Dennis Kucinich decides to menace First Amendment

[Alberto_Balsalm]

Kucinich announced Thursday that he's seeking a Constitutional Amendment that would require that all campaigns for U.S. President, Vice-President, House of Representatives, and Senate be paid for exclusively by taxpayers. His amendment also would block outside expenditures on behalf of any candidate.

He said the measure is needed to counteract a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows outside groups to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns. He says that decision has put American democracy "on the auction block."

"With corporate private financing, we have officials working for the interest of corporations," said a statement from Kucinich. "With public financing, we have officials working for the public. And public financing will actually save taxpayers' money, by elimniating any incentive of public officials to reward campaign contributors with taxpayer subsidies."

Presidential campaigns are already partially funded by the U.S. Treasury. More than $3 million in tax dollars funded Kucinich's unsuccessful White House bids.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index....ants_cons.html

[BooRadley]

Because money is speech, right?

[86Dùde]

Not sure how I feel about this. Kucinich is usually a good player but he has also rolled over to the Obama fuck administration like a little bitch.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

It's a key necessary reform, unless you like legalized bribery and organized criminal control of your government.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Will it put an end to this?

President Barack Obama’s top 350 bundlers in the upcoming 2012 election have already snagged 68 high-status jobs in the administration, and 250 have landed resume-boosting invites to White House events, according to a study released Thursday by a left-of-center media foundation.

The report, by the Center for Public Integrity, also said that 30 of the bundlers are tied to government-related companies on Wall Street, in the green-tech sector or in the defense sector.

The report defines bundlers as people who contact their friends to collect and forward political contributions starting at $50,000 and climbing to more than $500,000.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/19/ob...e-white-house/

[BooRadley]

Will it put an end to this?

That's the point -- to stop the necessary reality of power brokering in DC. However, the GOP has successfully argued that bribery is protected Free Speech.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Will this apply to union donations as well?

[Guido]

That's the point -- to stop the necessary reality of power brokering in DC. However, the GOP has successfully argued that bribery is protected Free Speech.

I believe that the damage done by the Supreme Court in Citizens United is irreversible.

It's not realistic to imagine that politicians might one day vote to restrict the amount of money they can receive from donors, or the influence that donors have over policy.

In a more general sense, it's not realistic to imagine that the Federal government will ever act voluntarily to limit the Federal government's power.

This leads me to the conclusion that America's political problems have no political solutions. The only solutions are catastrophic.

[BooRadley]

Will this apply to union donations as well?

Yes, but, again, the GOP has successfully argued that bribery is protected free speech. Don't complain about who's bribing the Democrats if you've already validated bribery itself as Constitutionally protected freedom of expression.

I believe that the damage done by the Supreme Court in Citizens United is irreversible.

It's not realistic to imagine that politicians might one day vote to restrict the amount of money they can receive from donors, or the influence that donors have over policy.

In a more general sense, it's not realistic to imagine that the Federal government will ever act voluntarily to limit the Federal government's power.

This leads me to the conclusion that America's political problems have no political solutions. The only solutions are catastrophic.

I know. It would take a well informed public to force a change through democratic action, but the people who control the government through bribery are the same people who control the public through concentrated ownership and control of media outlets. Those people have a pretty good defence set up.

Personally, I suspect that's what moves like SOPA are really about: They're about setting up a mechanism by which the free flow of information can be disrupted, since the lack of a free flow of information is what allows them to control both the public and the government.

[Little-Acorn]

Kucinich announced Thursday that he's seeking a Constitutional Amendment that would require that all campaigns for U.S. President, Vice-President, House of Representatives, and Senate be paid for exclusively by taxpayers.

So half of the entire American population (the half that pays no income taxes after innumerable Democrat "reforms") will be forbidden to contribute to the candidate of their choice?

Careful what you wish for, Demmies. Those are your main constituents.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Yes, but, again, the GOP has successfully argued that bribery is protected free speech. Don't complain about who's bribing the Democrats if you've already validated bribery itself as Constitutionally protected freedom of expression.

I'm not the GOP. You need to accept that democrats benefit from the Supreme Court decision just as much as republicans do.

[BooRadley]

I'm not the GOP. You need to accept that democrats benefit from the Supreme Court decision just as much as republicans do.

The Republicans actively fight in favor of bribery, calling it protected Free Speech. Look at the OP, for an example -- "menace the First Amendment", my ass. They're trying to reform the political process to STOP that kind of bribery.

[Freedom&Liberty]

I agree, it needs to be stopped. When you can prove that democrats haven't benefited from the same bribery, you'll be in a better position to say it's all the fault of republicans. Until then, you're just pissing into the wind.

[IFF]

not my preferred method of campaign financing* but a good idea

*to reiterate:
- ban corporate donations (including from unions)
- maximum amount allowed
- you could only finance a candidate running in a constituency you can vote in.

the problem with both my idea and kucinich's is what about outside bodies like pacs and super pacs?

