[talaniman]

I'm saying money is an essential part of politics .If it is not available the the message does not get out . If there is no private money then the government decides which message gets funded . Let's say Trump became the tyrant you believe he is . Then how would your message get out without private anonymous funding ?

Money makes the world go 'round for sure, but it's humans that manipulate it's purpose and function. My argument against capitalism always has been in the lack of circulation caused by the hoarding by those with the most of it. Evidence 1 is the setting of values of the humans with less. Example, a wall street trader or ceo is worth more than a school of teachers, a city of cops and fire fighters, and can garner more capital than any ordinary person.

While I am in no way advocating public funding for pols to get their message out during silly season, I disagree with the notion of DARK secret money in elections as well. Maybe there is a middle ground that can be achieved, but surely the infusion of even more money into the process is not the answer.

Unbridled capitalism is a curse not a cure in my humble opinion, and hiding behind anonymity is a facilitator of that curse. Just as we are experiencing the weaponization of the internet, we cannot discount the get the message out aspect we are also experiencing at levels previously unimaginable. Okay I have no instant good solution so we keep debating. 8D

Maybe the agenda is wrong, as the use of money for power, wealth, and control may not be the best idea. Building, uniting, and improving CIRCULATION would be more constructive.

[jlisenbe]

Evidence 1 is the setting of values of the humans with less. Example, a wall street trader or ceo is worth more than a school of teachers..

That's because for every one person with the skill and determination to be a CEO, which is a wildly demanding job, there are a thousand people who can be teachers, and I say that having spent most of my adult life as a teacher/principal. It's a simple law of supply and demand, with a high demand for successful CEOs but a relatively low supply. It also explains why we pay NFL football quarterbacks so much. There is a high demand but a very limited supply of great quarterbacks, so the really good ones can name their price even though what they do is essentially useless. There are millions of people who can sell popcorn at the stadium, so they get paid much less.

I think your argument against capitalism is flawed for this reason. Rich people do not hoard their money. Wealthy people do not take their money and hide it in a hole in the back yard. They invest their money which allows the development of new businesses and the employment of the rest of us. One of the truly great things about our country is that the opportunity to become wealthy is out there for practically all of us IF we are willing to pay the price to get there. Personally, I don't want to work 70 or 80 hours a week, so I think I'll pass on it.

[tomder55]

Oh my ! We have to do some deprogramming from Tal's higher education . A good start would be to read '

Popular Economics: What the Rolling Stones, Downton Abbey, and LeBron James Can Teach You about Economics ' by John Tamney ,editor of 'Real Clear Markets '.

Imposing limits on spending money or organizing make the 1st amendment useless to most Americans .If spending money to express a viewpoint is not protected, then the most impact you can have with free speech is to stand on a chair in a crowded area and start shouting.

If we do agree that individuals have the right to speak freely and spend money to spread their ideas, then why wouldn’t that same right apply to two or more people pooling their resources to do the same thing? Americans don’t sacrifice their liberties when they join together. Limits allow government bureaucrats the final word on your free speech .

Absent the ability to spend money and pool resources, the only ones who could express their views to large numbers of people would be those who don’t need to pay for a public platform,or those rich enough to buy a media company ie incumbents and celebrities. You think your regulations are protecting the little folk ,but they are not. I learned a long time ago that most of the regulations are designed to protect the interests of the empowered . But somehow election finance laws are different ? Come on man!

[talaniman]

Didn't I just make that point that throwing more private money in the game skews the whole process? Particularly DARK money? You can defend it all you want and holler about the rules but if you cannot track that DARK money, then how do you even know its from a legit source? The same applies to both major parties, not just the conservatives who are afraid of a boycott. Can't repubs boycott our donors as well?

Of course you can, so lets dismiss totally this dark money argument altogether and just obey the law. Sure corporations are people too! >SNICKER< So come clean and take your consequences like the rest of us.

[jlisenbe]

What is "dark money"?

[talaniman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money

In the

politics of the United States

,

dark money is funds given to nonprofit organizations—and include 501(c)(4) (social welfare) 501(c)(5) (unions) and 501(c)(6) (trade association) groups—that can receive unlimited donations from corporations, individuals and unions. They can spend funds to influence elections, but are not required to disclose their donors. ^[3][4]

"but not required to disclose their donors" is the important part in my estimation but you should read the whole article for a better perspective.

[jlisenbe]

OK. I had never heard the term before. Good luck with telling unions that they cannot spend money on elections.

[paraclete]

Seeing as Mueller investigation has fallen on hard times this would be the ideal reassignment, investigate dark money and interference in elections

[tomder55]

Good luck with telling unions that they cannot spend money on elections.

Exactly ,they never cry foul when their organizations do it . They scream from a mountaintop about Koch and Russians while ignoring years of Soros interfering in the American political process for years now.

[talaniman]

OK. I had never heard the term before. Good luck with telling unions that they cannot spend money on elections.

Union WORKERS can opt out of paying dues and still retain union protections, but the real issue is the corporations without or with unions being able to contribute to candidate and causes without disclosing those amounts, or ordering workers to participate in those campaigns whether they want to or not.

Exactly ,they never cry foul when their organizations do it . They scream from a mountaintop about Koch and Russians while ignoring years of Soros interfering in the American political process for years now.

We like Soros, and hate the Koch's and Russians... DUH!

[jlisenbe]

Union WORKERS can opt out of paying dues and still retain union protections, but the real issue is the corporations without or with unions being able to contribute to candidate and causes without disclosing those amounts, or ordering workers to participate in those campaigns whether they want to or not.

How convenient to allow the democrat supporting unions to continue to spend millions of dollars to support politicians.

I have never heard of businesses being able to order their employees to support politicians. Where are you getting that from?

[talaniman]

Okay, Hope this helps.

https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/12...nited-at-work/

And some examples and anecdotes,

Employer Political Coercion: A Growing Threat

And a bit of background,

The Rise of Corporations — Global Issues

There is a lot of literature and all I gave you here was just an outline. The last link has many related articles linked at the bottom of the page... "Where Next?"

1. The Rise of Corporations
2. Corporations and Human Rights
3. Tax Avoidance and Tax Havens; Undermining Democracy
4. Pharmaceutical Corporations and Medical Research
5. Pharmaceutical Corporations and AIDS
6. Corporations and the Environment
7. Corporate Social Responsibility
8. Corporate Influence on Children
9. Corporations and Worker’s Rights
10. Influence at the World Trade Organization