To Topple US 'Oligarchy,' Sanders Calls for Publicly Financed Elections

a reply to: FyreByrd

This is a good first step, and I hope his bill is passed.

(and no, I still wouldn't vote for him in an election.)

originally posted by: Lostinthedarkness
Lol even 99% of the democrats wont go for this...

But it would be a good change this and TERM LIMITS would help fix a broken system .

Not really,

It means they would have to steal faster to secure that lobbyist job. Not to mention, like local politicians, they would just jump between offices and appointments.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Oh really? I can't think of a better example of the simple fix mentality that makes things worse.

At least now, the donations come from people in favor of either party. Highlighted by the Koch Bros. and George Soros.

The at least as well developed method is the Clinton foundation system-I'm sure there are republican egs, as well, yet this one is getting the exposure. Donate to a foundation is not only huge but shut off the campaign donations and that method will only grow.

Then there's the carte blanche that the very controlled media has on what gets news time and promoted and the control goes to the media on what the current views of 'we the people' think and will vote for.

Sorry this guys is slick, without doubt, but I'd rather have more varied donators rather than having influence culled to a even fewer.

Those fewer get even more power.....

Whats to keep them from funneling funds through the private sector?

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Whats to keep them from funneling funds through the private sector?

Laws.

If we revert back to the ideas set forth by the founding fathers, corporate money in elections would be unlawful and banned.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Whats to keep them from funneling funds through the private sector?

Laws.

If we revert back to the ideas set forth by the founding fathers, corporate money in elections would be unlawful and banned.

..........is that a joke? Because they are paragons of not breaking the law or circumventing?

How can you actually say that with a straight face

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Whats to keep them from funneling funds through the private sector?

Laws.

If we revert back to the ideas set forth by the founding fathers, corporate money in elections would be unlawful and banned.

..........is that a joke? Because they are paragons of not breaking the law or circumventing?

How can you actually say that with a straight face

My apologies. I made that remark assuming you knew about the original corporate charter system put in place after the founding of this nation.

Corporations were only allowed to operate under specific regulations, had to serve a purpose deemed good for the public and were not allowed to affect or manipulate politics.

Here is an interesting read from Harvard Business review blog:

Brian Murphy, a history professor at Baruch College in New York, knows a whole lot about corporations in the early days of the American republic. When the Supreme Court struck down restrictions on political spending by corporations in January, the ruling (pdf!) struck him as dramatically at odds with how the Founding Fathers saw the role of the corporation.

That’s right. Americans inherited the legal form of the corporation from Britain, where it was bestowed as a royal privilege on certain institutions or, more often, used to organize municipal governments. Just after the Revolution, new state legislators had to decide what to do about these charters. They could abolish them entirely, or find a way to democratize them and make them compatible with the spirit of independence and the structure of the federal republic. They chose the latter. So the first American corporations end up being cities and schools, along with some charitable organizations.

I could continue, but I please ask you read-up on the topic.

originally posted by: Metallicus
The problem with Bernie is he wants to use 'public funds' to solve every problem. Socialism isn't the solution to our problems.

I would prefer public funds bankrolling our elections to private funds.

originally posted by: Primordial
"Public funds" is just a nice way of saying another tax. Why not just make it a law that networks and newspapers must set aside a certain amount of time/space for political ads and debates?

Rather than them donate money, donate time and ad space. Running for office shouldn't cost a fortune.

The TV and news paper are the ones who get the campaign money, they are part of the problem. It's why almost everyone in this country agrees we need campaign finance reform, but it's almost never discussed int he media because they lose out.

The only way things will change is when we make lobbying illegal and take the money out of elections. Ban donations to politicians , criminalize it then things will trickle down and return to some normalcy. As we all know the whole lot of them are corrupt to the core , both sides bought and owned by the same big corporations. Until we remove this cancer it will remain terminal and we will all continue to suffer at the hands of these D bags. Whats stopping us from passing legislation against this ? Them , all of them.

Enough talk time to take action

Same goes with the media

originally posted by: FyreByrd
This is the most important thing we can do to help the United States. Get money out of the election. It won't immediately stop the revolving door between government and industry but it bring more sanity and 'restraint' to our process. I'm tired of 24/7 election crap year round.

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has been vocal on the campaign trail about the scourge of big money in politics, said on Sunday he would push legislation in Congress to provide public funding of elections.

"We're going to introduce legislation which will allow people to run for office without having to beg money from the wealthy and the powerful," Sanders told a crowd of about 300 people at a town meeting in Rollinsford, New Hampshire.

www.commondreams.org...

Amen.

And we must go bsck to paper ballots. Bush won in 2004 with electronic vote fraud, helped by the CEO of DIEBOLD, a manufacturer of non paper electronic voting machines.

Todays motto is...

LIVE FREE OR DIEBOLD!

originally posted by: mahatche

originally posted by: Primordial
"Public funds" is just a nice way of saying another tax. Why not just make it a law that networks and newspapers must set aside a certain amount of time/space for political ads and debates?

