Say Anything Blog

Interesting…

This solves all problems except presidential, since the president’s constituency is all voters.

The 3rd parties (Libertarian, Constitution, et al) advocate public funding.  An allotment of say 100 million for presidential, 10 million for Senate, and so on.  Ironic since usually these are the most anti-government funding types around.

Anyways, its definately a start.  But it will never happen because politicians will never bite the hand that feeds them.

So, once again, the only solution is armed revolution.

But good luck, and when you figure out a way to do it, give me a holla.

Wouldn’t locals simply become the conduits for large sums of interstate influence money?

Yep, thats would be what would happen.  Although, the $2000 limit would still be in place so the out-of-staters would have to spread the money around and would have no recourse if the local didn’t donate it since what they are doing is money laundering.

Allow all kinds of contributions from anyone to any political candidate. But account for every single penny.

Then let the democratic marketplace decide.

Some kind of combination of constituent/PAC and public financing may help.

But don’t forget the 527s - the groups that can’t do direct endorsements, but can do the “call your senator today to tell him to quit supporting baby killing” advertisements.

Maybe we’d see more middle- and lower-class people run for Congress as well (financially lower-class - there’s already plenty of low class people in Congress now).

[...] This would be a great place to start. [...]

Wouldn’t locals simply become the conduits for large sums of interstate influence money?

Not neccesarily.  We could still have contribution limits (I’d be in favor of allowing the various states to set the limits) which would put a damper on that.  And pass-throug contributions like that could be made illegal.  Out-of-state lobby money contributions are legal now.  Making them illegal would put a further damper on it.

You’re never going to cure corruption, but you can make it as hard as possible to do.

I’d probably be in favor of public funding for Presidential elections, as everyone is a presidential constituent, but as far as state politicians go constituent-only contributions seem to be the way to go.

To me at least.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

[...] Congress is corrupt. Our politicians clearly cannot resist the temptations posed by big-money lobbyists, so we need to change some of the rules. But before we can do that we have to resolve that the problem resides within the system, not with one political ideology or the other. [...]

Congress will probably never pass this, because it would take a lot of the money out of politics (and it makes too much sense), but I don’t see a downside to it.

You’d really support a law criminalizing my donation to Ron Paul’s re-election campaign? You really think the government should regulate how its citizens spend their money?

[...] Our politicians in Washington are corrupt. Its high time we stopped the partisan finger-pointing and addressed root causes. [...]

I believe that the only people who should exert influence of a politician are that politician’s constituents.

As much as I like Tom Coburn, I did not vote for him.  He was not put in office to represent me.  Therefore, why should I be allowed to contribute to his campaign?

It has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with returning the primary duty of elected officials to the representation of their constituents...and not which ever lobby group trucks in the most loot.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It has nothing to do with free speech

How is allowing the government to control which politician I give money to any different from allowing the government to control in which corporation I purchase stock?

As much as I like Tom Coburn, I did not vote for him. He was not put in office to represent me.  Therefore, why should I be allowed to contribute to his campaign?

There is no need for you to exert influences, through your contributions, over other members of Congress.

Can I start a blog encouraging people to vote for Ron Paul? Can I start an organization encouraging people to vote for Ron Paul? Can I call my long-lonst uncle in Texas and tell him to vote for Ron Paul? In every single example I’m exerting influence over other members of Congress--Ron Paul. Explain how certain forms of outside influences are okay but other forms are not.

I should be able to spend my money however I like.

Does this include using your money to commit crimes?  I don’t see “freedom to spend money as pleased” enshrined in the Constitution.  Your argument is a loser.

Bottom line, Davey: Your federal representatives in Congress are Conrad, Dorgan and Pomeroy.  You are free to contribute to them or other candidates for ND office as you see fit.  There is no need for you to exert influences, through your contributions, over other members of Congress.

Spaghetti: The two aren’t mutually exclusive.  Lets open everything up.  Lets also limit contributions to constituents.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

No, its not.  Money spent on a blog is not a direct, monetary contrtribution to a campaign.

You can obfuscate all you want, but you’re still wrong.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Well sure they aren’t exclusive, but I don’t like the idea of limiting to consituents.  It sounded nice at first, but the more I thought about it, the more I think I’d rather just have the federal government stay out of Campain Contributions altogether…

I’m officially siding with Dave and Brandon here.  Lets have full disclosure and open it up.  No 527’s, no limits, no behind the scenes.  You get caught taking money without disclosing it and you are expelled from Congress.  As long as it’s open and EVERYONE has free access to the information, let’s open it up.

It’s not money that corrupts politicians, it’s bad people that corrupt politicians.

Davey, you can do those things because they are protected by your 1st amendment right to free speech. That right, however, does not extend to you spending your money any way you want. It never has.

Davey, you can do those things because they are protected by your 1st amendment right to free speech.  That right, however, does not extend to you spending your money any way you want.  It never has.

North Dakota elects Senators and a Representative to represent the people of North Dakota.  Not Indian tribes in Michigan or Louisiana.

Spaghetti: Fair enough, but I disagree.  The Abramoff scandal has demonstrated that our politicians cannot control themselves.  Money corrupts.  The best thing to do is to limit where politicians can get their money to the people who they are supposed to be representing.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

you’re still wrong.

Very dramatic davey, but as I’ve pointed out before I have no problem with giving the government certain types of regulator power.  I’m not a pseudo-anarchist like you are.  I think the type of regulation I’ve called for is needed and well within the scope of our Federal Government to enforce.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

[...] If there is going to be lobbying reform it needs to be broader and free of loopholes. If Dreier and his colleagues want to be “bold” on this issue I say they run with this idea put forth by Newt Gingrich. [...]