First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Has a portion of the Republican party been compromised?
14270 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Earf
Offline
Posted 3/5/18 , edited 3/5/18

kevz_210 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

We need to ban ALL foreign donations to candidates and their non-profits. Become a politician, whelp you can no longer receive any financial donations from foreign countries or people. America is for Americans not anyone else and they should have no financial say.


I'd go a step further and ban corporate donations including domestic ones in their entirety. Seems like a very obvious breech of ethics to me.


That wouldn't work. How're you going to prevent political dynasties like e.g Clintons, Bush's, Kennedy's from spending their own money within the campaign? These families have billions of dollars to their name, a few hundred million is nothing if it means you get to be elected to the highest office in the country.

You'd need to include an income and assets cap for any person that wants to run for government. Domestic/Corporate donations should be allowed but should be limited to funding promotional material strictly, ads, TV network appearances and staffing funds which further includes accommodation, food and travel of staff. The direction of funding spent should be directly tied to the campaign manager only a regulatory, independent bank will hold all campaign funds of which only the campaign manager may withdraw or deposit from funds, no other person(s) may make any deposit or withdrawal of funds including the political candidate. All other financial accounts tied to any political candidate will be frozen and all assets seized from government until either candidate concedes from race or election campaign is over (November 8th) alternative accommodation will be provided and vehicles will be provided via government this must also include security for a political candidate, all corporate donations will face a tax bracket of 25% for donations between $50,000~100,000

The taxation per $100,000 will increase to $450,000~500,000, a taxation of 50% will be pressed at this bracket and will cap itself also at this bracket for any further dollar donated to the campaign they'll incur no further taxation past this bracket, donations will also be capped per corporation at (1) domestic funds, exclusively funds from private citizens will be capped at $15,000. All funds will have their named listed in a private file network collected by a government organization all information registered must not be listed on any digital network and information and invoices will be provided to the citizen and also a copy obtained for storage. Citizens must also further provide (2) valid forms of ID, one valid form of ID of which there is (3) classes. A citizen must provide a category (A) with a category (C) or category (B) with two category (C). Passport, Drivers License or Social security card will fit into category (A)Bank card, Debit or Credit card, Health Insurance card these conclude category(B) (C) will include references to person(s), bank statements, library card, membership cards or letters with person(s) name.

That's just something at least I'd do anyway as an example ^ it doesn't include everything and to be honest I got bored of typing it out.


Posted 3/5/18 , edited 3/5/18
Where to begin, lol.
718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Everywhere
Offline
Posted 3/5/18 , edited 3/5/18
It doesn't need to be about Republicans versus Democrats. It doesn't need to about doing things like a Republican or a Democrat as a way to do things right. As we can all see both the Republicans and the Democrats has failed over and over. Why do things in a way that never worked? It just needs to be about doing what needs to be done to make things better in whatever way that may be. People need to work together for the greater good not fight each other since we are all Americans.

I'm just throwing this out there. I believe that Trump is neither a Democrat or Republican. He is just a person who is doing things that needs to be done for the good of America.
Posted 3/5/18 , edited 3/6/18

VegaStarX1 wrote:

It doesn't need to be about Republican versus Democrats. It just needs to be about doing what needs to be done. ( sic The)People need to work together for the greater good.


Working to reform capitalism into some form of peaceful libertarian socialism , in a nonviolent revolution much like Ghandi , a libertarian socialist did in India to the British Imperialists, no violent coup like in Russia, it was done once , can be modified to fit elsewhere ( W O R L D R E V O L U T I O N . )
22267 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 3/5/18 , edited 3/5/18

bandage106 wrote:


kevz_210 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

We need to ban ALL foreign donations to candidates and their non-profits. Become a politician, whelp you can no longer receive any financial donations from foreign countries or people. America is for Americans not anyone else and they should have no financial say.


I'd go a step further and ban corporate donations including domestic ones in their entirety. Seems like a very obvious breech of ethics to me.


That wouldn't work. How're you going to prevent political dynasties like e.g Clintons, Bush's, Kennedy's from spending their own money within the campaign? These families have billions of dollars to their name, a few hundred million is nothing if it means you get to be elected to the highest office in the country.

