When a friend is addicted to something that is harmful to them

[ProfessorPlum]

The people who love that person gently encourage them to wean themselves off of that harmful substance.

Many Democratic politicians are addicted to corporate campaign cash, and corporate influence. And lucrative corporate lobbying jobs that come as their rewards for doing corporate bidding. This is harmful to their ability to represent the interest of non-corporate Americans (we used to call them "people&quot .

As a member of the Democratic party, I have a great love for Democratic politicians, and would gently encourage them to wean themselves off these harmful substances. If that is "criticism" , or "constant criticism", of the Democratic party, then I am guilty as charged.


Or maybe people only get upset when certain influential politicians, who also love the Democratic party, make those kinds of points.

[DanTex]

1. There is no such thing as "corporate campaign cash." Corporations cannot, by law,

donate to Federal campaigns.

[ProfessorPlum]

2. Thank goodness they can't influence the outcomes

With their money! Gee, you learn something new every day around here.

[DanTex]

3. Who said that?

[ProfessorPlum]

11. Are you implying that you've pointed out

A distinction without a difference? I never would have guessed.

[DanTex]

14. I've pointed out that this OP contained false information.

[ProfessorPlum]

18. OK you are right, corporate superpac cash is a

More accurate description than corporate campaign cash. Of money donated by corporations which is spent on campaigns. If I squint, I can almost see a non zero difference in this distinction.

Thanks for the useless distractions.

[DanTex]

21. There is very little corporate SuperPAC cash backing Democrats.

Almost all of the cash going into Dem-leaning SuperPACs comes from wealthy liberals like Steyer and Soros. There's not much corporate cash there either.

So your re-write is also false.

[ProfessorPlum]

24. Well, that is quite an assertion

It makes me wonder why the Democrats go along so quietly with what our corporate overlords want. Since corporations clearly don't have much influence over Democratic politicians and how their campaign expenses are financed, as you assert.

[DanTex]

25. It's public record. Look at the donors, they are individuals, not corporations.

And now you are making another false assertion: that Democrats "go along quietly with what our corporate overlords want". That's just empty, juvenile Democrat-bashing.

Lot's of Obama's agenda was opposed by corporate lobbies. Dodd-Frank, his environmental regulations, his attempts to raise the minimum wage that the GOP blocked, etc.

Looks to me that your whole anti-Democratic Party worldview is based on falsehoods. Where did those falsehoods come from, do you think?

[ProfessorPlum]

27. What color is the sky on your world

Or don't you realize that both parties have been pulled to the corporations and away from citizens over the last 40 years?

[DanTex]

31. My world is based on facts. Yours is not.

It is a fact that corporations can't contribute to campaigns. It is a fact that Dem SuperPACs are largely financed by wealthy liberals. It is a fact that corporate lobbies opposed large parts of Obama's agenda. I don't know what else to tell you, these are not matters of opinion.

And you're also wrong about parties being pulled towards corporations over the last 40 years. Obama's administration was significantly less business-friendly than Clinton's administration. So over the last 20 years, the Democrats have been moving in the exact opposite direction than you claim.

[ProfessorPlum]

32. I'll let treasury Secretary Tim Geithner

Speak for itself.

Yes, Obama sure was corporate unfriendly.

[DanTex]

35. Sure, have him speak about Dodd-Frank, the strongest set of financial regulations

passed since WW2.

By the way, I see you made another post about strengthening vs weakening the Democratic coalition. Do you think that smearing the party, and progressive leaders like Obama, with false accusations of selling out to corporations is "strengthening" or "weakening" us?

[ProfessorPlum]

41. Ah yes, the fearsome teeth of Dodd Frank

And somehow, no Glass Stegall.

Curious.

[DanTex]

48. "Fearsome" isn't really the right term.

And the fact that you're using it to mock the most stringent financial regulations since World War II indicates that you're driven more by ideology than reason.

Regulations are supposed to protect investors and consumers from dishonest practices, as well as preventing risky behaviors on the part of banks in order to maintain the stability of the financial system. It's not about "fear" it's about effectiveness.

[ProfessorPlum]

54. No Glass Steagall were much more stringent regulations

And they were in effect after WWII.

Dodd Frank is widely acknowledged to be too little, and way to late.

