IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 29th May 2017, 11:03 PM   #1
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Why Can't We Drain the Swamp?

Trigger Warning

This is a non-partisan piece. If you're here for the name calling, off with you. First person who says, "Because Libruls" or "Because Conservatives" or replaces party names with individual names will get a figurative custard pie in the face.


Why can't we? Because the RNC and DNC are the effective madames of a house of ill repute called the US Congress.

Wanna chair a major committee? Work the phone bank (on the public's dime while you're supposed to be attending to the business of Congress) and raise more than a million dollars for the party, and you get your committee. Won't or can't do it? Forget about Ways and Means... you're going to be on the Committee for Beautification of Interstate Highway Toll Plazas.

The below should be mandatory reading, not just for the many foreign onlookers who find the US system to be train-wreck fascinating, but to Americans, too. We're woefully ignorant of our own machinations.

http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/price-of-power

You might want to secure eyeglasses or any dangling earrings before reading. You may find yourself shaking your head so much that you lose them.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 11:06 PM   #2
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Must resist addressing the false equivalency....

OK, too much money, it affects both parties.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 11:46 PM   #3
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 3,018
As a "foreign onlooker who find the US system to be train-wreck fascinating", I would suggest that you can't drain your swamp as long as campaign financing isn't seriously addressed.

To give an example, a French presidential campaign can't spend more than +/- 22 million € (half of which is reimbursed by the state, if the campaign accounting is approved).
That would translate to something like 100 million $ if you adjust for the larger US population. Adjust that further to account for geography, and you get, say 150 million $ per campaign. A lot less than what the campaigns spend.

The difference is even bigger for parliamentary elections.
Again taking France as an example, a parliamentary campaign in a district can't spend more than +/- 70,000 € (amount is somewhat variable, depending of the number of registered voters in the district).

Where do campaigns get their money from in France? Only physical persons can donate money to a campaign, and there is a maximum amount per person per year. Businesses are not allowed to donate.

Citizens United, yay!
__________________
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 11:57 PM   #4
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 20,571
Originally Posted by Firestone View Post
Where do campaigns get their money from in France? Only physical persons can donate money to a campaign, and there is a maximum amount per person per year. Businesses are not allowed to donate.

Citizens United, yay!
Yet another person who thinks the Citizen's United decision is about businesses making donations to political campaigns. That is not the case at all.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 12:01 AM   #5
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Yet another person who thinks the Citizen's United decision is about businesses making donations to political campaigns. That is not the case at all.
Of course not. It's about the billionaires being able to donate through front groups to hide where the political donations are coming from.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 12:17 AM   #6
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
Installing a billionaire in the White House because the rich have too much influence in Washington always looked like a bit of a non sequitur to me.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 12:28 AM   #7
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
It is a combination of negative and positive mechanism. Whether we like it or not, in the swamp are a lot of people which knows the in and outs of the administration working, some industry working, political maze etc... Draining a swamp would remove that know how. The negative aspect is money, and money "speaks" in the US. (ETA: yes the "citizen united" decision and having various similar group being able to donate , is a large corrupting influence).

Think of something similar to lobbyist making laws , those are mostly industry outsider. But would it be better to have people utterly not knowing the industry making its regulation ? That is non sense. Naturally it would be better to have people more neutral, knowing the industry (or as above the swamp) but with less ties to politic/industry. Problem is, such "birds" are pretty rare.

thus : the swamp.

Last edited by Aepervius; 30th May 2017 at 12:29 AM.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 12:34 AM   #8
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Yet another person who thinks the Citizen's United decision is about businesses making donations to political campaigns. That is not the case at all.
Right, and Voter ID laws are only about voting fraud. Freedom of Religion bills aren't about discrimination either.

Ignorance is power, right?
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 12:36 AM   #9
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
I fear it is inevitable. I can recommend this short video which basically explains all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

the longer any system of government runs, the more "swampiness" it will accumulated. In a way, the US system is too stable for its own good, and the US territory is too unassailable for any external existential threat that could force internal change.

Change can only come in moments of great crisis: if someone other than Bush/Cheney had been in charge on 9/11, that might have been a chance to get rid of some of the worst swamp critters. But they let the crisis go to waste on a war that benefited hardly anyone.

The accumulating of wealth in the hands of the 0.1% (with no end of further wealth transfer upwards in sight) clearly points to a crisis point at which the system MUST change if the US is to survive as a country.
Once a massive "draining" of influence peddling and re-distribution of wealth has occurred, we will have bought ourselves another few decades before we are back in the middle of the Atchafalaya Basin.
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.”
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 01:00 AM   #10
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 28,963
No system is perfect. If you want to "get money out of politics" essentially you have to curtail free speech to some extent. It's a trade off.