You'd need to include an income and assets cap for any person that wants to run for government. Domestic/Corporate donations should be allowed but should be limited to funding promotional material strictly, ads, TV network appearances and staffing funds which further includes accommodation, food and travel of staff. The direction of funding spent should be directly tied to the campaign manager only a regulatory, independent bank will hold all campaign funds of which only the campaign manager may withdraw or deposit from funds, no other person(s) may make any deposit or withdrawal of funds including the political candidate. All other financial accounts tied to any political candidate will be frozen and all assets seized from government until either candidate concedes from race or election campaign is over (November 8th) alternative accommodation will be provided and vehicles will be provided via government this must also include security for a political candidate, all corporate donations will face a tax bracket of 25% for donations between $50,000~100,000

The taxation per $100,000 will increase to $450,000~500,000, a taxation of 50% will be pressed at this bracket and will cap itself also at this bracket for any further dollar donated to the campaign they'll incur no further taxation past this bracket, donations will also be capped per corporation at (1) domestic funds, exclusively funds from private citizens will be capped at $15,000. All funds will have their named listed in a private file network collected by a government organization all information registered must not be listed on any digital network and information and invoices will be provided to the citizen and also a copy obtained for storage. Citizens must also further provide (2) valid forms of ID, one valid form of ID of which there is (3) classes. A citizen must provide a category (A) with a category (C) or category (B) with two category (C). Passport, Drivers License or Social security card will fit into category (A)Bank card, Debit or Credit card, Health Insurance card these conclude category(B) (C) will include references to person(s), bank statements, library card, membership cards or letters with person(s) name.

That's just something at least I'd do anyway as an example ^ it doesn't include everything and to be honest I got bored of typing it out.



I'm all for limits to individual contributions, and if we must allow corporations to donate (which I really do not see why this is necessary) subject them to a very low cap, although I still think as long as they are allowed to contribute it's still a conflict of interest (a majority of recent secretaries of Treasury were from Goldman Sachs, a company that donates to both parties for example.)
Our status quo system results in businesses and individuals wasting billions of dollars giving us mediocre candidates who give us nothing but never ending wars, increasing debt and a government that no longer cares much about the average system since candidates must spend a good chunk of their time and energy replaying financial contributors in terms of political appointments and beneficial legislation.
It just seems that a system with out of control campaign spending even if it is recorded results in a government that cares more about special interests rather than constituents. Honestly, I can't completely blame them since the contribution system incentivizes this type of unethical behavior.

I will continue to fundamentally disagree here since while I think many of your proposals would be better than the system we currently have they simply do not go far enough. It's not like radical change preventing this out of control money dumping campaign system hasn't been done in other Western developed nations already.

Needless to say, most of this conversation is more or less irrelevant unless Citizen's United is overturned...
10162 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/7/18 , edited 3/8/18
A portion!!??

And why just Republicans? In fact why stop at America?

Looking at Europe as well it seems that "compromised" is the entry fee into modern politics full stop.

What do you want to be beholden to - Pharma, Tobacco, Oil, Cable companies, Weapons Manufacture, Car manufacture? The list is almost endless so you might as well pick a devil that you like the colour of, or has some of the same ideals (power, money, freedom from laws).

You could make a PUBG style free for all combat game of it. Weapons (or maybe spells) based on what company you sell out to.
2094 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / PA, USA
Offline
Posted 3/7/18 , edited 3/7/18
Welcome to politics. It's not so convenient that any "one side" is more corrupt than another. It's pretty common knowledge that the business is rotten. We've had "slimey politician" caricatures in media for a reason.
3647 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Laramie, WY
Offline
Posted 4/29/18 , edited 4/29/18

kevz_210 wrote:
Needless to say, most of this conversation is more or less irrelevant unless Citizen's United is overturned...


