If that's what would happen, why are so many conservatives against Campaign finance reform?

Interesting how progs are staunchly behind campaign finance reform as long as it doesn't impact their people. 

 

The last major reform effort was championed by a couple of lefties, McCain and Feingold.  Democrats loved it.  Now they howl about how unfair it is.  Why is that exactly?

 

Libs complain about all of the corporate money in elections, but nary a word is ever said about the union dollars that are extorted from membership and funneled almost exclusively into democrat campaign coffers.  You say you're against all that money in the system.  Color me skeptical. 

 

The money is only a problem because people are buying influence with career politicians.  You want reform?  Mandatory term limits for all federally elected offices will take care of that. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

<i>Citizens United v. FEC</i>
 

A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.

 

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

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

I think we're in agreement here.  Politicians should be serving the best interest of the people, not their own best interests in getting re-elected.  And that's a problem with both Democrats and Republicans.  Their #1 concern is getting re-elected, not doing what's best for the people who elected them.  I remember one of Harry Reid's staff saying that it's failure to not be re-elected, not to fail to pass bills that benefit their constituents.  

 

That's the whole thing.  The original authors of our Constitution never meant for service in government to be a career.  Take a good look at how many years certain politicians "serve" in office.  Take a look at the salary and benefits associated with that.

 

I realize that this takes us to a different topic, that being Term Limits.  However, certain politicians also benefit and make money due to campaign contributions and setting up "foundations".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

You're right.  Warren Buffett and George Soros are mere paupers and small businessmen. 

I have been very consistent in my disdain for all people dumping money into politics and elections. I have even said this in direct replies to you. Not sure why you keep forgetting that. 

---

Money in politics is never a good mix, regardless of which side of the aisle.  However, what is more disturbing is where the money comes from, and where it goes.  Money going to a political campaign is one thing, but money going to a "foundation" of a political candidate is another thing.

 

The next thing that people don't seem to realize, large sums of money going to a campaign pays for the annoying commercials on television/radio as well as all of the crap that you get in the "snail-mail".  For those that actually still have a land-line for their home phone, it also pays for the "robo-calls".  Ads by whatever means do not influence my choice for a candidate, but that's just me.

 

If people want true campaign finance reform, then the thing for me would be this.  Campaign donations would only be valid from individuals.  No corporations, no unions, no "organizations".  Also, I would implement a cap as far as how much money a single individual could donate.  The number could be debated, but I would probably tie it to the median household income.

That's a fantastic start. 

---

. 

 

 

 

The money is only a problem because people are buying influence with career politicians.  You want reform?  Mandatory term limits for all federally elected offices will take care of that. 

Since most of that was a partisan rant against your disdain for the progs and libs, I whittled it down to the relevant part to the actual discussion.

That's the whole thing.  The original authors of our Constitution never meant for service in government to be a career.  Take a good look at how many years certain politicians "serve" in office.  Take a look at the salary and benefits associated with that.

 

I realize that this takes us to a different topic, that being Term Limits.  However, certain politicians also benefit and make money due to campaign contributions and setting up "foundations".

I think term limits would be unnecessary if the legal bribery was removed from the system. However would not opposed to doing both. If you don't limit the money than you still have politicians doing what they currently do only they get to their cushy payoff lobbying jobs much much sooner.

---

I have been very consistent in my disdain for all people dumping money into politics and elections. I have even said this in direct replies to you. Not sure why you keep forgetting that. 

 

You are a progressive, and all progressives think alike.

 

Try to keep up.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

You are a progressive, and all progressives think alike.

 

Try to keep up.

 

If liberals are progressive, are conservatives regressive?

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

If liberals are progressive, are conservatives regressive?

Liberals are leftists therefore conservatives are always right.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato