So which party is in the corporation's pockets?

sickboy

Active Member
That is interesting....
If Republicans spent less time "de-regulating" then they may not be labeled as "in the pocket of big business." As that show's, all but Oil & Gas companies don't believe in Republican ideals, so why would we trust them to run the economy? If business thought Rep ideas were "good" for them, they wouldn't support the Dems so much.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3162176
That is interesting....
If Republicans spent less time "de-regulating" then they may not be labeled as "in the pocket of big business." As that show's, all but Oil & Gas companies don't believe in Republican ideals, so why would we trust them to run the economy? If business thought Rep ideas were "good" for them, they wouldn't support the Dems so much.
Part of it is party in power type of thing. You don't bribe someone who can't pay you back.
By the way, which party tried to increase regulation on Fanny May and Freddie Mac and which party provided to opposition to said regulation?
 

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3162228
By the way, which party tried to increase regulation on Fanny May and Freddie Mac and which party provided to opposition to said regulation?
But how many people realize this? Not that many, so the perception remains.
I think more than ever, we need a couple viable third parties. People always complain that "then nothing would get done", but sometimes, like now, we need it to be slowed down. If it IS a really good idea, 4 parties could act just as fast as 2. A properly run (or equally funded, but that is a whole new debate) third party candidates could have won a lot of votes in the congress where many people voted not for Democrats, but against "failed broken record Republican policies," and then the Dems couldn't be forcing their will down America's throats. At least my local Dem is more like an independent and will likely not vote for a public option.
 

fishtaco

Active Member
Reefraff, they are simply bribing those with the power, if the GOP takes back the majority, I'm positive those numbers will swing the other way again. What would make me happy is to see zero's instead of millions. I'm for making it illegal to lobby at all with money or gifts. Also the practice of going strait from the house or senate to a lobby firm should also be stopped. As usual I hate all this stuff and anyone who thinks that one party is more honest than the other is fooling themselves.
Fishtaco
 

reefraff

Active Member
I am all for changing the law so you must be eligible to vote for a candidate to donate to their campaigns. There were a couple of Democrat candidates in montana that ran for the state legislature and got more money from out of state than within, that was ridiculous but what is ever worse was the dems campaign that year was Republicans being in the lobbyists pockets, their candidate for state offices got more campaign fund from New York and DC than their opponents did for their whole campaign but it was Republicans who were in lobbyists pockets and people bought it
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3162313
Reefraff, they are simply bribing those with the power, if the GOP takes back the majority, I'm positive those numbers will swing the other way again. What would make me happy is to see zero's instead of millions. I'm for making it illegal to lobby at all with money or gifts. Also the practice of going strait from the house or senate to a lobby firm should also be stopped. As usual I hate all this stuff and anyone who thinks that one party is more honest than the other is fooling themselves.
Fishtaco
It isn't even a matter of honesty. It is someone doing what it takes to be elected or re elected. It just snowballs from there.
The problem I have is the democrats being absolutely in the unions and lawyers pockets whether in power or not and then taking just as much if not more from corporate interest than the publicans yet the media wont report that, only the Republicans being for big business.
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3162363
I am all for changing the law so you must be eligible to vote for a candidate to donate to their campaigns.
Good idea, if it were practicable. Trouble is, the same legislators receiving donations would be the ones voting on the bill.
In CA, we're allowed to bypass the legislature and go directly to a public referendum. Trouble there is, that the referenda themselves are occaisionally also funded by majority out of State contributions.
It would also do nothing to curb abuses on the Federal level.
What I would say, is that campaign contributions should go into a general fund and be evenly distributed among the candidates. Not only would that remove corporate interest/influence, but the playing field among candidates would be leveled.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3162603
Good idea, if it were practicable. Trouble is, the same legislators receiving donations would be the ones voting on the bill.
In CA, we're allowed to bypass the legislature and go directly to a public referendum. Trouble there is, that the referenda themselves are occaisionally also funded by majority out of State contributions.
It would also do nothing to curb abuses on the Federal level.
What I would say, is that campaign contributions should go into a general fund and be evenly distributed among the candidates. Not only would that remove corporate interest/influence, but the playing field among candidates would be leveled.
Why should I be forced to give my money to a candidate I would rather shoot in the head than vote for, let alone support?
Corporations, Unions, Lobbyists etc. cannot vote, therefore the candidates cannot accept one dime from them under my plan. Only eligible voters.
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3162720
Why should I be forced to give my money to a candidate I would rather shoot in the head than vote for, let alone support?
You're not being forced. You don't like the candidates, don't contribute.
Corporations, Unions, Lobbyists etc. cannot vote, therefore the candidates cannot accept one dime from them under my plan. Only eligible voters.
Except that, unless you can design an airtight law, there will be workarounds to it. No, corporations, etc. cannot vote, but their employees can...
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3163372
You're not being forced. You don't like the candidates, don't contribute.
Except that, unless you can design an airtight law, there will be workarounds to it. No, corporations, etc. cannot vote, but their employees can...
So I am faced with the choice of supporting all candidates or none, I don't think so Skippy.
Airtight law is simple. The candidate has to show where there donations come from. If the cross check for the name and address doesn't pop a registered voter the donation has to be returned. Really quite simple and hard to scam, which is why the politicians will never let it happen.
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3163388
So I am faced with the choice of supporting all candidates or none, I don't think so Skippy.
Love being called Skippy. I respond well to that.

Airtight law is simple. The candidate has to show where there donations come from. If the cross check for the name and address doesn't pop a registered voter the donation has to be returned. Really quite simple and hard to scam, which is why the politicians will never let it happen.
In theory, airtight law is simple. In practice it doesn't exist. Theory is always simpler than practice.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3163687
Love being called Skippy. I respond well to that.

In theory, airtight law is simple. In practice it doesn't exist. Theory is always simpler than practice.
This one would need voter registration fraud to be scammed. Nothing is perfectly simple but this one would be very doable and easy to police.
 
Top