Rather than them donate money, donate time and ad space. Running for office shouldn't cost a fortune.

The TV and news paper are the ones who get the campaign money, they are part of the problem. It's why almost everyone in this country agrees we need campaign finance reform, but it's almost never discussed int he media because they lose out.

without election funds, it would be difficult for news outlets to fund themselves.

elections and wars...that's the bread and butter.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Oh really? I can't think of a better example of the simple fix mentality that makes things worse.

At least now, the donations come from people in favor of either party. Highlighted by the Koch Bros. and George Soros.

The at least as well developed method is the Clinton foundation system-I'm sure there are republican egs, as well, yet this one is getting the exposure. Donate to a foundation is not only huge but shut off the campaign donations and that method will only grow.

Then there's the carte blanche that the very controlled media has on what gets news time and promoted and the control goes to the media on what the current views of 'we the people' think and will vote for.

Sorry this guys is slick, without doubt, but I'd rather have more varied donators rather than having influence culled to a even fewer.

Those fewer get even more power.....

This makes zero sense to me. So because Koch and Soros support parties, it's ok that they can pay to get their way?

Last election 0.26% of the population gave 68% of the donations, with 0.01% giving nearly 42%. How exactly does public funding condense it to fewer? Small donations from citizens are also decreasing because so many people feel disenfranchised over the fact that they can't compete, how does disenfranchisement help our democracy?

Your role as a constituent is dead under this current system, you have no say beyond voting for who gets to follow through on their bribe. Once they get their money their hands are tied, but I'm supposed to not care because Koch and Soros support parties?

The need to raise money also guarantees that they spend almost no time actually running the government. There was a memo in 2013 that showed one candidate was advised to spend 80% of her time raising money but I'm not supposed to care that the system is broken, because the people breaking it support the parties of their choice?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan


without election funds, it would be difficult for news outlets to fund themselves.

elections and wars...that's the bread and butter.

yep, maybe they could save some money if they stopped producing those horrible entertainment news shows with extravagant sets, fancy graphics and crappy hosts.

So people here worrying about socialism you want all the money and power to be in the hands of the few greedy who will abuse and enslave you?


What do you call a system that will spend a couple of billion dollars for a two year election with any old rich person can buy any of the candidates?


And you’re worrying about socialism!


What do you think this system we have now is?


It’s an oligarchy where the few rich and powerful rule your life

As it should be ended!

originally posted by: Willtell
So people here worrying about socialism you want all the money and power to be in the hands of the few greedy who will abuse and enslave you?


What do you call a system that will spend a couple of billion dollars for a two year election with any old rich person can buy any of the candidates?


And you’re worrying about socialism!


What do you think this system we have now is?


It’s an oligarchy where the few rich and powerful rule your life

Yeah, pretty much there with Cloward–Piven.

a reply to: FyreByrd

You people just don't get it

The elite running this place and the shadow government is so well entrenched, they will not be removed without shedding of blood

Sorry guys

That's the reality

a reply to: Watcher012

You are probably right

Its well time that politics were open to all and not just the sponsored puppets or the rich. I hope this happens in the UK although queenie and her many cousins would hate it. It would provide is with a fairer model for all people not just the elite and would benefit a lot of smaller companies and not the massive corporations or other lobbyists who have planted their own people in significant places of power.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Whats to keep them from funneling funds through the private sector?

Laws.

If we revert back to the ideas set forth by the founding fathers, corporate money in elections would be unlawful and banned.

..........is that a joke? Because they are paragons of not breaking the law or circumventing?

How can you actually say that with a straight face

My apologies. I made that remark assuming you knew about the original corporate charter system put in place after the founding of this nation.

Corporations were only allowed to operate under specific regulations, had to serve a purpose deemed good for the public and were not allowed to affect or manipulate politics.

Here is an interesting read from Harvard Business review blog:

Brian Murphy, a history professor at Baruch College in New York, knows a whole lot about corporations in the early days of the American republic. When the Supreme Court struck down restrictions on political spending by corporations in January, the ruling (pdf!) struck him as dramatically at odds with how the Founding Fathers saw the role of the corporation.

That’s right. Americans inherited the legal form of the corporation from Britain, where it was bestowed as a royal privilege on certain institutions or, more often, used to organize municipal governments. Just after the Revolution, new state legislators had to decide what to do about these charters. They could abolish them entirely, or find a way to democratize them and make them compatible with the spirit of independence and the structure of the federal republic. They chose the latter. So the first American corporations end up being cities and schools, along with some charitable organizations.

I could continue, but I please ask you read-up on the topic.

Your snarky comment still didnt answer my question........whats to stop them, were this passed, from just funneling the funds?

Your reply was "the law"

But our politicians are notorious for circumventing the law.......

So I ask you again, this time I hope with less snark and attitude from you, whats to stop them from continuing to fund and finance their "chosen" if Bernie gets his way?