Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (117963)	11/20/2011 12:40:02 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224890

We have some common ground here. I would guess that one would be hard pressed to find any politician who is free from having received donations from banks and financial institutions. They give to both sides, and from what I have seen, pretty much everybody. Since the influence of money on our political process concerns you what do you think of the Citizens United verdict? If you want my support on something, you would have it on a law that would again outlaw unlimited soft money from entering the political process. I see things a little differently here. I don't see the problem as the soft money going in, I see the problem as the politicians allowing themselves to be bought. And there are more ways to buy congresscritters than just political donations. I agree with the verdict for Citizens United. Here is why, the whole argument against corporate personhood is a canard. Oprah Winfrey is a corporation as are most successful actors. Many doctors are corporations. But they are also individuals. A Corporation is just a legal entity that represents the interests of multiple individuals. Those individual have a right to donate whether it is through themselves or a legal entity that represents them. This also applies to unions. And what about non-corporate donations? You can have a guy like George Soros or the Koch Brothers acting as individuals who can certainly exert more influence than most corporations. I'm less concerned with the donations to PACs than I am the undocumented enrichments. When you have someone like Nancy Pelosi increasing her net worth by $12M in 10 years, you know that it isn't from her pay as the speaker of the house. Here is what I do support: 1. Caps on campaign funds. Let's stop having the success of elections based on who can raise the most cash. Put a cap of $20M on congressional elections. $100M on presidential elections. 2. Absolute financial transparency for all elected politicians. Every congress person must declare their assets when they take office. All of their investments must be made public at the time of the investment. In fact, I would go so far as to say that congress members should only be allowed to invest in mutual funds and bonds. Even then, we'll have things like Pelosi's brother in law's firm making huge bank on sweetheart government grant deals. And laws passed that remarkably favor family members of congress people And yes, I am using Pelosi as my scapegoat here, but I know that both sides of the aisle are guilty of profiting from their political position. I want it stopped across the board. That's why I like Sarah Palin. Everyone ignores that when she was the governor of Alaska, she went after the corrupt politicians. And it wasn't democrats that she went after. She went after republicans. The left loves to portray her as being dumb, but as an executive, she actually did something about the corruption in her state. We need a president who acts like an executive and demands ethical behavior from elected officials and all federal government employees.