Forum Thread

The difference in thieves,scoundrels and real public servants

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 3 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Someone put up a link that we found to be enlightening and interesting.We will share that with you here,you should find it to be the same.  What they do is follow the money.In government,and the results,while not surprising you,might either make you sick or mad.Either one will do.
      Some of you who have read posts I put up,know that I write for another website,and we did an article today on information we gleaned from sopatrack.I have no idea why you don't have to put www after the hh thing,but computers aren't really my strong suit.People who know me well, say writing isn't either.One does the best one can.
      Since I have been a member here,I have submitted three articles written by our website for moderator approval,and we were extremely proud that all three were approved.They reside in the elections section.
      And I forgot exactly how I submitted them for approval.But,since we would like for readers of this much larger site to read this latest missive,I'll take a chance and give you a link here.  And the title of the article is close to the title of this post. It's entitled "On thieves,scoundrels,and public servants" It goes into detail on the "follow the money" theory.It confirms what most,if not all of us on this site already suspected,but couldn't exactly prove.That the Re-Pubs vote with the money far more than they vote against(four members have a 100% with the money record.100%!)And the exact opposite is true,by and large,for the Democrats.As suspected.
      And we go into a small amount of detail on how we would solve this issue,once and for all,along with returning us to a "citizen" government.The last five paragraphs are what we would like to have feedback on.Our site is set up to take comments,but it is sort of an engaged process.We're working on that. What we really would beg of you if you have the read the article and comment on this thread.Up or down,don't be concerned with hurting our feelings,we don't care.We are only trying to raise awareness on this and other crucial issues.
      The feedback we are really looking for are the suggestions we make for total campaign finance reform.Reform might actually be too mild of a word.More like re-making it all together.Good ideas?Bad ideas?Crazy ideas? Whatever.we would like to know what like minded people think. So,if you have the time,this would be much appreciated.And we do thank you for your time.the article,like all of them on our site,are wordy.To the extreme sometimes.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Gymrat -- I am finally getting around to responding to your article, On Thieves, scoundrels, and public servants in

    I ideally agree with everything you wrote.  I have often said that in trying to understand politician's motives for voting as they do, one just needs to "follow the money" this case the legalized corruption of money in politics...buying your politician. It is profitable for the big spenders (buyers) like the 46 that you pointed out on the Chris Matthews show.

    Not mentioned is another form of "blackmail money" in which politicians that don't conform to a certain agenda are targeted for defeat.  The most notorious rogue practicing that form of blackmail is Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform who work to defeat any candidate for public office (Democrat or Republican) that does not support his anti-tax pledge. He has been enormously successful in this blackmail effort by getting 270 members of Congress and all Presidential candidates except Jon Huntsman to sign his pledge. And look what happened to Jon Huntsman.

    Practically speaking, however, campaign finance reform, either along the lines you have proposed, or some other proposal (see Wikipedia, Campaign Finance Reform) is not likely to be approved anytime soon.  The most recent attempt, the Disclose Act of 2010, modest as it was after watering down, needed just one Republican to pass the filibuster. None stepped forward. The bill failed.

    Money in politics is not only associated with buying votes, it is also big business for the media giants. The more political ads, positive and negative, the more it is good for the cable news and major networks.  And the closer the race the better for them. Thus I see a tendency to slant the rhetoric in favor of the underdog...make the race close. Take lots of opinion polls to reinforce the "closeness of the race."  It's happening now.

    Those legitimate candidates like Buddy Roemer who pledge to take no donation greater than $100 are pushed off the stage by the media giants that want the big money spenders only in the game. They are not allowed in this high stakes poker game, and even if they are allowed on the debate stage, they will be given few pertinent questions.

    The Presidential election season is highly profitable.  I don't see any politicians changing it. It has to be a grass roots effort.


  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Unfortunately,and with sadness...I have to agree with you.At least in the political climate we find ourselves in now.We knew when we floated the idea of removing the money,it was a non starter,at least this year.And what we were really after,was not so much to do away with individual donations to candidates that a person supports,what we wanted was the opening up of state and federal congressional races to a much wider and more diverse range of candidates.I know you agree,that as it stands now,the main qualification for running for elected office is ones ability to raise staggering amounts of cash.(read:bribes)Realistically,and that's what we have to focus on,reality,we would like to see some ideas floated along these lines,and see if we can at least get a national conversation going.(I'm notorious for being optimistic when it comes to the people of our country).It doesn't even have to contain thousands upon thousands of people,at first,that might,maybe, come later.We hope.
      Anyway,it was just an article we felt like putting out there,and seeing what,if any,response we got. We now have the grand total of ONE response.And you and I communicating,well,that counts as a conversation,right?
      Thanks for reading it,I like to have your feedback.I fear you are a tad bit more realistic than I.Must be that engineer thing coming out in you.Take care...TTYL