"They're all owned by the Banks" "They care only about their re-elections" "Look at how much ......"

[Stinky The Clown]

"..... he's gotten in Insurance Company donations."



The evidence is EVERYWHERE. They are all beholden. Every Damned One Of Them. Beholden to someone, but that someone us NEVER We The People.

Tell me again why term limits are bad.

Tell me again why publically financed campaigns are not the law.




So long as they need cash and corporate cash is the grease that keeps the cogs turning, you and I - the little people - will continue to GET FUCKED.

[DJ13]

1. If money was removed we might not have to hear the (too) often stated

"If we want X, we have to PUSH Obama...".

Im really getting tired of that phrase.

We shouldnt have to "push" a politician to do the things he campaigned on.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. How about all the committee chairs?

No matter the committee, no matter the party in power, isn't it striking that every committee chair gets the biggest donations from the industries their committees affect?

Just by way of example: Ben Nelson/Insurance.

Go through the committees and see who pays them the most mpney.

[DJ13]

4. Im about fed up with the entire lot of 'em

It used to be that influence buying was kept quiet, that the politicians knew they had to give in to voters wants on many issues just to insure no one could claim they were "owned" when it came to one or two issues that most concerned their donors.

Now its like the entire Congress and the Executive Branch just thumbs their noses at us and dares us to do something about their corruption.

Im really tired of them ignoring the people on every important issue just to vacuum up a few extra dollars in bribes.

[avaistheone1]

46. That is just a coincidence.

And my, my how convenient.

:sarcasm:

[harmonicon]

94. time to end corporate donations and limit individual contributions

screw this $2,000 stuff - how about $50 or $100 as a limit.

[bertman]

104. But, but, but Corporations are persons. Aren't they??

[harmonicon]

147. ha!

Yeah - I so easily forget. I have a date with Exxon-Mobile on Friday - what should I wear?!

[defendandprotect]

114. "Donations" . . . ?? Let's start calling it what it is -- BRIBERY . . . !!!

[ColbertWatcher]

6. I think "push" is a nice way of saying ...

... that our duties as citizens don't stop after we vote.

Remember, the GOP enlist churches to "discuss" their "concerns" with their Congress Critters, while some of us consider ourselves above following through on our votes because "pushing" is rude.

[urgk]

59. Agreed.

When I read "We shouldnt have to "push" a politician to do the things he campaigned on" my first thought was "who says?" Maybe that's the way it works.

[D-Lee]

65. Yup, keep calling and e-mailing your reps

You do have to keep expressing your views between elections.

And be active politically, if you can do so.

Term limits just concentrate power in the hands of the power brokers, by reducing institutional memory.

[formercia]

3. When single-payer goes down the rat hole again

they will all slap each other on the back, glad-hand and give out party invitations to celebrate how they all 'played the system' again and kept the piss-ants in their place.

It's long past due to start taking names and drive these assholes back into their little gated communities where they can rot.

[snowdays]

11. I wish folks would just vote those rats out of congress.

[TBF]

99. It would be awesome if it were that easy - but it's not. They'd only be replaced with new rats.

As we see time and time again. We need systemic change, and that comes from the bottom up. We need to get in the streets and make some noise. Peaceful strikes, that sort of thing.

[defendandprotect]

115. We also need to stop the system of BRIBERY . . . campaign funds . . .

FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT - HR 1826 IS IN THE WORKS ...

Public Financing of Campaigns -- and we should also have a say on . . .

"where, when and how -- and how much!"

COMMON CAUSE IS TRYING TO GET SENATORS/REPS TO SIGN A 'PLEDGE' TO VOTE FOR IT!!

Call your Senators and Reps -- they also need more sponsors!!!

Congressional Switchboard -- 1-202-224-3121 -- NOT TOLLFREE ...

They will connect you with any Senator and any Rep you want to speak with.

[SammyWinstonJack]

117. There's more where they came from. It's never-ending.

[mzmolly]

5. This argument doesn't really hold true for Obama

however. WE THE PEOPLE are what greased his campaign wheels. ;)

Ala http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638">Open Secrets .......

Individual contributions $656,357,572 88%
PAC contributions $1,830 0%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Federal Funds $0 0%
Other $88,626,223 12%

[snowdays]

10. as a senator i believe he was the second highest for Pharmaceutical

companies.

[mzmolly]

19. Not that I believe this, but he got far more money from individuals than

he did from big pharma, so the point is moot IMHO.

[pokercat999]

62. Not really, each individual donor gives chump change

compared to one corporation or industry giving huge amounts. You can piss-off many individuals that may or may not be paying attention but you can't afford to piss-off those big donors and you can bet they not only pay attention but they have ACCESS which the little guy NEVER gets.

[mzmolly]

86. Obama obtained 88% of his funding from individual contributions.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638#bli

[pokercat999]

92. Your reply supports my point........nt

[mzmolly]

95. The point is he's beholden to the people. He can't afford NOT to be.

The individuals who contributed to his campaign, did so expecting him to fulfill his stated vision for the country.

[defendandprotect]

120. Correct -- somewhere between $800 Billion/Trillion . . . however individuals have no LEVERAGE....

either over Obama or over the Dem Party --

We have no counter-force to the corporate lobbyists/enforcers who are

there every day making sure their agenda is pushed thru!!!

[defendandprotect]

118. No, it's not . . . notice that the public and other Dems have no LEVERAGE ...

over Obama --

whereas the corporations do -- they're there every day -- that's what lobbyists

are there for -- they're the enforcers!!

The American public/Dems which gave Obama close to $1 TRILLION have no LEVERAGE

over either Obama or Dem Party!!!

[MadHound]

16. Not necessarily so

After all, individuals from various industries donate, and usually in large amounts. Not to mention the fact that bundling donations isn't just a 'Pug tactic anymore.

Go further into Open Secrets and you'll find out the truth of the matter.
<http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638>

Sorry, but neither Obama nor any other politician is pure. They're all bought and paid for by corporate America.

[mzmolly]

17. Obama is far more beholden to "the people"

than he is to any industry.

[MadHound]

21. Hmmm, which is he going to pay more attention to,

Some anonymous somebody like myself, who sends in a few hundred bucks that I can spare, or the financial sector who dropped a cool 35 million in his coffers? Looking at how the financial sector bailout has been handled, I think we can figure out the answer.

[mzmolly]

25. Several "anonymous somebodies" depend on the financial

sector. Several people like you and I will be less likely to contribute going forward if the President doesn't respresent us. I don't know of any credible economist who said Obama shouldn't bail out the financial sector. The arguments fell under the how and how much categories.

[MadHound]

29. Wow, has it been that long ago

I know of a couple of Nobel winners who opposed Obama's bailout plans, Krugman for one.

Sorry, but at $2500 a pop, it would take several thousand anonymous somebodies, all pulling in the same direction to provide the financial leverage to get Obama to move. Meanwhile, the financial industry, along with the rest of corporate America, is in the position where they don't have to herd cats, they already have ponied up the big bucks and have a united front and unified message. Hate to break it to you, but we the people simply can't compete with that. Which is why we need publicly financed elections now. Until that happens we're simply going to continue to live under the two party/same corporate master system of government. If you don't think that this is our current reality then you need to wake up pretty damn quickly and smell the roses.

