Empty Promises from Democratic Candidates

[icehorse]

Cite the evidence to substantiate your claims.

stop acting like a sealion.

 

[Nous]

Do you know any rational reason that Lincoln would have had a Twitter account?

stop acting like a sealion.

Evidently the question asked in the OP -- What is accomplished by presidential candidates promising to not "take " money from corporate PACs or Super PACs? -- is too upsetting to you guys to even begin to address. Stunning! Get help!

 

[icehorse]

Evidently the question asked in the OP -- What is accomplished by presidential candidates promising to not "take " money from corporate PACs or Super PACs? -- is too upsetting to you guys to even begin to address. Stunning! Get help!

@Nous - In this thread, you've been demanding a level of dot connecting that feels like bad faith. For example, let's say that a particular politician received millions in campaign contributions from Big Oil, and that that same politician actively denies any link between climate change and burning fossil fuels. It's probably the case that the politician has acted legally, but common sense tells us that he is acting on behalf of Big Oil, not on behalf of his constituents. Of course corruption is hard to prove, doh! Corrupt politicians are not interested in going to jail. But special interests have a lot of power in Washington. So much power that they drive policy more than the people do.

Below is a link to a book review of "Dark Money", by Jane Mayer, but first here's an excerpt:

Mayer believes that the Koch brothers and a small number of allied plutocrats have essentially hijacked American democracy, using their money not just to compete with their political adversaries, but to drown them out.

‘Dark Money,’ by Jane Mayer

Mayer did massive amounts of research in the course of writing this book. It's one source out of thousands that discuss the problems associated with PACs and superPACs.

Is it your contention that we should trust your opinion over Mayer's extensive research?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think the Dems need to go back and remember their roots as being the champion of working men and women, and one way to do this is to push for stronger unions that so much helped make the middle class here in the States.

Oh yes. The never ending consistent flow of due money taken from the pockets of the working man on a regular basis. The kick ups to the mob bosses, and beating the **** out of dissenting individuals.

Those were the finest Union days.

 

[metis]

Oh yes. The never ending consistent flow of due money taken from the pockets of the working man on a regular basis. The kick ups to the mob bosses, and beating the **** out of dissenting individuals.

Those were the finest Union days.

I must be so convenient to live in the past, thus ignoring the fact that union activities fall under federal, state, and local monitoring. As for me, I live in today's world.

BTW, seems that you also forgot about the "goon squads" sometimes hired by companies so as to intimidate members, so I take your comments above for what they're worth.

Also, I'm a firm believer in democratic principles that has it that everyone who works has a right to be represented because without them no business is going to succeed beyond ma & pa operations. I do not like autocrats, whether they belong in politics or in business.

 

[Nakosis]

Evidently the question asked in the OP -- What is accomplished by presidential candidates promising to not "take " money from corporate PACs or Super PACs? -- is too upsetting to you guys to even begin to address. Stunning! Get help!

That was answered, this is just pablum.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I must be so convenient to live in the past, thus ignoring the fact that union activities fall under federal, state, and local monitoring. As for me, I live in today's world.

BTW, seems that you also forgot about the "goon squads" sometimes hired by companies so as to intimidate members, so I take your comments above for what they're worth.

Also, I'm a firm believer in democratic principles that has it that everyone who works has a right to be represented because without them no business is going to succeed beyond ma & pa operations. I do not like autocrats, whether they belong in politics or in business.

If you don't think corruption is still in unions you're in la la land.

 

[metis]

If you don't think corruption is still in unions you're in la la land.

It's interesting that I'm getting a lecture on "corruption" from a staunch Trump supporter, so I have to consider the above as being a great compliment, so thanks.

Now, maybe go and do some actual studying.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's interesting that I'm getting a lecture on "corruption" from a staunch Trump supporter, so I have to consider the above as being a great compliment, so thanks.

Now, maybe go and do some actual studying.

Don't need to. There's something called the real world. Go out from the computer screen and check it out sometime.

 

[metis]

Don't need to. There's something called the real world. Go out from the computer screen and check it out sometime.

 

[columbus]

For example, let's say that a particular politician received millions in campaign contributions from Big Oil, and that that same politician actively denies any link between climate change and burning fossil fuels. It's probably the case that the politician has acted legally, but common sense tells us that he is acting on behalf of Big Oil, not on behalf of his constituents. Of course corruption is hard to prove, doh! Corrupt politicians are not interested in going to jail. But special interests have a lot of power in Washington. So much power that they drive policy more than the people do.

There's a big "chicken or egg" problem here.

Does Joe Legislator do the bidding of their corporate overlords for money? Or does Big Oil spend all that money supporting candidates that believe and do things in line with their interests? It's not the same thing.

Another, more subtle problem is the other special interests groups. Take the NRA as an example. While the gun issue is their big thing, check out what the candidates they pump money to have in common. I am guessing that environmental issues, queer issues, labor/immigration law and such are very predictable based on NRA support.
Tom

 

[icehorse]

There's a big "chicken or egg" problem here.

Does Joe Legislator do the bidding of their corporate overlords for money? Or does Big Oil spend all that money supporting candidates that believe and do things in line with their interests? It's not the same thing.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that's true. Doesn't it still boil down to money driving Washington not the people's will?

