Empty Promises from Democratic Candidates

[Nous]

As noted in a brief segment of Morning Edition from NPR News, all of the Democrats who have to date declared their candidacy for President have promised that they would not "take" money from corporate PACs or Super PACs. I ask: What is accomplished by such a promise? I ask that you listen to the 3-minute segment and explain what is accomplished by this promise:

Democratic Presidential Candidates Say 'No' To Corporate PAC Money

What the hell is supposed to be the purpose of this promise? Does it bring in a vote from someone who would otherwise vote for Trump or who might not vote at all? Are these candidates just unable to think of anything of substance to say or promise? Are these candidates implying that they would act corruptly as President if they "took" corporate PAC money? What?? I just don't get it!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are these candidates implying that they would act corruptly as President if they "took" corporate PAC money?

That, pretty much.

 

[icehorse]

Corruption is turning the US into a third world country. Boycotting PACs won't solve the problem, but it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Nakosis]

As noted in a brief segment of Morning Edition from NPR News, all of the Democrats who have to date declared their candidacy for President have promised that they would not "take" money from corporate PACs or Super PACs. I ask: What is accomplished by such a promise? I ask that you listen to the 3-minute segment and explain what is accomplished by this promise:

Democratic Presidential Candidates Say 'No' To Corporate PAC Money

What the hell is supposed to be the purpose of this promise? Does it bring in a vote from someone who would otherwise vote for Trump or who might not vote at all? Are these candidates just unable to think of anything of substance to say or promise? Are these candidates implying that they would act corruptly as President if they "took" corporate PAC money? What?? I just don't get it!

This effort was an attempt to investigate the effect of PAC money on U.S. Congress. Unfortunately, it appears that PAC money negatively correlates with the tendency of members of Congress to talk (or at least Tweet) about important political issues, those that matter most to their constituents.

This conclusion joins a chorus of voices claiming that our elected officials are too beholden to campaign contributions. For example, a Cambridge University analysis “indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.” Furthermore, Recent media coverage has been devoted to Congressional candidates who prominently and publicly refuse to take PAC money.
More Money, More Problems: Analyzing the Effects of PAC Money on U.S. Congress

So in congress, folks who take more PAC money are less likely to tackle controversial subjects on social media. This is more of an indirect influence as it's not necessarily influencing their votes however the voice of the politician is important in influencing public opinion on these matters.

 

[pearl]

So in congress, folks who take more PAC money are less likely to tackle controversial subjects on social media. This is more of an indirect influence as it's not necessarily influencing their votes however the voice of the politician is important in influencing public opinion on these matters.

One just has to think of the problem of gun control and those politicians who are depending on contribution from the NRA etc. In the 2016 campaign Sanders did quite well in raising money without the aid of super packs. Or cooperate contributors that demand the end of regulations etc.

 

[Valjean]

Avoiding conflicts of interest?

Didn't the Princeton Study find that the legislative influence of common citizens was zero, while banking and corporate interests were almost always catered to?
Abstract:

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

The US is an oligarchy. I assume the democrats are trying to change that, or, at least, the perception of oligarchy.

 

[Quetzal]

What the hell is supposed to be the purpose of this promise? Does it bring in a vote from someone who would otherwise vote for Trump or who might not vote at all? Are these candidates just unable to think of anything of substance to say or promise? Are these candidates implying that they would act corruptly as President if they "took" corporate PAC money? What?? I just don't get it!

It is a risky strategy. If you can't drum up local support ala Bernie Sanders, you could be hurting. The idea is simply that they want to demonstrate they cannot be bought. There is a fairly popular opinion that Washington politicians are corrupt. (Shocking, I know.) The Democrats are trying to take the moral high ground to snag more moderates. We will see how this plays out soon.

 

[Revoltingest]

The US is an oligarchy. I assume the democrats are trying to change that, or, at least, the perception of oligarchy.

Why do you think they aren't part of the oligarchy?

 

[Valjean]

Why do you think they aren't part of the oligarchy?

I don't. Most are. The party sold out when they abandoned their working class base to pursue the more lucrative interests of the professional class.
But perhaps there are still some who believe in democracy and social values.

 

[Revoltingest]

But perhaps there are still some who believe in democracy and social values.

It's simple.
Look at their records in government.
Vote against any with a record of war mongery or other such shortcoming.

 

[metis]

I think the Dems need to go back and remember their roots as being the champion of working men and women, and one way to do this is to push for stronger unions that so much helped make the middle class here in the States.

 

[esmith]

I think the Dems need to go back and remember their roots as being the champion of working men and women, and one way to do this is to push for stronger unions that so much helped make the middle class here in the States.

