Foreign Campaign Contributions Could Disqualify Romney From

[granfire]

Well, in theory, a significant salary, more reflective of the upper middle class, reduces the temptation to accept bribery. I think it's probably an experiment that we can more or less write off as a failure, with as 'for sale' as our representatives obviously are.

Gray is all theory....Goethe....

 

[Josh Oakley]

You know who is NOT doing this crap? Gary Johnson.


And he has a good resume.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[oftheherd1]

Up until 1855, the honorarium was more than sufficient-it was never piddling. In 1789, it was $1500-a relatively decent amount of money at the time., equivalent to about $39k today. To that extent, I agree with you. It should be an annual salary that's completely reflective of the middle class. No more than $100,000, and probably more like 80K or even 65K.

From http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm they only received per diem ($6.00 per day) except for about 1 1/2 years when they received $1500.00 a year. In 1855 they received $3000.00 per year. $6.00 per day might not have been bad for a congressman from Pennsylvania, or Delaware. I doubt it did much for one from Georgia or Maine. I have no idea if those figures are correct, but I have no reason to doubt them either. But that is not the issue; just means that someone didn't verify their figures on the i'net. To the point, times were different. I don't think most were required to be in attendance the full year, and a lot of them already had personal incomes.

According to the same source as above, The current salery for non leaders of each body, is $174,000 per year. In the DC area, that is about upper middle class salery. I have never checked, but I suspect most of them spend more than that on re-election. Some time back, there was a tempest in a teapot in the beltway when some members were found to be living in their offices. One republican stupidly related during a TV news interview that he had no choice but to sleep in his office because he only made $174,000.00 per year. As I said, with the cost of living here, and re-election costs (never mind social obligations and trips to see the voters back home), that really isn't all that much. But it sure didn't sell well with people who didn't make near that much, myself included. We really do need campaign reform of some kind, and teeth in the laws that limit how much they can receive from donors.

Well, in theory, a significant salary, more reflective of the upper middle class, reduces the temptation to accept bribery. I think it's probably an experiment that we can more or less write off as a failure, with as 'for sale' as our representatives obviously are.

As I see it, we have failed. Uncontrolled donations are in my opinion, a form of bribery. Lobbyists make good money because they know how to give money. Congress aren't entirely fools, they know how to write laws in their favor. Some money we are allowed to see and they account for including who gave it. Some we don't get to see or see where it came from as it is filtered through a PAC or other means.

 

[WC_lun]

A large problem now is also the C-Pacs. They can take money from anyone in any amount and do not have to divulge who gave that money. There seems to be a lot of wink wink nudgee nudge stuff going on as well. The campaigns and the c-pacs are not supposed to coordinate, but many times they hit thier political opponents with the same message, at the same time, in the same state, increasing the effectiveness of the already large amount of money available for campaigning.

 

[Big Don]

You know who is NOT doing this crap? Gary Johnson.


And he has a good resume.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

You know who would be elected President of the United States the term after Johnson? Mickey Mouse, he has a star on the walk of fame.

 

[billc]

The solution to the campaign finance thing is easy, anyone can give any amount to anyone they want, either to the actual campaign or to other groups and then the campaign can coordinate or not coordinate with those groups if they want to or not. All these silly rules are just that, silly. People should be allowed to support whoever they want with their money, end of story. That is real freedom of speech. Please, don't complain about buying this candidate or that candidate, it is going to happen no matter what anyone does. If everyone is able to give then all sides are equal, Republican, Democrat or third party. In fact, if you let people give as much as they want to who they want, the third party candidates might actually have a chance to win once in a while. They could get large sums of money for their campaign instead of being handicapped by silly campaign finance laws. I guess the one rule you could have is you must be a citizen to give money, that would be the only legitimate rule.

 

[WC_lun]

The solution to the campaign finance thing is easy, anyone can give any amount to anyone they want, either to the actual campaign or to other groups and then the campaign can coordinate or not coordinate with those groups if they want to or not. All these silly rules are just that, silly. People should be allowed to support whoever they want with their money, end of story. That is real freedom of speech. Please, don't complain about buying this candidate or that candidate, it is going to happen no matter what anyone does. If everyone is able to give then all sides are equal, Republican, Democrat or third party. In fact, if you let people give as much as they want to who they want, the third party candidates might actually have a chance to win once in a while. They could get large sums of money for their campaign instead of being handicapped by silly campaign finance laws. I guess the one rule you could have is you must be a citizen to give money, that would be the only legitimate rule.

