5 ms·

He literally had working on his campaign the guy who headed Citizens United, the group behind the court case that allowed tremendous amounts of unchecked money

by chasing 10y ago

He literally had working on his campaign the guy who headed Citizens United, the group behind the court case that allowed tremendous amounts of unchecked money into the political system. Trump has no interest in reducing the influence of money in politics.

cmdrfred 10y ago
> Trump has no interest in reducing the influence of money in politics If you wanted to fix it, do you vote for the person who said he wants to change it or the person who profited from that system for decades? Both parties need to end if you want change on this.
- chasing 10y ago
  Citizens United vs FEC is only ~7 years old and, if I recall, Hillary only ran in one election during that time frame. The same number that Trump ran in. Regardless: The whole idea of campaign finance reform is that it's too powerful: Most politicians can't do the right thing because it would hobble them too much in elections.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    >Citizens United vs FEC is only ~7 years old and, if I recall, Hillary only ran in one election during that time frame. The same number that Trump ran in. We didn't have corruption prior to Citizens United? Here's my purposed rule, if you take a nickel from a company you don't get to vote on anything that would effect them. No way in hell the neo-cons or the neo-liberals in Washington pass that. >Regardless: The whole idea of campaign finance reform is that it's too powerful: Most politicians can't do the right thing because it would hobble them too much in elections. That might be changing. People are pissed at the establishment. This is the first time since the 50's that the person who spent the most money lost.
    - chasing 10y ago
      > That might be changing. Maybe! But now there's going to be even more monied interests spending hard to make sure it doesn't. > This is the first time since the 50's that the person who spent the most money lost. This is neither here nor there. Simply spending money isn't the issue.
r_smart 10y ago
To me this is a really interesting problem. Imagine for a moment that you became the president. The people you pick to do things is really important. You have to choose from: People you've relied on who will need time to build expertise; people who have been in the system forever and are part of the problem, but are also knowledgeable in how to operate it, and people who are part of the problem and incompetent. To me, it seems you have to pull from the first two groups and hope you can use the people you know and trust and your own influence to get the necessary change from the people who have been thus far malignant, but know important things like how to get votes, how to draft legislation, etc. This is where every presidential candidate succeeds or fails, and most of them end up failing. I feel like it would be hard to argue that Obama wasn't completely co-opted by monied interests as he took office. The finance sector got their claws into him from the beginning.
- chasing 10y ago
  > ... people who have been in the system forever and are part of the problem... Not everyone who works in government is part of the problem. Many of them are working very hard to solve real problems. No one's perfect -- that's for sure -- but I'm worried we're throwing out very talented and well-intentioned babies with our bathwater. And the Trump administration, such as it is, has already proven that the government doesn't have a monopoly on corruption. The man's been "part of the problem" since the 70s and people seem to give him a pass. Weird.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The man's been "part of the problem" since the 70s and people seem to give him a pass. I would argue that the election results show that most people don't give him a pass, it just happens that those that do have a favorable geographic distribution.
  - r_smart 10y ago
    I'm sure some of them are good people trying to do good things. I'll spare cynical rejoinders and just concede the point. I think many people would agree that there aren't very many of them in the government. There are of course various axioms about people seeking power and the corrupting effects of power. >The man's been "part of the problem" since the 70s Yes! The public doesn't have anybody from group A to choose from, and essentially always gets to choose from group B or C. The hope is that we might get lucky one day and get someone for the group you brought up. We want the D.

by chasing 10y ago

cmdrfred 10y ago

> Trump has no interest in reducing the influence of money in politics If you wanted to fix it, do you vote for the person who said he wants to change it or the person who profited from that system for decades? Both parties need to end if you want change on this.

chasing 10y ago
Citizens United vs FEC is only ~7 years old and, if I recall, Hillary only ran in one election during that time frame. The same number that Trump ran in. Regardless: The whole idea of campaign finance reform is that it's too powerful: Most politicians can't do the right thing because it would hobble them too much in elections.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  >Citizens United vs FEC is only ~7 years old and, if I recall, Hillary only ran in one election during that time frame. The same number that Trump ran in. We didn't have corruption prior to Citizens United? Here's my purposed rule, if you take a nickel from a company you don't get to vote on anything that would effect them. No way in hell the neo-cons or the neo-liberals in Washington pass that. >Regardless: The whole idea of campaign finance reform is that it's too powerful: Most politicians can't do the right thing because it would hobble them too much in elections. That might be changing. People are pissed at the establishment. This is the first time since the 50's that the person who spent the most money lost.
  - chasing 10y ago
    > That might be changing. Maybe! But now there's going to be even more monied interests spending hard to make sure it doesn't. > This is the first time since the 50's that the person who spent the most money lost. This is neither here nor there. Simply spending money isn't the issue.

r_smart 10y ago

To me this is a really interesting problem. Imagine for a moment that you became the president. The people you pick to do things is really important. You have to choose from: People you've relied on who will need time to build expertise; people who have been in the system forever and are part of the problem, but are also knowledgeable in how to operate it, and people who are part of the problem and incompetent. To me, it seems you have to pull from the first two groups and hope you can use the people you know and trust and your own influence to get the necessary change from the people who have been thus far malignant, but know important things like how to get votes, how to draft legislation, etc. This is where every presidential candidate succeeds or fails, and most of them end up failing. I feel like it would be hard to argue that Obama wasn't completely co-opted by monied interests as he took office. The finance sector got their claws into him from the beginning.

chasing 10y ago
> ... people who have been in the system forever and are part of the problem... Not everyone who works in government is part of the problem. Many of them are working very hard to solve real problems. No one's perfect -- that's for sure -- but I'm worried we're throwing out very talented and well-intentioned babies with our bathwater. And the Trump administration, such as it is, has already proven that the government doesn't have a monopoly on corruption. The man's been "part of the problem" since the 70s and people seem to give him a pass. Weird.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The man's been "part of the problem" since the 70s and people seem to give him a pass. I would argue that the election results show that most people don't give him a pass, it just happens that those that do have a favorable geographic distribution.
- r_smart 10y ago
  I'm sure some of them are good people trying to do good things. I'll spare cynical rejoinders and just concede the point. I think many people would agree that there aren't very many of them in the government. There are of course various axioms about people seeking power and the corrupting effects of power. >The man's been "part of the problem" since the 70s Yes! The public doesn't have anybody from group A to choose from, and essentially always gets to choose from group B or C. The hope is that we might get lucky one day and get someone for the group you brought up. We want the D.