US Campaign Finance is Broken

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Aug 4, 2011.

  1. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    This system is so broken. 539 powerful jobs are basically yours, if you can afford them.

    Link


     
  2. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #2
    The Roberts Court is all about selling America to the highest bidder, whether domestic or foreign. We need another liberal on the bench to counteract his terrorizing of the American people.
     
  3. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #3
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

    Yes I agree. When you have to waste 287 million to convince a country you are the best candidate something is wrong.
     
  4. Heilage macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #4
    This is messed up.

    But instead of saying that again and again, what are the specific measures against this kind of thing?
     
  5. swiftaw macrumors 603

    swiftaw

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Location:
    Omaha, NE, USA
    #5
    Reforming campaign finance (and campaigns) would, more than any other single thing, give this country back to the people.

    Campaigns should not cost hundreds of millions of dollars and last almost two years. Heck, congressmen are elected every two years and basically have to start fundraising and campaigning for the next election the minute they are elected. (The fact that Michelle Bachmann had to stop campaigning, albeit for President, in Iowa to go back to Washington of the debt ceiling vote says it all)


    Also, it's not hard to imagine that these companies and individuals that are making large contributions will want something in return at some point.

    Making elections cheaper to campaign for, and reducing the amount of time for campaigning would mean that those who already hold elected office would action be able to focus on their job. It would also mean that elected officials wouldn't be beholden to their million dollar contributors.
     
  6. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #6
    Seriously, they are all saying that people need jobs and are running out of money and the president is racking up 36k a person.

    Granted it is not just Obama but every president before and after him and every other politician that sells their campaign to the highest bidder.
     
  7. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #7
    Damn, I missed that.

    Were they available on TicketMaster. :(
     
  8. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #8
    That's less than one USD per person. :)
     
  9. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #9
    That's only one office, well two if you include the VP.

    How much for all the other congressmen, governors, state congressmen, and the myriads of other elected offices in the US?
     
  10. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #10
    The only way to reform will never happen, every candidate gets no more than 5 million to use as they see fit. If they drop out of the campaign the money goes back into the pot. All TV ads are non profit PSA's since all candidates are going for public office. Most of the money raised currently is going to paying TV networks for ad time. All candidates get equal commercial time on TV. One person cannot load up the airways with crap drowning out everyone else, and all commercials have to be factual and non smear.
     
  11. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #11
    Everything in context of course. This is the US presidency we're talking about.
     
  12. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #12
    Don't mean to single out your post, nor to derail the thread, but does the term "terror" mean anything any more? Seriously.

    I know mcrain will, if I don't preempt him, point to all of Bush's over- and mis-uses of the term. And that's fine. I wouldn't disagree. But we talk about John Boehner's"economic terrorism," or the GOP "holding the American people hostage," and you have to ask whether these words have meaning any more. Seriously, what do we do the next time someone with firearms says he is going to kill all the Pan Am (or the like) passengers aboard his plane unless XY&Z happens? If "terrorist" is reserved for fiscal matters, and "hostage" for debt negotiations, what terms do we use? "Super Terrortist?" "Hostage - fo' real!"
     
  13. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #13
    It's a complicated issue. For me the most immediately disturbing part is the direct role that corporations can play in the political process. As a group they are far wealthier than any individual and also much harder to nail down legally, since they can be created and dissolved rapidly.

    Add it to the list:

    American
    Government
    Security
    Patriot
    Conservatism
    Liberalism
    Socialism
    Freedom
    Liberty
    Democracy
    Founding Fathers
    The People
    Rich
    Poor
    Truth
    Lie
    Fair

    And many, many more...
     
  14. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #14
    Did the word terror have any meaning during the Crusades/Inquisition/Reformation/Salem Witch Trials? If it did then, it certainly does now and terrorizing a country through the allowance of unlimited corporate contributions to elections is certainly equal in the end to any other form or terror.
     
  15. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #15
    So what is your point? That I'm right? That I'm wrong? That it's no big deal? That it is a big deal?

    That because other words are meaningless, who cares?
     
  16. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #16
    Then they would do these fake informing companies that do nothing more than trash the other candidate. They would be claiming they are "informing" the public but it is pure campaign finances
     
  17. Apple OC macrumors 68040

    Apple OC

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Location:
    Hogtown
    #17
    that is how elections are won ... show me the money
     
  18. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #18
    From Dictionary.com:

    The ONLY difference between what the GOP did and "terrorism" in its accepted meaning is that instead of violence or threats of violence, it was economic catastrophe or the threat of economic catastrophe. Which, by the way, had the potential to kill real people.

    Hostage crisis doesn't really fit either because instead of a person being held, it's the economy.

    Blackmail? That doesn't really work either because that involves payment being extracted by intimidation, threats of force, etc...

    Perhaps the terms don't fit perfectly, but they are close enough to be used, if for no reason other than to demonstrate how incredibly similar the situation is to the term used.
     
  19. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #19
    287 billion is way off.

    Link
     
  20. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #20
    Catch-22, buddy, Catch-22. The people with the power to ban this practice won't. You think the guys who benefit most from this stuff is gonna pass a law banning it?
     
  21. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #21
    The word you are looking for is coercion. ;)

    co·er·cion

     [koh-ur-shuhn]

    noun

    1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
    2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
     
  22. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #22
    Doesn't the term broken infer that at some stage US campaign finance was hunky dory?
     
  23. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #23
    When it's not your ox that is being gored, yes. :rolleyes:

    Unfortunately, it's the American people that are the ox in this scenario.
     

Share This Page