[DanTex]

72. Glass Steagall was passed before WWII. And it wasn't necessarily more stringent,

it was just a different regulation. Dodd-Frank covered things that Glass-Steagall didn't, for example, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Glass-Steagall prevented commercial and investment banking to occur within the same firm, something which was largely peripheral to the financial crisis. It has become a rallying cry on the far left, not because they have any clue about how financial regulations actually work, but instead because it wasn't part of Dodd-Frank, so it gives them something to complain about.

Still, more to the point, no matter what regulations get passed, you can always come up with something else that might have been done too. This is a perennial problem with the far left. You raise the minimum wage to $15 and the next day they will be calling you a corporate sellout because you didn't raise it to $16.

Dodd-Frank is widely considered to be successful, although there is certainly room for improvement. But there's no way to make the case that it reflected some kind of pro-corporate bent on Obama's part, and it was fought by industry. Of course, now that the far left helped throw the presidential election to the GOP, we don't know how much of Dodd-Frank will survive.

And this is the supreme irony of the far left. They complain that the Democrats aren't far enough left. And then they help Republicans, who are on the extreme right, get into office.

[George II]

85. Who would you appoint as Secretary of the Treasury, Mike Ditka? Rachel Ray? Stephen Colbert?

Doesn't it make sense to appoint someone familiar with finance?

[ProfessorPlum]

87. what are you talking about

yes, there are lots of people with lots of experience to choose from. Geithner was among the most corrupt and corporate choices that could have been made.

I'd like to think that Obama didn't have much of a choice. that the compromises he made to get support within the party included such odious moves. But I don't know that for sure.

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. We have either ignorant progressives who dont understand your points or

how a 2 party system works or we have russian agents influencing us.

[ProfessorPlum]

56. Anti-Democratic worldview? Them's fightin words!

I am a Democrat. Part of that is wanting them to do better

[Kentonio]

49. On one memorable occasion, the money going to a SuperPAC actually came from one of the campaigns!

And was then used to buy a media outlet which ran non-stop stories promoting that candidate. Who needs corporations eh..

[Exilednight]

6. Let me correct this for you. Corporations can

Not directly donate to a candidate, but they CAN donate any amount they want to a candidate's SuperPac or special interest group.

[DanTex]

7. Yes, they can. But that's not "corporate campaign cash" it's corporate SuperPAC cash.

Moreover, in practice, Dem-leaning SuperPACs don't raise much money (if any) from corporations. The money comes primarily from wealthy liberals like George Soros and Tom Steyer.

[Exilednight]

8. The line between campaigns and SuperPacs become more blurred

With every election.

Soros doesn't dump much money into any individual's campaign/SuperPac anymore. After the 2010 midterms he focused his spending on issue campaigns.

Corporations do donate after a victor has been declared and will often donate large sums to a candidate's SuperPac after they have won an election. It doesn't take much rocket science to figure out why.

[DanTex]

13. That's true for presidential campaigns, and maybe some high profile state campaigns.

But in general it is not SuperPACs but normal donations that fuel most Democratic campaigns for house and senate. And, the fact of the matter is that Democratic-leaning SuperPACs get very little funding from corporations: this is public record.

More importantly, the "corporate campaign cash" meme misrepresents how corporations influence the government. The primary vehicle is through lobbying groups, not SuperPAC contributions. That doesn't mean that SuperPACs are good: they should be banned. But that won't solve the problem of corporate influence, which was around before Citizens United.

[Exilednight]

74. SuperPac contributions are not public record. By law

they are not required, and almost non do, disclose their donor list.

Campaigns must, by law, disclose their donations, but those are from individuals. Many times you can figure out where they donate SuperPac money if you look at where board members and CEOs donate.

[DanTex]

81. Actually, yes, SuperPACs are required to report their donors.

It is possible to funnel "dark money" into a SuperPAC. They way to do that is to create some kind of shell organization that doesn't disclose its donors, and then have the shell donate to the SuperPAC. Then the SuperPAC would have to disclose the name of the shell company, but not who is behind it.

But you can see from the disclosures of the largest Democratic SuperPACs that corporations of any kind, shell or otherwise, only account for a small fraction of the donations. Almost all of it is from wealthy individuals.
Here are the donors to the biggest Democratic SuperPACs last cycle (Priorities USA Action and Senate Majority PAC).