[BooRadley]

I agree, it needs to be stopped. When you can prove that democrats haven't benefited from the same bribery, you'll be in a better position to say it's all the fault of republicans. Until then, you're just pissing into the wind.

Of course Democrats also get bribed. THEY ALL DO. It's impossible to get elected to congress or the White House if you don't get massive amounts of money to run a campaign. That's the whole point to campaign finance reform. The point is that we need to reform it, and to do that, we have to stop voting for politicians who protect the systems as it is.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Fair enough, but I still see a problem. The left has created programs that send monthly checks to tens of millions of voters. Do you consider that bribery as well?

[BooRadley]

Fair enough, but I still see a problem. The left has created programs that send monthly checks to tens of millions of voters. Do you consider that bribery as well?

It's the other direction. Look at it this way:

Republicans getting bribed by oil companies is similar to Democrats getting bribed by workers unions.
Republicans paying off wealthy investors by lowering their tax rate is similar to Democrats paying off poor people by providing food and shelter.

The first question is the one we're talking about here: Stopping the bribery of either party by way of election finance reform, which the Republicans are opposed to.

The second question is a question of representation. It's a different question than the one in this thread, but in short: There *are* different economic classes, and their interests *are* different. The Republicans represent the upper income groups, and the Democrats (to at least some extent) represent the working class. If you're voting for a party that doesn't "pay you off", it's because you're voting for a party that represents the other class. For example, if you're voting for Democrats but you make a million a year, you're not going to get the pay off, and if you're voting for Republicans but you make less than 6 figures, you're not going to get the pay off (because they don't represent you).

Some people are voting on principal, not their own interests. For example, there are some rich people who vote Democrat because they believe that investing in education and providing fair wages and social benefits is either a wise investment in maintaining the society that keeps them rich, or just because they believe it's moral. Some people are working class but vote for Republicans because they believe that getting screwed up the poop shooter by rich people is ethical -- something I've never understood, but each to his own -- or because they truly believe that eliminating class-mobility and destroying the middle class, sequestering themselves and 99% of the rest of the population to eternal serfdom is the way to build a better society.

Either way, figure out what *your* economic interests are and vote for them -- unless you believe that there's a moral or strategic benefit for voting against your own economic well-being (for example, I don't have kids, but I support a strong education system. I'd get a tax break if we reduced education spending, but I think it's a strategic investment to ensure a basic education for the public, because I don't want the USA to be a 3rd world country in 20 years).

Anyway, back to this topic: You can't compare Democrats "bribing" (representing the interests of) poor people to Republicans getting paid off by weapons manufacturers. You compare Democrats "bribing" (representing the interests of) poor people to Republicans "bribing" (representing the interests of) wealthy people, and you compare the workers unions bribing (actually bribing) Democrats to wall street bribing (actually bribing) Republicans. As for the later, the subject of this thread, Kucinich is actively trying to make it illegal to bribe Congress and the President, but he'll get shot down by Republicans (and some Democrats) who argue that bribing elected officials is Constitutionally protected free speech.

Edit: I hope you understand that I know I framed the second question in a smart ass way. It's just my style, don't let it distract you from the first question, which is what this thread is about.

[Freedom&Liberty]

You went wrong right off the bat.

Republicans paying off wealthy investors by lowering their tax rate is similar to Democrats paying off poor people by providing food and shelter.

Allowing people to keep what is theirs is not the equivalent of providing 10's of millions of people with a check every month.

Stopping the bribery of either party by way of election finance reform, which the Republicans are opposed to.

We have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and a free press. I don't see how an assembly of people, which is essentially what a corporation is, should be denied the freedoms provided by the first amendment. I suspect that if the White House had a republican incumbent, democrats would approve of the Supreme Court decision. It's much easier to create legislation against a group, when that group has no voice.

[BooRadley]

Allowing people to keep what is theirs

But cutting taxes only for wealthy people, they are shifting the tax burden onto the working class. That only benefits the upper class. Someone tricked you into voting against your own economic interests.

We have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and a free press. I don't see how an assembly of people, which is essentially what a corporation is, should be denied the freedoms provided by the first amendment. I suspect that if the White House had a republican incumbent, democrats would approve of the Supreme Court decision. It's much easier to create legislation against a group, when that group has no voice.

Yeah, because the richest corporations in the world "have no voice" Anyway, it's nice that you've accepted that bribery is free speech. I hope I never hear you complain about workers unions and others giving money to Democrats, since you've decided that is just the freedom of speech.

[Freedom&Liberty]

But cutting taxes only for wealthy people, they are shifting the tax burden onto the working class. That only benefits the upper class. Someone tricked you into voting against your own economic interests.

Someone tricked you into believing that we can't spend less money and regulate less.

Yeah, because the richest corporations in the world "have no voice" Anyway, it's nice that you've accepted that bribery is free speech. I hope I never hear you complain about workers unions and others giving money to Democrats, since you've decided that is just the freedom of speech.

Because the smallest corporations should have the right to a voice. You can't tax them and then tell them they have no right to representation.