GE Profits

[pocketfullofshells]

if free speech = money then the SCOTUS did the right thing.

IF, but I don't believe it does.

If it does it means my free speech is just about nothing next the the free speech of the rich...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

if nobody likes what you have to say there will be no money or votes. why bother ?

if all candidates are made equal by eliminating money, then its just no votes nor need for POS to fritter away their time tilting at windmills.

no money and a national election...is pretty much a pipe dream. Heck we spent some 800 bucks more in a 2 week write in campaign for mayor...had we spent zero, very few would have even known what we stood for or that we where running at all.

 

[BigRob]

If I had my way, we'd hire politicians just like we hire anyone else. Advertise the position, and ask for letters of recommendation, and resumes. Paper screen those, and then hold an interview, only do it on TV, paid for the same way we pay for everything from sitcoms to soccer. Hold a primary election, then a series of debates between the top two or three vote getters, also televised in the same way. After the debates, hold a final election.

No parties, no fund raising, no absurd TV ads.

It would be perfect.

We basically alredy do that, minus the issue of making me support candidates I don't agree with.

 

[BigRob]

of course it is, money never changes anyones mind of course not....

No one should be entitled to campaign money simply because they decide that they are.

 

[BigRob]

no money and a national election...is pretty much a pipe dream. Heck we spent some 800 bucks more in a 2 week write in campaign for mayor...had we spent zero, very few would have even known what we stood for or that we where running at all.

Exactly the problem on a local level, we cant fund the campaigns of every John Doe who decides they want to run for office.... The first step is selling your ideas to get people to donate.

 

[PLC1]

how about we just take money out of it completely ?

publish your platform, allow independent concerns to stage debates, and let the people have their say.

everything else is just vote buying.

That would be the best option. I described how we could do it a couple of posts ago.

But, of course, that's just building castles in the sky. Business as usual is the order of the day, and raising millions to run ads telling the public that your opponent is a pile of dog manure is the way to get elected.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Exactly the problem on a local level, we cant fund the campaigns of every John Doe who decides they want to run for office.... The first step is selling your ideas to get people to donate.

there are limits you have to reach to get funding ( at least in my state) And also in MN at least...you get public matched donations...meaning I can give up to 50 bucks...but I have to pay that myself...and then later on I get a rebate for it back...its a good way to have people who don't have alot, be able to help more...and ease the need to just spend the whole election sucking up to billionairs for huge donations ( or Unions for some as well) It is a big reason why Minnesota actuly has a major party third party. My canadite raised far far less..but managed to win the endorsement of both major papers, and many state leaders...as I am sure you can guess...we fell short in the end when all the people voted there fears not who they wanted.


and in that 2 week time, we managed to get more votes then the incompetent mayor...but lost to the guy who ended up attacking a student with a baseball bat a year later.....man if we had had like 2 more weeks lol ...also so you know that money basically was paid for by the Candidate and our cell phone bills that we racked up. as our make ship call center...was all of us at the house with cell phones.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

That would be the best option. I described how we could do it a couple of posts ago.

But, of course, that's just building castles in the sky. Business as usual is the order of the day, and raising millions to run ads telling the public that your opponent is a pile of dog manure is the way to get elected.

Even without ads, there is huge costs into running for office..more so the bigger the office. we basicly have 3 choices...
A. Money is free speech...aka if your rich and get the rich donors you can outspend 1000 times over and drown your opponent in attacks while they can't pay to defend.
B. Campaigns funded only by the one running it...aka if your not rich you don't run.
C, some form of public funding where the rich and the poor and the middle class all could have a shot with the best ideas.

here in MN you have the option to take state funding..or raise as much as you want privatly....you can always tell what elections are by 2 who have state funding...2 who have no state...and what ones are 1 has state and the other pays for it themself..

one is 24 hour a day attack ads.
second is more debate about the issues
and the third is...are they even running against someone?

 

[BigRob]

there are limits you have to reach to get funding ( at least in my state) And also in MN at least...you get public matched donations...meaning I can give up to 50 bucks...but I have to pay that myself...and then later on I get a rebate for it back...its a good way to have people who don't have alot, be able to help more...and ease the need to just spend the whole election sucking up to billionairs for huge donations ( or Unions for some as well) It is a big reason why Minnesota actuly has a major party third party. My canadite raised far far less..but managed to win the endorsement of both major papers, and many state leaders...as I am sure you can guess...we fell short in the end when all the people voted there fears not who they wanted.


and in that 2 week time, we managed to get more votes then the incompetent mayor...but lost to the guy who ended up attacking a student with a baseball bat a year later.....man if we had had like 2 more weeks lol ...also so you know that money basically was paid for by the Candidate and our cell phone bills that we racked up. as our make ship call center...was all of
us at the house with cell phones.

I get that there are criteria to meet to get funding, but my argument would be the only criteria there ought to be is the money you raise by convincing donors you are right for the job... Not sow notion of a level playing field.

It sounds like you guys should have started earlier haha. I will admit the money in some races is absurd. For example, I ran a state rep race in 2008, and we raised, and spent, $500,000 on it.... Granted it was a huge district (larger than some us congress seats), and our opponent raised every bit as much as well. That is a ton for a state rep race, but special interests really evened each other out in that race.

