US Politics: Papers of Nefarious Clinton Regime Released!

[Commodore]

Didn't Bloomberg run as a Republican?

sure, to ride Rudy's coattails, but he's clearly not conservative on anything but perhaps his support for law enforcement

[Suttree]

http://youtu.be/E8rvjq-Gdio

Campaign finance regulation hurts poorer challengers that don't have the means to comply with them, and in fact incumbency and incumbent spending disparity has increased since campaign finance regulation started in the 1970s.

Commodore almost has to be a Poe, there really isn't any other explanation I can hit on.

[TerraPrime]

Commodore almost has to be a Poe, there really isn't any other explanation I can hit on.

No, he really isn't. I've watched him post here for years, and he's the real deal.

[Commodore]

there's no award for who can most emphatically express incredulity/outrage at the things I post, so save your energy

[Durckad]

http://youtu.be/E8rvjq-Gdio

Campaign finance regulation hurts poorer challengers that don't have the means to comply with them, and in fact incumbency and incumbent spending disparity has increased since campaign finance regulation started in the 1970s.

If the alternative to incumbency is the tea party then, golly, sign me up for the incumbents.

[TerraPrime]

There's a super easy fix for that, which is full public financing of elections...no private financing allowed.

It's like the speaker in this video just conveniently forgot to mention how much politics were done via backroom trading, fixed primaries, quid-pro-quo corruptions, etc., in the era prior to the regulations in the 70s. Yes, there were no enforceable rules against campaigns and political actions before, it's just that those times WERE HORRIBLE for equity and representative democracy.

But you would not have guessed that, based on that video.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

http://youtu.be/E8rvjq-Gdio

Campaign finance regulation hurts poorer challengers that don't have the means to comply with them, and in fact incumbency and incumbent spending disparity has increased since campaign finance regulation started in the 1970s.

Even accepting these stats as fact, that video does nothing to explain how campaign regulation causes incumbent spending disparity. It certainly can't be explained by his argument that in the halcyon days before regulation folks could get together, pass around a hat and start a campaign. This might* explain a lack of independent or third party candidates but definitely not the spending disparity; the infrastructure of the two major parties means that there will always be a candidate with at least enough resources and experienced backers to easily navigate the purportedly onerous regulation. So there is no meaningful barrier for entry to a challenger in all elections.

*of course that wouldn't make much sense either, because obviously the two-party virtual lock on power in the United States well predates campaign finance regulation

[Shryke]

What about billionaires Tom Steyer (pledges $100 million to help Dems in 2014) and Mark Zuckerberg (spending millions pushing amnesty) and Michael Bloomberg (spending millions pushing gun control)?

All also bad. And not as numerous as their number pushing conservative causes.

Also, fuck Zuckerberg and his "immigration reform" which is basically a desire to undercut tech wages and unionisation via importing temp workers. Really, fuck Silicon Valley politics in general.

[MerenthaClone]

What about billionaires Tom Steyer (pledges $100 million to help Dems in 2014) and Mark Zuckerberg (spending millions pushing amnesty) and Michael Bloomberg (spending millions pushing gun control)?

I am totally okay with neither of these men being allowed to donate more than however much we decide someone should be able to donate to a campaign. I haven't given that number much thought, but it should be low. Very low. I am okay with zero.

[Inigima]

FWIW I like Commodore. We disagree on an awful lot of stuff but I think he is genuine and attempts to argue in good faith, and has stuck around to debate despite taking a whole lot of shit.

[Suttree]

and attempts to argue in good faith,

Not sure how that is possible given he just dissapears or moves the goal posts every time a point is refuted.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Not sure how that is possible given he just dissapears or moves the goal posts every time a point is refuted.

"refuted"

[awesome possum]

What are you arguing exactly? That the left side of politics in the U.S., specifically the Democratic party, has less money to spend on political campaigns than the right? This is demonstrably untrue as the past two presidential elections have proven the opposite. I guess what I'm asking is whether your objection to the Koch brothers spending their millions supporting right wing candidates and causes is about the corrupting influence of money in politics in general or are you just advocating that the side you oppose should be denied all funding from rich donors?

Do you need an extra bucket or any help drawing from that well of conclusions?

My argument boils down to the Kochs suck but so does private campaign financing in general. As others have said, elections should be entirely publicly financed. Letting any kind of private money has led us to where we are, where ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum are openly buying candidates and thus state regulations and laws (Wisconsin is a perfect example).

[Jackson5tributeband]

Do you need an extra bucket or any help drawing from that well of conclusions?

My argument boils down to the Kochs suck but so does private campaign financing in general. As others have said, elections should be entirely publicly financed. Letting any kind of private money has led us to where we are, where ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum are openly buying candidates and thus state regulations and laws (Wisconsin is a perfect example).

Taxpayer financed campaign funding always favors the 'correct' poltical opinions. How would a third party, for example, get traction if only government funding was available? What would the funding be based on? The two major parties splitting an amount 50/50? The percentage of the vote in the previous election? What you advocate would be terrible for democracy.

[TrueMetis]

Taxpayer financed campaign funding always favors the 'correct' poltical opinions. How would a third party, for example, get traction if only government funding was available? What would the funding be based on? The two major parties splitting an amount 50/50? The percentage of the vote in the previous election? What you advocate would be terrible for democracy.

Or every candidate gets the same amount. Why is this difficult?

[Jackson5tributeband]

Or every candidate gets the same amount. Why is this difficult?

So I'd get the same amount, should I nominate myself to stand, as a sitting Senator or Congressman? Really? Where do I sign up? People often think up solutions for problems that very often makes the situation worse. The U.S. does have a problem with crony capitalism, insiders doling out favors to businesses for bribes. The solution isn't campaign finance reform but to reform a judiciary who refuse to hold the political class to account for rampant corruption. Combine that with a public who rubber stamp 90+ percent of incumbents when it comes to snout counting time because they're promised free shit or the politician they support says the right thing about abortion or gay marriage.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Taxpayer financed campaign funding always favors the 'correct' poltical opinions. How would a third party, for example, get traction if only government funding was available? What would the funding be based on? The two major parties splitting an amount 50/50? The percentage of the vote in the previous election? What you advocate would be terrible for democracy.

Yea, we certainly wouldn't want to do anything which would create a political system dominated by two major parties with little-to-no room for third party ideas... :rolleyes:

[Seli]

So I'd get the same amount, should I nominate myself to stand, as a sitting Senator or Congressman? Really? Where do I sign up? People often think up solutions for problems that very often makes the situation worse. ...

One solution is to get enough signatures to show support to show you are a credible candidate, and be ready to repay the money if you fail to achieve a minimum percentage of the vote.

[The Marquis de Leech]

How we do it here:

Money for TV and radio advertising must come from a state-allocated pool. This pool is only available to registered political parties (who have at least 500 members), and is allocated based on past electoral performance. Private money may be spent on other advertising, so long as it does not exceed $300,000 in the three calendar months before the election.

The candidates themselves have to pay a deposit of $300, which they get back if they receive 5% or better vote share.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

How we do it here:

Money for TV and radio advertising must come from a state-allocated pool. This pool is only available to registered political parties (who have at least 500 members), and is allocated based on past electoral performance. Private money may be spent on other advertising, so long as it does not exceed $300,000 in the three calendar months before the election.

The candidates themselves have to pay a deposit of $300, which they get back if they receive 5% or better vote share.

I can only, then, assume that your government is in thrall of two major parties with a lock on thought-controlling public funding and there is no room for smaller parties to emerge- freedom lovers everywhere agree that this is the result of such a system.