Nothing wrong with that...the guy is more important than you anyway if he's that rich.

Stop reminding me some people actually believe this.

At any rate, representative government, consent of the governed, etc. etc.

Be realistic though. We live in a much more complicated world that requires lobbying on a federal level. Most of the stuff barely affects you either outside of taxes. Your local and state governments are FAR more influential on your every day life.

We gave all this power to the federal government and you wonder why people lobby them? If the government was less powerful, then this wouldn't really be an issue now, would it?

Well if there weren't governments then the rich and powerful would just have direct power with no mitigating force whatsoever.

Would be like monarchs again.

This post was edited by Skinned on Aug 18 2015 10:24pm

I didn't say no governments, just limited government. We reap what we sow.

I don't have an issue with lobbying. Federal officials need to be advised by those in the industry. The problem we need to address is that because such massive amounts of money are required to launch an effective campaign the donors who finance the campaign get more say than the rest of the electorate combined when it comes to voting on the issues once in office. You don't get to run if you don't please enough of the 500 top donors to get a campaign bankrolled.

I also have an issue with politicians getting promised cushy multi million dollar salaries after they leave office. We have a revolving door between government and the regulating industries, especially in banking. When a regulation comes up to vote that could cost you millions after you leave office that sways the vote far more than any merits of the legislation.

We have a broken system, even Donald Trump realizes it. Hell, he said he donates and HIS OPPONENTS ON THE SAME STAGE STARTED ASKING FOR DONATIONS. It was like watching an onion video.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Aug 18 2015 10:51pm

Paying staff, creating media, etc. is an expensive ordeal, especially on the national stage. Competition simply drives up those costs. I don't think there is anything we can do about that.

The 2nd paragraph is DEFINITELY an issue though. How can you realistically solve that though?

Not sure about how to fix it, but it's a big problem. Maybe prevent public employment afterwards and guarantee a nice yearly salary. It might seem expensive, but it wouldn't be a dent in our budget. I dont' think we would have a problem with lazy bastards running for office just for the lifetime cushy job after 2 to 6 years since they're publically elected. I don't know, that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's problems with it.

Honestly I think we should just have a very low cap on how much an individual or organization can donate to a politician or political party, this way there are far more people who are concerned who can raise a $10,000 donation and 20$ donations from individuals become much more important. They also wont' be at the beck and call to one or two major funders to the campaign. If they lose the support of an oil tycoon, then who gives a damN? It was just $10,000, not like it's the hundreds of thousands or millions we are dealing with right now.

consent of the governed? You gotta be kidding...

Having a gun to your back and being forced into breadlines seems like limited government.



I vote and participate in civic life. But I agree that these rights (elections) are being under threat right now on a systematic level, especially against minorities.