Republicans block campaign finance disclosure bill

[Red Dawn]

Craig must have been molested by somebody in a Nixon mask. That's the only reasonable explanation.

You mean you weren't?

 

[BoberFett]

You mean you weren't?

No, but I did get a handy from some crazy chick in a Palin mask. On second thought, that mask did look awfully realistic... :hmm:

 

[BoomerD]

Craig must have been molested by somebody in a Nixon mask. That's the only reasonable explanation.

I'm a Vietnam vet...I was "molested" by Richard Nixon himself...

 

[Carmen813]

This is hilarious. The GOP, who were outspent $730m to $333m in the 2008 Presidential election, don't want any reform?

I might even agree with them. Obama might hit $1b in 2012 while the GOP sends another lamb to slaughter.

When you factor in other money, Democrats and Republicans basically spent the same amount in 2008. Part of the reason Obama's fundraising was so high (and that he opted out of using public financing) was because he could match the GOP's ability to raise private money.

 

[Craig234]

Sorry Craig...two wrongs don't make a right. Even though the thought of Palin in a national office was (and still is) disgusting to me, voting for Obama was something I could not do.

OK, I have my view, and you can have yours, and we can compare opinions.

Do you seriously believe that the politicans you've named don't accept campaign funds from the corporations and PAC's? If so, that's incredibly naive.

Without re-checking the numbers, I think it's safe to say that they generally take a lot less money from the big corporations, but more importantly, that their agendas are for the public interest before those big corporations generally. If you think that they're even comparable on the 'corporatocracy agenda' compared to others, that's not only 'naive', but just completely unreasonable in my opinion. They're the only group who offers what you say you want.

The major problem with our political system is the money and its sources. Even though I was a union member for most of my working life, and willingly signed the dues check off that allowed them to spend my dues on politics, I would not, and do not, object to prohibiting unions from spending money on politics...IF the corporations also are prohibited from doing so.

While I'm more sympathetic to the unions' agenda as good for the public, as the people uniting against the corporatocracy agenda, I'm sympathetic to the position you take there.

Unions can be terribly corrupt as well, and are not always good for the country, but right now the pendulum is way to the right, and they're a helpful group.

I agree with you about money, but we don't have any great answers yet. Certainly our founding fathers, with the primitive and limited media - which even from the first days was filled with the same sort of vitriol, like vicious political cartoons - with widespread and local ownership and without modern advertising/propaganda developers, could not have begun to deal with the situation of money in politics we have today.

But corporate money in and dominating politics is a clear disaster for democracy.

Political campaigns should be funded by donations from private citizens and the election fund. NO donations of more than $100 from any one person, no donations from anyone who's not a resident of the state (state elections) and each person should have a limit on how much he/she can donate in total during a year. (<$1000)

Works for me, you just run up against what's constitutional (I said for years the the radical right who gave us 5 votes on this is a menace; I'm surprised 80% of the country agrees that the Citizens v. United (IIRC) was a decision they oppose, that's remarkable for our current political culture.

BUT, as I've said repeatedly, the corporations who own our politicans and our political process ain't a'gonna let it happen.

The American politician...the best money can (and does) buy.

Read what I said about the progressives again. They're your only group with any major national political standing - and even most third parties' platforms are worse.

Go look at a Bernie Sanders, a Henry Waxman, a Pete Stark, and see how they are about being corrupted by the corporations, and you will find they're not.

The progressive caucus IIRC has about 180 members - not enough for a majority - and the best anti-corporate thing you can do is to help them get that majority.