[mzmolly]

32. I noted Krugman's objections by saying some said we needed a bailout, but a different one.

Krugman suggested we needed to nationalize troubled banks. Either way, it's a bailout.

The $2300 a pop, accounted for a MINORITY of Obama's donations. Further those who donated any amount, did so expecting him to govern as he said he would.

[MadHound]

50. Yes, but nationalizing, then reprivatizing banks, as Krugman suggested

Means a shorter, less severe economic blow while we clean out the diapers of the banks and we wind up taking the road of Sweden, a couple, three years of economic malaise. As opposed to the Summers/Geithner/Obama/Bush/Paulson Frankenstein monster of a solution, which will spawn Zombie Banks ala Japan's Lost Decade.

So now we're throwing money at banks and other financial institutions, with little oversight, allowing the corporate elite to continue the rip off of the rest of us. Do you honestly think that the adaption of this plan, one that cost all of us more in terms of our economic well being, while enriching those in the financial sector, is a coincidence?

The folks who bring down the big bucks, like the financial sector (which rained down 35 million), expect a return on their investment, and they write those checks expecting Obama to govern as they say he should. Much like Bush and Big Oil or Clinton and the financial industry(a president who did more to deregulate the financial industry than Reagan/Bush combined).

Even somebody like Obama is forced to play ball with Corporate America. Otherwise he won't get reelected. Which is why we need publicly financed elections, to take corporate cash out of our government. Do that and you'll restore the power over government to it's rightful place, the voters.

[mzmolly]

81. Regardless, my point was that a bailout was considered a necessity

the debate surrounded "how" to do it. Even if we publicly finance elections, we'll have corporate interests spending money promoting various candidates.

Obama's campaign was publicly financed 88% of his funding, was made up of individual contributions.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638#bli

[MadHound]

93. Your definition of "publicly financed" is completely off the mark

Publicly financed elections are those where we pay for the election campaigns via our tax dollars, not with individual or corporate donations. It takes corporate money out of our government.

Furthermore, your insistence that Obama is not swayed by the campaign donations that he received is either naive or disingenuous. Do you think that Bush was swayed by all those oil company donations? Do you think that politicians are, in general, swayed by the corporate donations that they receive? If so, then you can't exclude Obama. If not, then you're living in a fantasy world that has no connection with real world politics.

[mzmolly]

97. I understand the technical definition of public financing. My point is that the public

supported Obama, financially.

It is not naive to suggest that Obama's campaign was driven by the people, financially thus he'll represent us. You think I'm naive, I think your cynical. ;)

I think this thread has a bit to do with some Kucinich supporters smarting that he doesn't get much in the way of money and as such they're grappling for ways to try and even the playing field in the future?

I'm out for now. :hi:

[pokercat999]

64. Publicly financed campaigns and elections AND

term limits. One term and out of federal office or ANY contact with the federal government forever. End career politicians, return to government by the people.

[mzmolly]

85. The public did finance Obama's campaign.

And I'm looking most forward to two Obama terms.

[pokercat999]

96. I wish President Obama would REMEMBER who

financed his campaign.

[mzmolly]

98. He does. But I'm glad you've come around on the "who" anyhow.

Peace :hi:

[Dems2002]

153. 100% support public financing but term limits don't work

Listen,

I understand why you want term limits and public financing. I 100% support public financing and no more fundraising for candidates. However, term limits are a mistake.

Government is a complicated process and it takes awhile to get good at it. (Just like any profession) Just because someone has been in office for 10-years doesn't make that individual corrupt. It may make them a better negotiator on behalf of their constituents.

On the other hand, if you have term limits, who is left to run the show? The unelected staffers who know more than the people that we elected! This has definitely happened in California -- lobbyists write legislation and utilize staffers to get it through the process. Elected officials may be trying to do good work, but most don't know what the hell they're doing in the beginning so they rely on staff to assist.

In addition, once a person is elected they are unlikely to be challenged because likely challengers will simply await the next open primary.

What we need is to make it easier to fund a reasonable challenge against an incumbant. The way to do this is through public financing of campaigns. We also need to ban a lot of lobbying. Of course, good luck with all of this. We're living in a completely corrupted government right now and it's going to take awhile for us to solve it.

I think it may be time for another independent candidate. Jesse Ventura, but more liberal. (I greatly enjoyed watching him fight the torture fight -- such a breath of fresh air.)

Dems

[defendandprotect]

123. If you're ONLY threat to the Dems is that you "won't contribute next time" . ..

what does that mean to Obama except he needs more corporate bribes to replace your money?

Meanwhile ... WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GO? WHAT'S YOUR PLAN B?

ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO VOTE FOR REPUGS???

So, you're back to Square One . . . work for public funding of campaigns --

end campaign BRIBERY ... with public saying "how, when, where, and how much" campaigns

will involve.

And then, you need to get IRV voting going.

If you don't have a better option than voting for a Repug, it's no leverage over

Democratic Party or Obama whatsoever!!


PS:
Also your comments about capitalism -- in fact, corrupt capitalism, seem naive.
Capitalism itself is corrupt -- and unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime.
Economist and Federal Reserve have large stakes in capitalism continuing on as it is.
When you say a corporation/business has become "too big to fail" ---
they are too big and we need to execute our anti-trust lasws. End monopoly capitalism.

This is criminal capitalism and the last thing we should be doing is bailing it out --
$8 to 13 TRILLION last I heard -- with taxpayer money.

This is "Welfare for the Rich, Free Enterprise for the Poor" --

We could have taken over any of those corporations and run them --
especially the auto industry where we could have used the plants to produce
electric cars and gotten the workers back in gear turning them out quickly.

[avaistheone1]

41. No, he is not.

Just the facts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5678454&mesg_id=5681235

[mzmolly]

43. The "facts" are that Obama got $656,357,572 from average citizens and

$1,995,384 from the pharma industry. As such, my original point stands.

[avaistheone1]

44. That is just one ofthe industries where Obama took the most from

lobbyists. Obama is the top recipient of lobbyist money across virtually all industries.


So your point does not stand. The majority of Obama's funding 53% did not come from individuals, it came from lobbyists and various PACs.

[mzmolly]

78. Not sure where you got your math? Individual contributions account for 88%

of Obama's fund raising. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638#bli

Individual contributions 88%
PAC contributions 0%
Candidate self-financing 0%
Federal Funds 0%
Other 12%

[defendandprotect]

124. No, it doesn't . . . because corporations have LEVERAGE . . we don't . . .

[mzmolly]

162. Please define "leverage" ...

Thanks.

[defendandprotect]

172. There's this thing . . .

called a dictionary . . .

leverage . . .
–noun 1. the action of a lever.
2. the mechanical advantage or power gained by using a lever.
3. power or ability to act or to influence people, events, decisions, etc.; sway: Being the only industry in town gave the company considerable leverage in its union negotiations.
4. the use of a small initial investment, credit, or borrowed funds to gain a very high return in relation to one's investment, to control a much larger investment, or to reduce one's own liability for any loss.

