Are there still moves to reform the election contribution system?

1. 95

   watergeekposted 11 years ago

   Are there still moves to reform the election contribution system?
   
   This year the insurance/financial/real estate industries have given more to the elections than any other industry, by far. Goldman Sachs gave over $6.6 million. Renaissance Technologies (a hedge fund company) gave over $5.8 million. And the National Association of Realtors gave over $4.9 million. What do you think of this?

   replyreport
2. 61

   movingoutposted 11 years ago

   It just goes to show you, they will do everything in their power to maintain record profits at the American publics expense! Follow the money!

   replyreport
3. 82

   Attikosposted 11 years ago

   There are rumbles from incumbents and other members of the establishment that what they like to call "outside money" should be more restricted. That would certainly help protect them, in their dependence on inside money, from challenges. The story of federal campaign finance reform is a story of the in crowd entrenching and enriching itself by progressively criminalizing ever more threats to its own position. I can think of no reason to expect anything but more of the same should new legislation be adopted now.

   replyreport
4. 87

   adjkp25posted 11 years ago

   I wish races had a set amount of money, period, so these outside interests and super PAC's couldn't throw so much money at a candidate.
   
   Allowing these super PAC's to spend so much money, with limited accountability, has really cast even more negative light on our election process, it is really sad and unfortunate.

   replyreport
5. 66

   tsadjatkoposted 11 years ago

   Without a doubt it is a mess and a solution should be found. I think that an election Czar should be appointed and instructed to immediately solicit and receive solutions to the problem from think tanks and universities around the country in a massive brain storm attempt at thinking outside the box.  A commission comprised of "apolitical" clergy from the major religious organizations of the nation should then be given the task to review all proposals and from them come up with the best, most ethical solution which should be reviewed by constitutional lawyers to affirm it's constitutionality and then presented to congress for approval. They can vote yeah or nay, and probably nay, but you cannot have a real solution if this process is totally in the hands of politicians. The process of coming up with a real solution can only work if it is taken out of the politician's hands. Granted they have to vote on it, but once we have a real and ethical solution we can vote them out of office until we elect representatives who will accept it. It may take a long time, but just like this election, the voters need to take their country back!

   replyreport
6. 60

   tirelesstravelerposted 11 years ago

   Prop 32 in California is aimed at election contributions from Labor Unions and Corporations.  It's curious how much money the California Teachers Association has contributed to fight this.  Do you think it stuck a cord with them.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      watergeekposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      What I've heard is that it removes the ability for corporations and unions to take money from people's paychecks or union dues for political reasons . . . but only unions do that. Corporations pull their donation money from other sources.

      replyreport
7. 95

   watergeekposted 11 years ago

   Thank you everyone. These are some very good ideas and observations. I think it's becoming more and more clear that voters will have to take matters into our own hands to create a new system. tsadjatko is right when he says that incumbents are not separated enough from it to be able to see what to do.

   replyreport