In Japan, there are no political advertisements on TV. Instead, each candidate is given some free air time on NHK (even the insane ones), and they can talk for like 5 minutes or some predetermined time limit. No fancy over-produced campaign ads with stock images and music designed to pull at your heart strings or induce fear and loathing. They just have to make their case in their own words.

Is this an intolerable limitation on the freedom of speech?
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 02:11 AM   #11
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Why can't we?
We can. We just don't want to.

"Drain the Swamp!" they said, then chose a swamp creature who promptly filled it even higher. Did they feel betrayed?

Trump’s approval ratings
Quote:
Nine-in-ten conservative Republicans say they approve of Trump (including 73% who approve very strongly), compared with 68% of moderate and liberal Republicans (including 50% who approve very strongly).
Only a small minority of voters actually want to drain the swamp, the rest are quite happy so long as the swamp creatures do what they want.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 02:52 AM   #12
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
The point of the article, and of the thread, was that this is not a Republican problem. It's a US problem. The article, as I can see many didn't read it, is detailing the sort of pay-for-play system that both (BOTH!) parties have in effect in Congress.

Call me a Pollyanna but I'd kinda like that the congress critters with the most knowledge in an area were chosen to head committees or to be the minority head. "How good can you raise money" is not a criteria I want to hear about whether it's Gowdy or Waters. There's even mention that some of these folks carry over their campaign contributions so they don't have to man the phone banks and just pay directly into the party coffers. If I contribute to Al Sharpton's campaign for Congress, I want him spending that money, as we all would, to "Get Whitey". I don't want him ponying up my money to the DNC so he can become chairman of the Committee on Chakra Realignment.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

Last edited by Foolmewunz; 30th May 2017 at 02:58 AM.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 02:54 AM   #13
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post

Only a small minority of voters actually want to drain the swamp, the rest are quite happy so long as the swamp creatures do what they want.
Yes, they only wanted to drain the swamp of liberals.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 02:59 AM   #14
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Yes, they only wanted to drain the swamp of liberals.
And the liberals, in turn, only want to drain the swamp of Not Liberals.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 03:00 AM   #15
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
And the liberals, in turn, only want to drain the swamp of Not Liberals.
Evidence?
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 03:03 AM   #16
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Evidence?
In the context of this thread..... read the linked article in the OP. I know all US Politics threads are a free-for-all, but I'm kinda trying to see if anyone is actually interested in discussing the problem(s) and not just pointing fingers at the other guys.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 03:13 AM   #17
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
In the context of this thread..... read the linked article in the OP. I know all US Politics threads are a free-for-all, but I'm kinda trying to see if anyone is actually interested in discussing the problem(s) and not just pointing fingers at the other guys.
Yea, so where is the evidence again?
Democrats only play the money game because if they don't, they lose. They are often wanting to impose campaign finance reform, but it takes a majority of congress to do so and the moneyed interests keep it from happening. The problem only exists because Republicans are agents of corporations. So, unless the public wakes up and votes in a liberal president and congress and we get the conservative hacks out of SCOTUS, the swamp will be full of money.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 03:21 AM   #18
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Yet another person who thinks the Citizen's United decision is about businesses making donations to political campaigns. That is not the case at all.
They just need to launder it through some PAC's. The effect was to put unlimited anonymous money into the political process.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 03:23 AM   #19
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
This article gives a sample time schedule, with about half a person's time spent on getting donors. It also says this about the cause of the "hated" problem:

Quote:
But let's not pretend the politicians are blameless victims here. Though every politician complains about the burdens of fundraising — like "putting bamboo shoots under my fingernails," Rep. John Larson told the Huffington Post — Congress could, if it wanted, move to a system of real public financing for elections. They don't, and the reason is simple: The money chase makes life miserable for incumbents, but it also makes it likelier that they remain incumbents. After all, your challengers aren't spending four hours a day, every day, raising money almost two years before the next election. If you're an incumbent, then the present system of campaign finance gives you an advantage. Even as it makes you worse at your job, it makes you better at keeping it.
The most common feature of Congress is that they are incumbents.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 03:23 AM   #20
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
No system is perfect. If you want to "get money out of politics" essentially you have to curtail free speech to some extent. It's a trade off.
And the rich inherently have more value than the worthless prolls that is basis social darwinism. That is why they need to have disproportionate voices. A billionare is fundamentaly a better human being, smarter, more moral than a poor person. That is the basis of our entire system after all.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 03:24 AM   #21
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And the rich inherently have more value than the worthless prolls that is basis social darwinism. That is why they need to have disproportionate voices. A billionare is fundamentaly a better human being, smarter, more moral than a poor person. That is the basis of our entire system after all.
It is also the basis of Republican ideology and policies.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 04:04 AM   #22
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
Citizens United is of course a massive problem, since it basically tore up the "arms control" agreement between the parties when it came to donations.
But even before, it seems to me that there are too many elections on all levels of government.
Longer terms and more appointments would reduce the elections on which big money can be spend, which in turns makes it easier to monitor undue influences on the remaining races.
Representatives shouldn't have to spend a significant amount of their time fund-raising for their next election. Sheriffs, DAs and Judges shouldn't be selected by vote.
Voting districts should be bigger to make gerrymandering harder and (again) reduce the total number of elections.

