Questions for you card carriers

ForkEmBucky · 02-13-2012, 12:17 AM

Do you really believe that the people in control of your party are better than the people in control of the other party?

Or do you think that both sides are elitists who abuse the constitution and drag the country down while they play their little chess game and ignore the complaints of the pawns because they're too egotistical to even consider the possibility that their priorities are driving the country into the dirt?

Do you think that prohibition was a moralistic piece of legislation?

Or do you think that Standard Oil got out there and used the paranoid puritans to achieve their goal of crushing alcohol as a fuel...because farmers were using it as a cheap, self produced alternative?

Does it bother you that such a conspiracy then generated one of the worst crime waves in American history?

Do you think that the President is really the most powerful man in the nation, and can single handedly do all this damage?

Or do you think that the real men of power put their people in a position to control the information...CIA, Secret Service...

Do you think those same people want marijuana legalized since the evidence shows that it is less of a burden on society than alcohol?

Or do you think they want it to be illegal because the international banks they invest in make billions of dollars BECAUSE those drugs are illegal?

Does it bother you at all that they didn't want to win Vietnam because they were making too much money on the heroin they were trying to kill the inner cities with?

Do you think the CIA wants to eliminate the cartels, or eliminate the competition that won't provide them with information on arms dealers and other information and $$$$$$ they want?

Do you think those people don't control many of your elected representatives?

Do you really believe it's impossible to achieve campaign finance reform in order to level the playing field?

Or do you think the bipartisan resistance at the top of the food chain is a result of these people trying to maintain their stranglehold over those who don't share their nation destroying priorities?

Do you really believe that party politics is where you should be spending all your energy?

Or do you think that it's simply a distraction meant to keep you from fighting for your freedoms where they are really in danger?

Do you really believe that separation of church and state was NOT an intention of the founding fathers, when they made it clear that nothing remotely religious should be legislated?

Do you really believe that by fighting to end abortion on religious grounds does not weaken the Constitution in the face of a growing Islamic presence in this nation.....a religion that constantly seeks to create Islamic Law?

Lastly...

Do you think the powers that be in this country truly believe in Democracy anymore?

Or do you think that they are a bunch of narrow minded elitists who couldn't see a real solution through their skewed points of view if the nation depended on it?

Go ahead and call me a gutless moderate, Juice. I've never seen you tackle the real issues. You know, the ones that could get any one of us shot if we ran on that platform and had any kind of charisma.

The truth is that my priorities are just well above distractions like gay marriage, abortion, defense spending.... I want to end to corruption. The REAL corruption.

Driaz · 02-13-2012, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForkEmBucky

Do you really believe that the people in control of your party are better than the people in control of the other party? only slightly

Or do you think that both sides are elitists who abuse the constitution and drag the country down while they play their little chess game and ignore the complaints of the pawns because they're too egotistical to even consider the possibility that their priorities are driving the country into the dirt? mostly yes

Do you think that prohibition was a moralistic piece of legislation? no real opinion, but in the abstract it obviously was moralistic

Or do you think that Standard Oil got out there and used the paranoid puritans to achieve their goal of crushing alcohol as a fuel...because farmers were using it as a cheap, self produced alternative? no opinion

Does it bother you that such a conspiracy then generated one of the worst crime waves in American history? I think most conspiracy theories are complete garbage.

Do you think that the President is really the most powerful man in the nation, and can single handedly do all this damage? nope, only people that try and scare other people make this stupid claim from both sides of the political spectrum.

Or do you think that the real men of power put their people in a position to control the information...CIA, Secret Service... nope, back to conspiracy theories of some secret cabal that really controls the government

Do you think those same people want marijuana legalized since the evidence shows that it is less of a burden on society than alcohol? I would say most likely if these same people you alledge think that the CIA, Secret Service runs the country, they very well likely think legalizing marijuana a good thing also.

Or do you think they want it to be illegal because the international banks they invest in make billions of dollars BECAUSE those drugs are illegal? and just how many different conspiracy theories are we going for in this thread?

Does it bother you at all that they didn't want to win Vietnam because they were making too much money on the heroin they were trying to kill the inner cities with? wow this is getting ridiculous....nope, I fully support killing off the inner cities with heroin

Do you think the CIA wants to eliminate the cartels, or eliminate the competition that won't provide them with information on arms dealers and other information and $$$$$$ they want? I think the CIA only want to eliminate you.

Do you think those people don't control many of your elected representatives?
I could only hope.

Do you really believe it's impossible to achieve campaign finance reform in order to level the playing field? Yes, because neither side views their sources of funding as wrong or bad and mostly they aren't.

Or do you think the bipartisan resistance at the top of the food chain is a result of these people trying to maintain their stranglehold over those who don't share their nation destroying priorities? No idea.

Do you really believe that party politics is where you should be spending all your energy? Party politics suck, but being a Democrat would be worse.

Or do you think that it's simply a distraction meant to keep you from fighting for your freedoms where they are really in danger? This isn't a bad point, but I don't see it as some conspiracy to keep us simpletons distracted by stupid party politics.

Do you really believe that separation of church and state was NOT an intention of the founding fathers, when they made it clear that nothing remotely religious should be legislated? I think there was a completely different understanding of the purpose to that amendment then what many wish it to be interpreted as today.

Do you really believe that by fighting to end abortion on religious grounds does not weaken the Constitution in the face of a growing Islamic presence in this nation.....a religion that constantly seeks to create Islamic Law? Not everyone that is against abortion is doing so from a religious perspective. One of the most adament anti-abortion guy I've ever met was agnostic and I would classify as a very much liberal thinker, but was against all death whether by abortion, war, death penalty. I'm going to ignore your second question as baiting trying to say those that do have differences of opinion on abortion are equivelent to wanting Islamic law as idiotic and irrelevent.

