Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by macsrus, Aug 26, 2004.
An interesting read....
You don't say...
Special interests own the polititians? I'm shocked I tell you.
Publicly funded elections all the way! Let's get pols who don't owe their alleigence to anyone but the voters.
Damn right. While we're at it let's add a few serious penalties for those attack adds. For the parties/candidates themselves: Run an attack lose your candidacy/candidate. For others: a nice, hefty fine and the requirement of a retraction distributed to the EXACT level and fora as the attack itself.
No argument against public funding, mac, but how do you allocate the money among candidates? Is this at all levels of government? Is there any sort of ceiling on how much can be spent? And, last, can any person or group run independent ads?
mischief, right now, under present law, aren't the attack ads coming from the 507 groups, and not from the parties/candidates?
Details 'Rat. I'm sure others smarter than I can work out some acceptable way of portioning out the money. Something along the lines of: if you can get X level of support you qualify for public funding. Candidates can raise and spend only a certain percentage of the funding level in order to get themselves qualified. Monetary levels vary depending on the level of the race. President obviously qualifies for more funds than district Supervisor. All candidates should be required to participate in regularly scheduled debates on only one or two issues.
Nothing that new in that article, but I want to add my voice to those who want publicly-funded elections. Corporations and other special interests shouldn't be allowed near political conventions or the legislature.
And just what are the chances of this ever happening?
Special interest groups like the ACLU, Teachers union, Teamsters Union, environmentalistis green peace folks, etc.
Again ACLU, Anti-gun, Green peace, ANSWER, Not in my name, are all special interest groups. The right doesn't have a monopoly on special interest groups.
Umm, Leo, no one in this thread has even hinted that the right has a monopoly on special interest groups. In fact, the lead paragraph of the story that macsrus used to open this thread talks about FleetBoston Corporation's past and present bankrolling of Kerry's campaign(s). I haven't read the rest of the article yet, but it looks like it's a pretty balanced report on how both sides are benefitting from corporate backers.
At least he's admitting that the right has it's special interests that influence them.
To quote myself:
"For the parties/candidates themselves: Run an attack lose your candidacy/candidate. For others: a nice, hefty fine and the requirement of a retraction distributed to the EXACT level and fora as the attack itself."
That second sentence clearly adresses "other" groups generating attack propoganda.
Currently the attacks come from many places. These have no place in politics and should carry a hefty fine.
there are candidates not owned by special interests. they just get drowned out by the corporate owned two parties.
while we continue to succumb to the two parties as voters, there will be no change of the system. why would they put their own power at jeopardy with publicly funded elections and such? that is not their MO
People have the right to be heard by the senate, they do so by forming special interest. These groups should be permitted to visit the senators not excluded.
Pro-gun activists, anti-gun activist, pro lifers, pro choices, pro unions, pro teacher unions, pro environmentalists, NRA, pro hunters, pro stem cell researchers, anti stem cell researchers, etc.
They all have a right to be heard. Since the individual has little chance of being heard by the politicians. Should the politicians try to listen to every individual there wouldn't be enough time in the day. Special interest groups is a necessity to help inform those who run our country the variety of interests of those they run it for. True a necessity that sometimes gets overwhelming.
right, but these groups (as organizations, not the individuals in the groups) should not be funding the campaigns.
they're two entirely separate issues.
You mean like unions giving money to the Democratic party for example?
FYI I intentionally edited the previous post, unintentionally after you posted this one.
yes, or like enron, halliburton, etc giving to republican party. or like so many companies that give to both parties so that it's win-win
no problem, just wante to be clear that what you posted with my post in quotes wasn't in contrast with what i said, but more, in addition...
Clean Money/Clean Elections Are Already Working!
In Arizona and Maine, they have publicly funded elections, called "Clean Elections". The results have reduced the cost of elections, leveled the playing field dramatically (2% of the races in Arizona were won based on money versus 80% before clean elections), increased the number of challengers by 70%, increased voter turnout by 20%, and increased the amount of women.
In Arizona and Maine, both have done balanced budgets on time. Maine passed universal health care.
This is amazing stuff. Voluntary candidates agree to spending limits and do zero fundraising, spending all their time talking to voters, not money mongers. If the opponent spends more money, the clean candidate gets more. Works exceptionally well.
Check out www.CAclean.org for details on California's plans to do the same thing. Check out www.PubliCampaign.org for federal.
Here's to a stronger democracy.
Of course they are. How else would they get the money? Just like in Hollywood, never spend too much of your own money. What matters is who owns them. Even better if the people own them.
Are you the same 16 year old who just got banned again?
He apparently had two accounts, which would very well explain his banning.
Look at the date the thread began. This was well before his fabulous swan song in the Debate thread the other night.
I was under the impression that his stellar performance in said thread was reason for his departure.
The (interesting) contribution by ijamess is what bumped this thread back to life.
Sorry about that, I was switching between a couple of threads. Didn't see the date until after I posted. I've since edited to reflect that. Mental note, never buy from macsrus.com. No matter how old he is (even worse if he isn't 16).
That's what I get for being awake all night watching the news. We're all doomed no matter what apparently. Morning all.