I don't think that even the Koch brothers are especially happy with the current systems, since even $1billon in war chest didn't get their guy elected (not quite true, they got plenty of state and local posts for their puppets).
Consider what would happen if the Gates Foundation decided to buy the next 10 years of elections...
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.”
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 05:46 AM   #23
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
 
timhau's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I?
Posts: 15,161
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Trigger Warning

This is a non-partisan piece. If you're here for the name calling, off with you. First person who says, "Because Libruls" or "Because Conservatives" or replaces party names with individual names will get a figurative custard pie in the face.


Why can't we?
Um... because you had to choose between the status quo candidate and The Creature from the Orange Lagoon?
__________________
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
- Emo Philips
timhau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 05:49 AM   #24
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 11,679
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Democrats only play the money game because if they don't, they lose.
Even if the subject here were limited to just campaign financing, that wouldn't make any sense. But also, it isn't. The "game" we're talking about here isn't just campaign financing; it's choosing which members of their own party to support and promote based on how much money they bring to the party, and taking money for political favors once they're already in office. It's not about winning or losing elections when it's not even about an election at all. And Democrats even work this way despite the fact that it causes them to lose.

For example, in the most recent Presidential election, the party threw its support behind a classic Corporate Democrat Machine candidate over the guy who is the most popular politician in the country, and managed to lose what should have been a cake-walk against a mentally ill acid-tripping baboon with lower approval than any President has ever had at an equivalent time in his term. And they're currently still using the "but we'd lose!" excuse for not even giving a moment's consideration to Medicare-for-all, which has the support of about three fourths of their party base, a plurality of Republican voters, and a 60% majority overall, while of course totally coincidentally taking money from medical industries. They don't care what the voters want if it interferes with their income stream.

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
They are often wanting to impose campaign finance reform, but it takes a majority of congress to do so and the moneyed interests keep it from happening.
"Moneyed interests" couldn't do anything at all if Democrats wouldn't listen to them, especially during Democrat legislative majorities. But those have happened, and their behavior didn't change at all.

The real division you're looking for isn't between the parties; it's between corporate Democrats and issue-driven populist Democrats. And since you want to focus on campaign financing, it's about how little campaign support the latter get with the former running things.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 05:55 AM   #25
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Even if the subject here were limited to just campaign financing, that wouldn't make any sense. But also, it isn't. The "game" we're talking about here isn't just campaign financing; it's choosing which members of their own party to support and promote based on how much money they bring to the party, and taking money for political favors once they're already in office. It's not about winning or losing elections when it's not even about an election at all. And Democrats even work this way despite the fact that it causes them to lose.

For example, in the most recent Presidential election, the party threw its support behind a classic Corporate Democrat Machine candidate over the guy who is the most popular politician in the country, and managed to lose what should have been a cake-walk against a mentally ill acid-tripping baboon with lower approval than any President has ever had at an equivalent time in his term. And they're currently still using the "but we'd lose!" excuse for not even giving a moment's consideration to Medicare-for-all, which has the support of about three fourths of their party base, a plurality of Republican voters, and a 60% majority overall, while of course totally coincidentally taking money from medical industries. They don't care what the voters want if it interferes with their income stream.

"Moneyed interests" couldn't do anything at all if Democrats wouldn't listen to them, especially during Democrat legislative majorities. But those have happened, and their behavior didn't change at all.

The real division you're looking for isn't between the parties; it's between corporate Democrats and issue-driven populist Democrats. And since you want to focus on campaign financing, it's about how little campaign support the latter get with the former running things.
I doubt what you say is true. Hillary had more votes that the orange baboon, and there was much foul play by the Republicans which is why Trump won. Bernie would likely have ran into the same issues. It is very hard to win against cheaters. Also, the country was progressing forward under these "corporate Democrats."
When was the last time Democrats had all three branches of government again?
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 05:56 AM   #26
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
This makes it sound like rich people and companies are not lining up to throw money at politicians to get what they want. It sounds like the parties have to rely on making rich people reluctantly give like it is NPR trying to get you to renew your donation.