 

[columbus]

For the sake of discussion, let's say that's true. Doesn't it still boil down to money driving Washington not the people's will?

The huge difference being that the second could be fixed with a more engaged and informed electorate. Doesn't matter how much money people spend supporting their agenda, unless the people vote for them.

I believe that the reason Trump is president is because low information, disengaged, voters from the "liberal" camp didn't vote for her. They stayed home, wrote in Sanders, voted Green, or whatever. They were so certain that Clinton would win that they voted in droves for "whoever wins".

Frankly, I blame the BernieBros for Trump's victory.
Tom

 

[icehorse]

The huge difference being that the second could be fixed with a more engaged and informed electorate. Doesn't matter how much money people spend supporting their agenda, unless the people vote for them.

Of course I'd agree that we need a more engaged and informed electorate! That said, the electorate we have is mostly not getting what they want out of Washington.

 

[Misunderstood]

I've cited and linked to a good deal of evidence on RF showing, inter alia, showing that campaign contributions have little, if any, effect on representatives' voting in legislatures. I'll get it for you ASAP.

See the studies discussed in the OP here:

Are Your Views on Campaign Spending Deduced from the Evidence?

And #32 here:

xray

It looks like I may have pushed the issue into Corruption in Campaign Spending, however in looking though other posts it is already going that way. I was trying to stay true to the OP in my answer, but I did use an example of corruption in my reply.

I should not have used a example with corruption in it. I was trying to make the point that taking money from a PAC or not taking money from a PAC does not remove the benefit of a PAC, but does give a candidate the ability to deny any dirty laundry associated with the PAC supporting them.

An example would be with David Duke during the presidential election. He gave support to Trump, Trump was able to dissociate himself with David Duke, but did benefit from any voters who would take David Duke's endorsement seriously.

So by not taking money from a PAC can save embarrassment during an election if a PAC supports a controversial position, but still benefit from the PAC'S support.

 

[Nous]

I should not have used a example with corruption in it. I was trying to make the point that taking money from a PAC or not taking money from a PAC does not remove the benefit of a PAC, but does give a candidate the ability to deny any dirty laundry associated with the PAC supporting them.

An example would be with David Duke during the presidential election. He gave support to Trump, Trump was able to dissociate himself with David Duke, but did benefit from any voters who would take David Duke's endorsement seriously.

So by not taking money from a PAC can save embarrassment during an election if a PAC supports a controversial position, but still benefit from the PAC'S support.

I wouldn't accept campaign contributions from David Duke because of our diametrically opposed views and goals, and for the same reason, he undoubtedly not offer any such contribution. If he were selling a product, I wouldn't buy it. But how is that analogus to corporations as a whole? If a corporation or other association such as a union espoused repugnant positions or intentionally engaged in inherently immoral behavior, I would refuse to do business with them. The primary reason I don't buy dead or living animals or animal products to eat or otherwise use is because of the immoral cruelty involved in raising and slaughtering animals for humans' use or consumption. Are there corporations or products that you boycott?

Indeed, isn't it hypocritical of a politician to refuse to accept campaign contributions from the very corporations whose products s/he buys? Isn't it hypocritical for a voter to praise a politician for refusing campaign contributions from corporations then go and buy the products those corporations sell?

How does one justify patronizing and enriching a corporation from which one would refuse a campaign donation?

 

[Nous]

Mayer believes that the Koch brothers and a small number of allied plutocrats have essentially hijacked American democracy, using their money not just to compete with their political adversaries, but to drown them out.

So you are unable to cite even a single fact by which to deduce that the US is an oligarchy?

And you never answered the question asked in the OP. Right?

Have you ever considered that you shouldn't hold or espouse beliefs that you can't argue?

 

[Nous]

That was answered

Quote it. I didn't see it.

 

[icehorse]

So you are unable to cite even a single fact by which to deduce that the US is an oligarchy?

And you never answered the question asked in the OP. Right?

Have you ever considered that you shouldn't hold or espouse beliefs that you can't argue?

You ought to stop sea-lioning. But I'll throw you one bone, minimum wage. Well over half of all Americans favor an increase in minimum wages. But large corporations like McDonalds fight such wage hikes.

@Nous - I think you ought to start paying us to teach you well known facts, your sea-lioning is tiresome.

 

[Valjean]

You ought to stop sea-lioning. But I'll throw you one bone, minimum wage. Well over half of all Americans favor an increase in minimum wages. But large corporations like McDonalds fight such wage hikes.

@Nous - I think you ought to start paying us to teach you well known facts, your sea-lioning is tiresome.

More than just minimum wages. Surveys about healthcare, immigration, gun control, social programs, taxation, education, &c consistently show that what the voters want and what legislation their "representatives" pass are often diametrically opposite. Legislators are not responsive to what the voters want. Their jobs depend on large corporate donations, not the welfare of commoners.

Pro social legislation is routinely blocked. Legislation proposed by, and favoring, corporate interests is routinely passed. Legislators respond to donors, not people.
How many times do I have to reference the Princeton study?