Stonehenge said:

>When money is spent on the poor, they spend it fast

>Sadly, we have rich people saving allot more then they spend

Hmmm you think there might be some correlation or even cause and effect?

---

Stonehenge said:

ToiletDuk said:

How about limiting campaign contributions to a certain amount. That seems to me to be a good idea.

---

Thats a start, it would be better than the unlimited crap scotus wished on us. Its the other sneaky ways of paying off that are the problem too.

---

Stonehenge said:

Well damn, both lds and zappa had good ideas? Along with gil of course. Term limits are a must to keep the bums from becoming entrenched. Unrelated amendments are the weasel trick we must lose. If the moochers couldn't vote, the dems would wither away. Not that i want to see the gop gain absolute control, they are just as deep in the pockets of the lobbyists as the dems.

Here is my suggestion. End all campaign contributions to candidates as well as all forms of payola. No more speaking fees, no more donations to someone's favorite cause, no job after office, no in kind, no nothing. If no one can buy an election then things will clean up. Also get rid of that latest monstrosity that allows unlimited contributions and advertizing. Get rid of citizens v united while you are at it. I know zap won't like any of those because they are good ideas and he is against most good ideas.

People could still contribute, they would simply give it to a central clearing office that gives it to the candidates stripped of who gave what. They get the money but are never sure who gave, so pay for play takes a hit.

---

"End all campaign contributions."  Then only rich guys will ever be able to run and win elections.  Brilliant.  Why are you afraid of speech? 

"No job after office."  Once again, only rich guys could hold office with this kind of restriction.  They don't get paid much in office and I don't want to pay them any more.

"latest monstrosity that allows unlimited contributions"  Doesn't exist.  You are still limited in how much you can give to any one candidate.  You just are no longer limited to how many candidates you can give the maximum to.  I think but am not sure that the limit is $2,500.  If i'm wrong I'm not wrong by much.

"Get rid of citizens v united while you are at it."  So only anointed media poohbahs are allowed access to mass media to try to convince voters?  What kind of oligarchy are you trying to foist on us now?  My level of contempt for the people who you would clear the field for is so immense I would rather their roles be filled  by reptiles from another planet.  They are fucking scumbags but according to you everybody else has to shut up?  Fuck that shit right in their smarmy mouths.

"give it to a central clearing office"  I believe that is the case when you give to party committees except for this part:

"never sure who gave".  The NY Times won't like that part one bit.  They want to know the names and amounts and causes of every donor anywhere ever.  So they can shame them. 

In a nutshell you are against free speech, the right of the people to petition their representatives and in favor of anointing a priest class of "journalists" with the final say on what can and cannot be said abvout a candidate for public office.

Stonehenge said:

Zap
>SCOTUS has not done that at all

They just issued an opinion saying just that. You should keep up with the news more.

---

Stonehenge said:

Zap
>SCOTUS has not done that at all

They just issued an opinion saying just that. You should keep up with the news more.

---

Stonehenge said:

If zap was in favor of all those good ideas i would have fallen over in shock.

>"End all campaign contributions."  Then only rich guys will ever be able to run and win elections

I explained how it can be done.

---

Quote:

"No job after office."  Once again, only rich guys could hold office with this kind of restriction.

No job from anyone they directly benefited. I should have explained that part.

---

Quote:

>"Get rid of citizens v united while you are at it."  So only anointed media poohbahs are allowed access to mass media to try to convince voters?

There would still be plenty of access to mass media. It would simply stop the unlimited crap that floods the airwaves now. Apparently you like endless political ads.

---

Quote:

>"never sure who gave".  The NY Times won't like that part one bit.  They want to know the names and amounts and causes of every donor anywhere ever.  So they can shame them.

I'm glad if they don't like it

---

Stonehenge said:

>How would you determine  that? (job)

It would be a little tricky but as it is they are doing a revolving door. For example, people who worked for monsanto going on to have a top job at the fda because of payola, top fda people going on to a lucrative position at monsanto. Just for example.

---

Quote:

>The NY Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, LA Times, ABC, NBC, CBS and, yes, Fox News are political ads 24/7.  It is time for you to open your eyes and realize that.

They risk alienating their readers if they are too far over the top. From what i hear, that process has been accelerating with fewer and fewer subscribers.

---

Quote:

>I hope their building collapses.  Did you know they got it through eminent domain?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Building

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

---

Quote:

Sykes was the only announced Democratic candidate in Pinellas County's 13th Congressional District, but he said Wednesday he has now decided not to run after all.

In the voicemail, Mark Hanisee said party officials had spoken to the offices of two key Democrats, former congressional candidate Alex Sink and St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Kriseman.

"Neither one of them are endorsing you, nor is the (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee). They have another candidate," Hanisee said. He added, "You better hold off, or, like I told you Sunday night, you are going to be persona non grata. Take that to the bank. That's telling you the gospel truth. You're going to be getting a call from Rick Kriseman, if you haven't already, telling you to back off. Have a nice weekend."

Sykes said the comments disappointed him, and "the party needs to be purged of these kinds of hindrances to its progress and progressiveness." He said all candidates should be allowed and encouraged to run.

---

Stonehenge said:

Gimme a break, zap. The 'pubs do the same thing, the dems have done it since forever. How will my reforms create more of it? By getting rid of the play for pay system already in place, whoever gets in will be less beholden to big money interests. Something has to change because the present system is rotten to the bone.

---

Quote:

fuck the 53% *rant*

---

Stonehenge said:

>You want a central committee to determine who gets funds.  Party bosses operating behind the scenes to determine who will serve and who will eat.

Wrong, you are as confused as the libs. I simply said people would send in their contributions to a committee for the candidate they support. The committee would act as a buffer, releasing the funds to the one it was directed but withholding the names of who contributed.

---

Quote:

>The present system is not rotten to the core and pay for play is not a prominent feature of it despite your envy. 

Ha ha, you are giving the dizziest ones here a run for their money. The system is rotten and pay for play is indeed the name of the game. The pols call it just "access" that the payer gets in return for his payola but we all know they get a lot more than that. All except you perhaps.

---

Quote:

Without removing payola the system will continue to be rotten and people will keep getting screwed. The present 2 party system is a sham and represents the two arms of the duopoly. I know without asking that you don't understand any of this or will pretend not to.

---

Stonehenge said:

>What would prevent the donors from telling the candidate they gave the money?

The politician wants to see some proof. Since the bureau or agency will not reveal names or amounts, that would be hard.

---

They see the guys at fundraisers

Quote:

>Access is not the same as pay for play

Didn't say it was, i said they got way more than access.

---

Quote:

>Every American has the Constitutionally protected right to petition his congressmen.  Pay for play is illegal and gets prosecuted.  It is called bribery.  Gaining access is not bribery.

Yes, it is bribery and it goes on every day. We can show cause and effect, large sums given to the politician who then votes the way the donor wants him to. No one will admit the vote is a direct result of the payoff but only a dummy would miss the significance.

---

Quote:

>There is nothing inherently wrong with a two party system.

No, but it makes it easy to reach an "accord" shall we say. Its like when there are only two places to buy a certain item, the price mysteriously goes up. No written agreement is needed, a wink and a nod will do, or a closed door discussion.

---

Are you trying to argue that the Dems and Reps are in cahoots?  That is

Quote:

>Further, there are many parties.  They just get no traction because they are usually one note whackjobs

Mostly because the media attacks any candidate that might be a threat to the duopoly

---

Quote:

>Don't forget to write in zappaisgod in 2016

I can see it now, the papers say you won and you run down saying "it was me, i swear thats me!!!"

---