–verb (used with object) 5. to exert power or influence on.
6. to provide with leverage.
7. to invest or arrange (invested funds) using leverage.

And if you need further explanation, it's what the corporations and their lobbyists have over
our government and elected officials -- and we don't!

[mzmolly]

175. Cute reply.

One thing that comforts me beyond Obama's ability to raise big money from average citizens is the fact that he addressed corporate influence during his campaign. He's passionate about changing the status quo. I intend to give him more than four months to do so.

Lastly, and again, we the people have more "leverage" with Obama than any group of lobbyists.

[defendandprotect]

178. This idea that decisions have term limits on them is ...

shortsighted . . .

Obama surrounded himself with DLC appointees before he even took office!

Has any of that changed?

Do you think DLC hasn't been influencing him?

Again, raising $800 billion+ from individuals in the public is meaningless when we

have no LEVERAGE over him! It is corporations who have the LEVERAGE -- not us!!

Obama may have addressed "corporate influence" but he also rates only behind Hillary

in taking money from the corporate/health care industry!

A speech by a politician may be "passionate" about change . . . but where is the change?

Again . . . once decisions are made, they are made. They do not evaporate in four

months or four days, nor four years.

Lastly, and again, we the people have more "leverage" with Obama than any group of lobbyists.

I don't know whether to say that this is way up there on the naive meter reading --

or if its the misinformed meter reading -- but it sure is one of them.

LOL --

[mzmolly]

181. Ah yes, the cynical vs. the naive

again. Let us give the man more than four months before we judge his term in office eh?

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

182. Will Obama's appointments or decisions change after four months . . .???

This is not about "judging his term in office" ---

it is about judging his policies and his decisions which he is forming and deciding upon now --!

:hi:

[mzmolly]

184. Let's have it your way then.

Today, Obama has a near 70% approval rating.

[defendandprotect]

186. Remember Ronald Reagan . .. ???

Again, this is about policies/decisions as they are made --

there is no magical time frame.

[mzmolly]

188. What I stated is that Obama can't

accomplish all that he wishes to, in four months.

[Occulus]

48. Obama does not make law. n/t

[mzmolly]

82. Neither did Bush.

;)

[pokercat999]

63. You should restate that to say "President Obama

SHOULD be more beholden to the people than to any industry."...........but he's NOT!

[mzmolly]

83. Oh.

:eyes:

[OwnedByFerrets]

68. That is naive.

[mzmolly]

84. That is cynical.

Why vote if it's naive to expect a President to represent the people?

eom

[defendandprotect]

126. Why do women continue to vote though we have patriarchy in control?

Why did African-Americans fight for the vote though they had little chance

back then of fair representation?

You vote to try to change things, obviously --

We are being offered candidates picked by corporations who are guaranteed

NOT to change things.

We need FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT -- HR 1826

to end this system of Campaign BRIBERY . . .

Common Cause is working to get Senators and Reps to sign "pledges" to vote for the

legislation -- they need more sponsors.

Call your Senators/Reps now . . .

After we get public financing -- we also need IRV voting --

If your only threat to Dems is that you will not contribute, it's meaningless --

You have to have somewhere else to go!!!

[mzmolly]

152. This is essentially a Kucinich supporter thread with people complaining

that their candidate lost (in a round about way.)

[defendandprotect]

171. Wow . . .

really shortsighted . . . !!

[mzmolly]

176. I think it's highly

accurate. ;)

[defendandprotect]

179. If you discount campaign fund bribery . . . you're accurate!!!

[mzmolly]

180. Ok then,

I "bribed" Obama. ;)

[defendandprotect]

183. No . . . you didn't . . .

unless you're a large corporation . . . ??

Do you have lobbyists . . . are they accepting your written legislation and

turning it into law.

Are you getting a post in the admistration to reverse the intent and spirit of

one of our government agencies?

:think:

[cui bono]

107. You keep saying that but where is your evidence?

Certainly not in the appointments he's made, especially Geithner.

Certainly not in the way he continues the "bail-out" plan where big business is effectively stealing money from "the people".

Certainly not in his health care plan which rules out single payer.

Certainly not in his/his counsel's opinion that "the people" have no right to sue the telecom companies for illegally spying on them.

Certainly not in his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Certainly not in his lack of any visible movement to get our troops out of Iraq.

Certainly not in his lack of follow through in closing Gitmo.

So where is the evidence that he is beholden to "the people"?

[mzmolly]

164. I'm sorry but you don't get to decide what I, as a "person" feel

about your proverbial shit list.

[cui bono]

168. When did I do that?

I said nothing of your feelings. You have yet to provide any evidence anywhere that backs up your claims. I'm just asking for evidence and in the meantime I provided some that shows that he is not acting as though he is beholden to "the people".

So... where is your evidence that shows he is?

[mzmolly]

169. My evidence is akin to yours. I believe that he is. He's doing what he said

he would, in many of the scenarios you note above. I, like most Americans polled think that President Obama is doing an amazing job as President.

Regarding the specifics on his accomplishments in just four short months ~

* Working to close Guantanamo

* Lifting the ban on federal funding for international organizations that perform or provide info on abortion

* Reinstating a sound foreign policy of diplomacy first

* Signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, making it easier for workers to sue for pay discrimination

* Tax cuts and a stimulus package targeted to the middle class, homeownership, job creation, education, vs. giving to the wealthy

* Help for struggling homeowners via http://makinghomeaffordable.gov/

* Setting a timeline for withdrawl from Iraq

* Negotiating for a two state solution in the middle east which will impact us all

* Reversing the ban on stem sell research

* Holding town hall meetings after his election

* Obama's pro union stance www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/01/a_unionfriendly.html

* Launching an effort rid the world of nuclear weapons

* Releasing the memos from Bush administration authorizing harsh interrogation techniques

* Leaving the door open for prosecution of federal lawyers who wrote harsh interrogation memos during Bush's administration

and so on...

[defendandprotect]

121. Obama may be "beholden" in the sense of "thank you" . . .but the real deal

is having leverage over Obama and Democratic Party --

we have NONE!

We have no counter-force to the thousands of lobbyists who sit

on Congress' doorstep each day -- and presume weekends at play???

They are there to ensure that their agenda is carried thru.

PLUS, the minute these idiots are elected they're looking for campaing

bribes immediately again for the next election!!!

LEVERAGE IS THE KEY -- WE HAVE NONE!!

[PufPuf23]

18. POTUS Obama is the only politician I have ever contributed

cash in my life and I first voted for McGovern in 1972.

Caveat is that I voted for Obama in primary and POTUS election and I am still glad he was elected.

There is a site that breaks down the individual contributions by type of contributor and POTUS Obama was funded in a significant percentage by corporate in general and finance/banking/real estate sectors of "Individual Contributions". Lots of "WE THE PEOPLE" that greased the wheels were not working or middle class nor the poor. Obama is self-admittedly a "third way"/"new"/DLC oriented politician than a populist. This was my biggest doubt about Obama. But we did not have a better choice and POTUS Obama has made many movements in the right direction and inherited a terrible mess. I am certain there are many individuals in government and the military that are willing to undermine his efforts.

