Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    5:30 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Even though "technically legal" this practice needs to be stopped! Back to Topics
AFSNCO

Champion Author
Montgomery

Posts:19,927
Points:1,863,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 11:34:53 AM

Both parties abusing the campaign donation moneys....
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,695
Points:1,282,765
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 9:42:27 PM

Kind of makes Clint Eastwood’s empty chair talk look very realistic.
MISSOURI REPRESENTATIVE CHARGED WITH STEALING POLITICAL FUNDS

[Edited by: johnnyg1200 at 11/6/2013 9:42:31 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,878,815
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Oct 26, 2013 11:53:21 AM

SSteve, >>*Agreed we are getting off topic with this. Do you have a suggested topic which would be better suited for continuation?<<
~
I initiated a new topic entitled, "Political Corruption - Can It Be Stopped?"

Maybe we can get some fresh ideas on how to stop this serious problem.
~

Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,202
Points:3,080,080
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 26, 2013 10:19:46 AM

Last Sunday on CBS 60 Minutes, author Peter Schweizer Extortion (released Oct. 22 2013) and Throw Them All Out (released Aug 2012) shined the harsh light of investigation on the cockroaches of Congress.
CBS 60 Minutes October 20, 2013 (direct to video)

Following the 60 Minutes gig, Schweizer went on with Sean Hannity.

It is simply unbelievable that we have let OUR elected officials do these outright corrupt practices. Republicans and Democrats alike.

Oh, by the way, I got these links from my FairTax newsletter. Those folks care. End theIRS. Take power back from the Washington elite by passing the FairTax (and repealing the 16th Amendment), putting the federal government on a permanent allowance to fund all government functions without political wrangling, brinksmanship, gamesmanship, coercion, and political patronage.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,549
Points:449,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2013 12:10:34 PM

Right you are, MJack. The corruption does extend beyond the elite. Much of what unions, lobbyists and special interest groups does falls smack into the same boat.

That is why I think it would be disingenuous for liberals to demand that the big monied few individuals and corporations be barred from using their money to purchase influence in our political system if Unions, Professional Organizations, Lobbyists, Trade organizations, etc. are not also included. It has to be all or nothing.

That's the deal. And I think it would be a good one for our nation. I think it is more what the framers intended.

*Agreed we are getting off topic with this. Do you have a suggested topic which would be better suited for continuation?

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 10/25/2013 12:11:14 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,878,815
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2013 11:18:20 PM

SSteve, >>MJack, you are wrong. This entire idea that the wealthy should be able to use their money to curry special favors/rights in our government is fundamentally flawed. It is a violation of our Constitution.<<
~
It is difficult to wrong when I at least partially agree with you. Earlier you posted, "MJack, I am totally fine with that. No organization has the rights of a citizen. Union, corporation, it doesn't matter. Every member of any organization is a citizen and therefore has their rights. Those are the rights they get. They don't get double rights by claiming their own individual rights and then additional rights for their organization. '

The corruption extends far beyond the elite. The source of huge funding also come from Unions, Professional Organizations, Lobbyists, Trade organizations, etc.

Instead of using their funding to educate the electorate of their "good ideas' they buy political support and force their 'good ideas' upon the unsuspecting electorate who usually end up paying for the laws and regulations that benefit a few.

I'm posting my changes:

""Allowing big money to control politics favors those that made the payments. We gotta hold the politicians and judges responsible for limiting their actions to powers granted to them in our Constitution. Anything else invites corruption."

BTW, we may be off topic as I believe the original topic was about the massive "Leadership Funds" which are separate from regular political contributions.

Perhaps a better explanation is, Leadership funds are more like a tip to politicians for doing such a great job of screwing us?
~
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,549
Points:449,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2013 4:29:52 PM

MJack, you are wrong. This entire idea that the wealthy should be able to use their money to curry special favors/rights in our government is fundamentally flawed. It is a violation of our Constitution.

"Allowing big money to control politics favors those that made the payments."

--ie, the elite!

"We gotta hold the politicians and judges responsible for limiting their actions to powers granted to them in our Constitution."

--Existing checks and balances are routinely bypassed and have become ineffective. Big money has already and regularly overwhelms the safeguards.

"Anything else invites corruption."

--That is what we have now. Corruption. They system is corrupted and so it favors the elite. That is why we need an amendment to get the big money out of politics. That way everyone will have an equal say. That is what the framers intended. If they wanted to designate corporations/unions/companies/organizations as people; and money as free speech they could have done so. They didn't.