Lastly...

Do you think the powers that be in this country truly believe in Democracy anymore? I'm very cynical myself and I think most politicians start out believing in Democracy, but it's too easy to lose themselves in the environment.

Or do you think that they are a bunch of narrow minded elitists who couldn't see a real solution through their skewed points of view if the nation depended on it? Some yes, but as in my previous answer I don't think most go into it jaded.

Go ahead and call me a gutless moderate, Juice. I've never seen you tackle the real issues. You know, the ones that could get any one of us shot if we ran on that platform and had any kind of charisma.

The truth is that my priorities are just well above distractions like gay marriage, abortion, defense spending.... I want to end to corruption. The REAL corruption. That's all well and good and noble and shit, but it appears to me you think there is more corruption then I think there is. I tried to answer your questions mostly honestly, but had to throw in a couple bullshit answers to your more absurd questions.

This is a long ass fucking question.....I'll bold my answers above....

ForkEmBucky · 02-13-2012, 02:01 AM

What is so difficult to understand about, "Congress shall write no laws respecting(regarding) religion..."

Why is it so difficult to understand that GOD is a religious concept...as well as "soul."

I don't really believe that conspiracies are organized and constant. I believe that the people who have power take advantage of situations. Elements of CIA shadow ops were protecting drug harvests during Vietnam. There were also government/military personnel supplying the mafia with drugs. This is factual history, and it took a while to bring them down. They did....yet similar connections exist today.....unless you think it's a coincidence that the DEA has conducted investigations and operations in Afghanistan. I think a lot of people are making a lot of money, and I think those people have our government by the balls at the moment, including the banks.

I don't believe in any one organization moving toward one evil goal. But I do believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I believe information is power. I believe the real power is in the CIA, NSA....what have you. I do think there is a seesaw because of the political alliances that people make, so the office of the President is still a prize, and think that's why Cheney and Rumsfeld moved into the White House on the name of that idiot.

And I just asked the questions to get some of the people off their high horses and thinking, because typical party politics has prevented any real change or real inquiry.

Don't worry, I was expecting someone to be a twat about it.

"The CIA just wants you dead." Okay asshole.

I think you're just as full of shit as you think I am.

Driaz · 02-13-2012, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForkEmBucky

What is so difficult to understand about, "Congress shall write no laws respecting(regarding) religion..."

why do you fail to finish the fucking part of the constitution you are quoting????

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It's the prohibiting the free exercise thereof part President Obama and many lefties love to gloss over, and even fail to include when trying to argue this point.

Why is it so difficult to understand that GOD is a religious concept...as well as "soul."

I don't really believe that conspiracies are organized and constant. I believe that the people who have power take advantage of situations. Elements of CIA shadow ops were protecting drug harvests during Vietnam. There were also government/military personnel supplying the mafia with drugs. This is factual history, and it took a while to bring them down. They did....yet similar connections exist today.....unless you think it's a coincidence that the DEA has conducted investigations and operations in Afghanistan. I think a lot of people are making a lot of money, and I think those people have our government by the balls at the moment, including the banks.

I don't believe in any one organization moving toward one evil goal. But I do believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I believe information is power. I believe the real power is in the CIA, NSA....what have you. I do think there is a seesaw because of the political alliances that people make, so the office of the President is still a prize, and think that's why Cheney and Rumsfeld moved into the White House on the name of that idiot.

And I just asked the questions to get some of the people off their high horses and thinking, because typical party politics has prevented any real change or real inquiry. You asked a bunch of mostly rhetorical questions and were expecting to make a point? Why don't you answer your own questions so we can all learn from you instead?

Don't worry, I was expecting someone to be a twat about it.

"The CIA just wants you dead." Okay asshole.

I think you're just as full of shit as you think I am.

I said half my answers to stupid questions were stupid responses.....forget the fact you hate me, most of my legitimate answers probably jive with what you think. Yes, I do legitimately think you are full of shit if you believe the CIA runs the country.....hell in your first post you said CIA/Secret Service, then your second post it is CIA/NSA.....so many secret government agencies to blame.....

Do you think the CIA knew 9/11 was going to happen? In hindsight they had all the information available to them, just didn't connect the dots.....you see some secret bad ass agency that controls everything and I see it as another bureaucratic agency that is mostly inept....

sooner78wakeboard. · 02-13-2012, 09:03 AM

I am a registered Independent, both parties just find us annoying in that we don't fit comfortably inside thier circle and our votes are unpredictable. Then election time comes and the

begin.

JuiceTheGator · 02-13-2012, 09:39 AM

I started to answer each question, like Driaz, and then decided it was redundant with the way I think of it. ALL Fed gov't legislation has consequences, many of which are unintended and most of which are negative, unhelpful and contrary to our Constitional principles.

All federal social legislation, like prohibition, should come under extreme scrutiny by the people. None of that bullshit is the business of D.C. and should be delegated to states and/or repealed. This comprises A LOT of stuff. Our tax code is FULL of social legislation. So is nearly ever major law passed since Wilson's presidency.

As for conspiracies - I'm a fan. Knowing only what we know about NSA/CIA/shadow gov't activities in the past, how can anyone simply disregard any crackpot theory. They are capable of anything and have tried most crazy shit already.

ForkEmBucky · 02-13-2012, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Driaz

I said half my answers to stupid questions were stupid responses.....forget the fact you hate me, most of my legitimate answers probably jive with what you think. Yes, I do legitimately think you are full of shit if you believe the CIA runs the country.....hell in your first post you said CIA/Secret Service, then your second post it is CIA/NSA.....so many secret government agencies to blame.....