I particularly disappointed in the direction of current and future wars and military spending levels and IMO the wrong people and wrong strategy are in charge of fixing the economy. I see others that did not get their "ponies" where the "ponies" are minor detail so this is sad (example gay marriage)too. I want the USA to be a nation where no one is above the law and our international agreements and humanhood. I think the look ahead is BS; we need investigations by special prosecutors now (and I include the finance sector of the economy too). So as I am anti-war and anti-war crimes and white collar crime, I do not have my ponies (yet).

In general, IMO we should have equivalent health care and social safety nets of other modern western economies.

So I am being patient. But the point is that 88% "Individual contributions" is somewhat a mirage when one considers the amounts and interests of the contributors.

[mzmolly]

20. "For Obama, 47 percent of money raised has come from individuals who have donated $200 or less,..."

For Obama, 47 percent of money raised has come from individuals who have donated $200 or less, while 27 percent has come from persons who have donated $2,300 or more.

For McCain, the numbers are nearly the opposite, with 26 percent of donations coming from people who have donated $200 or less and 49 percent from individuals who have donated $2,300 or more.

www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_is_the_average_size_of_obamas.html

I don't think it's a mirage to be aware of the fact that the people of the US drove Obama's Presidential campaign, not corporate interests.

[girl gone mad]

24. But this argument is very misleading.

The majority of those individual donations came from people with special interests. The Financial industry, in particular, took full advantage by encouraging employees to donate. Things may look great on paper, but the truth is that President Obama is as beholden as any politician has ever been and his record on dealing with Big War, Inc. and Big Banks, Inc. betrays this sad reality.

[mzmolly]

26. That's simply not true.

Read the links I posted above. The VAST MAJORITY of contributions to the Obama campaign came from average citizens. I can't believe that anyone who paid any attention to the campaign, would suggest otherwise GGM.

[Hannah Bell]

55. the link you posted says as of july 14, 47% of obama's (hard money)

donations came from donors spending $200 or less.

not the vast majority.

& at that point, he'd raised less than half the hard money he eventually got.

about 2/3 of a billion dollars.

obscene grafty waste, in my book (not just obama, the whole system).

[mzmolly]

75. That is the vast majority

when you break down the demographics. 88% of Obama's funds were raised via individual contributions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5678454&mesg_id=5682348

[Hannah Bell]

154. The link says 47% of obama's hard money donations were raised from

contributions under $200.

not the "vast majority". slightly less than half. when obama had raised slightly less than half of his money.

[mzmolly]

159. Let me explain again. 88% of Obama's funding came from individual donations.

At the time this article was written it was 100%. Of the 100 percent, 47% of the individual contributions to the Obama campaign were from those giving less than $200. 27% gave $2300 plus, and the remaining 26% fall somewhere inbetween. I

If you break that down you have the majority of contributions falling into the < $200 category.

47% = > 200
27% = the max
26% = somewhere in between

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_is_the_average_size_of_obamas.html

Where Does the Money Come From?

The vast majority of the funds raised by the two campaigns has come from individual donors. The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and Federal Election Commission rules limit individual contributions to a maximum of $2,300 per candidate, per election for 2007-2008. The primary election and general election are considered to be two separate elections, which means an individual can donate up to $4,600 to a single candidate (half of that to the primary election and half to the general).


Individual contributions make up 88 percent of the total amount raised by the McCain campaign and 100 percent of the money raised by the Obama campaign.


The CRP says the rest of McCain's money has come from political action committees (just 1 percent of his donations) and from "other" sources, which include interest from campaign bank accounts and loans from outside sources (11 percent). McCain's "other" sources also include funds transferred from his Senate bank account, according to Massie Ritsch, communications director for the CRP. Obama has also received a small amount of money from "other" sources, though not enough to account for even 1 percent of his donations.


What's a Typical Donation?

For Obama, 47 percent of money raised has come from individuals who have donated $200 or less, while 27 percent has come from persons who have donated $2,300 or more.


For McCain, the numbers are nearly the opposite, with 26 percent of donations coming from people who have donated $200 or less and 49 percent from individuals who have donated $2,300 or more.

The CRP also classifies the donors, including individual donors, by industry or occupation. Lawyers and law firms have been the industry most generous to Obama, contributing more than $18 million to his campaign. Retirees have given the most to McCain, donating more than $15 million. In terms of gender, men make up the majority of donors to both campaigns, but the percentage of Obama’s funds that comes from women, 41.8 percent, is higher than that of McCain, 28.3 percent.

[Hannah Bell]

167. let me explain again. 47% came from donors of < $200.

[mzmolly]

170. Which brings us back to my response above.

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

128. The only way to get "choice" is thru public financing of campaigns . . .

ane ending this system of campaign BRIBERY . . . .

After that, you need IRV voting so that you have other options than voting

for Repugs --

You have no LEVERAGE over Dems or Obama -- though individuals gave huge amounts to Obama!

Corporate lobbyists are there every day -- pushing their agenda, sitting on the doorsteps

of Congress, making sure their interests are followed by bought-out elected officials.

FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT --- HR1825 IN THE WORKS ...

CALL YOUR SENATORS/REP AND GET THEM TO SPONSOR AND VOTE FOR THIS !!1

Then . . . IRV voting!!!

[avaistheone1]

39. The argument certainly is TRUE for Obama. Obama received more money than anyone in Congress from

Pharmaceutical lobby. In fact in 2008 Obama received three times more than his closer competitor, Hillary Clinton.

Obama, Barack (D) $1,995,384
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $662,949
McCain, John (R) $631,562
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $347,785
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $331,564
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) $275,749
Coleman, Norm (R-MN) $250,478
Dingell, John D (D-MI) $225,136
Rangel, Charles B (D-NY) $200,700
Pallone, Frank Jr (D-NJ) $188,228
Cornyn, John (R-TX) $184,796
Smith, Gordon H (R-OR) $175,800

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=H04&cycle=2008&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U

[mzmolly]

42. And your point is what specifically?

That he'll represent pharmaceutical companies more than you and I?

[avaistheone1]

45. Yes. He did't invite single-payer to the table at the WH Consortium on Health despite Obama's

claim that he wanted to hear from all parties. Single-payer the most favored option by Americans was shut out.

[Enthusiast]

61. +1, exactly.

And single payer is the only option that will get the greed out of the healthcare system. And greed is the problem.

[mzmolly]

73. He made pretty clear what his health care vision was before he

was elected.

[avaistheone1]

102. Oh do you mean when he said he was for it before he was against it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

[mzmolly]

158. ... "But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately"....

He's still "for it". It's a matter of what's viable NOW.

[Greyhound]

56. How about that he's a Chicago politician and made his deal. n/t

[mzmolly]

87. He's also a "commuuuuuuuunity organiiiiiizer".

What's with the R/W talking points Greyhound?

