Ban political donations.

2008-04-19 23:04:16

#1

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6671|Canberra, AUS

I think it would help.

That way parties create policy which is more sensible and better for the country, not better for the fat fucker (i.e. developers).

Who's with me?

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2008-04-19 23:04:59

#2

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6443|Chicago, IL

seconded

2008-04-19 23:06:04

#3

DeathBecomesYu: Member; +171|6175

Spark wrote:
I think it would help.

That way parties create policy which is more sensible and better for the country, not better for the fat fucker (i.e. developers).

Who's with me?

I think it would be a huge help. Get back to serving the people you were voted to represent, not the guy showing you money.

2008-04-20 01:27:13

#4

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6320|New Haven, CT

Brilliant idea.

(4 srs)

Money and politics should be entirely separate. You can't have democracy if people are acting in behalf of those who gave them money, not those who actually voted them in office.

2008-04-20 01:27:34

#5

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6525|Global Command

Count me in.

2008-04-20 01:28:08

#6

S3v3N: lolwut?; +685|6514|Montucky

Word.

2008-04-20 01:49:24

#7

<BoTM>J_Aero: Qualified Expert; +62|6461|Melbourne - Home of Football

I don't agree, the political process requires money one way or another these days, politicians certainly aren't in it to turn a profit.

I do agree that the influence of special interests should be limited severely, one way to do that is to ban donations by corporations / interest groups, basically any type of organisation. Allow only donations by individuals, cap them at say, $1000, and make the disclosure of ALL donations mandatory.

This would still allow donations on a personal level, but remove the million dollar type donations that can surely only buy time with a candidate or a position on their agendas.

2008-04-20 06:42:35

#8

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6515|Πάϊ

with you all the way sparky

_ƒ³

2008-04-20 06:46:23

#9

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6647|USA

yup, in other words, ban special interest groups?? I am all for it.

2008-04-20 06:47:49

#10

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6102|eXtreme to the maX

The problem if its state funded the party in power then rigs the system so they get all the money and everyone else is frozen out.
It rapidly ends up a one party system.
Unless you have proportional representation and proportional funding.

A key problem is: With state funding how would you get a political party of the ground with a zero base?
It becomes chicken and egg. You're not allowed to raise funds to get going, advertise, print flyers etc, the state won't give you any because you don't exist.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2008-04-20 06:47:59

#11

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6577|SE London

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
politicians certainly aren't in it to turn a profit.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

2008-04-20 06:54:43

#12

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6515|Πάϊ

Bertster7 wrote:
<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
politicians certainly aren't in it to turn a profit.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

lol hadn't noticed that gem! muahahaha

_ƒ³

2008-04-20 08:42:45

#13

<BoTM>J_Aero: Qualified Expert; +62|6461|Melbourne - Home of Football

Bertster7 wrote:
<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
politicians certainly aren't in it to turn a profit.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Go to law school for 5+ years, then choose, become a politician or work commercial litgation and become a partner, where do you make more money?

Politicians are not primarily motivated by their own personal financial gain.

2008-04-20 08:45:27

#14

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6401|North Carolina

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
politicians certainly aren't in it to turn a profit.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Go to law school for 5+ years, then choose, become a politician or work commercial litgation and become a partner, where do you make more money?

Politicians are not primarily motivated by their own personal financial gain.

I'll put it this way... It's not the money a politician makes from donations or their salary that motivates them. It's the money they can make for their own business interests through legislation and government projects that does.

For example, Bush and Cheney have made a shitload of money from the Iraq War.

2008-04-20 08:53:05

#15

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6577|SE London

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
Politicians are not primarily motivated by their own personal financial gain.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

2008-04-20 15:47:27

#16

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6597|132 and Bush

McCain said he would make the guys pushing the BS earmarks famous. I think that would help expose the BS spending in DC. Doubt it happens though . You can find out now with some research but I want these jackasses plastered all over the front pages.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-04-20 15:59:37

#17

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6515|Πάϊ

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
Politicians are not primarily motivated by their own personal financial gain.

so... what are they motivated by? the love for their country? the urge to help their fellow man and do the right thing? lol

_ƒ³

2008-04-20 16:17:23

#18

madmurre: I suspect something is amiss; +117|6706|Sweden

oug wrote:
<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
Politicians are not primarily motivated by their own personal financial gain.
so... what are they motivated by? the love for their country? the urge to help their fellow man and do the right thing? lol

Power beside the money.

2008-04-20 16:29:55

#19

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6703|67.222.138.85

Negative.

Come on people think about this. It wouldn't change the amount of money needed to run a campaign, it would only limit the number of people with the resources to run. Do we really want to limit the pool of candidates to rich white men any more than it already is?

Now if you want to talk limiting how much money could be spent on a campaign period, I would be interested.

2008-04-20 16:40:21

#20

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6533|Long Island, New York

Spark wrote:
I think it would help.

That way parties create policy which is more sensible and better for the country, not better for the fat fucker (i.e. developers).

Who's with me?

Developers?

2008-04-20 16:44:08

#21

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6320|New Haven, CT

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Negative.

Come on people think about this. It wouldn't change the amount of money needed to run a campaign, it would only limit the number of people with the resources to run. Do we really want to limit the pool of candidates to rich white men any more than it already is?

Now if you want to talk limiting how much money could be spent on a campaign period, I would be interested.

How about banning personal money as well?

You're right.

Although, since most politicians are always going to act in self-interest whenever possible, is there much we can do to prevent it?

If its just rich white men in office, they will pass laws benefiting their businesses. If its a less rich person who got in through the donations of rich people, they will pass laws to help the rich people, as well as themselves.

I guess its choose your poison.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-04-20 16:47:34)

2008-04-20 19:22:33

#22

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6671|Canberra, AUS

Poseidon wrote:
Spark wrote:
I think it would help.

That way parties create policy which is more sensible and better for the country, not better for the fat fucker (i.e. developers).

Who's with me?
Developers?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/mar20 … -m07.shtml

(Sorry about the appaling bias, but it gives a decent overview and that's what I wanted)

Last edited by Spark (2008-04-20 19:25:00)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2008-04-21 20:48:48

#23

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,973|6628|949

Spark wrote:
I think it would help.

That way parties create policy which is more sensible and better for the country, not better for the fat fucker (i.e. developers).

Who's with me?

I don't think banning donations would impact the political process as much as you think. There would still be backroom deals, illegal bribes, corruption, kush positions available after politicians retire, etc. The problem isn't simply the money that flows in and out, it's the way the whole system is set up - it is set up to be affected by you and me ("everyday" people) as little as possible.

2008-04-21 21:55:52

#24

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6441|The Land of Scott Walker

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Negative.

Come on people think about this. It wouldn't change the amount of money needed to run a campaign, it would only limit the number of people with the resources to run. Do we really want to limit the pool of candidates to rich white men any more than it already is?

Now if you want to talk limiting how much money could be spent on a campaign period, I would be interested.

Agree with FM here.

BF2S Forums Ban political donations.

Spark wrote:

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

oug wrote:

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

Spark wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Board footer