Do you think the CIA knew 9/11 was going to happen? In hindsight they had all the information available to them, just didn't connect the dots.....you see some secret bad ass agency that controls everything and I see it as another bureaucratic agency that is mostly inept....

I said information is power. Who gathers the information? There's more than one information service, I didn't list them all every time, big deal. Bush Senior was head of the CIA. I think the only people who have any kind of real power in the Republican Party are those who have connections to Bush Senior and his political/intelligence allies. Even Reagan had Bush Senior....

And by the way. The bureau has information regarding JFK that is sealed for what, 200 years? To me, that information seems imperative to understanding our own reality...and they won't give it to us. Nobody these days seems to wonder why anymore. I wonder why. I wonder a lot.

I do think that the CIA knew about 9/11. I think Cheney and Rumsfeld got Bush Jr. out of the way and told him they had it under control. I think they believed they could control it to the point where it would not be so devastating, and I think it backfired in their faces. I think they had ambitions. I think they were reckless with lives. I think it's pretty disgusting that they hold shares in Hailburton. And I'm REAL curious about whatever hit the Pentagon, because the only footage that exists does not support...in my opinion...the notion that it was a friggin' airliner. Look up who was supposedly flying the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon. Look up what section of the Pentagon got hit(counter terrorism...a competing intelligence unit).

I didn't post my post with you in mind at all. It was a general question to all the hard line card carriers. You're the one who took it personally and took shots at me. "The CIA just wants you dead." Wow.

HighTide · 02-13-2012, 10:20 AM

I doubt you will find many registered Democrats or Republicans here. I would assume that most people here are independents.

ForkEmBucky · 02-13-2012, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JuiceTheGator

I started to answer each question, like Driaz, and then decided it was redundant with the way I think of it. ALL Fed gov't legislation has consequences, many of which are unintended and most of which are negative, unhelpful and contrary to our Constitional principles.

All federal social legislation, like prohibition, should come under extreme scrutiny by the people. None of that bullshit is the business of D.C. and should be delegated to states and/or repealed. This comprises A LOT of stuff. Our tax code is FULL of social legislation. So is nearly ever major law passed since Wilson's presidency.

As for conspiracies - I'm a fan. Knowing only what we know about NSA/CIA/shadow gov't activities in the past, how can anyone simply disregard any crackpot theory. They are capable of anything and have tried most crazy shit already.

The bolded portion multiplied my respect for you infinitely.

I also appreciated the last paragraph, too. They scare the hell out of me. I think a lot of them are on our side(or we'd already be in worse shape than this), but I think some of them would twist this country into the sort of thing Stalin created in order to get their way, and I think those people have had a LOT of power lately. I think people have been removed because they were considered a threat to their goals. I think what they did in South America late in the 20th Century is UTTERLY terrifying.

I have strong opinions about things like abortion, but I just don't see it as a priority right now. The Constitution has been tampered with too much. I refuse to accept that either political minority(because the majority back Roe vs Wade but would like to see some restrictions placed on abortions) should be able to tie my hands behind my back, proverbially speaking, when it comes to tax code or campaign finance reform just because they have their fanatics so riled up that the media just can't tear themselves away from the distractions....which just happens to be real convenient for them...since the only reason they control their own parties is because they have a stranglehold on the cash.

sooner78wakeboard. · 02-13-2012, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighTide

I doubt you will find many registered Democrats or Republicans here. I would assume that most people here are independents.

I don't know, have you seen some of the way these people defended thier parties or basically trash the other one?

If someone calls out a political idiot, you can acknowledge or deny. But don't ignore the politications who are clowns and just use their position for power.

ForkEmBucky · 02-13-2012, 10:40 AM

Also, Driaz, I didn't finish quoting that line of the Constitution because all it does is reinforce that Conress should not legislate religion in any form. How the fuck can you say that the lefties are trying to repress religion when what they're trying to do is get religion out of government. You don't have the right to practice your religion THROUGH government, nor does anyone else.

Yet we added "under God" to the pledge of allegiance in 1956. We have people on the right who are against Roe vs Wade on the grounds that a fetus is alive because it has a soul...which is the argument I always hear the right use against the research that shows there is NO brain activity, therefore no self awareness or pain in the fetus before a certain point.

This is really a separate discussion, but tell me exactly how you think the left is working AGAINST the Constitution. So far, the only side I've seen LITERALLY pass a law that worked against the Constitution is the right.

Because whether you like it or not, adding God to the pledge of allegiance was unconstitutional. Period. End of statement. It was passed through the legislature, and simply put God is a religious belief. It is THE EXAMPLE of unconstitutional religious legislation.

JuiceTheGator · 02-13-2012, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForkEmBucky

The bolded portion multiplied my respect for you infinitely.

I also appreciated the last paragraph, too. They scare the hell out of me. I think a lot of them are on our side(or we'd already be in worse shape than this), but I think some of them would twist this country into the sort of thing Stalin created in order to get their way, and I think those people have had a LOT of power lately. I think people have been removed because they were considered a threat to their goals. I think what they did in South America late in the 20th Century is UTTERLY terrifying.

I have strong opinions about things like abortion, but I just don't see it as a priority right now. The Constitution has been tampered with too much. I refuse to accept that either political minority(because the majority back Roe vs Wade but would like to see some restrictions placed on abortions) should be able to tie my hands behind my back, proverbially speaking, when it comes to tax code or campaign finance reform just because they have their fanatics so riled up that the media just can't tear themselves away from the distractions....which just happens to be real convenient for them...since the only reason they control their own parties is because they have a stranglehold on the cash.