Yeah right, talk about an oligarchy

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah right, talk about an oligarchy

And of course, they should not return to all their roots.

 

[Valjean]

It's simple.
Look at their records in government.
Vote against any with a record of war mongery or other such shortcoming.

Unfortunately, few people get to presidential level political status without the patronage of special interests -- like Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial-Congressional complex." When candidates are hand picked by the moneyed classes, mongerels are all your going to have to vote for.

And of course, they should return to all their roots.

Amen, brother: Keynesian economics, low income inequality, strong unions, New Deal, Great Society, &c.

 

[Revoltingest]

Amen, brother: Keynesian economics, low income inequality, strong unions, New Deal, Great Society, &c.

I edited my post to correct a mistake.
Democrats should not return to all their roots, eg, slavery, Jim Crow, confiscatory taxation.

 

[Misunderstood]

As noted in a brief segment of Morning Edition from NPR News, all of the Democrats who have to date declared their candidacy for President have promised that they would not "take" money from corporate PACs or Super PACs. I ask: What is accomplished by such a promise? I ask that you listen to the 3-minute segment and explain what is accomplished by this promise:

Democratic Presidential Candidates Say 'No' To Corporate PAC Money

What the hell is supposed to be the purpose of this promise? Does it bring in a vote from someone who would otherwise vote for Trump or who might not vote at all? Are these candidates just unable to think of anything of substance to say or promise? Are these candidates implying that they would act corruptly as President if they "took" corporate PAC money? What?? I just don't get it!

I agree it does not really do anything except give some perceived impression to voters that they are not beholding to anyone.

But depending on the PAC and the race (local, national) a PAC is limited to $5,000 per candidate, and PAC money is not a large portion of what a candidate receives.

Most PAC's money is to be spent directly by them to promote a cause, party or candidate. So if they will not take the paltry donation, will they also prohibit the PAC from working in a independent effort to get them elected?

 

[Nous]

Corruption is turning the US into a third world country. Boycotting PACs won't solve the problem, but it's a step in the right direction.

What corruption does that promise prevent??? Name it.

 

[Nous]

More Money, More Problems: Analyzing the Effects of PAC Money on U.S. Congress

So in congress, folks who take more PAC money are less likely to tackle controversial subjects on social media. This is more of an indirect influence as it's not necessarily influencing their votes however the voice of the politician is important in influencing public opinion on these matters.

If the quantity of Tweets a president posts translates into the quality of the president, then Trump is the best president we've ever had. We need to keep him. Trump would make a perfect score; Abraham Lincoln would be a zero.

 

[Nous]

Avoiding conflicts of interest?

How?

The US is an oligarchy.

Who is the "oligarchy"? Name them.

 

[Nous]

Why Democrats Are Shunning Corporate-PAC Donations - The Atlantic

In this excellent, almost prophetic, August 2018 article in The Atlantic, Elaine Godfrey explains the vacuity and hypocrisy of candidates' promise to refuse to "take" money from corporate PACs and super PACs. She refers to the promise as a "progressive litmus test . . . designed to excite the base and allows candidates to brag that they aren’t beholden to corporate interests." She notes that the promise "is mostly symbolic" because most nonicumbents directly receive only a small percentage of their total campaign contributions from corporate PACs -- though they commonly benefit from PACs generally. She notes one particular example of Beto O'Rourke who "vowed not to accept 'a penny from pacs' of any kind," so a PAC just donated to his campaign an amount ($170,000) collected from its members individually. While candidates may pledge to refuse to "take" money from corporate PACs, "nothing precludes candidates from accepting individual donations from corporate executives." What's the diff?

Godfrey even mentions "Justice Democrats, a pac that formed after the 2016 election to support progressive candidates who pledge not to take money from corporatepacs or lobbyists." Such a PAC would enjoy no First Amendment right of speech if the most common formulations of Constitutional amendment to "overturn Citizens United" were to pass.

Candidates' pledge to refuse to "take" money from corporate PACs is a dog whistle to the 12-18-year-old group and others of the same intellectual class, no less than was Trump's bigoted promise to build the Great Wall of China between the US and Mexico and make Mexico pay for it.
Recall how tangled up in absurdities Clinton and Sanders got in 2016 in pledging to "overturn Citizens United". It's offensive stuff to people who think the First Amendment is important and beneficial to the country. It's offensive to the ACLU.

Look at this proposed amendment, for example: Move to Amend's Proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution | Move to Amend

How would you have the right to speak on the Religious Forums website under such an amendment? You wouldn't! How would the people who used that very website to state the text of that proposed amendment have the right to speak under that amendment? They wouldn't -- under that amendment, Congress or any other legislature could prohibit the speech of that "artificial entity"!!