The Future Third Party

[whitehall]

There are a couple of reasons that some Americans consider a 3rd party. Ignorance is one. Some people think that they can create a 3rd party out of a bunch of angry losers and crackpots and get a better deal. Dirty tricks is another. Democrats try to split the republican party by suggesting that the parties are the same. Nothing could be further from the truth. Laziness is the 3rd reason. Some Americans would rather dream of a political miracle than actually work to get better candidates. And the last reason is fear. Some people are afraid to support issues they believe in. The left has pulled out all the stops in it's crusade against innocent Tea Party people who carry around a copy of the Constitution and it has made some people fearful of ridicule.

 

[Obamanation]

There is no doubt in my mind that we need politicians who can be true to their ideals and not their lobbies. We have got to figure out how to fix the money problem in Washington. ...and this time I'm not talking about the defecit/gov't spending.

"...we need politicians who can be true to their ideals and not their lobbies."

I don't agree....but I think the problem may be one of definition.

Today, 'lobby' has become a pejorative term.

Many think of it as a tool of some hypothetical rich profiteering minority.

It isn't.



The concept is memorialized in the Constitution.
"In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the federal constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Right to petition in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You see....all of us do it, all of us belong to lobbies....

In "Demosclerosis:: The Silent Killer of American Government," Jonathan Rauch points out that 7 out of 10 Americans belong to an interest group, and one out of four belong to at least four!

Your union or club, the groups that solicit donations....lots of things that you don't recognize as lobbying groups.


Heck...I want 'em to respond to my requests....my lobbying.



Think about this one: the Left demonizes "Big Oil," but who actually dictated energy policy?

The Green Lobby: Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc.

Proof?
Sure: the Keystone Pipeline.

I agree with what you are saying. My point is more about the fact that, regardless of who is in charge, they act on the part of specific groups to garnish election funds and voter support from within that group. If the politicians REALLY support the cause there shouldn't need to be money involved or promises of support in upcoming election. They should act because they support the cause and we should elect them because we share the same causes...

 

[Crackerjaxon]

It's a makeover/rebranding of the Tea Party.

Good luck with that.

Form a third party to the right of the establishment GOP and effectively cede the entire center/left to the Democrats. Good plan lolol.

I'm in!!!!!!!

Don't worry, you'll have a whole new brand to demonize. After all, idle hands are the devil's workshop.

I can see you're getting busy already.

 

[konradv]

I agree with what you are saying. My point is more about the fact that, regardless of who is in charge, they act on the part of specific groups to garnish election funds and voter support from within that group. If the politicians REALLY support the cause there shouldn't need to be money involved or promises of support in upcoming election. They should act because they support the cause and we should elect them because we share the same causes...

If they don't get the money, they don't get elected. The system makes "voting your conscience" the path to political extinction. IMO, the only answer is to support public financing of elections.

 

[g5000]

There is no doubt in my mind that we need politicians who can be true to their ideals and not their lobbies. We have got to figure out how to fix the money problem in Washington. ...and this time I'm not talking about the defecit/gov't spending.

The money problem is easily solved. But it won't be because the average American understands the true nature of the problem about as much as the rubes on this forum do.

Ask yourself why a special interest group gives money to a Congressman's campaign. What quid pro quo can the Congressman provide to that special interest group?

First, the Congressman can insert a tax expenditure into the tax code for that special interest group. A tax loophole or a subsidy. Every single day, at least one new tax expenditure is being inserted into the tax code by Congress.

Every. Single. Day.

If a Congressman lowers the tax bill for someone, does that lower the amount of government spending? No. So if a Congressman lowers the tax bill for one special interest, everyone else has to make up the difference, or the government has to borrow money from China.

So tax expenditures for special interests are putting our national security at risk. Literally.


If a Congressman was not able to give a special interest group a tax break, that would take away a huge incentive for that special interest group to donate to that Congressman's campaign.

So there is one solution. Ban tax expenditures.

Of course Congress will never do this, since that is their very bread and butter for getting re-elected. They would never take away the money train that guarantees them their current 98 percent re-election rate!

Think about that.




What is another reason a special interest group donates money to a Congressman or Senator's campaign?

To get a break in regulations, or to cause a competitor to be subjected to more regulations. Say the oil industry does not want alternative energy to receive subsidies, or say the alternative energy industry wants pollution standards tightened up on the coal industry.


The more we concentrate regulatory authority at the federal level, the easier it is for special industry to capture that regulatory authority. Once you own the federal agency that has power over you or your competitive enemies, it's all over.

For instance, what if the authority to regulate financial derivatives was completely taken away from the states? What if a state attorney general was not able to stop a bank in his state from operating like a casino? What if a state attorney general was not able to stop a bank from making predatory loans? What if Congress usurped that power and either eliminated all regulation of derivatives, or concentrated regulatory authority into a federal agency which was promptly owned by the banks they were supposed to regulate?

Wouldn't you expect all the people who regularly scream about states rights to be all over this?

Hmmmm...

See Section 117 of the CFMA for more information.