In a nutshell, this is the game today. Probably about 70% of Americans feel the Federal Gov't has become too large and overreaching. But there's this constant noise generated from every direction distracting the conversation away from this primary, simple fact.

I think the gov't needs to shrink. <noise> <but what about abortion? what about foreign policy? Obama lies all the time. Romney is rich. Why isn't the gov't passing a law about texting while driving.......>

Have we voted in fiscal restraint yet? < Obamacare won't work? Is Irael going to bomb Iran? Congress wants a raise.......>

Our attention spans are so short that it's not going to change. The Tea Party was the best effort yet to focus America on fiscal restraint. But even they were quickly derailed by accusations of racism and other bullshit. The State machine is massive and effective at protecting itself.

ForkEmBucky · 02-13-2012, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JuiceTheGator

In a nutshell, this is the game today. Probably about 70% of Americans feel the Federal Gov't has become too large and overreaching. But there's this constant noise generated from every direction distracting the conversation away from this primary, simple fact.

I think the gov't needs to shrink. <noise> <but what about abortion? what about foreign policy? Obama lies all the time. Romney is rich. Why isn't the gov't passing a law about texting while driving.......>

Have we voted in fiscal restraint yet? < Obamacare won't work? Is Irael going to bomb Iran? Congress wants a raise.......>

Our attention spans are so short that it's not going to change. The Tea Party was the best effort yet to focus America on fiscal restraint. But even they were quickly derailed by accusations of racism and other bullshit. The State machine is massive and effective at protecting itself.

Exactly. It isn't even just the conspirators and the social agenda fanatics who protect it. It's the lazy fucks working in the state unemployment office(for example), who doesn't even have to do the basic customer service that anyone working for Verizon Wireless would have to(they just push claims through without answering or asking questions), or know their product the way any tech support agent would, but wants to make sure he/she collects plenty of benefits and never has to work more than 40 hours a week. The whole thing is so impossibly fucked that it makes me want to punt puppies.

Smart · 02-13-2012, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForkEmBucky

Do you really believe it's impossible to achieve campaign finance reform in order to level the playing field?

Yes. I dare anybody to come up with a solution that "levels the playing field". Hint: You can't.

Also, I thoroughly disagree with you on the role and prominence of corruption. I think it is completely overstated. It might affect a vote here or there. On the whole, it really isn't that important.

ForkEmBucky · 02-13-2012, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smart

Yes. I dare anybody to come up with a solution that "levels the playing field". Hint: You can't.

Also, I thoroughly disagree with you on the role and prominence of corruption. I think it is completely overstated. It might affect a vote here or there. On the whole, it really isn't that important.

You're from Chicagoland, and you don't think corruption is a big deal. No offense, but I'll just chalk this one up to your youth.

And LOL @ you drinking the "but it's impossible" kool-aid.

Smart · 02-13-2012, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForkEmBucky

You're from Chicagoland, and you don't think corruption is a big deal. No offense, but I'll just chalk this one up to your youth.

And LOL @ you drinking the "but it's impossible" kool-aid.

Corruption is bad in Chicagoland, but that is because of the political system and influence as much as it is about money. Of course, there is bad nepotism in Chicago, too, but that isn't affecting the quality of the bills put through.

As for the impossible thing, it is undeniably impossible. We all have naturally different access to power, even without money, and differing levels of charisma and influence. If you take out money, connections will play a bigger role. People with familial connections would be more likely to win, as would famous, and those with connections to the broadcast industry. Money is one of the greatest equalizers in politics, because there are a hell of a lot more people that can gain access to exposure via money than via connections.

ForkEmBucky · 02-13-2012, 11:48 AM

So your argument against campaign finance reform roughly revolves around, "The playing field can't possibly be even because some people are just better than others."

Okay. But I'm talking about eventing the playing field in terms of money. Hence the word "FINANCE."

Smart · 02-13-2012, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForkEmBucky

So your argument against campaign finance reform roughly revolves around, "The playing field can't possibly be even because some people are just better than others."

Okay. But I'm talking about eventing the playing field in terms of money. Hence the word "FINANCE."

I'm saying that money is more evenly distributed than connections, so if you want a government by the people, for the people (you know, a representative democracy), restricting the influence of money is not a good thing.

Plus, I don't think it is unconstitutional to tell people that they can't spend their money to support a political goal. Of all the ways to spend money, why would we ban the most civically admirable one?

Smart · 02-13-2012, 11:55 AM

Here you go, from a paper I wrote (sorry about the formatting). It will be in two posts because of the character limit. The anti-corruption portion will be in the second:

The Flaws in the Case for Regulation
Introduction
The issue of campaign finance is one of the most important facing our country today. Whether or not we regulate campaign finance directly affects the hundreds of millions of dollars donated to candidates and plays a role in determining how trillions of dollars will get spent. People who support deregulation often focus on the issue of liberty and the ways that campaign finance regulation limits liberty. This debate often ignores the fact that even when issues of freedom are discounted, it still makes more sense to deregulate. In this paper, I will focus on four major arguments used by leading proponents of campaign finance regulation and explain why these complaints are without merit. This analysis of the issues of individual equity, grassroots movements, regulation’s true beneficiaries, and corruption will go to show that John Samples is correct in his favoring of deregulation.
Individual Equity

