Money was never a problem in politics until the politicians started attempting to manage commerce. When left to the free market, money has no interest in politics. Ergo, to draw money to politics, politicians pick economic winners and losers, and spend the taxpayer funds on their friends.
Given a choice of commerce with no government, or government-managed commerce, I would choose the former. We need only two laws for all commerce: (1) punishing severely [not “preventing”] actual fraud, and (2) punishing severely collusion [which is nothing but “fraud on the marketplace.”]
The federal government should be a non-profit organization and therefore pay elected officials what they’re worth rather than what they can collect in bribes and campaign contributions. Perhaps they could do without a few of those extravagant congressional perks such as $174,000 base salary with 239 days off and a $1.2mil to $3.3mil allowance package; just to name a few.
OTOH, I wouldn’t have expected Carmen to have a problem with money in elections. That would have been Winslow’s territory. BTW, has anyone seen a Dem turn down an offer from Soros lately? Like in the last, oh, 15-20 years? I didn’t think so. So lay off the Koch brothers.
K M, that’s the retort conservatives often invoke whenever the Koch brothers come up, but it’s misguided. The Koch Brothers’ influence is far more penetrating and of a far more interfering nature than Soros’ could ever be. Also, Soros does not lend support to bills that restrict access to the voting booth.
Darsan54 Premium Member about 10 years ago
Preaching to the choir here Carmen.
randayn about 10 years ago
If you really want to take money out of politics, scale back the power of politicians to reward cronies and punish enemies.
jbmlaw01 about 10 years ago
Money was never a problem in politics until the politicians started attempting to manage commerce. When left to the free market, money has no interest in politics. Ergo, to draw money to politics, politicians pick economic winners and losers, and spend the taxpayer funds on their friends.
Given a choice of commerce with no government, or government-managed commerce, I would choose the former. We need only two laws for all commerce: (1) punishing severely [not “preventing”] actual fraud, and (2) punishing severely collusion [which is nothing but “fraud on the marketplace.”]
Cheapskate0 about 10 years ago
Guess this is our warning that, next week, the evil bunnies return..Sigh..At least we had a fun ride this week with (mostly) just Carmen and Winslow.
Radical-Knight about 10 years ago
The federal government should be a non-profit organization and therefore pay elected officials what they’re worth rather than what they can collect in bribes and campaign contributions. Perhaps they could do without a few of those extravagant congressional perks such as $174,000 base salary with 239 days off and a $1.2mil to $3.3mil allowance package; just to name a few.
Jim Kerner about 10 years ago
Sad, but true. I guess you saw this coming.
K M about 10 years ago
OTOH, I wouldn’t have expected Carmen to have a problem with money in elections. That would have been Winslow’s territory. BTW, has anyone seen a Dem turn down an offer from Soros lately? Like in the last, oh, 15-20 years? I didn’t think so. So lay off the Koch brothers.
JLG Premium Member about 10 years ago
K M, that’s the retort conservatives often invoke whenever the Koch brothers come up, but it’s misguided. The Koch Brothers’ influence is far more penetrating and of a far more interfering nature than Soros’ could ever be. Also, Soros does not lend support to bills that restrict access to the voting booth.