|
Post by fauxmaha on Feb 15, 2016 19:41:36 GMT -5
None, and nor should any. I'd have no problem if that's how it actually worked. My issue is with a corporation, or anyone else, giving money directly to the public servants. There is quid pro quo implicit in the exchange, and I don't like that. There is a difference between an entity giving money to a public servant and a newspaper endorsing the same. Words are not money, and money is not "speech." That's just the way I look at it, and my vision is colored by all sorts of baggage. Getting back to the original post, I figured the moment I heard Scalia died it would happen, but I reckon I'm not overly fond of folks dancing on the guy's grave in the netosphere. He gave the vast majority of his adult life to providing service the public. Here we have Justice Ginsburg saying Scalia was her "best buddy" and there we see a raft full of butt nuggets posting they are glad he is dead. One an example of class, and the other not. Fooey. I hope they wake up with crabs. When I ran for the school board, I had one major donor. Same guy who is now our governor. I told him I needed $10k. He said he would give me $3k. I told him not to bother if it was any less than $5k, so that's where we landed. That one transaction generated at least 300 pages of disclosure commission filings over the next two years. I have no problem with campaign contributions. I think they are integral to democracy. I do wish my state would modernize the reporting process, but as long as all contributions are promptly disclosed, it is the responsibility of the voters to take it from there.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Feb 15, 2016 19:46:03 GMT -5
When I ran for the school board, I had one major donor. Same guy who is now our governor. I told him I needed $10k. He said he would give me $3k. I told him not to bother if it was any less than $5k, so that's where we landed. That one transaction generated at least 300 pages of disclosure commission filings over the next two years... Well, if you hadn't happened to buy that new boat motor the following day, it would have only been about 100 pages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 19:49:05 GMT -5
How many times over 300 pages did you have to write, "Bob gave me $5,000."
Yeesh.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Feb 15, 2016 19:49:52 GMT -5
Where's Hitler when you need him? Hey, it's page 7 of a thread that wasn't worth 2.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Feb 15, 2016 19:54:22 GMT -5
None, and nor should any. I'd have no problem if that's how it actually worked. My issue is with a corporation, or anyone else, giving money directly to the public servants. There is quid pro quo implicit in the exchange, and I don't like that.There is a difference between an entity giving money to a public servant and a newspaper endorsing the same. Words are not money, and money is not "speech." That's just the way I look at it, and my vision is colored by all sorts of baggage. Getting back to the original post, I figured the moment I heard Scalia died it would happen, but I reckon I'm not overly fond of folks dancing on the guy's grave in the netosphere. He gave the vast majority of his adult life to providing service the public. Here we have Justice Ginsburg saying Scalia was her "best buddy" and there we see a raft full of butt nuggets posting they are glad he is dead. One an example of class, and the other not. Fooey. I hope they wake up with crabs. I agree with that but once again it's a matter of scale. I think if you buy your congresscritter a cup of coffee it's a bribe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 20:04:22 GMT -5
Well it would be nice if they were held to the same standard I am, Doug.
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 15, 2016 20:14:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 16, 2016 12:38:00 GMT -5
That's very true. But in no way should we be assuming corporations are the equivalent of voters. Elections are won by a majority of voters and those voters are employees of a corporatin which do not represent in their political donatins the interests of those employees. Imagine a corporation which uss its corporate finances to promote candidates who deny global warming and is staffed by a vast number of employees who are Democrats and believe global warming is real and want to see politicians address it. Their company is working directly against their interest and they have no voice in how that corporation chooses to use its influence. I worked in a large international corporation (80,000 employees) dealing with exactly that issue. I was part of a 20 person department who handled political affairs for the corporation. As a Director I was responsible for environmental issues in the US although we all worked as a team to harmonize globally. There is simply no way that the rank and file could be as informed as I was about the politics and the business issues- both opportunities and threats- as I was. It's simply not possible. The corporation advocated politically in ways that were best for their business and that included donations of the corporation's money to political causes and candidates that they favored. There's nothing unfair about that at all. It's not the employee's money. They don't deserve a say so. And since the corporation is advocating in the way that is best for the on-going business health of the company that pays employee's salaries, it's really a much better deal for the employees since the corporation's politics is based on reality, both political and physical, and not on the nuttiness of Facebook memes and environmental alarmist fringe groups.
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 16, 2016 13:06:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Feb 16, 2016 19:56:41 GMT -5
There is one sure-fire way to get the money out of politics: Make politics sufficiently unimportant that no one bothers with it.
But if you want a government that regulates every single last thing about virtually every aspect of society (which is to say, if you want the government we have), then it should hardly come as a surprise that the people and organizations most impacted are interested in influencing the process.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Feb 16, 2016 20:11:08 GMT -5
There is one sure-fire way to get the money out of politics: Make politics sufficiently unimportant that no one bothers with it. But if you want a government that regulates every single last thing about virtually every aspect of society (which is to say, if you want the government we have), then it should hardly come as a surprise that the people and organizations most impacted are interested in influencing the process. Make paying for government cheaper than buying politicians.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 20,023
|
Post by Dub on Feb 16, 2016 23:38:27 GMT -5
During my 25 or so years at Rockwell, my grade level together with my salary made me "eligible" to participate in a number of exclusive opportunities including being "invited" to contribute to Rockwell’s PAC. Officially, one could designate a political party if one wished. I chose to donate without specification.
Talk about mixed emotions.* I knew that Rockwell would use the money to further its interests which might be to my benefit or perhaps not. In any case, I was pretty sure that any personal political contributions I made privately would serve to work against the contributions I made to the Rockwell PAC.
My contributions to the Rockwell PAC were more to be seen as a "team player" than anything else but of course I did have a vested interest in the company’s success.
* Evan Esar defined mixed emotions as watching your mother-in-law drive your new convertible over a cliff.
|
|