[avaistheone1]

103. Obama has not done the community organizer walk on health care that is for sure.

The things Obama talked do not match the walk.

[Greyhound]

105. Sometimes the truth just is. Have you ever lived there?

I have and speak from experience, Chicago and Springfield are the worst cesspools of graft and corruption I've ever seen or even heard of. From the local beat cops to the Aldermen to the representatives, everybody has their hand out and selling constituents is currency.

There is simply no way he rose through that and stayed clean, so it's no surprise that he's selling us out now. That's also why I didn't support him in the primaries.

I'm for The People, not The Party.
:shrug:

[mzmolly]

161. The truth is, sometimes people use guilt by association to

imply things that are not true. At other times people suggest that if you genuinely support a particular candidate/political party, you can't possibly support "the people."

[Enthusiast]

60. We will know the truth of it if

President Obama reins in pharmaceutical prices. There is simply no justification for the outrageous prices. The prices could be halved and anyone should still consider the Pharms greedy.

[defendandprotect]

130. You really think otherwise???

YOU have no LEVERAGE over Obama or Dems . . .

what are you going to do to them?

Not contribute -- great, they'll raise more campaign BRIBES from corporations --

Not vote for them -- ?? Really . . . are you going to vote for Repugs?

You need public financing of campaigns -- ending campaign BRIBERY . . .

and then, IRV voting so you actually have other choices!!!

[Hannah Bell]

52. a lot of those "individual donations" - aren't.

[mzmolly]

74. Can you expand on this

statement please?

[Hannah Bell]

53. Hard money and soft money

"Hard" money is contributed directly to a candidate or to a political party. It is regulated by law in both source and amount, and monitored by the Federal Election Commission.

"Soft" money is contributed to organizations and committees other than candidate campaigns and political parties (except, where legal, to state and local parties for use solely in state and local races). "Soft money" is also contributed to organizations, often called "527s" for the section of the tax code under which they operate, that engage in political activity, but it may not be spent for ads specifically promoting the election or defeat of a candidate.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo (1976) held that limitations on donations to candidates were constitutional (because of the compelling state interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption), but limitations on the amount campaigns could spend (spending limits or caps) were an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech under the First Amendment. Buckley v. Valeo also held that only speech that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate could be regulated. Thus organizations could spend unregulated "soft money" for a variety of activities, including "issue advertising," a broad term that included any advertising that stopped short of expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate through words and phrases such as "vote for," "vote against," "support," "defeat," or "elect".

Beginning in the late 1970s, parties successfully petitioned the Federal Election Commission to be allowed to spend soft money on non-federal party building and administrative costs. Soon, this use of soft money expanded to voter registration, get out the vote, and issue advertising. For example, a wealthy individual could give a large contribution in soft money to a political party. The party could then spend this money on political ads. These ads could not explicitly or expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate (such as "Vote for Smith," "Elect Smith," "Send Smith to Congress," "Vote Against Jones," or "Defeat Jones"), but they could use the names of candidates ("John Smith is an honest man who stands up for the people; Bill Jones is a chronic liar who's taken money from special interests and advocated cutting Social Security. Call Bill Jones and tell him how you feel about this.")

After the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, many of the soft money-funded activities previously undertaken by political parties were taken over by various 527 groups, which funded many issue ads in the 2004 presidential election.

In 2006 the Campaign Finance Institute issued a study on 527 groups. The study shows that many advocacy groups deploy three different types of organization—political action committees (PACs), 527 groups, and 501(c) advocacy entities—in their efforts to influence federal elections and public policy. These cumulative, coordinated efforts increase the groups' financial influence in elections. The CFI analysis presents much new information about the major role played by 501(c)(4) social welfare, (c)(5) labor union and (c)(6) trade association organizations in elections, and the different ways in which they and related 527 organizations are used by Republican and Democratic-oriented groups. (<2>).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States


The "individual donations" are hard money.

[mzmolly]

76. I understand that individual donations are "hard money". eom

[Hannah Bell]

155. and hard money was not the only money backing candidates. eom.

[mzmolly]

163. No, but it was 88% of Obama's fundraising.

eom

[Hannah Bell]

156. dupe

[defendandprotect]

116. Obama was second highest - to Hillary -- in funds from ...

health industry -- and/or insurance -- !!!

[LeftHandPath]

7. The more people that realize this fact...

the sooner it ends.

[Obamanaut]

8. Becausse "we the people" refuse to vote them out, term limits are

a good thing. We could impose term limits at the ballot box, but we don't. They know that. They will not impose limits on themselves, just like they did not forego a pay raise for themselves (plus a pay raise for federal judges that Reid stuck onto the auto bailout bill.)

Weasels all.

[defendandprotect]

131. Public financing should do the job --

"term limits" are tricky -- with campaign BRIBERY still going, you may
be replacing a moderate with a right-wing blue dog?

Not a good plan --

[Mythsaje]

9. Term limits are arguable...

Publicly financed elections are in the hands of those who are just fine with the way things are.

[snowdays]

12. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

[L0oniX]

13. Know that. I am done with them all. They are all rich sociopaths.

I could retire on what they in 2 years. The mutha fuckas suck corporate cock for election campaign financing and then they eventually become lobbyists for the same mutha fuckin corporations. Clearly ...they are the enemies of democracy and we the people.

[defendandprotect]

132. Well, if you expect to live a few more years or have children or family . . .

you damn well know you're not "done with them all" . . . !!1

Their decisions will help or hurt you and your family whether you're paying attention

to them or not. Their decisions will effect your personal life, every moment of your life.

[cali]

14. true for the most part

but not entirely true. Do you really think anyone owns Bernie Sanders? Ridiculous. There are quite a few who aren't "owned".

[cherokeeprogressive]

30. I agree with 99.99% of what you post...

but...

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2008&type=C&cid=N00000528&newMem=N&recs=0

[cali]

31. but that confirms what I said

over a 5 year period:

Retired $431,399 $431,399 $0
Democratic/Liberal $328,947 $328,947 $0
Lawyers/Law Firms $121,499 $122,499 $-1,000
Education $75,936 $75,936 $0
Computers/Internet $45,675 $45,675 $0
TV/Movies/Music $36,350 $36,350 $0
Securities & Investment $36,090 $36,090 $0
Environment $31,500 $31,500 $0
Business Services $28,700 $28,700 $0
Printing & Publishing $27,480 $27,480 $0
Health Professionals $22,804 $21,804 $1,000
Misc Business $20,885 $20,885 $0
Human Rights $20,800 $20,800 $0
Foreign & Defense Policy $20,650 $20,650 $0
Other $19,872 $19,872 $0
Industrial Unions $18,700 $1,700 $17,000
Lobbyists $17,025 $17,025 $0
Non-Profit Institutions $16,800 $16,800 $0
Misc Issues $16,250 $16,250 $0
Real Estate $15,140 $14,140 $1,000
Civil Servants/Public Officials $15,130 $15,130 $0
Insurance $14,490 $14,490 $0
Crop Production & Basic Processing $11,650 $9,650 $2,000
Misc Finance $10,910 $10,910 $0
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $10,535 $10,535 $0
Retail Sales $9,850 $9,850 $0
Pro-Israel $9,800 $9,800 $0
Abortion Policy/Pro-Choice $9,150 $9,150 $0
Misc Health $7,600 $7,600 $0
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $7,150 $7,150 $0
Building Trade Unions $6,000 $0 $6,000
Accountants $5,850 $5,850 $0
Food & Beverage $5,600 $5,600 $0
Construction Services $5,350 $5,350 $0
Public Sector Unions $4,500 $0 $4,500
Special Trade Contractors $4,400 $4,400 $0
Transportation Unions $3,750 $250 $3,500
General Contractors $3,600 $3,600 $0
Clergy & Religious Organizations $3,210 $3,210 $0
Livestock $3,200 $3,200 $0
Oil & Gas $2,850 $2,850 $0
Lodging/Tourism $2,740 $2,740 $0
Misc Services $2,690 $2,690 $0
Automotive $2,650 $2,650 $0
Savings & Loans $2,550 $2,550 $0
Agricultural Services/Products $2,500 $500 $2,000
Dairy $2,100 $600 $1,500
Misc Energy $1,950 $1,950 $0
Telephone Utilities $1,700 $1,700 $0
Commercial Banks $1,500 $1,500 $0
Chemical & Related Manufacturing $1,500 $1,500 $0
Download: View Top 20 | All

[Reterr]

166. Correct

:thumbsup:

[reggie the dog]

15. pitchforks and spears were used in earlier times

but they are not so effective today.

[conspirator]

177. Torches are still effective.

See how they reverted the legislation in France when the cars started burning.

[madokie]

22. Pretty much all of our problems as a country can be lain at the the feet of the lobbyist

money talks bullshit walks.

[defendandprotect]

134. You mean . . . can be lain at the feet of corporate BRIBERY . . .

and corrupt elected officials --

[madokie]

150. YES

sorry 'bout screaming that but yes, that's what I meant to say.

[defendandprotect]

173. No . . .

glad you agree -- but don't see CAPS as "screaming" --

that's kind of an internet myth --

I'm old fashioned about caps/italics, etal --

Look at any legal document - even your birth certificate --

caps and bold type and italics are used to get attention to

what is being said -- even underlining some times!!!

:)

[Spike89]

23. Half agree with you

Without fully publically financed campaigns, term limits would be not just ineffective but actually harmful to the anti-corruption quest. With public money, the need for term limits is gone.

The biggest problem with term limits alone is that you never have a politician running for office that can stand on his/her reputation/name recognition. With term limits, corporate/special interests will simply put up their puppets who can and will be bought cheap. Their opponent will probably be bought by the competition because you can't win an election without financial backing in this climate unless you have huge name recognition. At least in the current corrupt system, once a politician has been in office, they really don't need to totally sell out to win, they have the name recognition to win without a "sponsor" if they so choose.

[Individualist]

27. Agree,

and until people start voting on principles rather than the "lesser of two evils", nothing will change.

[SammyWinstonJack]

122. The 'lesser of two evils' is what we have too chose from. No one else has a chance. The PTB along

with the corporate media make sure of that. Edwards and Kucinich come to mind.

[defendandprotect]

135. Unless you create OPTIONS with public funding and IRV voting . . .

Without those two options -- in that order -- you have no LEVERAGE

over either Obama or Dem Party!!

[MrSlayer]

28. Not all of them.

Just most of them. Enough to make any real progress impossible.

[cascadiance]

33. Instant runoff voting along with public campaign financing would do it for me...

Maybe term limits as a transitionary thing if we can't get these both put in place to start with. But ultimately I do want experienced people leading us in government as another indicated here which would make term limits damaging down the road. I just not those that are bought and paid for by corporate or other narrow well-heeled special interests. so term limits at the beginning might serve to help us clean house initially.

Public Campaign financing is the cornerstone of what we need. Instant Runoff voting, in addition to helping the voter not feel like they're "wasting their vote" if they're trying to put big changes in the system, would make it that much harder for the special interests to "buy" an election. If you can always have a "pure" special interest that isn't in the pockets of anyone get enough publicity that he can actually make a case that he's not "bought" and have a better shot at beating out the "corporate infested" parties.

[GA_ArmyVet]

34. I totally agree.

I honestly see very little difference in politicians except which special interest control their votes...be Rep or Dem.
If either party actually began to represent the peoples will, well then god help the other party cause they would never get back in the scheme...
Term Limits.
Lobby Reform
Real Election Finance Reform.

[southerncrone]

35. They've got themselves a neat little package there.

They spend a majority of their time working toward their next election, while putting up the facade that they're doing "the people's work" just enough to keep us placated.

They will never vote for term limits or get rid of lobbyists because it is not in their interest. The system is flawed.

When we "created" the corporate entity, we gave away many of our rights & powers as individuals. The "corporation" will always dominate over the individual. The game is set up that way.

We are FUCKED.

[nolabels]

49. We, the people, didn't create the thing known as the corporation

But that doesn't mean we can't make this the end of them :-)

The story is that there are these little inventions known as the P.C. and internet that were made by the corporations and were set up by the corporations to help the corporations. These little inventions also might be the undoing of the corporation or the knot that sinks us all. It's all up to us and in our own hands now so just be careful

Here try a google search

origin and history of corporations - Google Search
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=origin+and+history+of+corporations&btnG=Google+Search

[defendandprotect]

136. Work for public financing . . . FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT-HR1826 ...

My Republican !!! Representative signed a "pledge" to vote for it!!

Common Cause is working to get many Senators/Reps to sign pledges --

legislation in the works --

They are looking for more Senate/Rep sponsors --

call your elected reps now -- !!!

[Orwellian_Ghost]

36. Capitalism works

for the owners.

Everything going as planned.

The entirety of the American political arrangement has been designed to benefit the owners from day one.

K&R

[autorank]

38. The Owners own the "Rulers" who do their bidding

Meant to show you this for a while. Nice piece of historical analysis on how lots of this got embedded into our psyche

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0812/S00378.htm

[defendandprotect]

137. Capitalism is going down -- they're holding it up now with our money -- !!!

Most of the world understands the evils of Capitalism .. .

it's time Americans let go of the fantasy . . .!!

[autorank]

37. k*r Stinky is not amused

He shouldn't be. But Stink, don't ya know, it's all about The Money Party?

[1]

40. yep. it sucks. but it is what it is. its big and its powerful. what are you going to do?

[defendandprotect]

138. Work for public financing . . . and IRV voting . . . create new OPTIONS . . .

[leftofthedial]

47. Sadly, I fear that at present, if we got all the money out of politics,

there'd be nothing left.

[avaistheone1]

51. End the madness.

I am sick of all this crap.

We should all be agitating for publicly funded elections.

[truedelphi]

54. One reason publicly financed elections are not yet part of the law

the Clintons (Bought and paid for like everyone else) decided to switch the staff they had working on campagn finance reform over to bringing about NAFTA.