Does that make it less swampy than alleged?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 06:00 AM   #27
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Re: Citizens United


The Citizens United decision had exactly zero to do with campaign contributions. That's not an opinion. It's just fact. It's the ruling. Read the Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Originally Posted by wikipedia
The case did not affect the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 06:04 AM   #28
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
This makes it sound like rich people and companies are not lining up to throw money at politicians to get what they want. It sounds like the parties have to rely on making rich people reluctantly give like it is NPR trying to get you to renew your donation.

Does that make it less swampy than alleged?
But the rich people are in exactly the same trap as the politicians:
looking at the sums spend it might seem that companies must be getting so much more influence because they are spending so much more on lobbying and campaign donations - but all their are doing is maintain an equilibrium.

So if their competitors spend more, they have to spend more: it's a classical arms race where everyone would be better of with clear enforceable laws instead of an upwards spiral.
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.”
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 06:06 AM   #29
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
The OP link was short on sources. I agree with the general tenor, and I have heard Congressmen say it for many years, that the fundraising demands were making it too difficult to actually govern. Sometimes that is from retiring legislators who cite it as the reason for retirement, but that link made it sound like there's a literal pay to play rule.

I don't find it impossible to believe that, but I'm a bit surprised, and a little skeptical, that it is so literal. If it's true, then it ought to be ended, although I have no idea how to actually do that.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 06:06 AM   #30
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
But the rich people are in exactly the same trap as the politicians:
looking at the sums spend it might seem that companies must be getting so much more influence because they are spending so much more on lobbying and campaign donations - but all their are doing is maintain an equilibrium.

So if their competitors spend more, they have to spend more: it's a classical arms race where everyone would be better of with clear enforceable laws instead of an upwards spiral.
Do we have much evidence that politician's opinions can be bought or is this merely a matter of getting favorable politicians into office?

And what is wrong with the arms race? Money is the greatest speech invention of all time.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 06:07 AM   #31
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
Citizens United was about Super-PACs, not direct contributions: the effect was huge.
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.”
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 06:10 AM   #32
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Citizens United was about Super-PACs, not direct contributions: the effect was huge.
What was the huge effect? What did all that extra money actually buy?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 06:11 AM   #33
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And what is wrong with the arms race? Money is the greatest speech invention of all time.
They are a total waste, sometimes lethally so: we see this all the time in biology, where individuals' fitness to attract mates comes at the cost of the fitness of the species as a whole (see peacocks etc.).

The race for more money, more campaign donations, more defense spending are all not for the benefit of society but for the individual: a typical case where the invisible hand of the market plunges into the toilet.
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.”
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 06:13 AM   #34
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
What was the huge effect? What did all that extra money actually buy?
The GOP and White House.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 06:14 AM   #35
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
They are a total waste, sometimes lethally so: we see this all the time in biology, where individuals' fitness to attract mates comes at the cost of the fitness of the species as a whole (see peacocks etc.).

The race for more money, more campaign donations, more defense spending are all not for the benefit of society but for the individual: a typical case where the invisible hand of the market plunges into the toilet.
Who cares about society?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 06:15 AM   #36
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
The GOP and White House.
I think Trump got crushed in the money race.superPACs are not the reason he won.

I was wrong. The numbers were close on president.

https://www.opensecrets.org/outsides...umm.php?disp=R

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 30th May 2017 at 06:18 AM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 06:18 AM   #37
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
And the liberals, in turn, only want to drain the swamp of Not Liberals.
I freely acknowledge that is due to the happenings around 1980. If not for that, draining would not have nearly the need to occur that it does.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 06:19 AM   #38
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Yea, so where is the evidence again?
Democrats only play the money game because if they don't, they lose. They are often wanting to impose campaign finance reform, but it takes a majority of congress to do so and the moneyed interests keep it from happening. The problem only exists because Republicans are agents of corporations. So, unless the public wakes up and votes in a liberal president and congress and we get the conservative hacks out of SCOTUS, the swamp will be full of money.
And this.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 06:22 AM   #39
Praktik
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,244
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
But the rich people are in exactly the same trap as the politicians:
looking at the sums spend it might seem that companies must be getting so much more influence because they are spending so much more on lobbying and campaign donations - but all their are doing is maintain an equilibrium.

So if their competitors spend more, they have to spend more: it's a classical arms race where everyone would be better of with clear enforceable laws instead of an upwards spiral.
Hypothesis: at the end of such an arms race lies Oligarchy

..or maybe it comes halfway through
Praktik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 06:25 AM   #40
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by Praktik View Post
Hypothesis: at the end of such an arms race lies Oligarchy

..or maybe it comes halfway through
Problem: there is a lot about voter behavior we would have to figure out, first. We really don't even know if ads work that well. We don't actually know if money can stop the "people's" candidate.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:24 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.