The Rich Are Interfering in our elections

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20344]

The rich are interfering with democracy.  We absolutely HAVE to eliminate the influence of money on politics and on policy.  The New Republic lays it out perfectly.

https://newrepublic.com/article/155664/rich-americans-interfering-elections

[formermav43 4599]

In the old days, the Founding Fathers-who were basically all rich-would buy people booze to secure their votes. The scale has changed, but this is just the American way.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20344]

7 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

In the old days, the Founding Fathers-who were basically all rich-would buy people booze to secure their votes. The scale has changed, but this is just the American way.

 

It may be the"The American Way,"  but that's not relevant to my point, which is that it must be eliminated.

Edited November 9, 2019 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[Patrick Bateman 3903]

[hpslugga 4044]

9 hours ago, formermav43 said:

In the old days, the Founding Fathers-who were basically all rich-would buy people booze to secure their votes. The scale has changed, but this is just the American way.

Not much of a justification 

[Michael Knight 12892]

What if,  we ate them?

[Dbeasy 14966]

I want booze.

[Junior Miller 1502]

You misspelled the thread title. 

It's "Water is still wet"

 

[Guest Lobo]

Maybe a candidate wouldn't need so much money to run a presidential campaign (and by default, be beholden to donors) if our country wasn't so big and our primary season lasted 16 months.  

[David Dennison 18655]

The rich will continue to corrupt our politics as long as the Supreme Court considers spending money to be speech.

Edited November 10, 2019 by David Dennison

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13010]

Welcome to Earth, OP.

[Horn Dog 9671]

I’d be okay with this if I got some free booze out of the deal

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

The rich will continue to corrupt our politics as long as the Supreme Court considers spending money to be speech.

If compulsory paycheck withholdings going to union dues which went to bundled candidate and party contributions totaling in the billions over the last several decades can count as “free speech”, a straight and transparent check for a few million can count as well.  Either we have all this bullshit or none of it.  
 

unions and pacs are just monopolies by different names.  

[bolverk 29399]

13 minutes ago, Lobo said:

If compulsory paycheck withholdings going to union dues which went to bundled candidate and party contributions totaling in the billions over the last several decades can count as “free speech”, a straight and transparent check for a few million can count as well.  Either we have all this bullshit or none of it.  
 

unions and pacs are just monopolies by different names.  

That'd be a compromise I'd be willing to make.

[elfenix 34171]

On 11/9/2019 at 3:41 PM, formermav43 said:

In the old days, the Founding Fathers-who were basically all rich-would buy people booze to secure their votes. The scale has changed, but this is just the American way.

bunch of guys, many of whom owned other human beings as their personal property, thought buying votes was ok, so it should still be ok.  film at 11.

[formermav43 4599]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

bunch of guys, many of whom owned other human beings as their personal property, thought buying votes was ok, so it should still be ok.  film at 11.

Does the film have where I said it was ok? Because the quote doesn’t.

[elfenix 34171]

35 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Does the film have where I said it was ok? Because the quote doesn’t.

please point out where i said 'formermav43 thinks buying votes is ok'

Edited November 12, 2019 by elfenix

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20344]

Please! This is a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who ....

 

[formermav43 4599]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

please point out where i said 'formermav43 thinks buying votes is ok'

Well that implication seemed to be the most reasonable interpretation. But if it was just a completely irrelevant non sequitur, that’s fine.

[elfenix 34171]

8 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Well that implication seemed to be the most reasonable interpretation. But if it was just a completely irrelevant non sequitur, that’s fine.

i'm not sure if this is touche or not.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

The rich are interfering in our elections ??!  Is water still wet ?

[TwiceHorn 31269]

It is possible, just possible, that the First Amendment, that is, talking about this and making it a campaign issue, relentlessly, solves the problem.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is possible, just possible, that the First Amendment, that is, talking about this and making it a campaign issue, relentlessly, solves the problem.

So you want the very people who benefit from this nice little fund, to take action to get rid of it's influence ?