Campaign contributions

[Traveler]

I have posted before that no non-voting entity should ever be allowed to contribute to a campaign. The reason I believe this is because after elections federal subsidies are granted to corporations, businesses and other entities (including tax exempt organizations). Dollar invested in a campaign compared to return on investment in federal subsidies often reach a ration of 1,000 to 1. That is for each dollar in campaign contributions the return is as high as $1,000. The incentive for corruption is so great that no political party (or individual running for office) can hold any possible power - hope for reelection - without participating in raising funds unattached to some grant or subsidy.

By time a person receives a major party nomination they have, of necessity, already sold their political soul.

The Traveler

[Palerider]

One of things that bugs me in our elections are these contributions or selling out might be another way of putting it.

[Just_A_Guy]

I have mixed feelings. Seems to me that as long as non-commercial associations are permitted to donate en masse, there's no valid reason to exclude commercial associations from acting similarly. I don't like the idea of rich individuals being able to buy elections--but I do like the idea of concerned citizens being constitutionally free to (almost literally) put their money where their mouth is; provided that beyond some threshold we all know where the money's coming from and where it's going. (But then again, these days we're seeing a lot more targeted bullying of people whose names show up on donor lists . . .)

Moreover, when you get right down to it, money is really just a convenient medium of exchanging labor or effort--if we're going to impose limits on how much money individuals can donate to a campaign, what's the ideological basis for not imposing similar limits on individual contributions of time? Why would it be OK to form a group of people dedicated to walking precincts and getting the message out, but somehow wrong to form a group of people who can pool resources and pay a third party to walk those same precincts and distribute that same message?

I don't know how you resolve it.

[Traveler]

I have mixed feelings. Seems to me that as long as non-commercial associations are permitted to donate en masse, there's no valid reason to exclude commercial associations from acting similarly. I don't like the idea of rich individuals being able to buy elections--but I do like the idea of concerned citizens being constitutionally free to (almost literally) put their money where their mouth is; provided that beyond some threshold we all know where the money's coming from and where it's going. (But then again, these days we're seeing a lot more targeted bullying of people whose names show up on donor lists . . .)

Moreover, when you get right down to it, money is really just a convenient medium of exchanging labor or effort--if we're going to impose limits on how much money individuals can donate to a campaign, what's the ideological basis for not imposing similar limits on individual contributions of time? Why would it be OK to form a group of people dedicated to walking precincts and getting the message out, but somehow wrong to form a group of people who can pool resources and pay a third party to walk those same precincts and distribute that same message?

I don't know how you resolve it.

The problem as I see it is when the rights of an individual voter are overshadowed by others with greater resources. This can be the only possible outcome when powers outside voting areas make any attempt to sway the vote. I believe corporate interest have every right to influence their employees but not to know how they vote. But I do not believe corporate influence has right beyond that. That is - I do not believe the corporate person should be granted political campaign right. Government can only be an impartial regulator of business and business not given competition privileged; if and only if government and private funds are not co-mingled - in election or grants and tax exemptions and so on. Otherwise one become the means to corrupt the other, subvert capitalism and free enterprise and directly or indirectly fostering secret combinations in both.

The Traveler

[kapikui]

The problem with saying "Only certain groups can donate", or "Only So much can be donated" is that it isn't that hard to get around. Ever wonder why so many politicians write books? Bill Clinton's book was mostly copy/paste from other official sources, yet he sold a huge number of them. Ever wonder why? Instead of donating over the table where people can see it, you push such "donations" underground. Give me what I want, and I'll by 10,000 copies of your book.

All "campaign finance" laws do is push such things underground, and let such people operate in the dark. They'll still buy the politicians, they'll just find a way around it.

The way to stop politicians from being bought and sold by outside interests is to reduce their power to the point that the return on the investment isn't there.

[Traveler]

The problem with saying "Only certain groups can donate", or "Only So much can be donated" is that it isn't that hard to get around. Ever wonder why so many politicians write books? Bill Clinton's book was mostly copy/paste from other official sources, yet he sold a huge number of them. Ever wonder why? Instead of donating over the table where people can see it, you push such "donations" underground. Give me what I want, and I'll by 10,000 copies of your book.

All "campaign finance" laws do is push such things underground, and let such people operate in the dark. They'll still buy the politicians, they'll just find a way around it.

The way to stop politicians from being bought and sold by outside interests is to reduce their power to the point that the return on the investment isn't there.

So you are suggesting that we make our country and society worthless?

