Bump for awesomeness



Mandatory bash.

It was obligatory. Sometimes I'm just going through the motions.

I often argue extreme viewpoints that I don't exactly hold.

*Corporatism, not capitalism.

No, they are not. Capitalism is perfectly well able to operate in both a free and a controlled market. Don't blame capitalism for corporatist controls being imposed. We could end the need for campaign reform overnight if we made it illegal for politicians to vote on any matter through which they've accepted campaign contributions from. Imagine this: "I'm sorry, Congressman Smith, but unless you're prepared to return the money from ABC pharmaceuticals, you can't cast any votes affecting healthcare." We'd have publicly financed campaigns overnight.

All that would do is make it so ABC pharm donates to the heritage foundation who then donates out of the goodness of their hearts to a politician. Also where do you draw the line? If I give money because I like a Democrat's position on healthcare, can he not vote on healthcare because I donated? Is it only corporations?

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 13 2014 08:59pm

Of course it's only corporations. They don't vote in elections anyways.

George Will has a good, albeit different view on campaign finance reform:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5-4jW5dLSI

Vote with dollars etc

Watching, so far he's on to "the government should regulate speech about the government" which is, quite frankly, stupid. Money hasn't been considered speech for the vast majority of our history. This bit of bullshit was conjured up very recently in the 1970's. Campaign spending isn't the freedom fo speak your mind or the freedom to participate in politics.

".... progressives are trying to change the first amendment" - No, it was changed in the 1970's, prior to that money wasn't speech.
"All legislation will favor the re-election of incumbents" - So, do nothing because we can never not favor the guys in charge. This is pure cowardice.

"... we are only restricting the amount of money the times can spend on gathering its news and distributing its newspapers..." - That's all well and good, but it ignores that the freedom of the press is specifically enshrined in the first amendment, wheras donations to parties is not. The two are not comparable, one is specifically enumerated, the other is manufactured.

"without money no congressional candidate can speak to an entire congressional district" - I agree, and so would most everybody else fighting for finance reform, the issue is the source of that money. This is drawing the false dichotomy between the current system, and no spending by candidates at all.

"if government were not so big, if it were not so busy allocating wealth and opportunity to the politically connected then politics wouldn't be so important in our lives and less money would be spent on it" - No shit sherlock, that's the issue that's trying to be solved. What he essentially is saying is that we shouldn't have any finance reform because if the government just, got out, it wouldn't have an issue! Well how the fuck are we going to do that? Currently it's not going to stop until giant corporate donations cease and politicians are not in the pockets of the politically connected to get re-elected.


All in all, this video is a joke. It basically just says, why would we try to limit money? If we just get government out there wouldn't be money in the first place. Well, there is money and it's not going to get out by magically saying it should get out. As long as billions can be donated the politicans will be in the pockets of those donors and money will not get out. Prager "University" isn't a university, it's just a place where videos are hosted and I have a strong hunch it's just another Koch funded think tank.

But then, what stops ABC pharm from donating to the heritage foundation who then donates "out of the goodness of their hearts" to XXXX politician? hint hint nudge nudge.

On topic, she was a great pick.

a Fox News Conservative journalist - I wonder what his opinion could be?