Wow, exactly the opposite of what needs to happen. We need less money in campaigns, not more. Politicians should be beholden to thier constituents, not thier donors.

 

[Big Don]

Wow, exactly the opposite of what needs to happen. We need less money in campaigns, not more. Politicians should be beholden to thier constituents, not thier donors.

OK, then how, exactly will anyone get any publicity?
TV and radio commercials cost money, billboards cost money, websites cost money.

 

[granfire]

OK, then how, exactly will anyone get any publicity?
TV and radio commercials cost money, billboards cost money, websites cost money.

Like everybody else does it with limited funds...you don't flood the market, you pick your targets...

 

[Big Don]

Like everybody else does it with limited funds...you don't flood the market, you pick your targets...

hahahahahaha
no yard signs, no flying across country to campaign...
hahahaha

 

[CanuckMA]

OK, then how, exactly will anyone get any publicity?
TV and radio commercials cost money, billboards cost money, websites cost money.

Look North. We seem to be able to get away with a lot less money. We still have lawn signs, commercials, fly accross the country. Of course our process does not drag for a full year.

 

[granfire]

Look North. We seem to be able to get away with a lot less money. We still have lawn signs, commercials, fly accross the country. Of course our process does not drag for a full year.

one year?!
This nonsense has been going on for nearly 2 already. Seems like there is no more break from this political nonsense anymore...

 

[WC_lun]

OK, then how, exactly will anyone get any publicity?
TV and radio commercials cost money, billboards cost money, websites cost money.

Same as they do now, but less of it. Markets are flooded with commercials for this canidate or that. If both sides of a campaign have limited funds, they'll spend that money smarter. Look at it as a test for government office. As long as both sides are held to the same spending, the advantage would go to the canidate who reflects the better choice. Then that canidate could work for the people, not the people whose pockets got him elected.

 

[billc]

Wrong again. Limits on campaign financing and restricitions on who can give how much to whomever, always protect the two main parties and any politician already in office. For those who want a good libertarian candidate to have a chance, the campaign finance laws need to change. Why do you think all these politicians love campaign finance reform, like mccain and the other greedy, corrupt politicians? They automatically get free coverage, year round, and they have office staff that they get paid as part of their jobs. They have the ability to control tax money and where it is spent, they can get money behind the scenes from people who want things done.

By limiting campaign cash, you only help the two main parties and incumbents stay in office. That, is the last thing we need.

 

[WC_lun]

Yes, yes, they love campaign reform so much that no major reform has been passed. More money=more influence. More influence=politicians who cater to the influence peddlers instead of who they should be catering to. We have seen tons of examples of this the last 30 years.

 

[billc]

You forgot this little bit of campaign finance reform...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356) is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates thefinancing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.[SUP][1][/SUP]
As noted in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a United States Supreme Courtruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:

• The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;
• The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds. The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturns this provision, but not the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending.[SUP][2][/SUP]

 

[WC_lun]

No, I didn't forget it, I know that it has been gutted. It has very little value now due to the Citizens United ruling.

 

[billc]

Hmmm...disqualifying who?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...To-Host-Fundraisers-For-Obama-In-London-Paris

Anna Wintour, Vogue editor and one of President Barack Obama’s top celebrity backers, will host two more lavish overseas fundraisers for the Obama campaign in London and Paris.

On September 19, Wintour will host a “dinner with Anna Wintour, Tom Ford and David Plouffe” in London. Guests will have to pay $15,000 to attend.
On October 1, Wintour will host a “Paris Fashion Week Reception with Anna Wintour.” Attendees will have to pay $2,500 to go to the reception and $10,000 if they want dinner.

However, Obama continues to rely on his wealthy celebrity friends. Last week, George Clooney hosted a $30,000-a-head fundraiser in Geneva for Obama.