I understand that in any endeavor where there is value there is potential for corruption to abuse such power. Even in families there is potential for spousal abuse or parents to abuse their children. But I do not think that disbanding all parents from any disciplining of their children is the thoughtful or intelligent solution. You are correct in your assessment that whenever there is authority there is a natural disposition for unrighteous dominion. (D&C 121)

At the same time we all have responsibilities that in one way or another translate into power and authority. We have an obligation to exercise such power and authority according to consistent law and consistent moral predetermination. Each generation in a free society must deal with enforcing law and establishing morals and seeing to it that the two remain tightly coupled.

I started this thread so as individuals we can look at our political ties and wonder why we are so dependent of 30 second sound bites for which millions are paid. It costs over $100,000,000 to be a serious candidate for president with any possibility of being elected. That is the simple fact of politics in the USA. My intent is to make clear why so much money is involved and why the cadre of investors are so ruthless in all endeavors to castigate any opposition.

Think about this for just a minute or two. If you were investing $10,000 with an expected return of $10,000,000 - what would you say and what might you be willing to do to insure the return?

I will give one small example. In 1972 I was asked to help manage a friend's campaign for county commissioner in Utah county in the state of Utah. I took this offer seriously because I knew this friend quite well. I sat down with him and asked him to clearly outline why he was running for this office and exactly and preciously what he intended to accomplish by serving. We discussed the usual propaganda that I quickly dismissed and then I challenged my friend to be straight with me and not insult my intelligence. The friend pointed out to me that Utah county was growing and that property of necessity must be rezoned and in some cases emanate domain exercised to accommodate the growth. In essence millions would be made each year moving forward from property rezoned. I was promised a cut to be associated with his campaign. The argument was that the changing of property value due to rezoning would make anyone associated with such property very rich very quickly and that I could choose to be a part of that and have an influence or leave that windfall and decisions to someone else. My decisions ending up costing a friendship, a rather ugly campaign for county commissar, some eventual laws suits and me forever leaving a certain political party and the acquiring a very bitter taste for politics. I have since come to understand that Utah politics is among the cleanest, most honest and most straight forward in this country.

The Traveler

[Guest]

No campaign finance reform will ever matter until something can be done about ignorant voters.

[prisonchaplain]

Nothing should be done about ignorant voters--at least not by government entities. The power of democracy is that everyone gets a say. We disallow poll taxes and tests for a reason. Even the illiterate may vote.

This may be scary to many. However, if we do not believe in democracy, then let us find some system of elite government that works better.

On a private level, of course, roughly half the country is ignorant. That's why my favored candidate either loses, or barely wins. So, I will do what I can, through financial support of educational efforts, direct support of campaigns, perhaps even volunteering for my candidate.

[mnn727]

Time for a new campaign spending rule:

No candidate or group(PAC) campaigning for a candidate (combined) can spend more than the annual salary that office makes.

[mnn727]

No campaign finance reform will ever matter until something can be done about ignorant voters.

Which is usually defined as someone who does not believe what I believe.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on this, ignorant voters mess up the whole system, but what is the test? who determines?

[yjacket]

I have posted before that no non-voting entity should ever be allowed to contribute to a campaign. ....

By time a person receives a major party nomination they have, of necessity, already sold their political soul.

The Traveler

Hi Traveler. From my interpretation of current law, corporations are already barred from donating money directly to federal campaigns. And PACs are limited to a max of 5k.

If you ever see the graphs of y company donates x amount to a candidate what that is really saying is that x amount of dollars were disclosed as coming from people employed by y company. When you donate to a candidate, they ask you to disclose your employer and that is where the information comes from.

In addition current PAC laws limit the amount that PACs can give directly to candidates. As someone else said, all this does is allow corporations to skirt around the issue. As it is right now, in order to really trace what company is giving how much to a candidate one has to find out how much they have donated to PACs and then how those PACs have distributed the money.

I would much rather have a system set up that one knows that Bank of America say donated 100,000 to some candidate. As it is right now, that information is very hard to get because again the information presented that Bank of America donated 100,000 isn't Bank of America it is 40 individual employees of BoA donating 2500 each.

I agree that the candidates have lost their soul, but I'm not sure that it is donations that are doing it.

1st off, who in their right mind would actually want to be an elected official. Most of the actual positions do not pay a whole lot. It is raw power and because it is raw power it attracts those who don't have as many scruples because they can shift with the wind to maintain their power and prestige. Most good, decent, honest individuals would never want to actually be a candidate because it is a very dirty business to campaign (which IMO speaks more of the people electing them . . . ).

