Should we amend the Constitution to prevent the influence of big money in elections?

[Snackbar]

LOL! The Koch brothers types certainly benefit but they make up a small fraction of a percent. The other 49.9% or so who vote republican do so against their own economic interests. The educated ones do it out of ideology. The uneducated voters do it out of affinities and disaffinities.

Yah just them zany Koch brothers. Not the small business owners (40%ish leaning republican). Those small business owners who still create over 90% of employment. Come on Kpt, your better than this.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I disagree. Higher voter turn out would just lead to more big money coming from a more diverse list of big sources.

The point isn't to stop people from donating money; it's to counteract the disproportionate policy influence of big money (it would also have the side benefit of generally reducing extremism, as bases--i.e., reliable voters--would be less important).

Really?? How is that whole Change thing working out for you these days?

Um, spectacularly well. Do you read the news?

Love them or hate them you have to admit, Republicans know how to reward their base. People who vote Republican do so because they benefit directly from the vote.

Their base doesn't really ask for anything from them in terms of policy--it's all about identity politics.

Imagine if Democrats got 1/10th in return from their elected officials that Republicans do.

WTF? Healthcare reform, the strongest economic recovery in the developed world, progress on the environment, immigration reform.

If there were any merit to this thinking he would have already supplied some stats and graphs.

LOL! What kind of charts and graphs do you want?

Not only is it silly to pay people to vote, there's no evidence supporting the assertion that it would negate the influence of money.

What about the demographics of non-voters vs. voters and the tendency of groups that vote (like the elderly) to get disproportionate beneficial policy?

At least when it comes to one major Democratic initiative (gay marriage) the higher voter turnout worked against them. Gay marriage doesn't seem to play as well with minorities as it does white folk.

Dumb example (no offense, but it is). Gay marriage wasn't an issue that split along rich/non-rich lines. Put more progressive taxation on a ballot with a very high turnout and see what happens.

 

[Octavian]

Yes... obviously

 

[Pem123]

Would I'd propose is giving everyone $10 to vote, and making voting easier. If we could get turnout up to 90% or so, the influence of the rich would decline drastically, and there would be no need for the kind of tyrannical policies and forced propaganda you're pushing.

and where is this $10 dollars for every voter money come from ?

and how do you get rid of money in politics by putting money in politics ?

and will the voter vote wisely when they come only for the $10 ?

 

[OldGoat]

WTF?! Uh, no, we don't all value voter suppression. Do you even listen to yourself? You value voter suppression so that the right can gain power to serve the will of the ultra rich at the expense of everyone else. I thought you were trolling before but you're just a tool.

And you value the votes of the uninformed and plain stupid just so your party can seize power and enrich themselves.

James Carville would love the quality of voters you can get with a bit of cash. Paid for by those who actually work.

"Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find. "

Probably find a useless leftist. Just a WAG.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

LOL! What kind of charts and graphs do you want?



What about the demographics of non-voters vs. voters and the tendency of groups that vote (like the elderly) to get disproportionate beneficial policy?



Dumb example (no offense, but it is). Gay marriage wasn't an issue that split along rich/non-rich lines. Put more progressive taxation on a ballot with a very high turnout and see what happens.

Any outside evidence of your claims would be appreciated.

What about it? Is your point that everyone votes themselves money so that means if all the poor vote the'll be enriched? Maybe. How far will they get without an AARP? Or do they have a powerful lobbying group and I'm unaware?

It's a great example, if you think life is about things other than money. I know that's what your arguments that I read nearly always boil down to. Money, money, money. I don't know that it's a fact that thinking that way is correct. And the truth is you have no idea what distortions to your concept will arise by getting all these non-voters to the polls. Neither do I and it's ok to admit that.

 

[AgentOrange24]

What if I, as a private citizen in Kentucky, want to run anti-abortion television ads in say, New York City, or Tulsa, or wherever?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

If $10 will mean the difference between lying and staying at home, then stay the fuck at home.
If registering to vote, locating the appropriate place to vote, and marking your ballot are too complicated, then please stay home.
Get money out of politics and put integrity back into the debates and process.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

What if I, as a private citizen in Kentucky, want to run anti-abortion television ads in say, New York City, or Tulsa, or wherever?

That seems fair to me. So long as no money is given to any campaigns and no legislation is mentioned in your ads.

 

[Jack V Savage]

and where is this $10 dollars for every voter money come from ?

Are you unaware of how the U.S. gov't is funded?

and how do you get rid of money in politics by putting money in politics ?

