3 ms·

Except there are plenty of 'loopholes'. 1. Superpacs. 2. DNC Fund. (Automatically went to clinton in many cases, so it was another bucket of cash for her camp

Except there are plenty of 'loopholes'. 1. Superpacs. 2. DNC Fund. (Automatically went to clinton in many cases, so it was another bucket of cash for her campaign. It should've been split evenly in the primary between her and other primary runners. 3. Promises. 'Hey larry, when you're out of congress, let us know if you want to work for our Posh lobby firm. Comfy pay and benefits'. 4. There own interests. Cheney / Haliburton. Anything about Trump. 5. Hillary Victory fund raised: $523.6M -- how many did state parties get of that? 6. There's a lot of ways to hide money. What about speaking engagements.. or other ways to 'pay' the candidate, so they can use their 'own' (but recently acquired) cash on hand? How much do the Clintons or Trumps receive to do a speaking engagement? I don't know the answer to get rid of all corruption, but how is it that ISP's were able to give money to politicians who voted against net neutrality? INAL but here's a list: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp... Example: Grassley, Chuck : $135,125. Obviously they can give money, and do to move their political aims. To say they don't means you're living under a box. Maybe if they give it outside an election term when they're not running for office? That money from ISP's should be illegal, but it isn't.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> I don't know the answer to get rid of all corruption, but how is it that ISP's were able to give money to politicians who voted against net neutrality? There are four things that are often described by activists and the media as donations by corporations (sometimes combined, sometimes just one or the other—the first and third seem to be the most common where dollar figures are given, because they are most readily available), in roughly decreasing order of the degree to which such descriptions are misleading: (1) donations by employees of the corporation (regular individual donors with reportable donations must disclose their employer, and often donations by employees of a firm or industry are described as donations by the firm or industry.) (2) Donations to “leadership organizations” directed by candidates (this is misleading when described as a campaign donation to the candidate, because such organizations are conduits that allow the candidate to promote other candidates), and (3) Donations to SuperPACs that align to some extent with a particular candidate. (This is a wobbler in terms of how misleading g it is, because some superPACs are essentially focussed on a single candidate, and some are more general.) (4) Donations from a corporate “separate segregated fund” (this money doesn't actually come from the corporation as such—it is separately solicited from managers and shareholders—but is directed by it.) The particular article you refer to expressly combines the first two categories. So, to completely ban the contributions identified in that article, you'd have to prohibit anyone with a job from contributing to a political campaign, and to eliminate everything commonly portrayed as corporate contributions, you'd have to also outlaw independent expenditures (which are what SuperPACs do) on political advocacy.
- gremlinsinc 8y ago
  you could ban all political donations. Period. Have a political fund, for each election. Every person gets the exact same amount. They cannot use own money or donations. They must use the money given. Whoever wins off that level playing field deserves to be the winner.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> I don't know the answer to get rid of all corruption, but how is it that ISP's were able to give money to politicians who voted against net neutrality? There are four things that are often described by activists and the media as donations by corporations (sometimes combined, sometimes just one or the other—the first and third seem to be the most common where dollar figures are given, because they are most readily available), in roughly decreasing order of the degree to which such descriptions are misleading: (1) donations by employees of the corporation (regular individual donors with reportable donations must disclose their employer, and often donations by employees of a firm or industry are described as donations by the firm or industry.) (2) Donations to “leadership organizations” directed by candidates (this is misleading when described as a campaign donation to the candidate, because such organizations are conduits that allow the candidate to promote other candidates), and (3) Donations to SuperPACs that align to some extent with a particular candidate. (This is a wobbler in terms of how misleading g it is, because some superPACs are essentially focussed on a single candidate, and some are more general.) (4) Donations from a corporate “separate segregated fund” (this money doesn't actually come from the corporation as such—it is separately solicited from managers and shareholders—but is directed by it.) The particular article you refer to expressly combines the first two categories. So, to completely ban the contributions identified in that article, you'd have to prohibit anyone with a job from contributing to a political campaign, and to eliminate everything commonly portrayed as corporate contributions, you'd have to also outlaw independent expenditures (which are what SuperPACs do) on political advocacy.

gremlinsinc 8y ago
you could ban all political donations. Period. Have a political fund, for each election. Every person gets the exact same amount. They cannot use own money or donations. They must use the money given. Whoever wins off that level playing field deserves to be the winner.