Goverment Is Owned By Special Interests

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by 108, Jul 23, 2013.

  1. neisgator
    Offline

    neisgator Belligerent Gator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    10,618
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Quincy IL
    Ratings Received:
    +106
    I said I really wouldn't change anything. So, no, I wouldn't impose term limits.
    "Other people" aren't that bright.
  2. agigator
    Offline

    agigator Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +85
    Like so many other things, it's funny how the "answer" is to tighten the grip. "We need tougher campaign finance laws." "Citizens United was made our system more corrupt." Blah blah blah.

    The problem here is very simple. The return on political contributions is very good for the money spent. As long as that's true you're going to have the "money in politics" problem, no matter what the law says. If you really want to get the "money out of politics" then the government needs to be weakened to the point where political contributions are not a good investment.

    Finally, just as an aside, the reason liberals tend to favor tighter campaign finance laws is because they know that the bureaucrats in charge of enforcing these laws are going to favor them. Like this.
  3. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    Making sure the government is weak or continues to be weak would still be a good investment for most corporations, especially given that we have a system of government that allows people to vote and a Constitution that gives the government regulatory power.
  4. agigator
    Offline

    agigator Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +85
    The constitution gives the government very limited regulatory power. If the Federal government only had the powers granted to it by the constitution then it would not be a good investment.
  5. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    I'm not sure how anyone could read this as "very limited," based on the text alone:

    Seems pretty broad to me. But that's beside the point really. Corporations would need to invest in government officials and pols that read that to be "very limited" and not "broad," like it has been for about 100 years. So, basically a return to 1870-1929 era politics.
  6. agigator
    Offline

    agigator Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +85
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform#First_attempts

    Notice that money in politics started with the powers of the government. The government has the power to give me a job. I'll give money to the people who WILL give me a job. The government has the power to de-charter the bank. I'll spend money to defeat the person who's going to de-charter it. If the government didn't have the power to charter/decharter a bank then no money would've been spent by the bank in that election, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

    And, btw, that $40,000 would be less that $900k in 2012 money.
    http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
  7. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    Yes, voting has the power to elect people who will interpret the law in a certain way, and pass new laws. Which is why corporations would still need to spend money to elect people who interpet the law in a way favorable to their interests, unless there is a widespread consenus on said interpretation of the law. Which there hardly ever is.
  8. agigator
    Offline

    agigator Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +85
    Yes, but their willingness to pay is based on the government's ability to deliver. If the government can't deliver then why pay? The less power the government has the less ability any one elected official has to deliver and thus the value of getting them elected is less, also.
  9. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    Because the limits of the governments power is subject to interpretation, and change. Moreover, the entire goverment itself is subject to being changed. If people think the government should be empowered to take on corporations or banks, then coporations and banks are going to want to pay politicians or people to think otherwise, or at the very least have a seat at the table. Why would people obey a government that they feel doesnt represent their interests? Isn't that obvious? I guess if limiting the goverment ushers in some magical utopia where there are few or no losers, then I suppose it could work out, but that seems like a fantasy to me.
  10. agigator
    Offline

    agigator Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +85
    Where did I ever say anything about a magical utopia? The magical utopians, here, are the campaign finance reform zealots. You know, the people who think there's some magical legislation that will "get the money out of politics". There's no silver bullet that will "fix" things completely. It's just a question of what's going to work better. They've been passing campaign finance laws since the late 1800's but the amount of money in politics just keeps going up. The problem, here, isn't poor implementation the problem is that it's just a bad idea that doesn't work.
  11. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,191
    Likes Received:
    629
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,477
    What do you mean by "given to"?

    The House and Senate gift rules already ban accepting anything of value from a registered lobbyist, and registered lobbyists are subject to the indivudal contriubtion limits which are currently $2,600 per candidate per election.

    A normal interpretation of "given to" would make that point expand the amount that a lobbyist could "give to" a Congressman, and by a pretty sizable amount.
  12. JerseyGator01
    Offline

    JerseyGator01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    15,479
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +803
    Anyone who thinks campaign finance laws equate to reform probably feels the same about Obamacare and reform (out of touch). The system is easy to reform frankly but bribery rules. I've seen it personally on the state level in Trenton. Read McGreevey's book or the Soprano State to learn more about what's likely happening in most place in the US.

    If you can't pay, you don't play. Been that way for decades and they only take cash.
  13. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,521
    Likes Received:
    496
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,896
    it's not completely clear, therefore it would be subjective based on your personal interpretation and bias, and thus "changed"

Share This Page