I'm always thinking and saying to fellow Cambodian friends that our country(The Kingdom of Cambodia) will be under the Vietnamese control and sooner becomes Kampuchear Krom today. Friends said to me that Cambodia will not disappear from the world map no matter how Vietnamese trying to shape our country. That may be true but look at their history in the past hundreds of years. They expand their territory from way up north to where they're at right now. Why don't Khmer politicians learn that lesson? come on misters. Even the three years old American kids can do politic better than you guys. Stop greedy and begin to rebuild Cambodia. Put your mistresses on your behind and your country atop of your heads. Don't beg the Vietnamese for our independence, fight them for our country or we will face the extinction.
SvenlerFeatured By OwnerNov 15, 2012Professional Photographer
They had that discussion on RT last night and while the guests are usually quite diverse in opinion, I was quite amazed that no one mentioned that the best way to limit the influence of money on politics is to limit the power of government to skew the market.
I shouldn't need to explain a simple simile. Do you honestly believe that people who would buy off the government for an advantage in the marketplace would suddenly become honest businessmen once the government weren't there to be bought off?People don't cheat because it's possible, they cheat because it pays off.
The reason your proposal won't work is because there's far too many different ways for politicians and political activists to bribe each other. Buying votes with taxpayer money is just as corrupt as buying monetary donations with taxpayer money.
Also, the proposal to "end secret money" is basically an invitation for political retribution against people for expressing their opinions. This is completely unconstitutional, and very unethical.
Finally, voters don't need added incentives to put more of their own money into the political process. These sort of tax incentives always backfire in some way, resulting in reduced revenue for the state without much gain for the prosperity of the people. If you really want people to have more money available to them under their own control, then you should favor eliminations of deductions and incentives like this, couple with major reductions in the income tax rates. That way people can spend that money on whatever interests they feel are most valuable, rather than being forced to spend that money on supporting political candidates.
Want to end political corruption by moneyed interests? Then make it illegal for politicians to reward those interests. Repeal the Commerce Clause and replace it with a "free trade" clause, and that corruption will end.
Agreed. It's getting ludicrous and really needs to be regulated. Although money does not guarantee victory in an election, it heavily influences our choices. The people need to make these decisions, not big money.
How so? I acknowledge that it's no guarantee, but it definitely affects who we get to vote for on the ballot. Typically, it's between the Dems and Reps who have more money than anyone else and thus can gain publicity. It removes any possibility of challenging the two parties.
No, the thing that removes the possibility of challenging the two parties is the number of people who think a vote is wasted on a third party. Money doesn't really enter into that.
The Tea Party demonstrated that when the public gets annoyed enough with the two parties it will go out on its own and throw out the existing parties. The Republicans ate a poison pill when they simultaneously tried to co-opt that movement and maintain business as usual.
You need money to gain media support and advertisement. Otherwise, people won't recognize that you exist. The Tea Party certainly had money to support it.
Money has a huge affect not only on the actual election but on politics as well. Receiving campaign contributions often holds a politician accountable to the donor such that they have to support policies that support the donor to continue receiving money. This often is contrary to the interest of the public and it's certainly a way to buy out politicians.
The key point you're missing is that money follows people, not the other way around. It's a bit like the Libertarian Revolution; if we have enough people to win a revolution, we don't need one.
That's not to say there's not corruption, but not all things that look like corruption are. Green companies, and people who favored green policies, donated to Obama; there's not necessarily corruption going on when Obama's donors (Solyndra comes to mind) tended to get government loans, but rather Obama's policies favored green companies, of which Solyndra was one.
I don't believe that donations should be banned, but merely limited so that one or two monolith industries cannot use millions of dollars to lobby or boast a candidate's campaign. That seems like corruption to me and it harms the integrity of our election process. Of course it would apply fairly to all donors, including so called green ones.
Any type of anti Money in politics Act would have to done as a constitutional amendment. There was similar law passed under McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform. However the Supreme Court stepped in and struck McCain-Feingold down as unconstitutional. That is what Citizens United was all about. The only way to overturn a supreme court ruling is to actually Amend the Constitution. That requires 2/3rds vote in both the House and Senate + Presidential signature and then 3/4ths of the States have to ratify it. In total this is a very long and slow process that it would could not be passed in time for the 2016 elections. If we are lucky this might change the way the 2020 election is handled.
Overall I fully support kicking big money out of Politics.
I can't believe all the money that goes into a campaign for public office. The money spent is like 20 times what they will make in salary from the job. And if any is left over it disappears into the pockets of the candidates. Not only that but they pay pennies fro all the political fliers they mail out and the Post Office treats their junk mail with more priority than your first class birthday card. Money in politics indeed.
yeah you should, but we can't just let rich people run the government either, so there needs to be some safeguards against that, unless you want a plutocratic society, then yeah let rich people buy the government
class warfare is being waged by the rich against the poor, the struggle of the proletariat is constant, the working class should be waging class warfare, always, no ones gonna just give poor people anything, they will always have to fight
if you want to call defending and saving democracy from plutocratic corporate fascism "class warfare", fine, so be it, but it is necessary class warfare and is in the interest of the majority. if you let those with power outside government influence the government as much as they want, the voice of the people is lost and democracy is defeated and that's what's happening in this country right now.
*** class warfare is being waged by the rich against the poor *** No, it is being waged by sanctimonious statements like that.
*** if you want to call defending and saving democracy *** Democracy means everyone gets a vote. Being rich or poor does not change that.
*** the voice of the people is lost and democracy is defeated *** The voice of the people narrowly elected the incumbent, left a split Congress, gained republican advantages in the governor's race, and defeated and approved a variety of propositions from gay marriage to drugs to bond initiatives. You just saw a display of democracy.
Because it circumvents the central ideal of modern democracy: "One man, one vote."
If you are a billionaire and you fund a politician's campaign with the million dollars you found stuffed under your sofa cushions, you can call in favors that a young person working 18-hour shifts 7 days a week for the politician's campaign couldn't dream of calling in. Favors that would normally take an entire voting bloc to demand of that politician, you get to demand as a mere individual. At that point we don't live in a democracy anymore, we live in a plutocracy where it just happens that if you can figure out how to make lots of money, you can buy your way into nobility.
Everyone still gets to vote. This does not change. If my representative is not pursuing my best interest, then I vote them out. If the public is too stupid to vote out a corrupt politician, then that is democracy in action. Good or bad.
Money is held and used by people. People don't "mind their own business." To try to remove people from an analysis of the influence of money is as flawed as removing people from an analysis of Communism.
We are not using the same words. You believe that the influence of money in politics will simply disappear if politics has no involvement in money, as if money can simply be analyzed as some non-sentient thing and nothing more. There is more, the people who actually operate said money, and they have interest in politics regardless of what policies that politics currently holds. They will always have interest.
They aren't inherently political, political influences politicize them.
Microsoft had no interest in interfering with government. They didn't lobby, they didn't send people to speak in front of congress. Microsoft was just interested in running their business.
What happened to Microsoft? Government started interfering.
And lo and behold, Microsoft now carefully monitors and interacts with government agencies.
(There are some who believe, and I'm inclined to regard it a perfectly rational belief, that Microsoft was targeted in the mid 90's specifically because it refused to engage in politics; the action taken against it was a threat, demanding political contributions in exchange for political "protection". Microsoft certainly seems to have taken it that way; political contributes went from 120,000 a year prior to government action to 1 million, to 2 million in the early 00's, to who knows what today. Certainly Microsoft hasn't been a primary target of the US government since it raised its political donations.)