True. Thankfully there's a lot of politicians and citizen groups that are trying to do just that. I'm actually part of one in my home state of Wyoming: www.wyomingpromise.org

Our goal is, through either our state legislature or a ballot initiative, to pass a resolution calling for a 28th Amendment to the Constitution. Said Amendment would assert that 1) corporations are artificial entities created and enabled by the state and do not possess the inalienable rights of natural persons, and 2) political donations are not considered free speech and may be regulated as necessary by federal, state, or local governments. When the resolution passes we will be one of about 20 states to have passed similar resolutions. We need 34 to call a convention of states under Article V to codify the Amendment, and 38 to ratify it.

The 2nd part of the Amendment has been getting a lot of pushback from pundits claiming we're supporting censorship, but they forget one key element - this Amendment in no way prevents a person from voicing their support for a candidate or lobbying for legislation. It merely states they can't use money to do so. This makes things fairer for all, because not everyone has money - but everyone DOES have a voice and a vote.

The Amendment doesn't necessarily institute these regulations - it just says, in no uncertain terms, that to do so is considered constitutional. In doing so we reverse Citizens United in such a way that even the Supreme Court can't touch it - it will literally be a part of the Constitution. As for arguments of whether or not it would be superseded by the 1st Amendment, current precedent supports the ability to repeal or supersede an Amendment or part of the Constitution by adding an Amendment to do so (that precedent being the 18th Amendment which enacted Prohibition and was later superseded by the 21st Amendment which repealed it)

Individual donations under this system would probably be capped, say, no more than $1000 dollars or so can be made in donations by an individual person for the same candidate. This way candidates would need to raise money from LOTS of supporters, as opposed to having a few uber-rich folks or corporations bankroll the campaign in exchange for favoritism on the debate floor.

Its a long way to go but with the amount of people who are fed up with the rampant cronyism on both sides, we're seeing a lot of support. We've actually got a lot of Republican supporters even, which is good because Wyoming is a straight-up Republican state.
22267 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 4/30/18 , edited 4/30/18

MyGFPushedMeOffACliff wrote:


kevz_210 wrote:
Needless to say, most of this conversation is more or less irrelevant unless Citizen's United is overturned...


True. Thankfully there's a lot of politicians and citizen groups that are trying to do just that. I'm actually part of one in my home state of Wyoming: www.wyomingpromise.org

Our goal is, through either our state legislature or a ballot initiative, to pass a resolution calling for a 28th Amendment to the Constitution. Said Amendment would assert that 1) corporations are artificial entities created and enabled by the state and do not possess the inalienable rights of natural persons, and 2) political donations are not considered free speech and may be regulated as necessary by federal, state, or local governments. When the resolution passes we will be one of about 20 states to have passed similar resolutions. We need 34 to call a convention of states under Article V to codify the Amendment, and 38 to ratify it.

The 2nd part of the Amendment has been getting a lot of pushback from pundits claiming we're supporting censorship, but they forget one key element - this Amendment in no way prevents a person from voicing their support for a candidate or lobbying for legislation. It merely states they can't use money to do so. This makes things fairer for all, because not everyone has money - but everyone DOES have a voice and a vote.

The Amendment doesn't necessarily institute these regulations - it just says, in no uncertain terms, that to do so is considered constitutional. In doing so we reverse Citizens United in such a way that even the Supreme Court can't touch it - it will literally be a part of the Constitution. As for arguments of whether or not it would be superseded by the 1st Amendment, current precedent supports the ability to repeal or supersede an Amendment or part of the Constitution by adding an Amendment to do so (that precedent being the 18th Amendment which enacted Prohibition and was later superseded by the 21st Amendment which repealed it)

Individual donations under this system would probably be capped, say, no more than $1000 dollars or so can be made in donations by an individual person for the same candidate. This way candidates would need to raise money from LOTS of supporters, as opposed to having a few uber-rich folks or corporations bankroll the campaign in exchange for favoritism on the debate floor.

Its a long way to go but with the amount of people who are fed up with the rampant cronyism on both sides, we're seeing a lot of support. We've actually got a lot of Republican supporters even, which is good because Wyoming is a straight-up Republican state.


Awesome glad to see others like you are taking the initiative. Getting large amounts of corporate money out of politics is essential to fixing corruption in Washington D.C., definitely agree that there is some bipartisan support for such a proposal.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.