Really.
So I could walk up to you and said, “Shodan, I just threw this really big party. We had a band and a buffet and an open bar. And I made sure to tell everyone that you were a great guy. It cost me a hundred thousand dollars but it was worth it to me to get that message out.”
Or I could walk up to you and say, “Hey, Shodan, I think you’re a great guy. Here’s a hundred thousand dollars.”
And as far as you’re concerned, those two are equal? You’d be equally happy either way?
It doesn’t force stations to run.more ads, it makes them charge double for ads so that they can give equal time to the opposition. If a campaign paid 1 million dollars for 1000 minutes of ads in the past they’d now get 500 minutes for that same price and the opposition would also get 500 hours. If anything, we should get less advertising because candidates know they get less benefit.
We want candidates to get a “free ride”, that means they aren’t indebted to big money contributors.
Why not read this document some time:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
We don’t need to use analogies.
I spend $100K to get you elected. I give you $100K to get you elected. How are you more indebted to me in either case?
Regards,
Shodan
But only the first one up will pay those fees, and that sure as hell won’t be the incumbent who gets free publicity via press conferences, publicity stunts and the like. Not only will the challenger have to foot the bill, but the incumbent can use the opportunity to get even more free publicity from the stations.
Article Two, Section Four of the United States Constitution : “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Consider the following situation.
Megacorps lobbyist contacts Congressman Smud and indicates Megacorp’s support of the “legalize indentured servitude bill” which he hopes Smud will support.
The next day Smud indicates his support for the bill as a necessary step to grow the economy.
Since Megacorp sees Smud is on their side the spend $100 million dollars in advertising explaining how Smud single handedly saved saved every citizen from destitution while his opponent molests cats for a living.
Next year Smud goes ahead and votes for the indentured servitude bill., and the lobbists come back and mention that Megacorp’s interest in a bill to subsidize the production of soylent green from indentured servants.
Now its pretty clear that if Smud supports and votes for the bill he gets another 100 million in campaign support that he won’t get if he rejects the bill. To me that means that Megacorp pays him 100 million to support the bill, which is the definition of bribery, but to others all that happened was everyone exercising their free speech rights that happened by pure coincidence to exactly match what would have occurred if Megacorp came out and paid Smud for his vote.
What you’re going to have to show is that Smud wouldnt have supported the bill without the contribution.
However, in general, the courts have disagreed that this sort of thing is bribery.
Elections aren’t the only problem, there is the fact that a lot of politicians pass and support laws that benefit industry XYZ so they can get 6, 7 and 8 figure jobs after they retire from politics.
Pass laws helping the oil companies, then get a 7 figure consulting job after leaving office. Something needs to be done about that. Right now they have temporary bans of maybe 2-5 years after leaving office, but I don’t know how much it helps.
But today the incumbent also gets more donations which buy access to him and make him endebted to groyps with deep pockets. Maybe we can eliminate the arms race of donations and political ads and go back to when it was door to door canvassing and other efforts of volunteers that mattered. Newspapers and TV will still cover speeches, press conferences, and demonstrations. Look at the coverage the Parkland kids got without having to buy ads.
Continuing thread from above. This chart shows that incumbents out raise challengers more than 5 to 1. https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/incumbs.php?cycle=2014&party=S&type=A
I hope you don’t think that setting up demonstrations and marches is free.
Are politicians who benefit from the lobbying the #Neveragain is going to do beholden to that group? Is that corruption?
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t understand your complaint.
I, an individual, want Person X to be my city councilman, because she says she’ll repair roads (including the poor excuse for tarmac running in front of my house). So I donate $1000 to her campaign to help her get elected. Because a few like-minded citizens agree with me, she gets sufficient funds to help her win the election. Then, not shockingly, she votes to repair roads, and my road gets repaired, and I’m quite happy.
Jones, Inc., a corporation, wants Person Y to become a congresscritter, because he says he’ll support a tax structure which, if implemented, will save Jones, Inc. money. Jones, Inc. therefore donates $1M to the campaign effort on behalf of Person Y. Because a few like-minded corporations agree with Jones, Inc., Person Y gets sufficient funds to help him get elected. Then, not shockingly, he votes to implement the indicated tax structure, and Jones, Inc. saves money, and is quite happy.
There is no difference between these two scenarios.
The only difference between what I’ve described, and what you described, is that you make the underlying assumption that the person elected will do the bidding of the persons or corporations which donated to them. But in most (virtually all, really) cases, there’s little indication that this is what really happens. Instead, what happens is that a person who already is politically/ideologically aligned with the interests of the donators is chosen for the donations for that very reason. Once they are elected, they do what they do not because people who donated say, “Do this, please”, where they would not do that had the donations not been made. Rather, they do what they do because they would do it anyway, and the only relationship between their actions and the donors is that the donors might alert them to issues the donors consider important, and those might get worked on earlier than they otherwise would have.
That’s not corruption, absent clear evidence of quid pro quo.
I would say no, it’s not corruption. Do you think it is?
Except for the repair of roads being a public good that benefits everyone, while the awarding of tax breaks to a company shifts its burden to those less able to pay. One is a responsible action by responsible public servants in the furtherance of the public good, the other is the opposite.
It’s only hard to spot corruption if you don’t want to.
No, I don’t. The OP apparently disagrees.
You said
The recent march is a group with deep pockets. Are the incumbents therefore indebted to them if they lobby on his behalf?
Regards,
Shodan
The recent march is *against *a group with deep pockets.
You misspelled bullet wound
Do you have any substantive response?
Regards,
Shodan
Is there a substantive statement to respond to?
Yes, there is. Read the thread and get back to us.
Regards,
Shodan