One of the major reasons cited by people who favor regulation is that it threatens “individual equity.” Indeed, wealth is not distributed equally. However, this criticism fails to hold ground for one amazingly obvious reason: regulation does not create individual equity either. In a system in which campaign money is limited, candidates would be increasingly reliant on exposure not related to money. This would lead to items that are less accessible and less equal determining power. For example, it is likely that family members of well known politicians would see an even greater advantage than they already have, as their opponents would be unable to spend money to equal their name recognition. Even more troubling is that candidates with connections would likely see an advantage. Bruce Springsteen admits that he uses his fame to sway voters. In a world without money to counter influence, celebrity endorsements would thus become even more important, creating an oligarchic system.
Some people will claim that complete deregulation will also lead to an oligarchic system based on money. There are two key differences that make this claim void. The first is that there is no threshold for money. The vast majority of people have money, to the point where a hundred or so everyday citizens could come together to raise enough money to get an advertisement on television. Fame is fundamentally different, in the fact that one hundred ordinary citizens combining their efforts would not guarantee publicity. Another key reason why this point is moot is that in deregulation, money is not the only piece of the pie. Deregulation would still allow for Bruce Springsteen to play concerts and allow grassroots groups to operate for their cause. The current system severely limits both money and grassroots action (for reasons I will discuss in the next section). If money is not the only factor, then money cannot be the sole determinant in a hierarchical system in the way that fame and connections can.
While deregulation would certainly lead to the introduction of an inherently unequal variable, it would still lead to an improvement in individual equity. It would lower the power of fame and connections, which are even more unequally distributed, as well as allowing equity-laced grassroots movements more power. In this way, one major criticism of deregulation is inherently false, and deregulation would lead to increased individual equity.
Grassroots Movements
One reason that campaign finance reform is cited as a positive is that encourages grassroots movement from the parties. This defense is as ironic as it is ill-conceived. For one, campaign finance reform has largely seen adaptations that mean that similar amounts of donations still come in to the political parties. This would really to question whether political parties are encouraged to go to grassroots campaigning. Even more damning, the only time that political parties had their grassroots capabilities challenged was due to FECA, a comprehensive campaign finance bill. In this case, spending limits were set low enough that they interfered with the abilities for parties to purchase necessary grassroots materials, an inherent risk when spending limits are imposed.
The bigger irony of this argument for regulation is that there is clear data which suggests that campaign finance regulation inhibits grassroots movement. Jeffery Milyo tested average people’s ability to legally perform regulated grassroots efforts by having them fill out the required paperwork to engage in political speech over ballot issues. What he found was that every person committed some sort of mistake, and 90% said it would discourage them from political grassroots work. Mike Wittenwyler, a campaign lawyer, even encourages clients to not even bother with grassroots activity if they aren’t willing to spend $10,000.
This would seem to indicate that deregulation would encourage increased grassroots activity from individuals who want to make a change. This would lead to a more active democratic process, something which both sides want. Additionally, the claim that political parties would engage in less grassroots activity in a deregulated system seems to simply be false, as campaign finance regulation has failed to limit their fundraising. When the regulation is applied to spending, you run the risk of taking away enough money so as to prevent grassroots activity. This major criticism of deregulation does not pass the sniff test, as it appears grassroots activity would thrive more if there was deregulation.
Who Wins Elections
One fact that is often cited by those who support increased regulation is the fact that the Senate is almost entirely composed of millionaires. They argue this is because the wealthy have a fundamentally unfair advantage when money is unregulated. There are a few major problems with this criticism.
The first problem is the very same problem that was exposed under the individual equity section: candidates who have fame or connections will have the major advantage in a regulated system. Another problem that is mentioned by John Samples is that concern over who is elected is inherently wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is not the job of the government to interfere in which candidate should win.
The biggest problem with the issue of who wins elections is that extreme regulation does give one group an inherent advantage: incumbents. Incumbents have better name recognition, meaning that they will benefit from less spending. They also have more of a record, meaning that they are more susceptible to negative advertisements, which would be aired less in a regulated system. Lastly, they have more experienced staffs, so they should, in theory, have the strongest grassroots operations. All of these factors which help to limit incumbent advantage would go out the door if campaign finance were increasingly regulated. Regulation also provides a dilemma where lawmakers create bills which benefit themselves, an obvious ethical dilemma that we would want to avoid.
The argument that we need to enforce regulation because we have too many wealthy in power is fundamentally wrong. Apart from the libertarian objections, it is also simply false. Regulation would benefit those currently in power, who happen to be the very wealthy people that regulation supporters say compose a Senate that has too many millionaires. Deregulation would lead to a system with more turnover and more public information about incumbents, which would lead to more accountability for incumbents. Once again, deregulation is preferable.

