HappySqurriel said:
richardhutnik said:
HappySqurriel said:
mrstickball said:
dany612 said:
I'm pro capitalism, I'm anti corporate greed and corruption. |
So how do you enforce this 'anti corporate greed and corruption'?
|
A few thoughts ...
Government involvement in the economy is bound to happen and is not (necessarily) a bad thing, but the role of the government should be more like that of a referee than a participant. Essentially, their focus should be on fairness (think in the context of sports, ie. equality of opportunity) and preventing dangerous activity that creates excessive risk of injury (fraud, corruption, etc.)
Restrictions should be put on campaign finance ... Individuals, corporations, unions and charities should all be able to make political donations, but there should be a uniform cap on their total donations in a year; and donations to a party or a third party cause should count against the same cap. The cap should be high enough that people can freely support the candidates and causes they want, but low enough that organizations can't buy influence by funding every candidate in every election.
|
The Citizens United case enables a big end-around from this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
What can happen is that you end up being where you don't even need campaign financing. Just form a PAC and run advertising on TV in support of an issue or a candidate, as much as you want. Or, you run advertising against a candidate. End result is that the money goes elsewhere and still attempts to do what it wants to do.
|
Part of my plan was to bound PACs to the contribution cap ...
|
The case said that anyone can buy air time at any time and air it, because it is their constitutional right. If you do that, isn't it possible for yet another end around? I see it is possible. Ok, maybe I misunderstand, but were you proposing people were limited to how much they could donate to a PAC?