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cycle=2016&cmte=C00495861
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cycle=2016&cmte=C00484642

[annabanana]

119. There are plently of avenues to funnel cash to where campaigns can use it... so

difference without a distinction

[DanTex]

129. Would you like to name them? Or is this just something you read on the internet?

[NCTraveler]

4. If you are going to use analogies, use ones you are fully educated on.

"The people who love that person gently encourage them to wean themselves off of that harmful substance."

That in itself shows a lack of understanding with respect to addiction.

The rest shows you aren't aware of how addicts who are able to quit, actually quit.

These types of errors are common among those more interested in being divisive than to actually wanting to generate change.

It seems you had some idea of addiction and then decided you wanted to twist it into an op.

"I was gently trying to nudge my nephew off crack."

There is also a disconnect in corporate cash and how it influences politicians in your op.

[ProfessorPlum]

9. I bow to your superior understanding of addiction

Which you have failed to articulate or demonstrate here.

And yes, it was an analogy. Well spotted.

[NCTraveler]

12. I wasn't attempting to articulate my superior understanding of addiction.

It is very clear from your analogy that you should have read up on addiction before writing about it.

No clue where the "bow to" comment comes from either. Seems I was very accurate about the divisive aspect.

[ProfessorPlum]

15. Indeed you did not articulate your superior understanding

Of addiction. You simply asserted it, with no evidence behind it. And without pointing out how it changed my analogy. Is this another distinction without a difference? Just kicking up dust?

[NCTraveler]

19. I want to call democrats addicts.

Now I'm going to start writing.

Some things are just clear. The complete lack of understanding with respect to addiction in your op is one of those things.

[ProfessorPlum]

23. Thanks for once again asserting something without

Demonstrating it.

You could do this all day!

[NCTraveler]

33. The assertion was yours. That is where it started.

It's just comical at this point.

[ProfessorPlum]

37. I know I'm laughing

[NCTraveler]

40. I love smiles and laughter.

Not enough of them in these difficult times. I'm glad both of us are enjoying ourselves.

[Foamfollower]

5. OFFS!

[ProfessorPlum]

10. FOFS!

[Demsrule86]

16. It costs money to win elections...we have a good shot...so no to your entire post.

Vote Democratic,

[Foamfollower]

17. Some people believe in bringing a plate of cookies to an all out war.

I don't happen to be such a person.

[ProfessorPlum]

20. Yes, you've boiled down exactly what I was advocating

Thanks for the succinct summing up of my position.

[Foamfollower]

26. I don't think you read my post fully.

[ProfessorPlum]

28. Oh I read it all right

What I want is cookies to fight against weapons. How else could my post have been interpreted?

[Skittles]

43. you're....not a real professor, are you?

no INDEED

edited to add: that was tongue in cheek, in case you missed that too

[Demsrule86]

39. Indeed...I am appalled at the multitude of these very divisive posts...

There are several more...

[ProfessorPlum]

22. Wow, you don't say. Money? Huh. Who'd da thunk it?

I guess corporations are the only possible source. Too bad really. I don't like all of the decisions our corporate overlords make about how we have to live. But, if they have to rule over us I guess there is no other choice than to suck at the corporate teat.

[Demsrule86]

38. I saw your many posts on the subject...

You would do well to consider that Trump is the danger and calling dems corporate is not helpful.

[ProfessorPlum]

46. I do consider Trump the danger

And I consider many Dems too corporate. Your mileage may vary.

[BainsBane]

55. but not Republicans

You want Democrats to be "less corporate" whatever the fuck that means, but big money should continue to dominate the American political system through the Republican Party.

Interesting how you give a pass to the enormous political influence of money from families like the Mercers and the Kochs because it isn't "corporate." But then that money goes to the GOP, so it's all good. They deserve the money, but Democrats are just too "corporate."

[ProfessorPlum]

59. No one is discussing the corporate puppets

That inhabit the Republican party. They are completely too far gone to save. They get no pass.

Yes, "less corporate" is a completely mysterious term.