Smart · 02-13-2012, 11:56 AM

Corruption Concerns
If there is one reason that is most often cited by those who support campaign finance reform, it is the concern that unregulated money corrupts politicians. Indeed, it was this concern that lead to campaign regulation in the first place. While this is the most legitimate concern with deregulation, there are several reasons why the concern is incorrect.
The first is that the assumption that regulation prevents large scale donations to candidates is inherently incorrect. At this moment, just about any organization could spend unlimited money to get a candidate elected. This money would get spent independently of the campaign, but candidates know where the money comes from. Whether or not the money is funneled directly through the campaign should not change the fact that they are indebted.
Even more disturbing, this money can often be undisclosed using a loophole. This loophole allows one type of group which doesn’t disclose members (501cs) to donate to one that does (527s), who in turn run issue ads. This allows a candidate to receive support from an anonymous source, taking away the public’s power to scrutinize. This thus represents a greater risk of corruption than a deregulated system with full disclosure.
One major reason why deregulation with disclosure would not lead to corruption is that it allows people to see exactly where a candidate’s money is coming from and decide for themselves whether he is being corrupted. For example, those who favor regulation argue that deregulation would allow for corporations to donate millions to individual candidates. This fails to account for the fact that voters could make informed decisions based on this fact. If voters see that a candidate received millions from a bank before he agreed to bail them out (which, if the opponent ran an effective campaign, they would), it would allow them to infer corruption and vote him out. Thus, deregulation with disclosure would provide an incentive for candidates to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption. Though there is disclosure today, much of the list of big donors goes unreported to the public simply because there is so much parity. For example, there were 17 people in my zip code alone who donated $4,800 to congressional campaigns. Even if some of these people represented a sinister group, this would likely go unreported due to the pure amount of parity among donor amounts.
Instead of allowing donors to go through loopholes to support candidates with undisclosed money or allowing third parties to run unlimited independent expenditures, deregulation with disclosure would put the power where it belongs: with the people. The people could view their candidates with a watchful eye, providing a strong disincentive to avoid corruption. This “marketplace of ideas” would seem to indicate that deregulation would provide a stronger incentive to avoid corruption than the current system, making the anti-corruption rationale for regulation flawed.
Conclusion
Even when one does not consider the libertarian benefits of deregulation, it is clear that deregulation is the better option. Allowing money into the picture decreases the power of more unequally distributed features like fame and connections. Deregulation also encourages people to participate in grassroots movements, as they do not have to deal with unnecessary paperwork. Deregulation would lead to less incumbency advantage and a more informed electorate. Lastly, the claim that deregulation leads to corruption is simply false. It allows for greater public knowledge of where money came from, thus providing a strong incentive to avoid corruption. All of this goes to show that if our system were to deregulate, we would see a more efficient and open system.

02-13-2012, 12:17 AM	#1
ForkEmBucky King Nothing Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 21,284 Rep Power: 133160	Questions for you card carriers Do you really believe that the people in control of your party are better than the people in control of the other party? Or do you think that both sides are elitists who abuse the constitution and drag the country down while they play their little chess game and ignore the complaints of the pawns because they're too egotistical to even consider the possibility that their priorities are driving the country into the dirt? Do you think that prohibition was a moralistic piece of legislation? Or do you think that Standard Oil got out there and used the paranoid puritans to achieve their goal of crushing alcohol as a fuel...because farmers were using it as a cheap, self produced alternative? Does it bother you that such a conspiracy then generated one of the worst crime waves in American history? Do you think that the President is really the most powerful man in the nation, and can single handedly do all this damage? Or do you think that the real men of power put their people in a position to control the information...CIA, Secret Service... Do you think those same people want marijuana legalized since the evidence shows that it is less of a burden on society than alcohol? Or do you think they want it to be illegal because the international banks they invest in make billions of dollars BECAUSE those drugs are illegal? Does it bother you at all that they didn't want to win Vietnam because they were making too much money on the heroin they were trying to kill the inner cities with? Do you think the CIA wants to eliminate the cartels, or eliminate the competition that won't provide them with information on arms dealers and other information and $$$$$$ they want? Do you think those people don't control many of your elected representatives? Do you really believe it's impossible to achieve campaign finance reform in order to level the playing field? Or do you think the bipartisan resistance at the top of the food chain is a result of these people trying to maintain their stranglehold over those who don't share their nation destroying priorities? Do you really believe that party politics is where you should be spending all your energy? Or do you think that it's simply a distraction meant to keep you from fighting for your freedoms where they are really in danger? Do you really believe that separation of church and state was NOT an intention of the founding fathers, when they made it clear that nothing remotely religious should be legislated? Do you really believe that by fighting to end abortion on religious grounds does not weaken the Constitution in the face of a growing Islamic presence in this nation.....a religion that constantly seeks to create Islamic Law? Lastly... Do you think the powers that be in this country truly believe in Democracy anymore? Or do you think that they are a bunch of narrow minded elitists who couldn't see a real solution through their skewed points of view if the nation depended on it? Go ahead and call me a gutless moderate, Juice. I've never seen you tackle the real issues. You know, the ones that could get any one of us shot if we ran on that platform and had any kind of charisma. The truth is that my priorities are just well above distractions like gay marriage, abortion, defense spending.... I want to end to corruption. The REAL corruption. __________________ Born on third, thinks he got a triple. Last edited by ForkEmBucky; 02-13-2012 at 12:20 AM.

02-13-2012, 02:01 AM	#3
ForkEmBucky King Nothing Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 21,284 Rep Power: 133160	What is so difficult to understand about, "Congress shall write no laws respecting(regarding) religion..." Why is it so difficult to understand that GOD is a religious concept...as well as "soul." I don't really believe that conspiracies are organized and constant. I believe that the people who have power take advantage of situations. Elements of CIA shadow ops were protecting drug harvests during Vietnam. There were also government/military personnel supplying the mafia with drugs. This is factual history, and it took a while to bring them down. They did....yet similar connections exist today.....unless you think it's a coincidence that the DEA has conducted investigations and operations in Afghanistan. I think a lot of people are making a lot of money, and I think those people have our government by the balls at the moment, including the banks. I don't believe in any one organization moving toward one evil goal. But I do believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I believe information is power. I believe the real power is in the CIA, NSA....what have you. I do think there is a seesaw because of the political alliances that people make, so the office of the President is still a prize, and think that's why Cheney and Rumsfeld moved into the White House on the name of that idiot. And I just asked the questions to get some of the people off their high horses and thinking, because typical party politics has prevented any real change or real inquiry. Don't worry, I was expecting someone to be a twat about it. "The CIA just wants you dead." Okay asshole. I think you're just as full of shit as you think I am. __________________ Born on third, thinks he got a triple. Last edited by ForkEmBucky; 02-13-2012 at 02:04 AM.

