posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 12:19 PM
When I first saw this story and even now that this was brought back here is what can be stated:
What is the difference? What is the difference between what Rosie did and what Lobbyists do ever single day and during the campaigns? The main
difference, at least with Rosie we can see, as it is in the light, while with lobbyists it is done behind closed doors and in the dark.
Did anyone ever stop, and consider, that money buys votes, no matter what? Take a look at the politicians, and their voting record, and then put it
up against where the money for their campaigns come from and it is as clear as day how the reasons why they vote.
The NRA spends millions on campaign contributions and low and behold the politician who has gotten some of that money, upwards to millions of dollars
in campaign contributions are all seem to vote No on any and all gun legislation time and time again.
Tom Cotton, Senator from Arkansas, well if you look at his major political donors and the money spent, and then look at his voting record, it clearly
reflects their will, time and time again. And the list goes on.
The reality is that both sides do this, the gather money from big donors, but said donors want something in return and usually it is a vote here or a
policy nudge there all in the favor of the one who donated the cash in the first place.
So I ask again, what is the difference between what Rosie did and any lobbyist or political group or individual giving money to a politician, beyond
one was done in the light and the other is done in the dark.
If you want to start draining the swamp, then perhaps starting in our own back yards, removing the candidates money would be a start, stop having
political campaigns from getting large amounts of money from any one source and make them keep it local and under the control of a state officials,
made up of say people who are not affiliated with any political party, would probably be the first start.