Giving the wealthy more power in our political system favors the wealthy. The first words are "We, the People." Not "We the Wealthy." It goes on "To promote the general Welfare." That doesn't mean to promote the Welfare of a select few elites. That means everybody. That's what "general' means.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution about favoring "those that made the payments." It's "We, the People." There is little doubt about the meaning intended there. Nothing about producers or takers. It's crystal clear. We, the People. Forming a Union. Not forming a selective favoritist system for the elite.

Granting special perks/powers/rights to the wealthy does not 'insure domestic Tranquilty.' Rather, it guarantees resentment and unrest.

This whole nation is about getting AWAY from favoring the select few, the elite; and is about treating none above others. This concept is the very reason why we broke away from British rule and the absolute power of the monarchy and formed a representational form of government. Not meant to represent only the wealthy. Meant to represent all the people. "We, The People of the United States..."
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,878,815
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2013 3:00:22 PM

>>Allowing big money to control politics favors the elite.

We gotta get the big money out of politics to save the nation.<<
~
I disagree with your statement and would change it to read, "Allowing big money to control politics favors those that made the payments. We gotta hold the politicians and judges responsible for limiting their actions to powers granted to them in our Constitution. Anything else invites corruption."
~
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,878,815
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2013 2:54:35 PM

>>When we want to take their money via our tax code, corporations are people. But when they wish to use freedom of speech to give money to a political campaign of their choosing they are not entitled to do so? Interesting. <<
~
The Leftist idea of taxing corporations is a fallacy. In Reality, corporations do not pay taxes as these costs and other costs are ultimately paid by the people in one way or another. The proper way to handle the situation is eliminate corporate taxes and also eliminate or at least limit their access to politicians. This can be done somewhat easily.

This of course would apply to other organizations such as unions and lobbyists.
~

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,549
Points:449,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2013 12:28:30 PM

The Constitution attempted to set up a government which did not favor the elite. The vision was a nation where every citizen has an equal say.

Allowing big money to control politics favors the elite.

We gotta get the big money out of politics to save the nation.



[Edited by: SemiSteve at 10/24/2013 12:29:44 PM EST]
Profile Pic
e_jeepin
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:4,800
Points:140,690
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2013 5:35:38 AM

unfortunately, campaign money is the only way to get the "pass it so we can find out whats in it" politicians to listen to us. (or in the case of Obummercare, they don't want to hear what you have to say)

They will pass laws carelessly and without asking first how it will affect you, or your company.

In some cases, careless legislation will inadvertently put a corporation out of business.

That business has the right to proactively protect itself and the only way to get heard is threaten to unseat your careless politician (who likely is just going along with the gang).

I don't like the system, however corporations and jobs are saved every day from reckless politicians.



[Edited by: e_jeepin at 10/24/2013 5:36:36 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,528
Points:692,630
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2013 2:45:27 PM

When we want to take their money via our tax code, corporations are people. But when they wish to use freedom of speech to give money to a political campaign of their choosing they are not entitled to do so? Interesting. I guess the liberals are just upset that liberal corporations don't tend to donate whereas conservative corporations seem to fill the coffers of the Republican candidates. I'd scream foul too... Of course, unions have done this for the Democrats for decades.

I'm sorry, I support anyone or any corporation giving as much money as they wish to any political candidate or party that they desire.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,549
Points:449,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2013 2:29:16 PM

MJack, I am totally fine with that.

No organization has the rights of a citizen. Union, corporation, it doesn't matter.

Every member of any organization is a citizen and therefore has their rights. Those are the rights they get. They don't get double rights by claiming their own individual rights and then additional rights for their organization.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,878,815
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2013 1:11:36 PM

~
Using SemiSteve's logic I inserted the word Union in place of Corporations:

UNIONS are businesses. A business is not a person. A business can be taxed but has no right to expect to vote. It also has no right to expect to be treated as a person in the political arena. A business can not run for office nor hold elected office so it should have no influence over those real people who do and can.

The people in a UNION have all the same rights as anybody else. If these people want to exert their right to free speech they are just as able to do so as any other person. It is not fair to others if an individual claims his own right as a person to free speech and then claims additional rights to free speech as the [participant] of a UNION. That person is attempting to claim double rights because he [of his association]. He should be entitled to no more rights than anybody else and no less.

