How would an anti-corruption Republican presidential candidate do?

[Craig234]

I saw the same interview. Interesting guy, but frankly I don't remember him mentioning a single policy position other than campaign contributions. Seems to me to be a gimmick to distinguish himself from the rest of the pack.

Coming from Louisiana he must know a lot about corruption.

Well, he really only had time to say a little, and I think these candidates often try to have one or two issues as a main theme.

I don't know, don't endorse, and probably disagree with since he's a Republican his positions on other issues. But he stands out in a good way to me for his stand on the issue of money in campaigns, and I think it is the single most important issue facing the country (the general issue of monied interests buying our elections).

I watched a dozen Republican candidates and feel they are all disasters - this is the first one that I can say something better about, for this issue.

He has a colored background on corruption - his father was convicted of a scheme, which he feels was a political conviction.

I just think it's a reminder how badly this big money is a virtual requirement.

Another reminder is Tim Pawlenty, though he's mixed between his poor campaigning and lack of access to money both being issues. But otherwise he seemed a little less bad.

Romney on the other hand - money is treating him quite nicely so far, though Perry will give him a run for his money, literally - but look at that action where his former Bain colleague gave him a million dollars secretly by creating a phony corporation and donaitng through that. That's the type of people in front. But better that than the corporate donors.

 

[nick1985]

But if the guy he was writing about was the #1 Republican candidate, and got there with no PAC money, Craig wouldn't be writing nice things about him.

ding ding ding

 

[BoberFett]

Even if an anti-corruption candidate was electable as president for any party, the House and Senate would still be 100% beholden to the special interests that bought their elections.

As PJ said (and this would need to be done for all public offices)

That may well be, but a president still has a lot of power to direct how the various agencies carry out their tasks. Congress can put as much pro-corporation crap as they want in a bill and the president can make it difficult for the corporations via executive agency regs.

 

[xj0hnx]

I'd vote for a candidate from any party that was truly committed to an anti-corruption platform. It's what we really need in politics nowdays.

Is the caveat though "only if they made it to the general?" Because if it is, you may as well have saved the keystrokes.

 

[Fern]

How would an anti-corruption Republican presidential candidate do?

I haven't seen any poll, Repubs or Dems, where "anti-corruption" is listed as a concern anywhere near the top.

My guess is it would be a pretty poor platform since people seem consumed with other concerns.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Romney on the other hand - money is treating him quite nicely so far, though Perry will give him a run for his money, literally - but look at that action where his former Bain colleague gave him a million dollars secretly by creating a phony corporation and donaitng through that. That's the type of people in front. But better that than the corporate donors.

Can you provide more info on this claim?

That amount is waaay beyond the campaign limits and I don't see how it's at all possible, phony corporation or not.

TIA

Fern

 

[ProfJohn]

I think I just figured out the whole progressive liberal mindset!!!


Corruption is bad so we must eliminate it.

Corporations are corrupt, thus we must eliminate them.
Rich people are corrupt, thus we must eliminate them.

In their world there would be no corporations and no rich people and thus no corruption because no one would have any money to corrupt with...


No wonder people say Obama is destroying the economy on purpose... :hmm:

 

[ProfJohn]

Can you provide more info on this claim?

That amounts is waaay beyond the campaign limits and I don't see how it's at all possible, phony corporation or not.

TIA

Fern

He gave the money to the Romney PAC which isn't against the rules.

Our campaign laws are so screwed up its ridiculous.

Romney can write himself a check for a million. But another rich guy can't. But that rich guy can give a million to a PAC that then turns around and supports Romney.

 

[Fern]

He gave the money to the Romney PAC which isn't against the rules.

Our campaign laws are so screwed up its ridiculous.

Romney can write himself a check for a million. But another rich guy can't. But that rich guy can give a million to a PAC that then turns around and supports Romney.

I don't really understand. Here are the rules I'm looking at:

When an interest group, union, or corporation wants to contribute to federal candidates or parties, it must do so through a PAC. These PACs receive and raise money from a "restricted class," generally consisting of managers and shareholders in the case of a corporation, and members in the case of abute funds to candidates for federal office. Contributions from corporate or labor union treasuries are illegal, though they may sponsor a PAC and provide financial support for its administration and fundraising. Overall, PACs account for less than thirty percent of total contributions in U.S. Congressional races, and considerably less in presidential races.[citation needed]

Contributions by individuals to federal PACs are limited to $5,000 per year. It is important to note, however, that as a result of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, PACs which make only "independent expenditures" (that is, advertisements or other spending that calls for the election or defeat of a federal candidate but which is not coordinated with a federal candidate or political party) are not bound by this contribution limit.

Corporations and unions may not contribute directly to federal PACs, though they may pay for the administrative costs of a PAC affiliated with the specific corporation or union. Corporate-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from executives, shareholders, and their families, while union-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from members. "Independent" PACs not affiliated with a corporation, union, or trade or membership association may solicit contributions from the general public but must pay their operating costs from these regulated contributions.