 

[BigRob]

how about we just take money out of it completely ?

publish your platform, allow independent concerns to stage debates, and let the people have their say.

everything else is just vote buying.

What is an" independent concern"?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I get that there are criteria to meet to get funding, but my argument would be the only criteria there ought to be is the money you raise by convincing donors you are right for the job... Not sow notion of a level playing field.

It sounds like you guys should have started earlier haha. I will admit the money in some races is absurd. For example, I ran a state rep race in 2008, and we raised, and spent, $500,000 on it.... Granted it was a huge district (larger than some us congress seats), and our opponent raised every bit as much as well. That is a ton for a state rep race, but special interests really evened each other out in that race.

you say the special interest evened out...but thats often not the case...and one thing I am willing to bet is...special interest beat out the common person hands down in who really got some say. say your in one of those cities where one company makes up a huge part of the city...the population wants x, the company wants Y...the Company pays one Candidate huge amounts of money, puts up ads all over and spends a large some for him or her...the other candidate would vote against the companies issue and gets no money or help from them,,,and gets huge amounts spent attacking them. ( now this is assuming that this is not a super majority of people who back one side or the other..say its like 55 against what the company wants..45 for it...before the election cycle starts.....

knowing this I know who I would place my money on to win...and its not the person with the 55% majority on that issue.

 

[Gipper]

I am confused I think Gipper is crying about a huge rich company getting out of paying taxes with huge loopholes...and saying that Regan would have not let that happen?

Did hell just get realy cold? I think Gipper is suggesting raising taxes and that Regan would be for it?

You and THC consistently misrepresent my posts. Why do libs always do that?

As Reagan tried to do (and this was mentioned in the article...read it THC), these outrageous tax loopholes need to closed. That is not a tax increase. It is merely imposing taxes consistently and fairly. GE and many other large American multinationals have used their money to buy off stinking politicians to get their very own tax credits.

What about the the companies not large enough to lobby with lots of cash to get their way? They are at a competitive disadvantage and without competition, we are stuck in a corrupt and socialist hell.

Now with BO's ties to the big multinationals, I do not think he intends to do anything about it.

Whirlpool also paid zero federal income tax...

Many Corporations Oppose Corporate Tax Cuts
Despite a corporate tax rate of 35 percent, U.S. corporations paid an average tax rate of only 26.5 percent the year before the recession. But even this statistic overstates the U.S. corporate tax burden for many. For example, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that Whirlpool Corporation paid no federal income taxes on its $18 billion in sales and $619 million in earnings for 2010.

They accomplished this feat by taking advantage of production tax credits ranging from $75 per dishwasher to $200 per refrigerator. Thus, Whirlpool was able to stockpile more than $500 billion in tax credits for making “energy efficient” appliances. Not only did Whirlpool pay no taxes last year, they will carry unused tax credits forward so that they will pay no taxes until many of the overly generous politicians have “left the scene of the crime.”
http://economictrends.blogspot.com/2011/03/many-corporations-oppose-corporate-tax.html

 

[BigRob]

you say the special interest evened out...but thats often not the case...and one thing I am willing to bet is...special interest beat out the common person hands down in who really got some say. say your in one of those cities where one company makes up a huge part of the city...the population wants x, the company wants Y...the Company pays one Candidate huge amounts of money, puts up ads all over and spends a large some for him or her...the other candidate would vote against the companies issue and gets no money or help from them,,,and gets huge amounts spent attacking them. ( now this is assuming that this is not a super majority of people who back one side or the other..say its like 55 against what the company wants..45 for it...before the election cycle starts.....

knowing this I know who I would place my money on to win...and its not the person with the 55% majority on that issue.

It does depend some on the race and the campaign finance laws in place on the form such help will take... I will say however, in all the races I have managed, if there is a PAC that does an in kind contribution for their candidate, another PAC is going to be doing the same thing for the opponent.

You seem to be arguing that since the Republicans and Democrats have an easier time fundraising, that the system is somehow unfair. I don't agree, and think that when a third party candidate shows ther ideas are viable and connects with voters, they will have a much easier time fundraising as well.

I am not sure I agree either that special interests beat the common voter, because at the end of they day PACs cannot vote, only people can.

 

[PLC1]

I get that there are criteria to meet to get funding, but my argument would be the only criteria there ought to be is the money you raise by convincing donors you are right for the job... Not sow notion of a level playing field.

That would make sense if convincing donors you are right for the job didn't mean convincing them that you would take their side regardless of what would be best for the country at large.

Take ethanol, for example. Was that one a good idea for the country, or just for a few big growers?

 

[BigRob]

That would make sense if convincing donors you are right for the job didn't mean convincing them that you would take their side regardless of what would be best for the country at large.

Take ethanol, for example. Was that one a good idea for the country, or just for a few big growers?

By and large, the ethanol lobby has not really won a ton of large victories, and let's not pretend there are not interests out there lobbying (and donating to politicians) that oppose ethanol.