02-13-2012, 09:03 AM	#5
sooner78wakeboard. Sooner Born, Sooner Bred Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: OKC Posts: 1,714 Rep Power: 17797	I am a registered Independent, both parties just find us annoying in that we don't fit comfortably inside thier circle and our votes are unpredictable. Then election time comes and the begin. __________________ Fear is the dark room where the Devil develops his negatives. - Gary Busey

02-13-2012, 09:39 AM	#6
JuiceTheGator Engorged Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Sw Florida Posts: 11,339 Rep Power: 32508	I started to answer each question, like Driaz, and then decided it was redundant with the way I think of it. ALL Fed gov't legislation has consequences, many of which are unintended and most of which are negative, unhelpful and contrary to our Constitional principles. All federal social legislation, like prohibition, should come under extreme scrutiny by the people. None of that bullshit is the business of D.C. and should be delegated to states and/or repealed. This comprises A LOT of stuff. Our tax code is FULL of social legislation. So is nearly ever major law passed since Wilson's presidency. As for conspiracies - I'm a fan. Knowing only what we know about NSA/CIA/shadow gov't activities in the past, how can anyone simply disregard any crackpot theory. They are capable of anything and have tried most crazy shit already. __________________ All I really want is to learn something new and interesting. Surprise me dumbass.

02-13-2012, 10:40 AM	#11
ForkEmBucky King Nothing Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 21,284 Rep Power: 133160	Also, Driaz, I didn't finish quoting that line of the Constitution because all it does is reinforce that Conress should not legislate religion in any form. How the fuck can you say that the lefties are trying to repress religion when what they're trying to do is get religion out of government. You don't have the right to practice your religion THROUGH government, nor does anyone else. Yet we added "under God" to the pledge of allegiance in 1956. We have people on the right who are against Roe vs Wade on the grounds that a fetus is alive because it has a soul...which is the argument I always hear the right use against the research that shows there is NO brain activity, therefore no self awareness or pain in the fetus before a certain point. This is really a separate discussion, but tell me exactly how you think the left is working AGAINST the Constitution. So far, the only side I've seen LITERALLY pass a law that worked against the Constitution is the right. Because whether you like it or not, adding God to the pledge of allegiance was unconstitutional. Period. End of statement. It was passed through the legislature, and simply put God is a religious belief. It is THE EXAMPLE of unconstitutional religious legislation. __________________ Born on third, thinks he got a triple.

02-13-2012, 10:20 AM	#8
HighTide Member of the Seniors Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Birmingham Posts: 3,259 Rep Power: 4565	I doubt you will find many registered Democrats or Republicans here. I would assume that most people here are independents.

02-13-2012, 11:48 AM	#17
ForkEmBucky King Nothing Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 21,284 Rep Power: 133160	So your argument against campaign finance reform roughly revolves around, "The playing field can't possibly be even because some people are just better than others." Okay. But I'm talking about eventing the playing field in terms of money. Hence the word "FINANCE." __________________ Born on third, thinks he got a triple.

