By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Should we get rid of Special interest groups and campaigning?

DJEVOLVE on 29 June 2013
KungKras said:
There are two things that corrupts American politics.

The first it that the private sector can donate to politicians.

The second is that debates and political ads and the like are privately and not publicly funded.

Those combined are a recipe for corruption and disaster. It means that whoever has the most money has the greatest chance of winning, and it means that if you want to win, you have to serve the people or the organizations that can supply you with that money.



Couldn't have said it better my self.



Around the Network
nuckles87 on 29 June 2013
thranx said:
Mr Khan said:

I disagree. I believe the source of abuse stems from politicians' ability to cash in and cash out. The "in" is generally illegal now (lavish gifts from lobbyists, bribes, kick-backs), but the "out" also lures in those who are less daring, and really, even those who aren't all that corrupt (namely highly paid consultant or analyst positions with their special interest of choice. The guy who used to be my congressman before his district was eliminated after the census, he moved to Florida to lobby for Highmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield). With the knowledge that you can live like a king off of one company's patronage for the rest of your life after you retire from politics, you're going to help them out.

My belief is that few people care about "power" in the abstract sense, especially as we've corraled politicians' abilities to really abuse power in the classical sense (compared to the frivolities of modern-day tyrants like the Kims of North Korea), and that the real temptation comes from their ability to secure financial gain.


there would be no need for lobbying if the government didnt have the power to control people like it does. the wealth that flows from politicians in the form of lobbying, or gifts, come from the power that they hold over people. no need to buy that power with gifts if it wasn't there to buy. the best way to solve this is to have a small government that doesn't over see every aspect of life or tax its citezens too much.


You're right. If the government were small and impotent, there would be no need for lobbying. Powerful corporations could just rape the land and do whatever they please like they did in the good ol' 19th century. Libertarian paradise, that.

http://studyindenmark.dk/news/denmark-once-again-worlds-least-corrupt-country

Denmark spends over 50% of its GDP on government services. It's also the least corrupt country in the world. It's got high taxes, lots of oversight of the private sector, and a huge number of social services. The government is VERY powerful there, yet no allure for corruption? Kind of pokes a massive, gaping hole in that theory of yours. The people of Denmark are also quite happy, by the way, its economy is very healthy, and even during the height of the Great Recession its unemployment was quite low (last I checked it was below 5%). Funny thing is, most of the least corrupt countries are also leftist, big government countries. I'm not sure about Singapore, though.

Now I'm not saying that big government = less corruption, as statistics don't bare that out, but it doesn't hurt either.



thranx on 29 June 2013
nuckles87 said:
thranx said:
Mr Khan said:

I disagree. I believe the source of abuse stems from politicians' ability to cash in and cash out. The "in" is generally illegal now (lavish gifts from lobbyists, bribes, kick-backs), but the "out" also lures in those who are less daring, and really, even those who aren't all that corrupt (namely highly paid consultant or analyst positions with their special interest of choice. The guy who used to be my congressman before his district was eliminated after the census, he moved to Florida to lobby for Highmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield). With the knowledge that you can live like a king off of one company's patronage for the rest of your life after you retire from politics, you're going to help them out.

My belief is that few people care about "power" in the abstract sense, especially as we've corraled politicians' abilities to really abuse power in the classical sense (compared to the frivolities of modern-day tyrants like the Kims of North Korea), and that the real temptation comes from their ability to secure financial gain.


there would be no need for lobbying if the government didnt have the power to control people like it does. the wealth that flows from politicians in the form of lobbying, or gifts, come from the power that they hold over people. no need to buy that power with gifts if it wasn't there to buy. the best way to solve this is to have a small government that doesn't over see every aspect of life or tax its citezens too much.


You're right. If the government were small and impotent, there would be no need for lobbying. Powerful corporations could just rape the land and do whatever they please like they did in the good ol' 19th century. Libertarian paradise, that.

http://studyindenmark.dk/news/denmark-once-again-worlds-least-corrupt-country

Denmark spends over 50% of its GDP on government services. It's also the least corrupt country in the world. It's got high taxes, lots of oversight of the private sector, and a huge number of social services. The government is VERY powerful there, yet no allure for corruption? Kind of pokes a massive, gaping hole in that theory of yours. The people of Denmark are also quite happy, by the way, its economy is very healthy, and even during the height of the Great Recession its unemployment was quite low (last I checked it was below 5%). Funny thing is, most of the least corrupt countries are also leftist, big government countries. I'm not sure about Singapore, though.

Now I'm not saying that big government = less corruption, as statistics don't bare that out, but it doesn't hurt either.

just because i dont want the government hand in everything does not mean there is not a place for mediation of problems between companies and people. Its very easy for a small country to keep its government in control as its a small nation. very different for the size of the US popultaion. is denmark a part of the EU? how have you guys been with dealing with the added oversight from far away places? what will happen over time as your feds (the EU) slowly take more and ore power from you guys, what than happens when they take your money to help the poor in another country in the EU, pehaps poor that really dislike you. what if they than let those in other counttries in the EU start to make tax policy for you, where your at, and enviromental policies. That is what will happen. Its already started with the EU. The best way to stop corruption is to have small local governments that deal with issues, not people over 300 miles away that have never stepped foot n your state, county, or city. Just to add, i believe denmark is feeling the first issues with imigration also, a big problem in the US is the merging of all different kinds of people, many euopean coutnries do not have that issue as they do not have open borders. Denmark and the US are not very comparable, vastly different sizes, and vastly different popultion varieties, and a massive difference in land mass.



Kasz216 on 29 June 2013

Political Researchers pretty much have two theories on campagin funding.

1) You only need "enough" money, any money after that is actually extra and doesn't change votes, or at least not enough to be statistically significant.

2) Money matters, but ONLY for challengers, for incumbents, money is more or less pointless. You only need money to get your message out... everyone already knows the incumbent.


Honestly i think the EXACT opposite should be true. Get rid of campaign spending limits BUT require donors names be public record. There's more then enough money to win on any side of the political field. People who were ghastly afraid of Romney buying the election were quite surprised to find that it was Obama who had the huge spending lead.

Money follows the politicians based on their popularity.



sethnintendo on 29 June 2013

Give the millions of dollars wasted on elections to the poor and needy.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 29 June 2013
Mr Khan said:
thranx said:
KungKras said:
There are two things that corrupts American politics.

The first it that the private sector can donate to politicians.

The second is that debates and political ads and the like are privately and not publicly funded.

Those combined are a recipe for corruption and disaster. It means that whoever has the most money has the greatest chance of winning, and it means that if you want to win, you have to serve the people or the organizations that can supply you with that money.


the only thing that corrupts politician is the ability to have control over people lives and abuse said power. nothing to do with where funding comes from. If it was all public funding it would still be abused. The only way to stop it is to have a small government. The best way to have a small government is to give the government no money with which to grow, and abuse.

I disagree. I believe the source of abuse stems from politicians' ability to cash in and cash out. The "in" is generally illegal now (lavish gifts from lobbyists, bribes, kick-backs), but the "out" also lures in those who are less daring, and really, even those who aren't all that corrupt (namely highly paid consultant or analyst positions with their special interest of choice. The guy who used to be my congressman before his district was eliminated after the census, he moved to Florida to lobby for Highmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield). With the knowledge that you can live like a king off of one company's patronage for the rest of your life after you retire from politics, you're going to help them out.


It's so prevelant in japan the Japanese call it Amakudari.