You get rid of the disproportionate influence of big money by having more people vote. Again, you're showing glennrod/Anung/alaboilistair-level thinking here. Read my posts if you want to understand my position.

and will the voter vote wisely when they come only for the $10 ?

Will voters who value their time at $0 vote wisely? You realize that Ted Cruz was recently appointed to chair the Senate committee on Science, right?

Any outside evidence of your claims would be appreciated.

So you can't even conceive of any data that would change your mind?

What about it? Is your point that everyone votes themselves money so that means if all the poor vote the'll be enriched? Maybe.

Well, that's a dumb way to put it (consistent with your other posts--no offense), but close enough.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So you can't even conceive of any data that would change your mind?



Well, that's a dumb way to put it (consistent with your other posts--no offense), but close enough.

Sure. But as I posted earlier, I couldn't find any examples of it put into action. All I did find was people laughing at what a stupid idea it is.

You would know all about dumb, based on how you're trying to take people for fools. You asserted something with no basis, got called out on how it theoretically would be a boon for your party's voting pool, admitted as such, and then persist as if your initial unfounded assertion has any validity. So yeah, you're acting as if we're all dumb.

But smarten me up and put it in your own words that don't amount to that.

 

[OldGoat]

That seems fair to me. So long as no money is given to any campaigns and no legislation is mentioned in your ads.

Political speech and political press is fundamental to this country. Putting limits on what one can broadcast or print is downright dumb. And who would monitor it? Who would enforce it? The same people responsible for border insecurity? The same clowns who ignore that law when it suits their personal ambitions?

You have far too much faith in the power hungry fools that make up the political class.

 

[Ippwnage]

yes, but good luck with doing that

 

[OldGoat]

Will voters who value their time at $0 vote wisely?

Excellent question that gets to the heart of the matter. It's about values.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Political speech and political press is fundamental to this country. Putting limits on what one can broadcast or print is downright dumb. And who would monitor it? Who would enforce it? The same people responsible for border insecurity? The same clowns who ignore that law when it suits their personal ambitions?

You have far too much faith in the power hungry fools that make up the political class.

I'm having difficulty reconciling your comments with mine.

 

[OldGoat]

I'm having difficulty reconciling your comments with mine.

Sometimes I shouldn't post after watching a RiFF RaFF marathon.

Where were we?

Ah you mentioned don't mention legislation. Got me going.

 

[JosephDredd]

Yes, yes, a billion times yes. Big money in politics is a travesty of democracy.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Sometimes I shouldn't post after watching a RiFF RaFF marathon.

Where were we?

Ah you mentioned don't mention legislation. Got me going.

Let me give an example. Washington state had a couple gun legislation measures. Bloomberg (not a resident) spent millions advertising one side of the proposed legislation. I think it's easy to say that if you want to spend money advertising the danger of guns that you can but I'm saying you shouldn't be able to reference bill #blah blah in your advertising campaign. I think that's a good dividing line and easy as fuck to monitor.

 

[Pem123]

Are you unaware of how the U.S. gov't is funded?



You get rid of the disproportionate influence of big money by having more people vote. Again, you're showing glennrod/Anung/alaboilistair-level thinking here. Read my posts if you want to understand my position.



Will voters who value their time at $0 vote wisely? You realize that Ted Cruz was recently appointed to chair the Senate committee on Science, right?



So you can't even conceive of any data that would change your mind?



Well, that's a dumb way to put it (consistent with your other posts--no offense), but close enough.

1. i heard mostly its from hardworking American taxes, which would be sad to spent it on $10 of every voter.

you just contradict yourself when you said "Will voters who value their time at $0 vote wisely" which just prove my point, people who vote for $10 will most likely not vote wisely so better for them to not vote.

 

[Jack V Savage]

But smarten me up and put it in your own words that don't amount to that.

It's a logical point with a sound empirical basis, and you seemed to grok it fairly well in Post 86, though it's apparently not in your nature to acknowledge a good point from a perceived rival.

Excellent question that gets to the heart of the matter. It's about values.

My point was apparently a little too subtle for you (and way too subtle for the mouth-breather I made it to). He was just rationalizing in order to defend his emotional position. Again, if you don't agree with the goal of getting the influence of big money out of politics, just say that. The kind of disingenuous argument that he was making doesn't do anything to advance the discussion.

1. i heard mostly its from hardworking American taxes, which would be sad to spent it on $10 of every voter.

You're smart.

you just contradict yourself when you said "Will voters who value their time at $0 vote wisely" which just prove my point, people who vote for $10 will most likely not vote wisely so better for them to not vote.

So you don't know what "contradict" means. And people who vote for free most likely will not vote wisely. Should we take their votes away?