Politicspoliticssuperpacs

Mon Feb 12, 2018, 08:42 PM

are super PACs a bad thing?

22 replies, 143 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to 357blackhawk (Original post)

Mon Feb 12, 2018, 08:50 PM

1. They are a

necessary evil for a free society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Original post)

Mon Feb 12, 2018, 09:09 PM

2. I want lobbying outlawed.

Bribing, influence peddling, all of it. Anybody else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 12, 2018, 09:49 PM

3. Likewise.

It's all legalized bribery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tovera (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 12, 2018, 09:58 PM

5. are you saying that

writing your congressperson should be illegal? That is a form of lobbying. How about crowdfunding a movie or a billboard for or against some politician or cause? That is a PAC. How about banning books that mention some politician's name? In Citizens United, the Government said that should be allowed as well.

What would be an acceptable way to petition your government and not violate the 1A?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 12, 2018, 10:11 PM

6. Only by the broadest possible definition of "lobbying."

And that's not the one I employ, so your question is a bit moot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 12, 2018, 09:54 PM

4. Bribery is illegal,

you are saying that individuals and interest groups (also made up of individuals) should have no voice in their government outside of voting for some guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 11:54 AM

9. No. Im saying I dont want giant corporations buying votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 03:50 PM

15. how about politicians shaking down corporations?

That is how it really works much of the time. How about wealthy individuals like Bloomberg and Styer?
How about the corporations etc. that own the parties? That is where the real corruption is. There were a lot of corporations and war profiteers hoping to make a lot of money on Hillary's win, including the parent corporation of CNN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 04:43 PM

19. I want it all gone. Pipe dream, I know.

But it would be nice if policians and parties could only take money from regular people. At the regular people limit. I think it’s insane that someone like Soros or the Kochs can basically bend politicians to their will by threatening to turn the money spigot off.

As for the war profiteers, I’m pretty sure they do just fine under every presidency. One way or another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 08:30 AM

8. Hell no

You would prefer a star chamber? Or better yet we can let the wise technocrats take over, and make our decisions.

Lobbying good, more lobbying better. Isolating and protecting the government is a terrible idea.

That's where McCain/Feingold came from, read some of McCain's writing on the subject. Should have been called the incumbent protection act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 01:34 PM

10. Yes, but....First Amendment will prevent outlawing it.

Not that legislators would pass that law, anyway.

Bribery already is outlawed. However, legislators also get to define what that is and what is unethical for them to do. The definition is so narrow, it's ridiculous.

We'd be lucky if we even got full disclosure. I don't think we do, but I've become a suspicious sort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 01:55 PM

13. Can we at least suit em up like nascar drivers?

That way it’s plain to see where their interests lie. We should have a right to know where the money comes from. All of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 02:00 PM

14. Supposedly, we know, but I have my doubts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Original post)

Mon Feb 12, 2018, 10:22 PM

7. Unions are SuperPacs

Lefty never conplains about them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hey Mikey (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 01:38 PM

11. Not 100% true. After all the billions the Clintons picked up

from here, there and everywhere, Hillary's supporters raised hell about the only donation Bernie got from a PAC, a nurses' union. The only donations to the PAC came from individual nurses.

http://time.com/4233514/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-nurse-superpac/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 04:02 PM

17. that is how PACs work

Hillary, on the other hand, got money from Saudi Arabia, Russia, Wall Street, and maybe China (oh wait, that was Bill).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 14, 2018, 08:50 AM

21. Again, not 100% true. Most PACs accept money from many sources, not just individial American

working people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Original post)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 01:45 PM

12. Who are politicians supposed to represent?

In practice, they represent the people who pay.

Case in point; Trump has $4bn net worth which translates to about $400m annual income. We pay him $400k, or 0.1% of his income. He's done working for us by noon on January 1st.

The rest of the year, he's working for someone else, but we're not allowed to know who.

A man of the people, indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 04:00 PM

16. They are supposed to represent the interests of their constituents,

not the ideology of some neo-Nazi or neo-Marxist in California (California seems to attract totalitarians from both extremes for some reason.) Nor, are they supposed to care what the party platform says or what the national party says. That is why I supported the recalls in Colorado a few years ago.

As opposed to Obama and Clinton who went in upper middle class and comes out multi-millionaires?
What people? The problem I have with "liberals" is that they claim to speak for and know what is best for people they don't know anything about or even like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #16)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 04:29 PM

18. They are representing neither neo-marxists nor neo nazis

Both are bogeymen intended to distract the audience from the real people behind the curtain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 05:00 PM

20. the congressperson from Berkley

pretty much represents neo-Marxists.
If there were no "bribes" from Planned Parenthood, Exxon, Tom Styer, Bloomberg, Koch brothers etc, what would policies look like?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 14, 2018, 08:54 AM

22. Both Democratic pols and Republicans pols do the same--claim "The American people

don't want this," or "The American people want this." Neither one of them actually speaks for all Americans, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspoliticssuperpacs