Spend $45M to get a low paying job

[turbo6bar]

Don't tell me politicians aren't corrupt. I forgot what the Presidente's salary is, but I don't think it would justify spending $45-170M in campaign spending. I suppose that is the wrong perspective. Bush isn't spending $170M to become president. His supporters are spending $170M, because they feel the return on investment is worth at least $170M+. Ouch!!!

Jurgen

[cowtown]

Salary is $400K/yr I think.

I'm not following the rest of your post, though - are you saying that the spenders are investing in Bush for a future payoff? Like a mutual fund*? I agree with that. It's how the system works. Why invest in people if you have nothing to gain?

*"Past performance is not an indicator of future gains"

[turbo6bar]

Yeah, that is what I meant. I am coming to the realization the Republicans and Democrats are crooked S.O.Bs. Yeah, I am really that dense. No, I don't know the solution. I feel the money could be spent in far better ways, but of course it's not my money.

Let's just suppose Bush is reelected. You can bet Bill Clinton's stack of Playboys that Bush will have to give out returns worth well over $170M. These 'supporters' aren't just donating for the good of mankind. Yeah, really, I am that dense. It's all about what this country can do for you.

j

[Moses]

Originally posted by turbo6bar
. No, I don't know the solution. I feel the money could be spent in far better ways, but of course it's not my money.

Solutions are simple, really:

1) Federal funding of elections. All private contributions are illegal.

2) Elected officials must divest themselves of private investments. Money stays in an escrow account till he/she leaves office.

3) Officials who accept money or the promise of employment while holding office go to jail.

[wckrause]

"1) Federal funding of elections. All private contributions are illegal."

Who decides who gets funding and how much? Giving donations to a political party has been defined as free speach by the supreme court, making this idea unconstitutional

"2) Elected officials must divest themselves of private investments. Money stays in an escrow account till he/she leaves office."

This is already done for many high offices. Full disclosure of income and investments is required by most others.

"3) Officials who accept money or the promise of employment while holding office go to jail."

Accepting campaign donations is perfectly legal and has been part of the political process of this country and most other democracies. Accepting bribes is illegal already.

[Moses]

Originally posted by wckrause

Who decides who gets funding and how much?

That's tough. Several formulas have been discussed including funds proportional to % of vote in last election. Some argue for equal funding for the top four parties.

Giving donations to a political party has been defined as free speach by the supreme court, making this idea unconstitutional.

True. But the Supremes have hinted that this form of free speech may be limited for the public good if an appropriate model is proposed. (There are countless areas where free speech is not allowed.)

"3) Officials who accept money or the promise of employment while holding office go to jail."

Accepting campaign donations is perfectly legal ...

Thats my point. Accepting campaign contributions should be expressly against the law.

Just my opinion.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Moses
2) Elected officials must divest themselves of private investments. Money stays in an escrow account till he/she leaves office.
Nope, won't work. All you're doing is 'deferred compensation'. Take for example Dick Cheney's Halliburton assets are in a 'blind trust'. He's making policy decisions to make himself rich while he's in office, he just can't cash in until January 21st, '05, when the new president and vice president are sworn in. Boo-hoo.

3) Officials who accept money or the promise of employment while holding office go to jail.

Bwahahaha! Like that will ever happen. That's the very core of the system.
[/B]
Someone needs to challenge the Supreme Court ruling that money == free speech. They've reversed before.

[Moses]

Originally posted by widebody911
Someone needs to challenge the Supreme Court ruling that money == free speech. They've reversed before.
__________________
--Thom

Exactly!

[widebody911]

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
Why can't one give money to a campaign, in one's own self interest, and not expect something improper in return?

You must be

• horribly naive
• don't understand the system
• have a vested interest in the system

"People" giving campaign contributions isn't the problem, it's the millions coming in from private companies and political organizations that's the problem. And there's millions more changing hands that you never hear about.

Seriously - how is a campaign contribution any different than an outright bribe? People/organizations/companies give money to candidates and the party of sitting elected officials because they expect to get something in return, be it pork-barrel projects, favorable legislation, or maintenance of the status quo.

Period. If you believe otherwise, please consult the list above.

You simply can't get elected without money. To get that money, you have to look like a better horse to bet on than the other guy. To make sure you get the money for the next election, you have to actually deliver, or the other guy will get the funds next time.

Organizations that can raise and distribute large amounts of cash wield enormous of political power, because money talks and principle is left outside in a cardboard box in the freezing rain. That cash is then used to convice the tools out there in VoterLand that they are who the candidate is really care about.

What we need is a system to break the donor->cash->candidate->policy cycle.

[Moses]

Originally posted by SoCal911SC


Who has wrongfully gotten elected because of it?

The point is not who has been wrongfully elected, but rather; Have the present rules systematically deprived the citizenry of true representation? I believe the answer to be "yes".

[Moses]

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
Have YOU been systematically deprived of "true representation?"

One simple example:

In the entire USA, the US Tobacco Growers have made more donations to Willie Brown (when he was Speaker/Majority leader) than any politician in America. Yet not one tobacco leaf was ever cultivated in his district. What were the tobacco growers buying? Influence.

