legal...both of which are already the case. You've said you don't want anything resembling a gift in exchange for support, which is already the case. Every other thing you've asked for is in the current system.

 

The only thing you've asked for in this thread which is not already on the books is disclosure of corporate and private PAC contributions, which is the essence of the DISCLOSE act.

Not exactly.

 

There are subtle rule changes that I think would go a long way to improve things. "Bundling" should not be allowed - you can "lobby" your friends or employees to do certain things, but that person needs to do the donating THEMSELVES. If that is the current law, then great, but I don't think it is. Further, the rules about gifts and exchanges need to go further - which can be done multiple ways. And the enforcement aspect is also something to consider, I think the auditing and exposure of monies, gifts, and legislation needs to be more carefully monitored. And preventing Congress from ever giving projects or monies to specific corporations for project work would go a long way - Congress should only ask for projects to be funded, then leave it to the departments and agencies to follow their own bidding and processes.

 

[Balta1701]

1. Bundling is done exactly how you describe you want it to be done. The individuals give their gifts themselves and record it on their own taxes. They're not allowed to be coerced into it in any way. However, if it just so happens that I arrange a party for 300 of my wealthiest friends and that party just happens to include a dinner with the President...well, that's convenient.

 

If you're allowing direct contributions, there's no way around this problem, because you can't ban me from encouraging other people to financially support a candidate I support, even if the reason happens to be "we'll all make a fortune if this guy gets elected" and that is all that "Bundling" is.

 

2. I think you're being nitpicky with your discussion of what is and is not a gift. If there's room for improvement on those rules then it can be done, but that misses 99.99% of the problem of how money corrupts politics.

 

3. I'm not sure how I could make that rule practical. I can give a couple examples. First, let's say that Congress right now decided that the government would assume all liabilities related to oil spills. That's not giving anything directly to any company, but it's a hell of a bailout for BP. Let's say Congress decides to offer a giant subsidy on oil drilling in the Gulf (they do). That's a hell of a contribution for any company drilling in the gulf. What happens if Congress funds the F-35? Only 1 manufacturer is building those planes.

 

Beyond that, there's really no reason to assume that the executive branch isn't just as corruptible, since the executive officer of the nation also needs to run for office. If that executive officer decided that every contract the executive branch handed out would be a no-bid contract to one of his political supporters, or to a company that just happened to employ a friendly union, it's the same deal.

 

 

The problem you and I are going to have, I feel, is that you're trying to design a system that is incorruptible without going after the heart of the matter...the fact that once private money gets in, people are going to sit in a room, either at a corporation or union, and say "if our guy gets elected, we're going to have a lot more money".

 

Once that is true...no matter how high you build the walls regarding gifts, collaboration, earmarks, whatever...then there is every reason for a politician to support policies which will bring him or her the most money possible by transferring large sums of government money to his or her supporters.

[Balta1701]

Why do you hate "freedom of speech"?

 

Think about that before you answer... at least a little...

After some time Kap...I've found an answer...I'll let Toles take this one.