02-13-2012, 11:55 AM	#19
Smart UW-Madison, Class of 2012 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,410 Rep Power: 15959	Here you go, from a paper I wrote (sorry about the formatting). It will be in two posts because of the character limit. The anti-corruption portion will be in the second: The Flaws in the Case for Regulation Introduction The issue of campaign finance is one of the most important facing our country today. Whether or not we regulate campaign finance directly affects the hundreds of millions of dollars donated to candidates and plays a role in determining how trillions of dollars will get spent. People who support deregulation often focus on the issue of liberty and the ways that campaign finance regulation limits liberty. This debate often ignores the fact that even when issues of freedom are discounted, it still makes more sense to deregulate. In this paper, I will focus on four major arguments used by leading proponents of campaign finance regulation and explain why these complaints are without merit. This analysis of the issues of individual equity, grassroots movements, regulation’s true beneficiaries, and corruption will go to show that John Samples is correct in his favoring of deregulation. Individual Equity One of the major reasons cited by people who favor regulation is that it threatens “individual equity.” Indeed, wealth is not distributed equally. However, this criticism fails to hold ground for one amazingly obvious reason: regulation does not create individual equity either. In a system in which campaign money is limited, candidates would be increasingly reliant on exposure not related to money. This would lead to items that are less accessible and less equal determining power. For example, it is likely that family members of well known politicians would see an even greater advantage than they already have, as their opponents would be unable to spend money to equal their name recognition. Even more troubling is that candidates with connections would likely see an advantage. Bruce Springsteen admits that he uses his fame to sway voters. In a world without money to counter influence, celebrity endorsements would thus become even more important, creating an oligarchic system. Some people will claim that complete deregulation will also lead to an oligarchic system based on money. There are two key differences that make this claim void. The first is that there is no threshold for money. The vast majority of people have money, to the point where a hundred or so everyday citizens could come together to raise enough money to get an advertisement on television. Fame is fundamentally different, in the fact that one hundred ordinary citizens combining their efforts would not guarantee publicity. Another key reason why this point is moot is that in deregulation, money is not the only piece of the pie. Deregulation would still allow for Bruce Springsteen to play concerts and allow grassroots groups to operate for their cause. The current system severely limits both money and grassroots action (for reasons I will discuss in the next section). If money is not the only factor, then money cannot be the sole determinant in a hierarchical system in the way that fame and connections can. While deregulation would certainly lead to the introduction of an inherently unequal variable, it would still lead to an improvement in individual equity. It would lower the power of fame and connections, which are even more unequally distributed, as well as allowing equity-laced grassroots movements more power. In this way, one major criticism of deregulation is inherently false, and deregulation would lead to increased individual equity. Grassroots Movements One reason that campaign finance reform is cited as a positive is that encourages grassroots movement from the parties. This defense is as ironic as it is ill-conceived. For one, campaign finance reform has largely seen adaptations that mean that similar amounts of donations still come in to the political parties. This would really to question whether political parties are encouraged to go to grassroots campaigning. Even more damning, the only time that political parties had their grassroots capabilities challenged was due to FECA, a comprehensive campaign finance bill. In this case, spending limits were set low enough that they interfered with the abilities for parties to purchase necessary grassroots materials, an inherent risk when spending limits are imposed. The bigger irony of this argument for regulation is that there is clear data which suggests that campaign finance regulation inhibits grassroots movement. Jeffery Milyo tested average people’s ability to legally perform regulated grassroots efforts by having them fill out the required paperwork to engage in political speech over ballot issues. What he found was that every person committed some sort of mistake, and 90% said it would discourage them from political grassroots work. Mike Wittenwyler, a campaign lawyer, even encourages clients to not even bother with grassroots activity if they aren’t willing to spend $10,000. This would seem to indicate that deregulation would encourage increased grassroots activity from individuals who want to make a change. This would lead to a more active democratic process, something which both sides want. Additionally, the claim that political parties would engage in less grassroots activity in a deregulated system seems to simply be false, as campaign finance regulation has failed to limit their fundraising. When the regulation is applied to spending, you run the risk of taking away enough money so as to prevent grassroots activity. This major criticism of deregulation does not pass the sniff test, as it appears grassroots activity would thrive more if there was deregulation. Who Wins Elections One fact that is often cited by those who support increased regulation is the fact that the Senate is almost entirely composed of millionaires. They argue this is because the wealthy have a fundamentally unfair advantage when money is unregulated. There are a few major problems with this criticism. The first problem is the very same problem that was exposed under the individual equity section: candidates who have fame or connections will have the major advantage in a regulated system. Another problem that is mentioned by John Samples is that concern over who is elected is inherently wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is not the job of the government to interfere in which candidate should win. The biggest problem with the issue of who wins elections is that extreme regulation does give one group an inherent advantage: incumbents. Incumbents have better name recognition, meaning that they will benefit from less spending. They also have more of a record, meaning that they are more susceptible to negative advertisements, which would be aired less in a regulated system. Lastly, they have more experienced staffs, so they should, in theory, have the strongest grassroots operations. All of these factors which help to limit incumbent advantage would go out the door if campaign finance were increasingly regulated. Regulation also provides a dilemma where lawmakers create bills which benefit themselves, an obvious ethical dilemma that we would want to avoid. The argument that we need to enforce regulation because we have too many wealthy in power is fundamentally wrong. Apart from the libertarian objections, it is also simply false. Regulation would benefit those currently in power, who happen to be the very wealthy people that regulation supporters say compose a Senate that has too many millionaires. Deregulation would lead to a system with more turnover and more public information about incumbents, which would lead to more accountability for incumbents. Once again, deregulation is preferable.

02-13-2012, 11:56 AM	#20
Smart UW-Madison, Class of 2012 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,410 Rep Power: 15959	Corruption Concerns If there is one reason that is most often cited by those who support campaign finance reform, it is the concern that unregulated money corrupts politicians. Indeed, it was this concern that lead to campaign regulation in the first place. While this is the most legitimate concern with deregulation, there are several reasons why the concern is incorrect. The first is that the assumption that regulation prevents large scale donations to candidates is inherently incorrect. At this moment, just about any organization could spend unlimited money to get a candidate elected. This money would get spent independently of the campaign, but candidates know where the money comes from. Whether or not the money is funneled directly through the campaign should not change the fact that they are indebted. Even more disturbing, this money can often be undisclosed using a loophole. This loophole allows one type of group which doesn’t disclose members (501cs) to donate to one that does (527s), who in turn run issue ads. This allows a candidate to receive support from an anonymous source, taking away the public’s power to scrutinize. This thus represents a greater risk of corruption than a deregulated system with full disclosure. One major reason why deregulation with disclosure would not lead to corruption is that it allows people to see exactly where a candidate’s money is coming from and decide for themselves whether he is being corrupted. For example, those who favor regulation argue that deregulation would allow for corporations to donate millions to individual candidates. This fails to account for the fact that voters could make informed decisions based on this fact. If voters see that a candidate received millions from a bank before he agreed to bail them out (which, if the opponent ran an effective campaign, they would), it would allow them to infer corruption and vote him out. Thus, deregulation with disclosure would provide an incentive for candidates to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption. Though there is disclosure today, much of the list of big donors goes unreported to the public simply because there is so much parity. For example, there were 17 people in my zip code alone who donated $4,800 to congressional campaigns. Even if some of these people represented a sinister group, this would likely go unreported due to the pure amount of parity among donor amounts. Instead of allowing donors to go through loopholes to support candidates with undisclosed money or allowing third parties to run unlimited independent expenditures, deregulation with disclosure would put the power where it belongs: with the people. The people could view their candidates with a watchful eye, providing a strong disincentive to avoid corruption. This “marketplace of ideas” would seem to indicate that deregulation would provide a stronger incentive to avoid corruption than the current system, making the anti-corruption rationale for regulation flawed. Conclusion Even when one does not consider the libertarian benefits of deregulation, it is clear that deregulation is the better option. Allowing money into the picture decreases the power of more unequally distributed features like fame and connections. Deregulation also encourages people to participate in grassroots movements, as they do not have to deal with unnecessary paperwork. Deregulation would lead to less incumbency advantage and a more informed electorate. Lastly, the claim that deregulation leads to corruption is simply false. It allows for greater public knowledge of where money came from, thus providing a strong incentive to avoid corruption. All of this goes to show that if our system were to deregulate, we would see a more efficient and open system.