[BainsBane]

69. It's a tax designation

that applies to a home business of one or to a multinational conglomerate. It doesn't apply to individual donors like the Kochs, Mercers, or Soros. That home business might give $200, but that money is corporate. Meanwhile the Mercers spend hundreds of millions, even billions, to set up a string of Super Pacs to bankroll their nihilist agenda through Trump and other types, and you have no problem with that. Politicians enrich themselves to the tune of tens of millions of dollars from small donations from individuals, but you aren't concerned with that. Instead the focus is on the buzzword "corporate" because it fits so nicely on a bumper sticker.

You care about making the Democratic Party represent your concerns but somehow don't give a shit about the political system. If the country as a whole is rotten, who cares? Why bother reforming the system? Why bother learning about what laws do and don't permit and how politicians get around them? What do facts matter compared to simple rhetoric? Why should citizens, or politicians for that matter, who claim to have all the answers be expected to actually know facts? The goal is to spin a good sound bite, not actually change anything.

But alas, you long for the days when the Democratic Party wasn't "corporate." You know when that was? When it was the party of slaveholders. The good ole days. Is that what you long to return to? Because FDR got a larger portion of his campaign contributions from Wall Street than recent candidates. This mythical era of the Democratic Party as a pure representation of the people never existed. Liberty and opportunity for white men was always won at the direct costs of enslavement of Africans and the mass murder of Native Americans. That relationship was not incidental but integral. Ignorance of history isn't cute. Constructing a mythology that hearkens back to the days of Jim Crow or even slavery isn't cute either. Returning to the good old days means the exploitation, racism, lynchings, and denial of rights from those eras. That is who so many in the subaltern oppose efforts to recapture the values of good ole days.

We live in the United States of America. It is the political system that matters. You may derive some sense of superiority from your bumper sticker condemnations of the Democratic party, but you do nothing to address the problem of money in politics--a problem, it seems, you've even denied is a concern outside of "corporate" money.

The only thing achieved by this rhetorical whipping of the Democratic Party to the exclusion of the GOP and the political system as a whole is the increased political stranglehold of the GOP, not just because your argument gives them a pass but because it undermines support for the Democratic Party. That really shouldn't be so difficult to figure out.

[betsuni]

95. +1

[ProfessorPlum]

98. Tl;dr

But I assume you are arguing that corporations are good.

Yes, they can be when well regulated and kept far away from the levers of governnent.

[BainsBane]

113. Yeah, that would require caring about the issue

Which you have already made clear you do not. Bumber stickers are more your speed.

[ProfessorPlum]

114. What's wrong with bumber stickers?

[Vesper]

120. It is people who assume things, speak in bumper stickers

and won't read things because they are too long, and are belligerent in their willful ignorance who gave us Trump.

Hope that clears up the confusion. Lots of stuff wrong with bumper stickers, even more so when nitpicking typòs is preferred in lieu of reading posts with substance.

[ProfessorPlum]

123. yeah, I know about bumper stickers

just wondered about the bumber variety

[Vesper]

128. Yes, many use them when they have no point and are easily confused by simple typos.

Most people are able to identify words in typos through context, there are some people with interesting brain lesions that have done trouble with deciphering written words. It's a condition called alexia, a person simply cannot read words. Though the context thing seems more of a global issue, and even when patients can't read actual words, they can figure stuff out by context.

Some sort of political anopia, selectively stops all transmission to the visual and language areas of the cortex to maintain a political belief? It would explain the right wingers and anti choicers who like to post links to articles that undermine their talking points.

I wonder if anyone is doing research on this phenomenon. It would be fascinating. Brain scans already show political orientation is related to brain architecture. With those having large amygdalas being conservatives and liberals having more gray matter in the anterior cingulate cortex.

I wonder what they'd see if they compared Moderates to more extreme members of the political spectrum.

Cognitive neuroscience is fascinating, isn't it?

[Skidmore]

105. +1

[truthaddict247]

115. BainsBane: False assertion

Last edited Sat Apr 22, 2017, 06:21 AM - Edit history (1)

BainsBane

How is it that you can assert that prof. "Doesn't have a problem with right wing super Pac donors"? Talk about disingenuous argument technique. And, yea, he isn't shouting from the mountain top about Republican mega donors because this is a "democratic" site. One which castigates those who dare criticize democrats when they aren't adhering to democratic ideals. Brushing up with corporate figures and making the plight of the poor, working class person but an after thought or giving them lip service. See, it would be an EVEN BIGGER ECHO CHAMBER here if we would be railing to each other about Republican hypocrisy or the corporate nature of the Republican party because they don't populate these chat threads or user traffic. So, what your left with is attempting to keep the democrats honest and call them out when you feel they are drifting off in a direction that coincides with everything they're supposed to be against. But the dirty little secret around here is that if you utter but a word that doesn't sing the praises of the democrats and democratic politicians, you're accused of dividing the party and talking bad about them. Which, if you look at it in the right light and from the correct angle looks more like worship than anything else around here.

