Check out some similar questions!

TUT317 · Nov 21, 2011, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Link not working. Can you post it again ?

Top Corporations Aid U.S. Chamber of Commerce Campaign - NYTimes.com corporations aid chamber of

paraclete · Nov 21, 2011, 10:13 PM

So what does that tell you? That lobbying by corporations should be limited, so that they are reigned it.
This is what you get, no money for new jobs but plenty of money to thwart government policy, sort of tells you that the reason employment isn't growing isn't the market but a deliberate political strategy

tomder55 · Nov 22, 2011, 03:23 AM

And here I thought they were the 1 %.. You guys got to work on your message. If they are the 1% then how could they be the tyranny of the majority ?

BTW ;FINREG is ridiculous legislation that needs to be repealed .

paraclete · Nov 22, 2011, 04:34 AM

Because the majority are stupid enough to think that what these guys feed them is a good idea. Do you count yourself among the majority, Tom, or are you part of the 1%?

TUT317 · Nov 22, 2011, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

and here I thought they were the 1 % ..You guys gotta work on your message. If they are the 1% then how could they be the tyranny of the majority ?

BTW ;FINREG is rediculous legislation that needs to be repealed .

Tom, please giver me a harder question than that. Representative democracy is not working for you. In its basic form representative democracy means that you vote for someone who is going to represent your interests.

How much more evidence do you need to see that representative democracy is working for the multinationals. We may have put politicians in office in the first place but we know where their loyalties can be found.

Tut

tomder55 · Nov 22, 2011, 04:51 AM

Funny thing is I never vote for any candidate based on how much money is in their campaign war chest . I don't know anyone who votes that way.

This is a big country and for a candidate to get their message to the public costs lots of money. Who's to pay for it ? The public through their taxes ? Why should my money go to a candidate I would never vote for ?

Who decides how public money is distributed ? I guarantee that public funding would be incumbent job insurance. Already there is too much incumbency ;but at least there is a chance that a challenger can win if they can finance their campaign.

BTW ;I should not have to explain 'tyranny of the majority to you . It is there in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Madison, Tocqueville, and Mill.

paraclete · Nov 22, 2011, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Funny thing is I never vote for any candidate based on how much money is in their campaign war chest . I don't know anyone who votes that way.

This is a big country and for a candidate to get their message to the public costs lots of money. Who's to pay for it ? The public through their taxes ? Why should my money go to a candidate I would never vote for ?

Who decides how public money is distributed ? I guarantee that public funding would be incumbent job insurance. Already there is too much incumbency ;but at least there is a chance that a challenger can win if they can finance their campaign.

BTW ;I should not have to explain 'tyranny of the majority to you . It is there in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Madison, Tocqueville, and Mill.

That's what they have, Tut, the tyanny of the majority. Interesting is that majority is very thin about 1%. Tom tries to justify this by saying it was ever so, but in the past the representatives weren't held in thrawl by lobby's. If you want your democracy back decouple campaign funding from contributions.

The great distinction between them and us is that we have the tyanny of the minority, but that's what we get for adapting their constitution for our purposes.

TUT317 · Nov 22, 2011, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Funny thing is I never vote for any candidate based on how much money is in their campaign war chest . I don't know anyone who votes that way.

No, I would want to know where the money comes from in the first place.

Originally Posted by tomder

This is a big country and for a candidate to get their message to the public costs lots of money. Who's to pay for it ? The public through their taxes ? Why should my money go to a candidate I would never vote for

Who said anything about public funding?

This issue can be addressed in detail. You seem to be always stuck in a one or the other mode. Not (A) doesn't necessarily mean we are stuck with (B).

Originally Posted by tomder

Who decides how public money is distributed ? I guarantee that public funding would be incumbent job insurance. Already there is too much incumbency ;but at least there is a chance that a challenger can win if they can finance their campaign.

Again, who said anything about public money.

Originally Posted by tomder

BTW ;I should not have to explain 'tyranny of the majority to you . It is there in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Madison, Tocqueville, and Mill.

I wouldn't worry about Plato and Aristotle, we all know where they were coming from.

By Mill I assume you mean J.S. Mill. Read Mill's famous essay,'On liberty'. You will see this abuse of representative democracy is exactly the point I am making.

Tut