Now while Steve's reply is off topic but symptomatic of our problems with The Government, maybe we should ponder Steve's statement and my statement paraphrasing him, by replacing 'Corporations' with a few other words such as Lobbyists, and Professional Organizations?
~
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,549
Points:449,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2013 12:13:15 PM

Corporations are businesses. A business is not a person. A business can be taxed but has no right to expect to vote. It also has no right to expect to be treated as a person in the political arena. A business can not run for office nor hold elected office so it should have no influence over those real people who do and can.

The people in a corporation have all the same rights as anybody else. If these people want to exert their right to free speech they are just as able to do so as any other person. It is not fair to others if an individual claims his own right as a person to free speech and then claims additional rights to free speech as the owner of a corporation. That person is attempting to claim double rights because he is rich. He should be entitled to no more rights than anybody else and no less.
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,528
Points:692,630
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2013 11:59:29 AM

Even if allowed to contribute and be taxed, corporations still can't VOTE. Only individuals can do that. The reason that the candidate with the most money has the significant advantage is because of the low information voter. A majority of voters get their only information on the candidates from the 30 and 60 second commercials played during American Idol.

I remember the first time I met my Representative, Dr. Paul Broun. It was at an open air get together in my county. Here's a US Representative actually pressing the flesh. That's right, he was kissing babies and shaking hands. Okay, for the record, I didn't actually see him kiss a baby. I liked his openness and willingness to talk to the common people. He wasn't singling out people with money to talk with, he was chatting with everyone.

Truthfully, I was a bit upset that due to redistricting, we lost the representation of Rob Woodall. However, Dr. Broun didn't treat those of us that he inherited as any less important. Of course, Broun didn't even have a Democrat opponent in the general election.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,878,815
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2013 5:57:30 PM

worryfree, >>How naïve. Let's say I donate 1 million to Big George who is running for Congress. Timmy donates $25. George gets elected. Who do you think George listens to?<<
~
Big George will, if unsrupulous, will place a value on your contribution more than Tim's contribution. After all we are dealing with politicians. Consequently, he may run the risk of falling out of favor with Tim and his fellow 'small' contributors. In this instance all three of you have placed some value on the contributions. Until a use for the money was found, it had no value.

In your example, both you and Tim had their candidate win. You in all likelihood will have a greater say in the policies of your political area because Big George has placed a value on the amount you gave. Tim may or may not be slighted by this. If Big George favors your requests more than he does his remaining constituents, he'll be subject to losing (a political embarrassment) in his party's primary. This has happened numerous times since the TEA Party came into existence. The TEA Party is becoming the equalizer in our political system.

However, this topic is about a very special kind of donation to a 'Leadership Fund' the politician can use at much to his own discretion. The topic is this practice needs to be stopped. I agree and I think most posters do also. Can you add to the suggestions already posted?
~

Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,528
Points:692,630
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2013 5:15:38 PM

Term Limits would insure that we remove qualified candidates from the ballot. It would keep our government running with a continually crop of freshmen that couldn't even find the Member Washroom, let alone know how to introduce legislation to run this country.

Hopefully, you are aware that Barrack H Obama did exactly what you are complaining about. He also had contests where if you donated you had a chance to have dinner with him.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,549
Points:449,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2013 5:10:37 PM

If you donate $1 mill to big george you get to have lunch with him - when YOU have the time, not he. You get his ear. You get to converse with him. You can pretty much dictate policy at the threat of ending the donations.

If you donate $25 you get to fill out a web form and get no reply aside from a form letter. There is no conversation. There is no meeting of the minds. Your ideas are lost.
Profile Pic
Pielededrac
Champion Author Florida

Posts:2,408
Points:728,015
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2013 4:35:30 PM

Term limits is the best way to cut down the power of politicians.
What do you think happens when, let's say a Congressman or a Senator, is elected continuously for 30 years?
If he is great for the people in general, why not, but most of the time he amasses so much power in those 30 years, that it is almost impossible to get rid of him if he turns bad or cater only to one small part of the electorate.
So the more power they have, the more money they pile up and the new guy has never a chance.

A 2 terms limit would give a chance to a lot more people, and if you get a bad apple, he will be more short lived then sitting there for 30-40 years and getting fat on our dime.
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,528
Points:692,630
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2013 3:04:24 PM

I also don't support term limits for the Executive Branch.