[BainsBane]

125. I don't know why this point is so difficult to understand

He repeatedly references corporate money toward Democrats only. He doesn't acknowledge the influence of private money or the impact that legislators spending the majority of their time raising individual donations has on government.

What "Democratic ideals" do you refer to? The FDR ideals, when he received a greater portion of his campaign funding from Wall Street than candidates do today? Or perhaps it's the ideals of Jim Crow or slavery? The fact is you all have been fed a false narrative of a history of America and the Democratic Party that doesn't exist. This is a capitalist nation. There has been no time at which the wealthy did not dominate politics. Who the fuck do you think the slaveholders who founded our nation were? They were the wealthiest men in the land, and many owned human beings. The courts and congress were controlled by the economic interests of slaveholders, and when slavery was abolished industrialists soon came to exert great influence. But apparently donations off the lives and backs of human beings was more in keeping with Democratic ideals than a $2700 donations from
Someone who works at a bank.

Now you all have decided to quit focusing on legal, systemic reform and demand unilateral disarmament, which can only lead to even greater GOP power. That argument has already played a role in electing Trump and setting back campaign finance reform even further. The celebrity pol money raising model that Bernie has changed to because of his own record breaking fundraising and spending has influenced his supporters so that they no longer talk about systemic reforms but echo his attacks on the party while ignoring the broader, systemic problem. Additionally, he, not Clinton or Trump, was the single greatest beneficiary of Superpac spending of candidates in either party. We hear nothing but bumper sticker slogans, while facts that don't fit that simplistic narrative are ignored. Slogans don't cut it, particularly when they distort. It's counterproductive and ultimately serves to further entrench the grip money has on the system.

[ProfessorPlum]

84. My mouth is getting full of all of the words

you keep fraudulently stuffing in there.


I don't think I need to communicate with you, since you are conducting a conversation with an image of me that keeps saying things you imagine it to be saying.

Let me know if you want to ask me a question or find out what I think about something, otherwise have a great day.

[Skittles]

44. no, corporations are NOT the only source

nor are THE PEOPLE

a healthy mix from BOTH is best

[ProfessorPlum]

45. That's like, your opinion man

It may even be true.

I'm rather amused by the assertion of some that corporations don't fund Democrats races at all.

[BainsBane]

53. You seem to think ignorance of the issue is cute

It isn't. And it guarantees you're not going to contribute anything to solving the problem.

And how is it that you've decided that the only change necessary is to the Democratic Party and not the political system as a whole? WTF is that about?

[ProfessorPlum]

88. sorry, busy spitting out the words you are attributing to me

I have a long history of fighting for and advocating for getting money out of politics.

We can improve both the system and the Democratic party, at the same time. We're talented like that. And in fact, it may be necessary to change and improve both at the same time, since the corrupt system and corporate Democrats reinforce each other.

[truthaddict247]

116. Provide evidence

In some way, shape or form that prof plum doesn't think the system needs changing.....your tendency to disingenuously assume beliefs of prof plum seem to me to be one not in search of solutions

[BainsBane]

124. Considering you haven't followed my points in this thread at all

I can hardly provide evidence of what I didn't say. The point was his emphasis on corporate--and only corporate-- money to the Democratic Party exclusively, and his refusal to engage or substantively with the state of existing campaign finance. His glib responses throughout this thread speak volumes.

[Demit]

130. I agree. The glibness adds nothing.

[BainsBane]

51. Actually, no private money is best

Public financing is my preferred solution. Our elected representatives should spend their time working for the people rather than raising money.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Which is precisely why the solution you just suggested will never be implemented in this country.

[BainsBane]

76. it would take a monumental effort, to be sure

Do you favor the OP's call for unilateral disarmament? Do you agree the GOP and private wealth should be given a pass?