Federal multi-candidate PACs are limited in the amount of money they can contribute to candidate campaigns or other organizations:

at most $5,000 per candidate per election. Elections such as primaries, general elections and special elections are counted separately.
at most $15,000 per political party per year.
at most $5,000 per PAC per year.

Under federal law, PACs are not limited in their ability to spend money independently of a candidate campaign. This may include expenditures on activities in support of (or against) a candidate, as long as they are not coordinated with the candidate.

If two or more PACs share the same sponsoring organization, they are considered to be "affiliated" and their total donations are counted under aggregate limits, i.e. the total donations from all may not exceed $5,000 for a specific candidate in a given election.

PACs must report all of the financial activities, including direct donations and other expenses, to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which makes the reports available to the public.

In 2010, the landmark case filed by Citizens United changed the rules regarding corporate campaign expenditures. This ruling made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures. Direct contributions are still prohibited.

So, if I understand correctly, the $ 1 million can be used for advertising if they don't coordinate with the candidate? That seems like a huge loophole in the campaign contribution limits.

Don't see anything wrong or phony about the guy setting up a company though.

Fern

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Come on, you guys have all missed the big picture here!

Craig found a Republican he admires!


But on the other hand, fails to recognize that Maddow props him up only because she thinks it puts the rest of the GOP down. Same with this forum post. But it doesn't. That's how the world has always worked, and will always work. It takes money to get your word out. It's not my fault this guy is only interviewing on the "hard left" media.

And if you were to scratch the surface of Maddow's underhanded jab you'd realize that this guy wouldn't even stand a chance within the Democrat presidential primaries with the likes of Obama. Of course she realizes this but wont ever mention it.

Oh and Roemer is hardly the "first GOP" candidate to turn down special interest money. Ron Paul has had a long standing record at rejecting special interest funding for his campaigns.

 

[Thump553]

I think I just figured out the whole progressive liberal mindset!!!


Corruption is bad so we must eliminate it.

Corporations are corrupt, thus we must eliminate them.
Rich people are corrupt, thus we must eliminate them.

In their world there would be no corporations and no rich people and thus no corruption because no one would have any money to corrupt with...


No wonder people say Obama is destroying the economy on purpose... :hmm:

I think you strained your brain cells a little too much stringing together all those bogus strawman arguments.

 

[Craig234]

And if you were to scratch the surface of Maddow's underhanded jab you'd realize that this guy wouldn't even stand a chance within the Democrat presidential primaries with the likes of Obama. Of course she realizes this but wont ever mention it.

Oh and Roemer is hardly the "first GOP" candidate to turn down special interest money. Ron Paul has had a long standing record at rejecting special interest funding for his campaigns.

There's no 'underhanded jab' - you are making a false, baseless attack.

You make a great correction to my post, though, in pointing out that the Democrats have the same issue with the need for the monied interests to get elected.

Oh, wait, no you don't, it's a point I've been making for years; one I made in the OP saying the same issue applies to both parties; and I've discussed Obama being the candidate who takes the MOST Wall Street money for years as well. In other words, you make false attacks based on your own wrong views, ignoring the facts.

Ron Paul can be another example of access to big money being needed, though his more radical Libertarian agenda adds another factor.

 

[ProfJohn]

I think you strained your brain cells a little too much stringing together all those bogus strawman arguments.

There ARE people think he is doing this on purpose though.

I have no idea why the think that. I think he is just incompetent or that liberalism is just a failure when it comes to the economy, most likely a little of both.

I DO think that he didn't care if Obamacare sucked as a law. To the liberal mindset it was the first step towards UHC. Even Obama said that he wanted a one payer system, but that it would take steps to get there.

 

[Craig234]

I don't really understand. Here are the rules I'm looking at:

So, if I understand correctly, the $ 1 million can be used for advertising if they don't coordinate with the candidate? That seems like a huge loophole in the campaign contribution limits.

Click the following link to see an example of what the Supreme Court has given us for 'independent' PACs not coordinating with the campaign, protecting the public from the terrible situation quite well, the link is the home page of a Super PAC that's 'independent', run by former Perry people, who said their purpose is his election:

http://www.makeusgreatagain.com/index.ph

We might agree it's a 'big loophole', but it's here to stay until a constitutional amendment or new ruling.

Don't see anything wrong or phony about the guy setting up a company though.

Fern

Have I mentioned lately you're the forum's biggest apologist?

This former Bain Capital partner wanted to give a million dollars - and to hide that it was him doing it. So, he created a legal corporation that did nothing other than give that million dollars. It had no business, operations, revenue, employees, or anything else. It incorporated, donated the million dollars under a made up random name to hide the donor, and then was dissolved.

If that's not the definition of a "phony" corporation, what would be more phony?

As far as "wrong", that's a vague word. Nothing was illegal it seems under today's relaxed laws. But hiding, deceit, has some relation to 'wrong'. If it was just 'right', why wouldn't he just give the money under his own name? It was to prevent people from knowing the truth, which was obviously important to him (and Romney, who knew about the whole thing) to do. "Wrong" to hide from the public, to deceive them about who the donor was being a 'corporation' that really wasn't one, that's the wrong.

