sw10mm: Because Republicans do most of theirs through front groups and under the table. Greens limit theirs to $1,000 tops and from real live humans, and as a result may not even be mentioned in the corporate media (and still manage to occasionally get elected).
Wow, ask people how they might see getting together across ideological lines to actually fix this broken system, and all of a sudden it’s just crickets around here.
The thing is, I don’t think this particular issue would even require much compromise. It’s simply something that folks from all different political persuasions agree on. But maybe that’s what makes it scary? Setting aside differences about other issues to work on something the large majority of folks in this country actually agree about? Maybe associating with the “enemy” violates people’s notions of purity. (And yes, I think a lot of people on either side do see each other as enemies, which is something we need to get over.)
Liberals say they’re against it, but they continually outspend Conservatives on advertising
Please give documentation for this. And remember to include Super PAC money in your calculations.
the lame stream media
Any time you use a term like this, it detracts both from serious conversation and from any conception of you yourself as serious.
That aside, the basic issue is still one we agree on, which is that large amounts of money are corrupting our politics.
As a conversation starter, how about this:
• no PACs, Super PACs, or the like.
• No donations to campaigns from organizations or institutions of any sort.
• Donations to candidates may not come from outside the jurisdictions they represent.
• Donations are limited to some small number, say $250 or $500, from any given individual to any given candidate. And no individual may contribute more than $2,000 total in any given election cycle.
• Broadcasters must give a certain amount of free air time to “serious” candidates. What qualifies as “serious” would need to be figured out. And there may need to be limits based on the level of office being sought.
These measures would probably take a constitutional amendment or two to put into place based on the way the courts have been deciding these days. But it’s a start.
Odon Premium Member about 9 years ago
National Cash Appreciation Association , the other NCAA.
dzw3030 about 9 years ago
Cue the rimshot! Very good assessment of the process, Sir!
louieglutz about 9 years ago
think of all the people that otherwise wouldn’t have had jobs…
DrDon1 about 9 years ago
Great cartoon!
braindead Premium Member about 9 years ago
Everyone is breathlessly waiting for the results of the Koch/Adelson primaries.
sw10mm about 9 years ago
True, since the politicians are trying to remove the caps on contributions.
hippogriff about 9 years ago
sw10mm: Because Republicans do most of theirs through front groups and under the table. Greens limit theirs to $1,000 tops and from real live humans, and as a result may not even be mentioned in the corporate media (and still manage to occasionally get elected).
markjoseph125 about 9 years ago
Nailed it!
agrestic about 9 years ago
Wow, ask people how they might see getting together across ideological lines to actually fix this broken system, and all of a sudden it’s just crickets around here.
agrestic about 9 years ago
The thing is, I don’t think this particular issue would even require much compromise. It’s simply something that folks from all different political persuasions agree on. But maybe that’s what makes it scary? Setting aside differences about other issues to work on something the large majority of folks in this country actually agree about? Maybe associating with the “enemy” violates people’s notions of purity. (And yes, I think a lot of people on either side do see each other as enemies, which is something we need to get over.)
agrestic about 9 years ago
Liberals say they’re against it, but they continually outspend Conservatives on advertising
Please give documentation for this. And remember to include Super PAC money in your calculations.
the lame stream media
Any time you use a term like this, it detracts both from serious conversation and from any conception of you yourself as serious.
That aside, the basic issue is still one we agree on, which is that large amounts of money are corrupting our politics.
As a conversation starter, how about this:
• no PACs, Super PACs, or the like.
• No donations to campaigns from organizations or institutions of any sort.
• Donations to candidates may not come from outside the jurisdictions they represent.
• Donations are limited to some small number, say $250 or $500, from any given individual to any given candidate. And no individual may contribute more than $2,000 total in any given election cycle.
• Broadcasters must give a certain amount of free air time to “serious” candidates. What qualifies as “serious” would need to be figured out. And there may need to be limits based on the level of office being sought.
These measures would probably take a constitutional amendment or two to put into place based on the way the courts have been deciding these days. But it’s a start.
moosemin about 9 years ago
Right on. Lalo!