[AtheistCrusader]

77. I cannot craft a universal standard/principle that would apply to both sides fairly.

I didn't have a problem with Citizens United, because it fairly and equally applied to contributions we historically get in higher concentrations from public Unions. The principle by which it all happened was fair, even if the contribution levels from both sides are not equal, and it's up to the legislature to somehow level the field now that the SC ruled on how to implement the existing laws.

The field needs leveling somehow, I just am not quite sure how to accomplish it. (To realistically do so, in the current environment, specifically.)

[BainsBane]

79. The OP is arguing to make the field even more unequal

We have seen campaign finance as legal reform effort abandoned in favor of appeals to personal virtue and bumper stricter condemnations of the Democratic Party. The result of this is to set the cause back.

Congress has tried to draft solutions but SCOTUS has overturned them. That is why the election last fall was such a set back for the cause. Some of those who argued for Trump claimed to care about the role of money in politics, yet they acted in ways to ensure its greater entrenchment. That is one way the discourse like that in the OP is so counterproductive. It has already benefited the Republicans and made the problem more difficult to solve.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. Tend to agree.

I see the attraction of 'taking the high road', generally I'll always do it, but in this case, it solves nothing and makes the problem even worse from an electability standpoint. Agreed.

Need congress to solve it.
Need campaign finance reform and a reduction in gerrymandering to solve THAT.

Something like a snake trying to eat its own tail.

[ProfessorPlum]

89. I am?

I too am a proponent of publicly financed elections.

but you are so busy inventing things about what I think to even find that out.

[BainsBane]

29. Campaign finance reform is enormously important

In my opinion the single most important issue facing our political system. It needs to be tackled at the level of law, through SCOTUS. I find the recasting of the issue in terms of personal virtue and away from systemic reform to be troubling. It played a role in the election of Trump, which set the cause of changing the law back exponentially because of Trump's SCOTUS appointment.

I also have the impression that you don't realize that it is already illegal for politicians to accept corporate contributions. When you see charts bandied around showing how much money they got from this or that sector of the economy, those are from people who work in those industries, without information on the type of job or their income. A teller at a bank or even a janitor is listed as being part of the financial sector.

That, however, doesn't mean that big money--whether corporate or individual--is not a serious problem. Their influence is felt most through PACs and Super Pacs. The Mercer family bankrolled Trump. That is their personal money, not corporate money. Yet the narrative you take part in ignores their influence since it isn't "corporate." Meanwhile, a small business owner who works out of their home and has a corporate tax designation to avoid personal liability is subsumed under a category that includes Pac and Super Pac money from multinational conglomerates in finance, guns, and agriculture. I submit the problem is not corporate per se but big money, whether individual or from large corporations.

This recasting of the issue AWAY from systemic reform toward personal virtue comes on the tails of a celebrity politician who successfully raised record-breaking amounts of money, both raising and spending more than any candidate at that stage in history, largely through small, individual contributions. Yet most people seeking public office don't have that kind of celebrity, and the influence of money is even greater at the congressional and local level than the presidency. Congressman spend an inordinate amount of time raising money, including individual contributions. That takes away from the work they should be doing for the people and influences laws passed. We have for some time had corporate lobbyists writing legislation. No amount of personal virtue can wish that away. There needs to be legal, systemic reform.

I submit that the money itself is a problem, both corporate and individual contributions, and it needs to be taken out of politics. I favor public financing of elections and getting rid of private contributions altogether. I do not favor the unilateral disarmament of the Democratic Party to enable the Republican Party to gain even greater strength. I instead advocate for demanding that politicians take action to reform the system.

The problem has been set back enormously by the election of Trump. I think it a tragedy that so many who claimed to favor getting big money out of politics actually worked to make it even more entrenched by mobilizing against the election of our Democratic nominee in November. They chose big money. They chose the rollback of environmental policy. They chose a whole slew of right-wing policies they claimed they opposed, which means their actions demonstrated they favored them. They have made our task exponentially more difficult.

[treestar]

36. [phone]

[NCTraveler]

47. Enjoyed reading and on point. +1 nt.

[JHan]

64. You have patience, well said.

It's not like this information is a secret.

[BainsBane]

70. Yet we see pride in refusing to know any of it

which causes me to question whether they actually want to affect change.