Go UPPER CLASSES! WE THE ELECTED WORK FOR FOR YOU!
MIDDLE INCOMED PEOPLE - YOU SUCK! AND SHALL BE ELIMINATED IN SHORT ORDER!

[defendandprotect]

139. New legislation in works ..FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT - HR 1826 . . .

they are looking for more Senators and REps to sign pledges to vote for it --

Common cause has been successful in getting my Repug Rep to sign a pledge!!!

Call your Senators/Rep now . . .

[bjobotts]

57. The entire senate is unrepresentative of the population and should be dismantled

[bjobotts]

58. That's where the concentration of cash goes.Lobbysists pet senators on leashes

[Bluenorthwest]

66. Senators are chattle

They are not free people but property.

[Orsino]

67. The only argument I could mount against yours...

...is that the extreme right wants you to abandon all faith in your government, and give up your only defense against corporate power.

But that doesn't belie the points you're making. Our system is designed to train would-be representatives to corruption, and to make sure that no one is able to reach office without owing a lot of favors to more important forces than us.

[NorthCarolina]

69. Anyone here that, upon reflection, wishes they had supported Kucinich in the primaries?

I am just curious if recent events have increased the political viability of a true and unabashed populist in Government and the White House.

[Captain Hilts]

89. He's just too funny-looking for people to seriously consider voting for him. And too short. nt

[Individualist]

106. I did support Kucinich in the primaries

[defendandprotect]

142. I did support Kucinich . . .and pretty much only candidate I gave $ to . . .

[Le Taz Hot]

70. Well, to answer your quesitons

(though they were most likely rhetorical), we DO have term limits -- it's called the ballot box -- legal term limits can and do prohibit the will of the electorate by artificially manipulating candidate choices. Term limits were introduced in this country by the Republicans in response to Roosevelt's 4 terms.

The REAL issue, of course, is how monied interests have taken over BOTH political parties so that only THEIR representatives are offered up as candidates. We end up being asked to vote for either Corporate Clown A (R) or Corporate Clown B (D). They, of course, are the same candidate. Public financing completely eliminates the corporate advantage. You're asking the beneficiaries of that system to vote against the interests of themselves and their masters. That's not going to happen.

Neither the Democrats or Republicans are going to offer up any candidate that truly represents US. The closest we've gotten was Howard Dean and we all saw what the DEMOCRATS did to him. My solution? Break away from the two-party system and vote (or don't vote) for candidates based on their views on the issues and not with their party affiliation.

[fascisthunter]

71. True... and What is Crazy about all of This

is it is unsustainable. While corporate America chips away at government oversight and bribes the government itself, they are killing their own country in the process. It's like watching a bunch of morons making ice cubes for their drinks from the very ice patch they stand on.

[sazemisery]

72. I agree with the Clown 100% k&r n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. I agree with you except on term limits

The Oregon legislature imposed term limits, so that 1/3 of the legislature was new every year. It was disastrous in that they spent a longer than average time getting everyone up to speed on procedures and in three terms, they had no "veterans," and therefore no institutional memory or expertise.

We already have term limits: Voters may throw out anyone they want to throw out.

The problem is corrupt campaign financing and lazy voters who vote solely on the basis of name recognition.

If I were Campaign Finance Czarina, parties would not be allowed to fund raise (only individual candidates could receive donations) and only individual human beings (not organizations or companies) would be allowed to contribute to candidates.

No candidate could receive as much as a cup of coffee from a lobbyist.

No candidate could hold a fundraiser for which the entrance fee was more than $100.

No candidate could limit "access" only to major contributors.

No candidate could use more than the designated amount of money for his/her campaign.

Best of all, these restrictions would virtually eliminate TV and radio advertising! Candidates would have to go to the people directly.

[LibDemAlways]

79. A few years ago my brother, an insurance company claims

rep, was helping a wealthy Dem fund raiser with a homeowner's claim. This guy had a bunch of pics hanging up of him with Bill Clinton and other prominent Dems. Anyhow, this was back when Gray Davis was running for CA governor. The guy was hosting a Davis fundraiser at his home later that week. He asked my brother if he wanted to come just as his guest, and brother thought it would be interesting, so he said ok. My brother probably stood out like a sore thumb amidst all the big contributors in their expensive suits.

So Davis arrives with this big entourage and eventually spots my brother, obviously an unfamiliar face. He walks over with a big smile and handshake and asks who he is and how much he's giving. Brother explains he's merely a guest of the host and that he's not in the position to offer financial support but that he'd support Davis with his vote. Davis backs away and turns on his heels. Not even a phony "Nice to have met you." Clearly disappointed that this wasn't another cash cow. Not at all interested in a vote. Only in $$.

I'm with you. These guys are beholden to no one except the monied class and corporations who provide the financial support that keeps them going. If they had to rely on the public, they'd have no choice but to start listening to a new boss. It's a damn shame our elected "representatives" have no interest in representing us.

[Lorien]

112. Yep. It doesn't get much more transparent than that. Davis knew he could

buy the votes like any other politician. Sickening.

[defendandprotect]

143. True . . . and this $$ system blocks honest people at the entry level . . .

[LibDemAlways]

80. Dupe

[TygrBright]

88. Stinky, I'll buy publicly-financed campaigns, absolutely.

But term limits just puts the power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, which is a change in the wrong direction.

The legislative process is now so complex that it takes most elected legislators a good two or three years to even begin to learn where all the wires and buttons are, who controls what, what leverage works for what function, etc. And another two or three years to begin applying that knowledge effectively. And in those first few years they are almost entirely dependent on the committee staffers and agency bureaucrats who control the information flow. They can position their own paid staff and any 'advocates' or lobbyists they trust to work through or around those bureaucrats, but it's a long process. They don't really reach peak effectiveness until they've been around long enough to get good at the legislative process, and to learn the back channels and how to make change-averse bureaucrats actually do their jobs. It can take years.

Elected executives can't really reach peak effectiveness until their appointees have had a chance to dig in and root out some of the bureaucrat-erected barriers to change, which takes a couple of years.

With elected officials, the nominal threat of having to face an electorate every so often provides a microscopic but real level of accountability. Unelected bureaucrats, on the other hand, especially career civil servants protected by seniority, have NO accountability to the public. None.

The wisest person I know points out that in America, power works thusly:

The bureaucrats fear the elected officials.

The elected officials fear the citizenry.

The citizenry fear the bureaucrats.

Work that equation in the right direction, and you can sometimes make positive change. Work it in the wrong direction, and things only get worse and worse.

helpfully,
Bright

[valerief]

90. We need to be a corporation. What can we sell? Peace. Or else. nt

[Big Orange Jeff]

91. Which is why I wrote this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5346979

[defendandprotect]

144. We all have to recognize what's at stake is small "d" democracy . . .

and it is the two-party system which is destroying our possibility of democracy.

Patriarchy, organized patriarchal religion, capitalism/corporations -- all the same system.

Exploitation for profit/power.

[sallylou666]

100. Loyalty is clear

Funny looking and short? Is that the best you've got? Is this an election by adults or a junior high school counsel election?