2nd, I believe that if you want to get money out of politics you have to get as much power as possible out of politics. Diffuse the power, make it more local not more central. The average Congressional District size is 700,000 people vs. 60,000 a hundred years ago vs. the 35,000 at the time of the Constitution.

Think of that, representatives were truly representatives. 35,000 people, the size of a decent college campus, more people fit into football stadiums. We'd have over 5000 representatives at that point. It might be a lot more unwieldy but the diffusion of power would be immense.

The population of many States are larger than the population of the colonies at the ratification of the Constitution. Instead of having States take on larger and larger roles and diffusing power we are centralizing power. With that centralization come power and with the power come the desire to ensure that x company either doesn't get harmed by laws or can take advantage of other companies with the laws.

Too much power, that is the problem.

[Guest]

Which is usually defined as someone who does not believe what I believe.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on this, ignorant voters mess up the whole system, but what is the test? who determines?

Nothing should be done about ignorant voters--.

Exactly.

I guess you didn't catch my "literary artistic" way of saying, no campaign finance reform will ever be able to address the problem because there will always be those people whose vote you can buy.

[NightSG]

So you are suggesting that we make our country and society worthless?

No, we just need to make our government worth a lot less.

Hold it to the strictest possible interpretation of its Constitutionally granted powers, and see how many political money making opportunities are left.

[kapikui]

So you are suggesting that we make our country and society worthless?

The Traveler

How is controlling GOVERNMENT making SOCIETY worthless? They aren't the same thing. Government is at best a necessary evil, and exist (at least righteously) to assure that everyone's God-given rights are upheld.

A powerful government simply invites corruption. The more powerful, the more corruption WILL show up. The genius of the founders was that our government can weather even extended periods of corruption with very little long-term damage. Any argument that involves "We just need to make sure the right people are in charge" leads to bondage.

[Traveler]

Simple economics demonstrates that a gold standard does not work (is not optimal) in a large complex and free market pace and at the same time - if one opposes big government imposing power; a gold standard only shifts controlling power to government to control all commerce exchanges. The problem is in realizing that barter is the basis of free economic exchange and that in almost all cases it is not the medium (gold or whatever) that makes the exchange valuable but the bartered exchange of goods and services. In other words in an open and free market place what makes the exchange valuable is that both parties benefit and this includes exchanges where both parties desire something other than gold. This is because gold is not of specific value to either parties - the accumulation of gold is counter productive effort and a waist of resources (goods and services) if that is the primary purpose.

The reason that the dollar was such a great means of exchange in the past was not because of a gold standard but because the businesses (not government) was trusted to deliver comparable value (not in gold but in comparable goods and services). This is the reason that money was invented as a means of exchanged in the first place. To further clarify - if at any given time the global value of gold is greatly exceeded by the global value of available goods and services - then the enforcement of a gold standard becomes a great deterrent (bottle nick) to a growing free and open economy.

The greater problem is when governments exercise regressive regulations over commence forcing un-beneficial exchanges. This causes the exchange of goods and services to become untrusted regardless of exchange medium. In general the economy grinds to such narrow limits that gold, rather than goods and services, becomes the only trusted means to conduct business - and that shuts down freedom as an element of economy and any society trying to exist in such a landscape.

The Traveler

[yjacket]

Simple economics demonstrates that a gold standard does not work (is not optimal) in a large complex and free market pace and at the same time - if one opposes big government imposing power; a gold standard only shifts controlling power to government to control all commerce exchanges.

I'm curious what your definition of a gold standard is and how simple economics demonstrates that a gold standard does not work?

A metal standard i.e. gold/silver certainly can work in the modern world. A standard where the government sets a certain ratio will not work as Gresham's Law will eventually take over.

The problem is in realizing that barter is the basis of free economic exchange and that in almost all cases it is not the medium (gold or whatever) that makes the exchange valuable but the bartered exchange of goods and services. In other words in an open and free market place what makes the exchange valuable is that both parties benefit and this includes exchanges where both parties desire something other than gold.

Agree, except that it isn't a problem.

This is because gold is not of specific value to either parties - the accumulation of gold is counter productive effort and a waist of resources (goods and services) if that is the primary purpose.

Disagree, gold is of value, it is of value in that it can be exchanged easily. Money in a natural state evolves from something that already has value. The easiest case is cigarettes used as money in WWII. Saying the accumulation of gold is counter-productive is like saying the accumulation of dollar bills is a waste. A major component of it's value is that is can be exchanged.

