T And T Garage wrote on 03/20/18 at 12:30:16:


You haven't, or refuse, to see what happens when you pull a Harry Reid, or circumvent the legislative process, opting for EO's.

Yeah, Russia used technology for their own concerns......

Imagine that  

Like I said on a different thread, a broken watch is NOT right, twice a day, it is broken, period. Go and justify, whatever, then complain foul.
You are blind, or extremely stupid, to not see the hypocrisy and duplicity. staring you straight in the face......

BTW, you how many times you post Yawn.....

Yet, fault Versy...... 

Too easy web - the single largest threat to our democracy is corporate money in politics.  Corporations are not people and unlimited bribery of our politicians is one of the main reasons we are where we are today.

This goes for ALL, not just one side of the aisle.  For every koch there's a soro.


I would not say it's the single largest threat. It's a threat, but not as large as a partisan news media.

Corporate money: Say a push is made to ban motorcycles because they are dangerous. Suzuki USA donates money to candidates who state their belief is this is not an area the US government should be involved in. Suzuki obviously stands to benefit financially if by their support, enough Congressmen are elected or retain office. but also Suzuki is in the business of motorcycles because that is what they want to do, it is their passion. The board of directors are appointed and voted on by shareholders of Suzuki because they feel those people will protect their interest. So why shouldn't Suzuki be permitted to donate to the campaigns of Congressmen who have the same viewpoint?

WebsterMark wrote on 03/20/18 at 12:55:02:


Unwittingly, you proved my point and show exactly why this is bad.

The only motivation of anyone in your example is profit.  How is that good for anyone but a corporation or anyone outside that corporation?

I don't know about you, but it's obvious to me - if my representative gets $100K from Suzuki and only $100 from me, who do you think he or she is really going to listen to?

Suppose that Suzuki plant is dumping waste oil in my backyard?  What then?

The only way a politician can be truly representative of his or her constituents, is if they are unbiased to corporate influence.

Now, if they (Suzuki in this case) want to influence their employees to vote in a particular way, that's all good.

I simply state that a corporation should not be allowed to legally bribe our politicians.

One step at a time.

In my example, how is Suzuki bribing politicians? A bribe implies the politician changed their vote only because of the money donated. If I were a Congressmen and this issue came up, Suzuki's money doesn't change my vote, it allows me to an opportunity to vote.

Same with the NRA. The NRA doesn't give money to liberals, they give money to conservatives. If money were all it took, they'd just give whatever amount it took to change liberal votes.

The NRA may be incorporated, but it's Vastly Different from the regulated corporations in the manufacturing, mining, energy, pharmaceutical industries.
The NRA exists because people support them. Not for the caps or magazines, but as a lobbying arm. American citizens see them as representing and defending their interests. Politicians Know that the number of members is a Fraction of the number of people who feel the same way as the members.
And, of course, the above post is spot on. If money equaled the votes of the electeds, then money would go to opponents of the NRA and the People.

WebsterMark wrote on 03/20/18 at 13:22:34:

See above - they do.


In local and state elections over the last decade, winning is directly tied to spending:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/does-more-campaign-money-...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States

We're veering off the point.  Your Suzuki analogy is a bit of a strawman.  Why not stick with something that's concrete?  Real donors like the koch brothers and soros spend millions of dollars on state and local campaigns.  The results are there.

But I'll put it to you another way.  Why NOT get corporations out of politics?  What would the harm be if all donations were capped at $1000 per single donor?  Better yet, what about tax payer funded campaigns?

Politically, this country has been in the toilet since the 80's thanks to Buckley v. Valeo in the late 70's.

Quote:

Yep, Obama completely different.