When it comes to corporations giving campaign contributions, we have decided that corporations have to pay income taxes. If we tax them, then they have the right to free speech. The unions have done this, as well. As a citizen, I should not be limited in how much money I want to spend getting my message out. The same with a corporation. I know it isn't popular if the corporations aren't contributing to your party, but I guess you have to court their favor to your position.
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:24,983
Points:2,244,840
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2013 2:51:18 PM

"If you don't support term limits for Congress then why should we have them for President or any other office?"

Agreed. When the gop took control of Congress in 1946, in retaliation against FDR for having the gall to run and be elected 4 times, the gop congress passed the 22nd Amendment. That came back to bite them when the gop was looking for any kind of a loophole that would allow Reagan to run for a third term.

Personally, I don't like term limits at any level of government.
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,412
Points:2,451,605
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2013 1:57:24 PM

"Money is NOT the problem. It is inanimate, has no mind of its own, and would be essentially worthless without people thinking it to be valuable."


How naïve. Let's say I donate 1 million to Big George who is running for Congress. Timmy donates $25. George gets elected. Who do you think George listens to?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,549
Points:449,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2013 1:20:11 PM

"What we have is a 'people problem.' Until the electorate becomes informed that they hold the key to having an exceptional government and then making their way to the polls in early November to vote their INFORMED PREFERENCES, we will remain quarrelling about what needs to be done."

--Have you ever wondered why we have a 'people problem?'

It is because both major parties and the commercial media benefit from the influx of big money. The people are too busy trying to make ends meet and enjoy their lives to get immersed enough in politics to cut through the propoganda. They are voting based not on being informed but on being misinformed - by big money.

***

If you don't support term limits for Congress then why should we have them for President or any other office?
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:24,983
Points:2,244,840
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2013 1:10:50 PM

Bell, your last post, one of the few times I have agreed with what you have posted. I agree 100%.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,878,815
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2013 1:09:10 PM

>>Unfortunately, money always finds a way. It doesn't seem to matter how convoluted the path it must take, it will get to the people it can influence. The solution to dealing with the money problem--unless we can amend the constitution to create a distinction between money and speech, which is nearly impossible (and problematic)--is to make the path of the money into the political system open and transparent to all.<<
~
Money is NOT the problem. It is inanimate, has no mind of its own, and would be essentially worthless without people thinking it to be valuable.

The Constitution is also not the problem. It was written to deliberately avoid the dangers of having a ruling class being master over others. The problems we now face are caused by the political class (BOTH parties) knowing that the electorate can be controlled through mass media and that it would be extremely difficult for them to change the political classes behavior because so many are led to believe nothing can be done to better themselves.

What we have is a 'people problem.' Until the electorate becomes informed that they hold the key to having an exceptional government and then making their way to the polls in early November to vote their INFORMED PREFERENCES, we will remain quarrelling about what needs to be done.

If anyone is looking for the political class (people taking advantage) to do action on this issue without doing research, may I once again suggest:

"Having the emergence of a third, fourth or even fifth party just might ignite a fire under the keisters of the political country club set to get them moving towards correcting things."

But then again, that would mean they would have to show up at the polls.
~
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,528
Points:692,630
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2013 12:18:25 PM

Term Limits do nothing except remove one choice from the people. What you are saying when you have to impose a term limit is that you do not believe the American People in that district/state deserve the opportunity to vote for whomever they wish. You feel that they are not competent enough to vote out a legislator that they do not want to represent them. You are saying the voting process of choosing the candidate that they, the voters wish has failed.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,311
Points:3,023,845
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2013 11:51:49 AM

"Money is the root of most evil in politics. We need to not stack the SCOTUS with justices that think unlimited campaign contributions are free speech."

Unfortunately, money always finds a way. It doesn't seem to matter how convoluted the path it must take, it will get to the people it can influence. The solution to dealing with the money problem--unless we can amend the constitution to create a distinction between money and speech, which is nearly impossible (and problematic)--is to make the path of the money into the political system open and transparent to all.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,202
Points:3,080,080
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2013 11:11:06 AM

Steve: "--Maybe it will take that to create the amendment(s). (Perhaps it will take several amendments to really set things right.)"

That's why this book.