[emulatorloo]

94. Well said. n/t

[NCTraveler]

108. You might find some interesting information at this link.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028956820

I took about twenty minutes looking into some of the contributions and it really paints a picture of how bad we need reform.

[betsuni]

111. +1

[Fast Walker 52]

122. Yes, this, and it is set back by all the other Trump insanity

but the simplest way to clean up our system is get strict campaign finance laws in place

[yallerdawg]

30. You're not much of a politician if you can't take their money...

and give them the finger after the check clears!

Where's the corruption if the politician takes a public stand and then the corporation or individual contributes in support of that position?

This is the slippery slope of considering any and all contributions to be bribes - ask Don Siegelman about that.

[ProfessorPlum]

99. Yes, and if you give them the finger

You will not be much of a politician, because you'll be out on your ass in our corrupt system.

[treestar]

34. How are they going to win without money?

and they can raise more from millions of small donors.

Also the money from corporations is from the people who work there in smaller amounts.

Until the electorate is so nerdy and intellectual they will go online and read policy positions and not expect any rallies, etc., they will need money to run.

[ProfessorPlum]

42. No no you are off script

The party line is that corporations don't donate money to campaigns.

[BainsBane]

50. Do you even care about this issue?

Details and the state of the law actually matters. It's easy to come up with bumper sticker talking points. Actually addressing the problem takes work and requires knowledge of the existing state of the law.

[grossproffit]

92. Telekinesis. Duh!

[NCTraveler]

57. Kick

[George II]

58. Sadly you don't understand Federal Campaign Finance Laws.

[Stonepounder]

60. Just for the record, I think this OP makes a very good point.

I would love to encourage that both parties, but particularly the Dems look more toward grassroots financing if their campaigns. Particularly now, since the GOP has decided that there no longer need to be any ethics in government.

Whether you like the analogy or the words used, the point the OP was trying to make is highly relevant today and is very important if we ever want to get the country back to a truly representative Democracy.

[NCTraveler]

62. Many of us fully understand how relevant it is.

From the GE. It is not perfect but covers multiple aspects being discussed here. Including ways to increase in amount and impact grassroots spending.

Look at what we were campaigning for. Now it's being discussed by some as if we just ignore it.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/08/restore-integrity-to-elections/


Some seem to just be getting on board while acting as if Democrats haven't been talking about it. That is the part that is garbage. Well, the analogy used is as well.

[ProfessorPlum]

91. yes, there are some Democrats who have been fighting to improve the system and hooray for them.

The Democratic party is the party with the best policies, after all, and i'd expect them to recognize this problem and try to improve things.

[NCTraveler]

86. Interesting reading if you have time.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028956820

[ProfessorPlum]

90. thanks

and there isn't anything new or even controversial about the idea that corporate money corrupts the system.

[IronLionZion]

61. Yet somehow the other party controls all 3 branches of federal government

and most state governments, and draw the district lines so politicians can choose their voters, remove regulations and reforms, and are destroying this country with impunity.

So remind me what this corporate money donated to Dems has gotten for the corporations? Sounds like those corporations made a bad investment.

And when you love someone the way many DUers love the Democratic party, you have to purge and purify it down until it's small enough to drown in a bath tub. Once the Democratic party ceases to exist it will finally be liberated from corporate cash. Right?

[JHan]

63. lol ++++++++++++++

[IronLionZion]

65. Freedom isn't free

[killbotfactory]

75. Clinton had a billion dollar warchest

How did that work out?

[IronLionZion]

78. Sounds like a bad investment

Corporations must not be very good at business

[betsuni]

112. +1

[That Guy 888]

66. Saying that you have to be an "earner" to be part of the Democratic stable isn't a purity test.

In fact it sounds like the opposite of "purity" considering the sources of donation are often at odds with Democratic ideals, but it is how we chose the minority leadership positions in the House and Senate.

[mythology]

67. Yep you and Sanders are martyrs

Truly in absolute and complete awe.



God this is silly.

[ProfessorPlum]

103. Cool. I guess that puts you in the pro-corruption camp

Then. Unless I misread you.

[truthaddict247]

117. That's

Certainly a winning strategy once again to lose another election to an outright imbecile.

Tell me more how me and my preferred candidate are martyrs....

Idiotic

[Cryptoad]

68. geeez,,,,

Enough Already!

