Andylusion
Platinum Member
No conflict of interest there. Let me guess, all of them were exclusively considering which candidate was "best for the country" right? Bull.
Then
Yeah, it's interesting..... To me, when a private company donates to a particular candidate, that is simply self interest. *I* donate to a particular candidate for self interest reasons. I think the other candidate is going to cause me problems.
But when people who are in government, donate to people who pay their wages, that's more like a bribe in my book. I work for government, and you lead the government, and I pay you, to keep money flowing to me.
The problem gets more complicated when people worked in the government for several years and moved to a private company somehow the link is still there. That's why I think large donations should be avoided. It keeps the revolving door closed for the elections.
Regarding companies and unions : they are not citizens, so they should not donate at all ( I find no problem in having ceo's and the like make individual donations with a very low ceiling.)
First off, when you look up "CitiGroup Donated Millions to Obama"... that is actually not true. Virtually none of the companies donate directly to Candidates. When you say "Companies and Unions are not citizens, so they should not donate", generally they are not.
The method watch dog groups determine how much money a "Company" donates to a candidate, is they look up individual people, who work for X company, and total up donations by those individual citizens, as being for the company.
The other method, is by giving money to PACs. Political Action Committees, are simply groups that pool money from sponsors, and then the PAC donates money to various people and causes.
The problem there is, if 10 people (one of which is CEO of CitiGroup) donate $100,000 each to a PAC, and the PAC donates $500K to 20 candidates including Obama, did CitiGroup donate to Obama?
It's extremely rare that a company directly donates to a specific candidate. I can't think of even one time off the top of my head, although I'm sure it's happened at some point.
But generally speaking, Companies do not donate directly to politicians.
So how exactly would you propose we prevent that? Ban individuals from donating to politicians? Because that denies yourself the ability to influence elections too.
And the problem then becomes.... you would *STILL* have people giving money to politicians.... except now it's completely under the radar.
I personally would rather know who is giving money to whom.
You seem to live in a mythical world where if you "ban large donations" that then it wouldn't happen. When has that ever worked? Did we largely finish a fight over drugs, with the argument being "banning pot hasn't worked, let's simply regulate it instead"... right? Isn't that the answer we've come to over decades of the drug war? How then do you turn around on this one, and say "Banning this activity will work, even though banning drugs and alcohol did not"?
Moreover, ummm.... hello.... didn't see back in the Bill Clinton days, clear unambiguous violations of the campaign finance laws, and absolutely NOTHING happened. In fact, half the country rallied around him, to protect him from the mean ol Republicans trying to enforce the law.
Question...... if we already have people violating the EXISTING LAWS..... why the heck are you bothering with asking for more laws? This reminds me of this idiotic debate here in Columbus Ohio. We have I-270 the rings around the city, and all the people are complaining that everyone drives too fast. The speed limit is 65 MPH, and everyone is doing 75 MPH. So what's their solution? Lower the speed limit. Huh??? If you are not going to enforce the speed limit of 65, why the heck would lowering the un-enforced limit to 60 do anything?
We don't need ANOTHER UNENFORCED CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW. Here's a thought.... ENFORCE THE LAWS AS THEY EXIST NOW. Try that.
As long as the partisan-idiot citizens, rally around every politicians that breaks the law... it doesn't matter what laws you have. The public needs to fix their own lack of morality, and lack of demanding character in politicians, first. Without that, no amount of laws matter.
Lastly, you are trying to fight something that can't be fixed.
As long as you demand government regulate business..... business is going to try and influence government.
See, you want government to be able to control a business, and yet somehow not have business try and influence those who control them. That's insane. That will never happen.
I don't know where you work (assume you work), but chances are you have a boss, or a superior. If you want a raise, that superior has to support it. If you are like the other 99% of the population, you will likely try and be on the good side, of the person who determines if you get a raise.
Shocking revelation for you.... businesses are the same way. If there is some government agency that controls whether or not your business can grow, your business is going to try and influence that agency.
Hello..... NORMAL HUMAN BEHAVIOR. For you to demand that a government agency control a business, and yet expect that business to never try and gain influence over that agency, is absolute insanity on your part.
If that's your goal, then you are in for a lifetime of disappointment. That will never happen. Never.
You want to get corporate money out of politicians? Eliminate government grants, government regulations, and high taxes.
When there is nothing to be gained from expensive government influence, there will be less government influence purchased.