Happy reading!
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,202
Points:3,080,080
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2013 11:09:19 AM

Btc: >>We pride ourselves on our system being a system of check and balances. Where are the checks on Congress' campaign finance?<<

That's a darn good question. Darn good. It used to be that an independent Free Press would act as a balance against government power and corruption, by exposing and investigating it. So maybe the next question is, what happened to responsible journalism? Too many news sources have become lap dogs to the powerful. And I'll bet SemiSteve could help answer that second question - big corporations own all major media. except PBS, but they make large donations to the "non-profit" outfit.......
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,549
Points:449,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2013 10:59:23 AM

"Steve, passing an amendment will still involve the political class elite."

--Oh, you're right. It's difficult. So we shouldn't try. My bad.

Are you kidding me? Of COURSE it's difficult! If it were easy it would be abused.

Here's how it can work: First, we give up on most current elected officials. You're right. They are not going to vote for this. Then: We, the People, (You, me, everybody else we can convince) need to talk it up and let it be known far and wide that this amendment is what we want. We let it be known that any candidate who endorses this gets our vote. It needs to be an ongoing thing that lasts for years. It won't happen overnight. We put enough people in office that represent what we want and we tip the scales in favor of it. There would probably be many failed attempts before it finally passes. Battles between the old way of thinking and the new. Eventually the system must accept what the citizens want. We just have to want it bad enough.

"Again, the only thing I see having a chance is, "Having the emergence of a third, fourth or even fifth party just might ignite a fire under the keisters of the political country club set to get them moving towards correcting things."

--Maybe it will take that to create the amendment(s). (Perhaps it will take several amendments to really set things right.)

All I know is people fought long and hard to create this country. They gave a lot and suffered much. We were given this. But they could not have forseen the way things would go long after they lived. so they included the power to amend. It falls on US to recognize that it is time and to act. Even if this takes longer than you or I live we still need to fight for it for the rest of our lives. It is our responsibility. We OWE it to those who created this country and to those who will come after us.

Anybody who can't see that needs to step back and take a real good look at the big picture. Political cronies have created 'legalized' corruption. It is up to US to fix it.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,878,815
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 7:23:46 PM

>>And term limits and we should vote every last one of them out. Both Parties!

Then maybe they'll get the idea THEy work for US!<<
~
That appears to be the only workable solution. There might be a problem with both parties nominating party puppets that secretly pledge to do the same as their predecessors.
~
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,878,815
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 7:19:33 PM

>>How about ALL US Citizens (left & right together) stop paying taxes until Congress, Senate, White House do what the people want... Just a few ideas, it looks extreme, but if the people stick together what can they do? Put 300 million people in jail?<<
~
The way the IRS is being managed these days, only those who are associated with the TEA Party or Veterans would see the inside of jail. ;-)

Some good ideas though. Your suggestion of, "ALL politicians have the same health insurance as us the people." was so good, the original bill WAS PASSED with that stipulation. It was taken out by the Democrats and the Republicans wanted it reinserted. The Republicans (and the Republic lost.)

"NO pension for politicians, they serve the people, it is a service to our nation, NOT a job." How many incumbents do you think will vote for this?

"No pork." See my answer to the last question. This could be done by giving a line item veto to the President.

"Read a bill BEFORE signing" This is what they're supposed to do WITHOUT HAVING TO BE TOLD!
~
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:23,223
Points:893,735
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 6:24:45 PM

We pride ourselves on our system being a system of check and balances. Where are the checks on Congress' campaign finance?
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,412
Points:2,451,605
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 6:20:14 PM

Money is the root of most evil in politics. We need to not stack the SCOTUS with justices that think unlimited campaign contributions are free speech.
Profile Pic
Cliffisher
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:30,503
Points:3,769,000
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 6:14:01 PM

Just take a look at the last "Farm Bill".

Some of the congressmen/women are raking in millions.

Term limits.
Profile Pic
greentre
Champion Author Pensacola

Posts:1,289
Points:427,640
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 6:07:07 PM

"Congress should “take a look at having clearer rules at what they can and cannot be spent for.”"

And term limits and we should vote every last one of them out. Both Parties!

Then maybe they'll get the idea THET work for US!
Profile Pic
Pielededrac
Champion Author Florida

Posts:2,408
Points:728,015
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 5:00:51 PM

How about ALL US Citizens (left & right together) stop paying taxes until Congress, Senate, White House do what the people want:

- Terms limits on EVERY politician, 2 terms max for anyone, local or state or national.
- ALL politicians have the same health insurance as us the people.
- NO pension for politicians, they serve the people, it is a service to our nation, NOT a job.
- Politicians are accountable for they wrong doing/policies.
- No pork.
- Read a bill BEFORE signing.

