it wasn't even attacking them. They are just trigger happy macho cops with nothing better to do but hang around town, brandishing military style weapons, while harassing citizens. They are lucky they didn't shoot him as well; you can't disagree with a cop; your mouth is a weapon and they can shoot you for it.

That seems like a pretty interesting idea and the first time I'd heard of it. I'd love to see how that would affect the donations of the Soroses and Adelsons of the world.

That actually sounds ingenious. The only problem with this approach is you are absolutely reinforcing the two party system. How do you factor in candidates that are not Republican or Democrat? How would this work in primaries? I like the overall idea of it but I feel it was expressed in a far to simple scenario.

EDIT: Perhaps give the donor the option of who the other 40% goes to instead? This might encourage the rise of the smaller parties. A Republican donor is more likely to choose the Libertarian or similar candidate over the Democrat and the Democrats would probably go for someone in the Green party or something.

perhaps if lobbying and donations were just simply illegal?

So you are for limiting free speech with regards to politics?

how is bribery free speech? i could argue that lobbying and the influence of money in politics limits my freedom of speech.

Sorry; I should have put the link to the original article which has more detail, including addressing the multiple party issue. The short version is, it would be left to individual state legislatures in his proposal.

Mosler made a point about this being different from companies who donate to both political candidates. In that case, the candidates are each theoretically beholden to the companies making the donations, so no matter who wins the election, the company has the winner "in their pocket."

In this example, if the 40% was split amongst multiple parties or candidates, the companies would have to donate significantly more to get the same "bang for their buck." And, if it was a private donor or company looking to support just one candidate or party, their opponent(s) would still receive money but would in no way be beholden to the donor.


Braineack - Good luck making any of that illegal. Or, more realistically, good luck in significantly reducing or eliminating it even if it were illegal. That's what makes this idea pretty ingenious on its surface.

This.

And limit the campaign time as well. 2 years campaigning for a 4 year job is ridiculous and part of the horrendous cost of supplying security, etc.

60-90 days before the election is what you get.

The problem is that by making donations and lobbying illegal there is no one to fund a candidate. The reason I say you are limiting free political speech is because I would be unable to do anything to support a candidate without in fact donating to them. If I make signs and stand out on the side of the road that is a political donation. If I pay for a commercial to be made to support a candidate that is a political donation. If I approach a congressman and have lunch with him that I pay for while discussing my views on politics that is lobbying. If you are merely suggesting that you make donations to candidate directly illegal then you have essentially changed nothing.

These are not the types of donations and lobbying efforts that you are talking about but they are inseparable by definition. How do you draw the line in such a way that is not unfairly discriminating?

EDIT: Or are you suggesting that a candidate can only use their own money to finance a campaign? If this is your suggestion then I find it laughable at best considering you will be ensuring that personal wealth is the only thing that matters in an election.

Oh of course. But at the same time, the supreme court levels the playing field more and more for indegent defendants...I wish they'd apply the same thought process for citizens outside the courtroom.

I read the article but I find his suggestion that states determine this split on their own to be absolutely ridiculous. Just imagine the political implications of that. Especially when it involves a federal election. Would you have to define parties and how would you determine which candidates are eligible in order to stop people from "running for office" to siphon of funds or as a complete waste of time because they can.

You would need one clear guideline for this for it to work.

sounds like the fairness doctrine, which they only want to apply to radio, not tv.

I believe each state already makes their own rules for things like primaries and for state-funded candidacies. Florida has closed primaries but not all states do. Iowa and others have straw polls but not all states do. California actually has one of the best systems of primaries, in my opinion.

I agree that a Federal policy might make it simpler, but it's probably not as far-fetched as you think.

I like JoeP's cameo, but why did they make him take his Hawaiian shirt off?

There was a dog involved and the officer didnt shoot it?!

Fuck your rights, now give me your guns.

My Catholic high school in Utah (!) saw one of the girls I dated marry a history teacher after she graduated college; they're still married and he's the principal of the new Catholic high school out there. There was another "incident" involving one of the school girls and the Spanish teacher, although I don't think it was common knowledge. Shit happens everywhere...