The reason that the dollar was such a great means of exchange in the past was not because of a gold standard but because the businesses (not government) was trusted to deliver comparable value (not in gold but in comparable goods and services). This is the reason that money was invented as a means of exchanged in the first place. To further clarify - if at any given time the global value of gold is greatly exceeded by the global value of available goods and services - then the enforcement of a gold standard becomes a great deterrent (bottle nick) to a growing free and open economy.

I'm not sure I follow, if everything was priced in gold, then as the value of gold went up the price of everything would go down; just like today as the value of the dollar goes down the price of everything goes up.

The greater problem is when governments exercise regressive regulations over commence forcing un-beneficial exchanges. This causes the exchange of goods and services to become untrusted regardless of exchange medium. In general the economy grinds to such narrow limits that gold, rather than goods and services, becomes the only trusted means to conduct business - and that shuts down freedom as an element of economy and any society trying to exist in such a landscape.

I don't quite follow, would you please elaborate?

IMO, the biggest danger in the monetary system is who controls it? Currently the Federal Reserve along with the Treasury control the monetary system and therefore control who benefits from the creation of the money supply first. All the banks, their cronies, government contractors, government employees, etc get access to the money before anyone else does and they benefit unjustly. In a gold standard system there cannot be such a system as money is injected into the system naturally.

A great video that explains things pretty well can be found here:

[Traveler]

I'm curious what your definition of a gold standard is and how simple economics demonstrates that a gold standard does not work?

A metal standard i.e. gold/silver certainly can work in the modern world. A standard where the government sets a certain ratio will not work as Gresham's Law will eventually take over.

Agree, except that it isn't a problem.

Disagree, gold is of value, it is of value in that it can be exchanged easily. Money in a natural state evolves from something that already has value. The easiest case is cigarettes used as money in WWII. Saying the accumulation of gold is counter-productive is like saying the accumulation of dollar bills is a waste. A major component of it's value is that is can be exchanged.

I'm not sure I follow, if everything was priced in gold, then as the value of gold went up the price of everything would go down; just like today as the value of the dollar goes down the price of everything goes up.

I don't quite follow, would you please elaborate?

IMO, the biggest danger in the monetary system is who controls it? Currently the Federal Reserve along with the Treasury control the monetary system and therefore control who benefits from the creation of the money supply first. All the banks, their cronies, government contractors, government employees, etc get access to the money before anyone else does and they benefit unjustly. In a gold standard system there cannot be such a system as money is injected into the system naturally.

A great video that explains things pretty well can be found here:

Perhaps the best example of the failure of the gold standard is the international trade of the western world with China leading up to the 19th century. Because the international trade negations was based on a gold standard rather than an exchange of goods and services - exchanges became so out of balance that a 20 nation alliance formed a powerful international drug cartel dealing opium in China in an attempt to upset the imbalance of gold reserves accumulated by China.

China suffered devastating internal economic and social collapse during the 1800's in what is known in China as the 100 years of shame. At the end of the 1800's China made an attempt to end the intrusions of opium which ended in the 20 nation alliance igniting war against China which ended the empirical empire and as punishment the 20 nation drug cartel alliance forced the removal of Hong Kong and Taiwan from China for 100 years.

China learned well and has made adjustments - but the rest of the world (western world) has forgotten this history and once again created an imbalance in a medium of exchange (US dollars) - repeating the error of history thinking that the medium of exchange is more important that the actual exchange of goods and services.

Currently the progressive political movement in the USA intends to redistribute wealth through creating an imbalance in exchanges of medium (dollars) in government programs for the poor - ignoring the barter of goods and services. It is this counterfeit and false exchange of a medium rather than real value of true economic exchange of goods and services that creates distrust in the medium. I submit that such devaluation of the dollar destroys the trust in commerce exchanges - which would happen and has always happened when government interferes with the value of the medium of exchange in relation to goods and services bartered. And it would not make any difference if there was a gold standard or not.

The point being that the ratio of value of gold cannot be constant in a growing and free economy because gold is scarce and a limited commodity but the variety and value of goods and services in a free economy must be free to increase and grow continually. A gold standard prevents goods and services from increasing and changing beyond the standard ratio to the medium which is gold and silver. Since the ratio has no relevant connection to a free and open economy exchanging goods and services; the only reason to argue for a gold standard is to gain control of free and open exchanges and centralize the control of the economy.

The Traveler