California's sweeping anti-smoking policies were never even allowed to come to a full vote till Willy left office.

Tobacco money well spent. Will of the people deterred.

[turbo6bar]

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
If you believe that lower taxes, for example, will help you or your business, you donate some money to Bush. If you are a small business, you donate a small amount. If you are a big business, you donate a big amount. It is in your self interest in that example to not have someone elected who vows to repeal all of the tax cuts and/or raise taxes.

It is my perception, perhaps false, the guys with the biggest money trump the Q Public's. It has always been that way. However, I now get the feeling the guy with the most money wins the election instead of the guy with the most votes.

Special interest dominates political decision making. What happened to policies that reflect the needs & wants of American citizens. Seems to me the creation of good policy is not hinged upon the amount of campaign contributions one receives. At least it shouldn't be.

For the record, I am a registered Republican. I adore big business. I like business, period. Very few times do I agree with widebody, but in this instance I see eye to eye.

A few weeks ago I read of a consulting firm specializing in cultivating new opportunities in Iraq. Nothing wrong with that in itself. This is a free country. I fully support the entrepreneurial spirit. What I didn't like were the strong ties between the bigshots at this firm and the government. Whether there exists an ethical breach, I don't know for sure, but why raise the question. If it isn't arm's length, then it isn't kosher, IMHO.

j

[Moneyguy1]

Just a few observations from someone with enough scars from the public sector.........

1. The guy with the most popular votes did not win one recent political election

2. If you have been deprived somehow of true representation, how would you know? It is not like there is any way to rewind the tape and view another possible scenario

3. The higher you go re: government, the more remote and disconnected the elected officials become. The most responsive are those at the local level. And, given more and more unfunded mandates, the least likely to be able to help you.

4. The difference between most corporate and many individual political contributions and the true definition of bribe is semantics, plain and simple. Kind of like the difference between patriot and revolutionary. Point of view.

5. Most elected officials at the federal level are lawyers or at least law school graduates. Hence, the propensity to parse ideas and develop detailed differentiations making a contribution legal and a bribe illegal when, as stated above, the potential result of both can be identical.

I worked with elected oficials on all levels in my former career. I know of what I speak.

Anyone watch the news tonight how Tom Daschell is raising contributions? Interesting procedure involving the presentation of a plaque and a membership in some bogus committee for a sizable contribution, the need for the latter not divulged until the recipient returns a phone call. The written material does not mention the contribution.

Oxymoron: Honest Politician

[Hugh R]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Just a few observations from someone with enough scars from the public sector.........

1. The guy with the most popular votes did not win one recent political election

Whom do you mean? Al Gore? I think by any measure he actually lost Florida. As for most popular votes in the U.S., thats irrelevant, we use an Electoral College. I believe in more that one World Series, the losers had more total runs in all seven games, but the other team won the series because they won four games. Thats the rules.

[Moneyguy1]

Electoral college is a relic of the times when it took weeks to get news from one state to another. I can think of no reason that such a system should still exist in today's communications climate. The representatives are not bound to vote the way the popular vote went. I would say that negates the intent.

[Moses]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Electoral college is a relic of the times ...

The electoral collge is as important today as it was in the beginning. The electoral college ensures that the agrarian states which tend to be sparsely populated, are not completely ignored. There is a slight power bias to poorly populated states.

[Moneyguy1]

Can't argue that point entirely, but the fact that the individuals that make up the electoral college do not have to vote the way their citizens did should be addressed. If you recall, that was a probability in the Fla gang. I would respectfully propose that we should look beyond state lines. Rural areas tend to cross state lines, just as urban areas do. This would seem to even out the bias to some extent. Further, if the electoral college is a fair representation of the populace, each member representing the same number of citizens, from where comes the bias in the first place?

I still maintain that the reason for it in the first place was the slow process of getting information from one locale to another and not to assure that differently populated areas would have a method of maintiaining some semblance of parity. Like I said, I cannot argue with conviction that what you say may be an unanticipated result of the system.

Cheers!!

[Moses]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
... but the fact that the individuals that make up the electoral college do not have to vote the way their citizens did should be addressed.
Cheers!!

That is a state by state rule. Many states do not allow electoral delegates to "vote their conscience".

Interestingly, some of the constitutions framers argued that each state should have the same # of electoral votes.-independent of population. The fear was that urban centers would legislate their own comforts at the expense of rural, agricultural states.

[350HP930]

So you are arguing that a farmer's presidential vote should count more than an urbanites? That is also an antiquated notion that needs to go.

For those that think that the common man's needs are being ignored for those of trans-national corporations, just look at current trade legislation and deficits.

This country's citizens are being sold down the river and most of them are too clueless to even recognize it.

[Moses]

Originally posted by 350HP930
So you are arguing that a farmer's presidential vote should count more than an urbanites?...

Not me. The founding fathers.

What about the US Senate? Equal representation for each state. California has two senators, as does North Dakota and Utah and...