• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

More info on money and politics in Washington

We need a Constitutional Amendment banning all outside money as we publicly fund all federal elections.
 
The guy who wrote the book wasn't keen on publicly funded elections because the people that would write those laws would be incumbents who would game the system.
 
There should be no way to game the system. It's not that hard to set it up.
 
Yeah, what sort of country needs unrestricted political speech? Just causes trouble.
 
If you lose your federal funding as one step and throw out of the race if it continues. It won't happen. Running for office is a privilege not a right.
 
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014...ons-funneled-185-million-political-nonprofits

1621736_634489113284763_860922316_n.png
 
Term limits would only make things worse in Congress. RJ is absolutely right about controlling the funding of elections. I'm pretty sure he brings up the German elections model like a broken record, but that's an interesting starting point.
 
bigdoublezero said:
Term limits would only make things worse in Congress. RJ is absolutely right about controlling the funding of elections. I'm pretty sure he brings up the German elections model like a broken record, but that's an interesting starting point.
Click to expand...

Yea term limits would make it worse.
 
Money as speech and First Amendment rights still seem to pose a problem though don't they?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Money as speech and First Amendment rights still seem to pose a problem though don't they?
Click to expand...

My guess is within pretty much as soon as Hillary replaces either Kennedy or Scalia the BS that money is speech will be overturned by the Supreme Court.
 
Corruption and $$ influence is going to happen regardless of the system. The only reason it matters more now is because of the size of federal government which makes it more lucrative and harder to control. Make it smaller and less powerful....and the corruption gets smaller because there is less $$ to manipulate, and the impact of the corruption gets far less. When the federal government budget was 3% of GDP prior to the New Deal who really cared? Corruption was easier to spot and easier to control too. JMO.
 
pourdeac said:
Corruption and $$ influence is going to happen regardless of the system. The only reason it matters more now is because of the size of federal government which makes it more lucrative and harder to control. Make it smaller and less powerful....and the corruption gets smaller because there is less $$ to manipulate, and the impact of the corruption gets far less. When the federal government budget was 3% of GDP prior to the New Deal who really cared? Corruption was easier to spot and easier to control too. JMO.
Click to expand...

Are you being serious?
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Are you being serious?
Click to expand...

Yes, those of us who believe in limited government are serious. It's not just the national government.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.

This would not be a problem at the national level had not the Progressives succeeded in nullifying the Tenth Amendment and expanding the Commerce Clause beyond all recognition.

Back to the original subject, exactly what kind of spending limits would you impose? Could someone start a blog against a candidate? How much money could be used for that purpose. Could someone distribute a book against a candidate during election time? After all, it takes gas money to get the publication to the masses? Would the person have to stop either of these activities at a certain point before Election Day?

I'm with Milton: Let the winds of doctrine blow.
 
Last edited:
I have definitely felt extorted by local pols. Lightly, because i am a small fish, but still. And the more wealth you get the bigger the target on your back. Nice little business you have there. Be a shame if anything happened to that rezoning you need to expand.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
 
pourdeac said:
Corruption and $$ influence is going to happen regardless of the system. The only reason it matters more now is because of the size of federal government which makes it more lucrative and harder to control. Make it smaller and less powerful....and the corruption gets smaller because there is less $$ to manipulate, and the impact of the corruption gets far less. When the federal government budget was 3% of GDP prior to the New Deal who really cared? Corruption was easier to spot and easier to control too. JMO.
Click to expand...

Please die clown
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Are you being serious?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The greater the influence the government has on our lives, the greater the impact of any corruption that exists and the more it matters. The larger the government, the more taxes, the more programs, the more regulations...all of which can be manipulated via corruption at our expense. The smaller the government the fewer taxes, fewer programs, and fewer regulations....and any corruption that exists impacts us less. Corruption is harder to spot with large government, it's easier to spot with smaller government. That means the elections people fret about don't matter as much with smaller government than with larger government. It's really that simple. I'm always a bit surprised that people don't get it.

I am a supporter of separation of social state and money creation. I think the one-size-fits-all FEDERAL social state needs to be moved to the states where it can be more effective and where it can be limited by budgetary constraints of state budgets. The federal government needs to get out of the social state business where it can just expand endlessly with inefficient programs via money creation with no check and balance. Each state can decide how it wants to address issues over time...and as a whole can be used as an experimental laboratory for what works and what doesn't. Corruption will always exist regardless of where the money goes but IMO it's easier to spot if in smaller pieces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top