Once Pres. Obama appointed Giether, I knew exactly where his loyalty is. You don't appoint one of the people who engineered the crisis when you want to clean house. The feds should have put the banks in receivership and begun fraud prosecutions a long time ago. That's the law. Instead, they opened up the coffers and started handing out money. Obama voted for Bush's bail out and then continued the same policies.

We're the ones who will suffer. We'll have a lost decade like Japan did. Or possibly longer, like a lost generation.

[tex-wyo-dem]

101. Yep...the way our government operates reminds me a lot of...

the way the mafia works in many ways. In fact, I'm sure that corporate America learned a lot regarding how to game the system from mafia tactics.

My guess is that nearly ALL of the rethugs are bought-off, and probably well over 50% of the Dems in one way or another. We the People won't be able to get true reform unless the system is changed...problem is is that those with the power to instill change are the same ones benefiting from the status quo.

I have varying opinions on term limits, but publicly financed elections are a must. We also need serious reform in how the media covers candidates and elections.

[Lorien]

108. Those on Capital Hill seem to love the system. The possibility of election

reform seems even more remote than the possibility of Universal Single payer health care. The Big Corporations are so against it that the mainstream media won't even entertain the idea. Unless We The People make it a primary focus nothing will ever "change".

[defendandprotect]

141. New public financing legislation is in the works . . .

FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT -- HR1826 . . .

MY REPUG REP HAS ALREADY SIGNED A 'PLEDGE' TO VOTE FOR IT . . .

COMMON CAUSE IS WORKING ON THIS . . . they need more Senator/Rep sponsors . . .

Call your Senators/Rep --

After public financing -- IRV voting . . .

These are the only options I'm aware of to gain leverage over elected officials...!!??

[Lorien]

157. Thanks for the heads up

:thumbsup:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

109. The struggle is to not allow "them" (you know, "them")

to so disgust and demoralize you, that you just flee the scene altogether, because of course, that would be a victory for "them".

One less voter to worry about or to pretend to care about. In some small ways, dispersal of information is starting to hurt them. Baucus is becoming well known as a health industry lackey, Schumer has been revealed to be a disingenuous tool who writes a public plan option that kills the public plan, etc. It doesn't stop them, but I suppose it slows them.

How different from England where right this minute they are throwing out their politicians who misused public dollars for their personal benefit,in sums that are completely minscule when measured by the venality of our guys.

[defendandprotect]

110. "Term Limits" aren't necessary if we get public financing . . .

And, term limits kind of leave you in a position where you force out good people

sometimes having to replace them with compromised people --

Even if you force out a moderate -- you may get a right-winger in their place?

There is legislation coming up . . . .

FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT -- HR 1826 --

COMMON CAUSE IS TRYING TO GET SENATORS/REPS TO SIGN 'PLEDGES' TO VOTE FOR IT --

MY REPUG REP SIGNED A PLEDGE!!

THEY ARE ALSO LOOKING FOR MORE SPONSORS . . . DEMS AND REPUGS . . . SENS/REPS --

CALL YOUR SENATORS AND REPS NOW . . .

Congressional Switchboard -- 1-202-224-3121 -- NOT TOLL FREE

Ask for any Senator or any Rep -- they will connect you.

[Lorien]

113. True. Public financing is the key .

I wouldn't want to lose Kucinich. He's one of the few actually fighting for the people.

[Auggie]

151. Yes, and so is public education and enrolling one's self in the system

[anonymous171]

111. I don't want my tax money going to some Far RW "populist."

We don't need public funding. We need media reform. The airwaves are public property after all.

[defendandprotect]

140. We need public financing to end this scheme of campaign BRIBERY . . .

We also need free air time --

and the public deciding when, where and how these campaigns proceed --

I'd suggest maximum of 6 month campaign . . . or less.

Use our highschools and local TV . . .

Use the USHR for debates, etc --

Cripes, we have a private corporation now in charge of running our presidential debates!!!

With Global Warming and all the other problems we have -- $8-12 trillion to bail out

corrupt capitalists . . . you're afraid of a "far RW populist party" . . . ???

[defendandprotect]

119. Was watching some kind of an ad the other day by Erin Brockovich . ..

you might remember her ?

It's unusual for me to watch an ad -- but I was away from the remote at the time --

But, it got me thinking that the public needs a counter-force to the lobbyists --

while we wait for legislation to end campaign BRIBERY --

Could we hire Erin Brockovich to represent us and get us some control over government????

:evilgrin:

We need help with this -- !!!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

125. What an off-the-wall, brilliant concept! The People's lobbyist!

To further payoffs and corruptions but on OUR behalf!! Could a people's bargaining political collective outmaneuver and outfox the corporate interests?

[defendandprotect]

145. Isn't it really kinda interesting when you get to thinking about it . . . ???

And, of course, we could continue to increase our staff --

Any other recommendations???

Other than Superman and Spiderman -- Dick Tracy .... Hans Solo . ..

[Freddie Stubbs]

127. Term limits are bad because they limit the choices that voters can make

[dorkulon]

129. Term limits are meaningless, you can always find another willing shill.

Public financing is not the law because these same shills would have to pass it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

133. Unfortunately, the only people who could institure public financing are on the payroll.

And, they sure as hell aren't about to turn off the spigot of bribes voluntarily.

[kenfrequed]

146. Half agree

Yes to publically financed elections.


As to term limits I don't know how they could possibly help. Idealistic public servants would be razored out as easily as corrupt triangulating corporate yes-men. As a matter of fact considering the advantages of incumbancy it is far easier to offend your corporate masters and keep your office than it is for you to offend those powers and attain the office.

Of course that sounds like a argument in favor of benevolent corruption but for the fact that I favor eliminating the greedy corporate scum and their ability to influence elections through bribery.

[Kweli4Real]

148. Okay, Here's a silly question (That any 8th grader should be able to answer) ...

Why all this talk about Obama's doing this or not doing that?

Isn't the president's complete constitutional role in fulfilling campaign promises limited to:

A) Announcing the National Agenda, i.e., saying this is what I want to accomplish;
B) Developing a budget that suggests how he/she wants to pay for what he wants to do;
C) Using the Office of the President as a bully pulpit to cajol, horse-trade or threaten the legislature to draft legislation supportive of his/her agenda;
D) Be the face of government, reminding We D. People why we elected him/her in the first place?

I'm serious. I think this much of the democrat angst is misplaced.

[Stinky The Clown]

160. You replied to the OP

Where in the OP is Obama singled out?

You failed to even get on the same topic as the OP.

[november3rd]

149. Down with Feudalism

Throw Them ALL out!

[sarcasmo]

165. Kick back to the top.

[earth mom]

174. Feels like I've been saying that Congress in nothin but a corrupt bunch of mo fo's forever.

Let's all face it-we're in a Class War and we are LOSING! :argh:

[slackmaster]

185. Too late for an R so I'll have to settle for a K

:kick:

[L0oniX]

187. Well ...at least we don't have them fuckin repukes in power anymore.