AOC: Easy to be a bad guy in D.C.

[icehorse]

This three minute video is nicely done:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez delivers ferocious speech dissecting US political corruption

Is anyone here still thinking that PACs and superPACs are a good idea? Or even a neutral idea?

 

[suncowiam]

I agree with her on many points.

Political donations is basically legalized bribery. Both sides of the aisle accept them thus furthering the narrative that the rich rule this country.

 

[Revoltingest]

PACs are a good idea.
To prevent them would be to limit the right to free association for political speech.
Would you give government the power to prevent people from associating as a
group to exercise influence with government & the public? That cure would be
worse than the disease.

 

[Stanyon]

Buying influence is nothing new in politics but I wonder if she would be singing the same tune had Hillary won. I am also wondering if we would have ever heard of AOC had Hillary won since she seems more a reaction to Trump than anything else. As far as PAC's and super PAC's go more money is no guarantee of a win as we saw in 2016, nor does a donation and a win automatically mean that bills and legislation put forward will be approved:
Tracking the 2016 Presidential Money Race: Clinton vs. Trump
It's not perfect but it's what we got, before we go tearing things down in the name of progress it would be wise to have something workable to put in it's place.

If it doesn't work we can always blame the Russians

 

[Altfish]

PACs are a good idea.
To prevent them would be to limit the right to free association for political speech.
Would you give government the power to prevent people from associating as a
group to exercise influence with government & the public? That cure would be
worse than the disease.

Donations over a limit, (say $500) should not be anonymous. If you have no ulterior motive other than to support 'your side' and you don't expect favours in return then why shouldn't you be named.

The US system is horribly corrupt and the UK is heading the same way.

Jane Meyer sets it all out in her book Dark Money - a must read for anyone worried about democracy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Donations over a limit, (say $500) should not be unanimous anonymous. If you have no ulterior motive other than to support 'your side' and you don't expect favours in return then why shouldn't you be named.

I could live with that.
Btw, I fixed your post.

 

[Stanyon]

Jane Meyer sets it all out in her book Dark Money - a must read for anyone worried about democracy.

Seems a one sided political potboiler

 

[icehorse]

It's not perfect but it's what we got, before we go tearing things down in the name of progress it would be wise to have something workable to put in it's place.

That's not too hard. Just limit contributions and make them public.

 

[icehorse]

Seems a one sided political potboiler

Is it your sense that the peoples' will is being well represented in D.C.?

Everything I've read indicates that big corporations get their way in D.C. far more frequently than the people do.

 

[Altfish]

I could live with that.
Btw, I fixed your post.

It's been a long day

 

[Altfish]

Seems a one sided political potboiler

It would do to a Republican.

 

[Nakosis]

This three minute video is nicely done:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez delivers ferocious speech dissecting US political corruption

Is anyone here still thinking that PACs and superPACs are a good idea? Or even a neutral idea?

It's only a problem if people can't trust the folks they vote into office.

 

[Stanyon]

It would to a Republican.

*Fixed your post
Any proof to support your roundabout guesstimation?
(I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016)

Mayer or Meyer? not turning up anything with that title Dark Money by Meyer also was there a reason you left out the rest of the title of Jane Mayers Book?
Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right: Jane Mayer: 9780307947901: Amazon.com: Books

Perhaps there is another conspiracy theory book that implicates George Soros in something.

Everything I've read indicates that big corporations get their way in D.C. far more frequently than the people do.

Would this not apply to both parties?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's only a problem if people can't trust the folks they vote into office.

If they have a record in politics, then one
can trust them to do as they've done before.

 

[Nakosis]

PACs are a good idea.
To prevent them would be to limit the right to free association for political speech.
Would you give government the power to prevent people from associating as a
group to exercise influence with government & the public? That cure would be
worse than the disease.

Couldn't they associate and simply agree to individually donate?

I don't know if it matters much. PAC money seems only a small portion of most candidates funding. It's all pretty open too. A number of candidates are swearing off PAC money anyway.

 

[icehorse]

Would this not apply to both parties?

Of course! There was nothing in AOC's video that pointed only at the GOP. Everything she said applies to all of D.C.

So again, do you think corporations have more sway than the electorate in D.C.? I do. And I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think it's all legal, based on a set of laws that empower corporations.

 

[PureX]

Is anyone here still thinking that PACs and superPACs are a good idea? Or even a neutral idea?

If it pisses off the liberals, I'M ALL FOR IT!

 

[sun rise]

Real people, not pseudo people such as corporations, should be individually allowed to join PACs with full disclosure of contributions mandated and legally enforced. No dark money allowed.

But if corporations want the same rights, then we need a corporate death penalty - ie involuntary Chapter 7 - for corporations guilty of specified crimes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Couldn't they associate and simply agree to individually donate?

That would be quite a restriction.
Imagine if a corporation, eg, the DNC, RNC, could only ask members
to individually send payments to finance its political activities.

 

[icehorse]

If it pisses off the liberals, I'M ALL FOR IT!

I suspect lot's of people would agree with you. I find that to be a really terrifying mindset.

In other words, can we drop partisanship for just a minute? There are existential issues at hand that simply are not partisan in nature. Corruption is one such issue, and both parties are up to their eyeballs in corruption.