[ProfessorPlum]

102. I heed your command, Cryptoad

[johnp3907]

71. We Democrats know who our friends are.

[oldcynic]

80. Are Democrats human?

If so, some of them are corrupt. It's the nature of human beings. That's why citizens must always, every day, every minute, be alert and active. And that's why democracy is in danger: hyper-vigilance is exhausting and complacency is so temporarily restful. May I misquote Ben Franklin? "It's a democracy, if you can keep it".
All forms of government (religion/monarchies/communists, tribal, etc) are nothing more than attempts to control the aggression of people within it as they scramble for higher rank. It's theoretically a good idea to clean your own house first.
Seldom done.

[lexington filly]

83. Seriously? All that arguing over whether

corporations are sending huge stacks of money to Dem (and Repub) politicians through the front door or the back door? Bottom line, the money reaches its designated pocket and most often, gets the desired result. There wasn't and isn't a bigger fan of Obama's than I, but that didn't prevent my eyes from seeing that his biggest corporate donors as I remember, were the banking and finance industries. I didn't see however, any big bank executives on trial for the fraud they committed as they brought us to the brink of Depression and robbed the middle class of their wealth.

As a realist about this subject, Dems are going to continue taking corporate money as long as the Repubs do, and vice versa. Don't believe at all that this can be changed in drips and drabs. We need a great movement to have the public finance all campaigns if we're to remove corporate influence. Amend that last sentence to: corporate ownership of our representatives.

[oldcynic]

93. Well put!

How about limiting political campaigns? Others do it in six weeks. Think America can manage in six months?
There once was a rule, I thought, that if a candidate appeared on media (at that time tv) equal time had to be given the opposing candidate. Sounds reasonable.

eeechhh! You're right, Lexington. That structure has collapsed on itself. Public financing.............................with compulsory voting ala Australia?

[betsuni]

96. Why not give examples of corporate influence? Is it too much to ask for some evidence to back up

your opinion? Specific ones. When did a Democratic politician take corporate campaign cash and do corporate bidding? Surely you must have a few examples because you said "many Democratic politicians are addicted to corporate campaign cash." Anyone? Pretty please?

[betsuni]

104. Again with the insults. I knew it!

Here are specific real-life examples: Exxon giving half a million to the Trump campaign and now former CEO Tillerson as SoS and probably sanctions lifted so the Exxon/Russia Black Sea oil deal can proceed. Dow giving one million and now the CEO advising Trump and regulations on insecticides reduced, federal studies ignored. Dick Cheney. Republicans have good solid examples.

You know your accusations against Democrats are incorrect. We've seen the corrections. Revisionist history doesn't work here. "Death by a thousand cuts" -- heh, very dramatic, nice touch.

Finally, would people stop trying to insult me with the new/young/naive/ignorant etc. things, please? It doesn't work because I'm pretty old and doesn't make me mad enough to say anything that will be alerted. Try something else!

[betsuni]

109. Oh, the insult-filled post I was replying to was self-deleted, good call.

Maybe someone gave you advice. When a friend is addicted to something that is harmful to them the people who love that person gently encourage them to wean themselves off of that harmful substance.

[truthaddict247]

118. Are you honestly

Suggesting that the financial reform and healthcare reform were the preferred pieces of legislation of democrats and challenged the corporate powers in each industry?

[betsuni]

121. What?

Have no idea what this means.

[betsuni]

127. Oh wait, get it! truthaddict247 -- when a friend is addicted, accusing me of being dishonest.

Uh oh. When a friend is addicted to something that is harmful to them the people who love that person gently encourage them to wean themselves off that harmful substance.

[JI7]

97. Why did so many White Men vote for Trump ?

[ProfessorPlum]

100. Racism? 30 years of GOP lies about Clinton?

[delisen]

107. Because Democratic Emphasis on Equal Rights for All was Succeeding

and some voters think Equal Rights for All mean Fewer rights for Some.

How about an Outreach Tour that Addresses this?

[delisen]

106. Who or what is financing The Outreach Tour? The first step is to make sure "corporate"

money is not being used-just verifiable small donations.

This would, I think, be consistent with its purpose.

[betsuni]

110. Good point.

Must guard against corporate cooties.

[Squinch]

126. Lol.