The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
#4481
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
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.
#4482
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
In a debate with the Austrian school economist Robert Murphy, Warren Mosler, an American economist and founder of Mosler Automotive, outlined suggestions on not only how to improve the economy using Modern Monetary Theory, but laid out an innovative idea for campaign finance reform that would impact the role money plays in politics.
He suggested that campaign contributions be unlimited, but only 60 percent of every donation should go toward the intended candidate. The remaining 40 percent would go toward their opponent.
This 60/40 split in campaign contributions is ultimately meant to limit mega-donors from pouring millions into a single candidate’s coffer, thereby tilting the financial advantage one way.
He suggested that campaign contributions be unlimited, but only 60 percent of every donation should go toward the intended candidate. The remaining 40 percent would go toward their opponent.
This 60/40 split in campaign contributions is ultimately meant to limit mega-donors from pouring millions into a single candidate’s coffer, thereby tilting the financial advantage one way.
#4483
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.
Last edited by Ryan_G; 07-02-2013 at 11:25 AM.
#4487
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
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.
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.
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.
#4489
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.
#4490
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
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.
#4491
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.
You would need one clear guideline for this for it to work.
#4493
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
I agree that a Federal policy might make it simpler, but it's probably not as far-fetched as you think.
#4500
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. **** happens everywhere...