 

[Craig234]

I haven't seen any poll, Repubs or Dems, where "anti-corruption" is listed as a concern anywhere near the top.

My guess is it would be a pretty poor platform since people seem consumed with other concerns.

Fern

It may not be at the top of many people's lists (it's on of the the few at the top for me), but it's one that perhaps more Americans agree about than any other campaign issue.

Some issues have smaller numbers of people who strongly support an issue, but it should count for something that almost every voters supports one. It doesn't.

The money we're talking about has a much bigger effect on the election than the public opinion against that money.

 

[ProfJohn]

This former Bain Capital partner wanted to give a million dollars - and to hide that it was him doing it. So, he created a legal corporation that did nothing other than give that million dollars.

How many fronts do Soros have?

Half the crap on the left is funded by the guy.
George Soros: $32,506,500
$12.05 million – Joint Victory Campaign 2004
$7.5 million – America Coming Together
$2.5 million – MoveOn.org
$3.65 million – America Votes
$3.5 million – The Fund for America
$150,000 – Win Back Respect
$120,000 – Majority Action
$100,000 – Campaign Money Watch
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2003–2004 election cycle, Soros donated $23,581,000 to various 527 groups dedicated to defeating President Bush.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/opensecrets-battle---koch-brothers.html

 

[dali71]

We can't afford predatory capitalism.
- Craig234

It takes a special kind of douchebag to quote yourself in your sig.

 

[RabidMongoose]

What's your point? We aren't that good at the 'vote them out' part, by the way.

In fact, thanks to citizen v. united and more concentration of wealth, it's getting worse.

Craig234 logic: My point is that some countries don't even have elections. In some countries, children are starving, too. They would love to have corrupt elections and corrupt politicians and no starvation. It's nice to think about election issues, but there are other problems in other parts of the world, like children starving in Somalia.

 

[nonlnear]

Have I mentioned lately you're the forum's biggest apologist?

This former Bain Capital partner wanted to give a million dollars - and to hide that it was him doing it. So, he created a legal corporation that did nothing other than give that million dollars. It had no business, operations, revenue, employees, or anything else. It incorporated, donated the million dollars under a made up random name to hide the donor, and then was dissolved.

If that's not the definition of a "phony" corporation, what would be more phony?

As far as "wrong", that's a vague word. Nothing was illegal it seems under today's relaxed laws. But hiding, deceit, has some relation to 'wrong'. If it was just 'right', why wouldn't he just give the money under his own name? It was to prevent people from knowing the truth, which was obviously important to him (and Romney, who knew about the whole thing) to do. "Wrong" to hide from the public, to deceive them about who the donor was being a 'corporation' that really wasn't one, that's the wrong.

It is absolutely impossible to deceive anyone when it comes to Romney's corporate donors. Anyone capable of reaching the correct conclusion already knows he's a total sellout. It is self-evident. For anyone incapable of seeing that in an instant, it's hard to argue that hiding any particular facts made them less able to draw the correct conclusion, because anyone that willfully blind is never going to see, even with toothpicks propping their eyes open.

 

[Siddhartha]

Not well.

Buddy Roemer is a former Congressman and Governor, who has entered the Republican presidential race.

He refuses all donations from PACs, or over $100. He's a strong critic of the corruption of big money in the system, which most Americans agree with.

But you probably didn't know he's running.

The point here is just to note how almost impossible it is for a candidate who doesn't get on the money train to have a chance.

He's not the strongest candidate, being out of politics since the 90's, but I think the point is still there.

He had a good interview with Rachel Maddow I can't find a clip for; he's not in the Republican debates, in the press almost at all.

One article about him:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...gop-bid-for-president-deserves-attention.html

Problem is the effect this 'money filter' on the candidates has on policy and who the candidates serve in power (for both parties, who's the progressive Democrat?)

To get the nomination he would have to be:
Anti-choice
Pro-guns (guns uber alles)
Anti-Labor Unions
Anti- New Deal
Anti-Federal Reserve
Pro-Southern Baptist based Theocracy
Anti-"Illegal Alien"
Neocon foreign policies (Have to do something about China, "Soviet Union", and India!)
Willing to vote against the US's best interests to stop Mr Obama's re-election
Anti-teachers and universal education
Tea Party Approved

I could go on but you get the idea.

 

[trenchfoot]

Is the caveat though "only if they made it to the general?" Because if it is, you may as well have saved the keystrokes.

Good point. There'd have to be a lot of faith and trust in the candidate to back him/her through the primaries, especially if the candidate's other platform priorities weren't those that I'd generally agree with.

 

[Craig234]

Craig234 logic: My point is that some countries don't even have elections. In some countries, children are starving, too. They would love to have corrupt elections and corrupt politicians and no starvation. It's nice to think about election issues, but there are other problems in other parts of the world, like children starving in Somalia.

You're right. You should post that in every thread on the front page not about Somalia.