4 ms·

I can't shake the feeling that these are just talking points. He certainly sounds nice, but ultimately his proposals come down to new restrictions on free speec

I can't shake the feeling that these are just talking points. He certainly sounds nice, but ultimately his proposals come down to new restrictions on free speech regarding campaign finance (any 'reform' short of a constitutional amendment would most probably be useless anyway, as there are always ways around, as witnessed before) and why is it filibusters are only impeding progress when your own party is in power? Edit: Just back in Nov 09, he was still in favor of the filibuster. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/evan_bayh_no_difference_betwee.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/evan_bay...

yummyfajitas 17y ago
They [congress] are patriotic, hard-working and devoted to the public good as they see it, but the institutional and cultural impediments to change frustrate the intentions of these well-meaning people as rarely before. It was not always thus. Yes, as we all know, the US was designed to be run top down by a rapidly moving federal government. We didn't create checks and balances and a government limited by a constitution, because we wanted to make sure that our well meaning overlords could change things on a dime! Currently, the decision to begin debate on a bill can be filibustered, followed by another filibuster on each amendment, followed by yet another filibuster before a final vote. This leads to multiple legislative delays and effectively grinds the Senate to a halt. Sure, one filibuster per law, provided the Senate stops completely rewriting laws during the debate process. True story: there was once a law called To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes. Somewhere along the line, the Senate decided to completely replace the text of that bill with a $700 billion giveaway to the financial services industry. Under Baye's proposed rule, this nonsense couldn't even be filibustered. Great plan.
wrinklz 17y ago
The argument that limitations to campaign finance are a free speech issue makes sense. What doesn't make sense is treating corporate and other organizations as persons with all or even most of the rights of air-breathing U.S. citizens. Corporations and unions and other such groups are legal entities which exist only for the public good. The state created them, and the state can regulate them in any way which benefits the public good. Edit - And regarding enforcement, I would just encourage stiff penalties. An organization found guilty of multiple instances of finance fraud could be charged with RICO and it's leaders thrown in jail. So much for enforcement.

yummyfajitas 17y ago

They [congress] are patriotic, hard-working and devoted to the public good as they see it, but the institutional and cultural impediments to change frustrate the intentions of these well-meaning people as rarely before. It was not always thus. Yes, as we all know, the US was designed to be run top down by a rapidly moving federal government. We didn't create checks and balances and a government limited by a constitution, because we wanted to make sure that our well meaning overlords could change things on a dime! Currently, the decision to begin debate on a bill can be filibustered, followed by another filibuster on each amendment, followed by yet another filibuster before a final vote. This leads to multiple legislative delays and effectively grinds the Senate to a halt. Sure, one filibuster per law, provided the Senate stops completely rewriting laws during the debate process. True story: there was once a law called To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes. Somewhere along the line, the Senate decided to completely replace the text of that bill with a $700 billion giveaway to the financial services industry. Under Baye's proposed rule, this nonsense couldn't even be filibustered. Great plan.

wrinklz 17y ago

The argument that limitations to campaign finance are a free speech issue makes sense. What doesn't make sense is treating corporate and other organizations as persons with all or even most of the rights of air-breathing U.S. citizens. Corporations and unions and other such groups are legal entities which exist only for the public good. The state created them, and the state can regulate them in any way which benefits the public good. Edit - And regarding enforcement, I would just encourage stiff penalties. An organization found guilty of multiple instances of finance fraud could be charged with RICO and it's leaders thrown in jail. So much for enforcement.