Just a few ideas, it looks extreme, but if the people stick together what can they do? Put 300 million people in jail?

I bet the army would be on the side of the people.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,878,815
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 4:50:55 PM

>>Make a new amendment. <<
~
Article V (in its entirety):

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

Steve, passing an amendment will still involve the political class elite.

Again, the only thing I see having a chance is, "Having the emergence of a third, fourth or even fifth party just might ignite a fire under the keisters of the political country club set to get them moving towards correcting things."
~
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,927
Points:1,863,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 4:43:39 PM

I like the idea of loaning money to help me get elected to then charge 18% after getting yourself elected. Isn't that like me loaning money to my boss to hire me only to charge him 18% after I am working for him?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,549
Points:449,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 4:34:33 PM

Make a new amendment. Political advertising becomes prohibited. Political donations become limited to ten times the minimum wage for an individual; and no union, corporation or other organization can donate. Money is not free speech; and corporations are not people. Terms limited to 6 years. No re-election.

That would pretty much end big campaign war chests, the power of big money over elections, and those annoying dirt-slinging campaign ads.

It would return government to being of, by and for the people; as opposed to the billionaires.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,697
Points:1,878,815
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 4:31:01 PM

>>How do we convince congress this needs to be done? Congress sure the heck isn't going to put limits on themselves. Ideas anyone?<<
~
We can pretty much NOT count on either major party. This unethical use of campaign funds is about the only thing in Washington that is truly bipartisan. Even Ron Paul was involved!

That leaves this problem up to us. Ironically, this subject is one of the few that all of us GB posters will agree on.

Having the emergence of a third, fourth or even fifth party just might ignite a fire under the keisters of the political country club set to get them moving towards correcting things.

As an example, the TEA Party (which is not really a political party) has helped end the careers of a few politicians. I wish I could honestly say the TEA Party movement was from the right wing but it is not in spite of what some posters think and say on these boards. The TEA Party simply insists on having responsible spending and the government limit its powers to those GRANTED to it in our Constitution.
~
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,202
Points:3,080,080
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 4:23:38 PM

Apparently the Ethics Committees have no balls.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,459
Points:1,304,435
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 4:17:28 PM

"So, where did the money come from?"


Being able to draft and pass legislation from which you gain financial benefits (like the current farm bill that INCREASES subsidies to rich farmer, some of whom are in congress right now, who helped draft the very legislation that they'll be pocketing hefty subsidies from)....

for two.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,927
Points:1,863,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 3:56:39 PM

"Term limits"

Yep! 100% agreed...because we have Senators and Congressman for Life going on in some districts/states.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,763
Points:3,209,495
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 3:24:02 PM

>>I am not sure if this follows exactly, but many many people go to Congress as "average" citizens and come out years later multi-millionaires.
...
So, where did the money come from?<<

Insider trading, for one.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,549
Points:449,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 3:12:05 PM

Term limits.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,927
Points:1,863,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 1:46:10 PM

"Agreed. How do we convince congress this needs to be done? Congress sure the heck isn't going to put limits on themselves. Ideas anyone?"

Bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate to stop the practice but they are not going anywhere. One by a Democrat and the other by a Republican. Until "We the People" speak out against it and make it an issue it will continue.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,202
Points:3,080,080
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 1:32:36 PM

I am not sure if this follows exactly, but many many people go to Congress as "average" citizens and come out years later multi-millionaires. With a $.

Take Mitch McConnell (Please? And far away!). He has been in public service virtually all his working life. He has amassed a personal wealth of over $30 million. It's hard to do that on a legislator's salary. Even as majority or minority leader, with a little higher salary, having to live in one of the most expensive cities in the country, while maintaining a "residence" back home, would hinder a person from being able to save a lot of money.
So, where did the money come from?

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 10/21/2013 1:33:22 PM EST]
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:24,983
Points:2,244,840
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 12:34:46 PM

Agreed. How do we convince congress this needs to be done? Congress sure the heck isn't going to put limits on themselves. Ideas anyone?
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,311
Points:3,023,845
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2013 12:33:46 PM

And who's going to do anything about it? The Supreme Court? The Congress? Ethics and politics, such an oil and water combination.
Post a reply Back to Topics