Is there anyone in the GOP who advocates to remove money from elections?

[Flash]

Where is the oversight? If nobody can know where political money came from how do we know it is American money?
That is not as important a consideration as keeping our elections American-only. We have to have priorities.

There are ways to prohibit foreign contributions without identifying individuals.

I just saw a good example on the impeachment hearings. Republicans researched any campaign contributions from the law professors testifying and announced any Democratic contributions they gave. Although the professors do seem excessively partisan, it is an attempt to smear those people if they contributed to the Democrats. Then, they were asked how they voted.

We could disclose contributors by amount, city, and profession without listing their name.

I would have to check, but do current disclosure requirements include the person's citizenship? If not, disclosure is not accomplishing that goal.

[Celticguy]

Hello Celticguy,



I disagree.

Preventing lawmakers from fund-raising on the job will force them to focus on the nation's business, especially when they spend as much as 70% of their time fund-raising.

Shutting the revolving door between regulators and the regulated will prevent corporations from rewarding lawmakers in exchange for corporate-friendly legislation.

And changing our elections to a ranked choice system will allow third parties to gain a foothold by letting voters express a preference for outside views and vote for who they really want instead of forcing them to vote against the lessor of two evils.

They already cant campaign "at work". No change.
Revolving door... could this be any easier to bypass ? No.
Ranked voting... feelgood nonsense.
Money still buys influence so long as giving a candidate money is considered free speech. When it ceases to be free speech then you can regulate it else it runs afoul of "congress shall pass no bill...".

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

There are ways to prohibit foreign contributions without identifying individuals.

I just saw a good example on the impeachment hearings. Republicans researched any campaign contributions from the law professors testifying and announced any Democratic contributions they gave. Although the professors do seem excessively partisan, it is an attempt to smear those people if they contributed to the Democrats. Then, they were asked how they voted.

We could disclose contributors by amount, city, and profession without listing their name.

I would have to check, but do current disclosure requirements include the person's citizenship? If not, disclosure is not accomplishing that goal.

Apparently there is no oversight. It is up to the candidates to determine if they are following the law. It's a wink-wink, nod-nod thing. The FEC distributes a guide of how to get around Federal Law. You can accept millions from foreign nationals but you just have to avoid being blatantly obvious about it. You just can't have a paper trail of it. Otherwise, you won't be checked, as there is no verification system:

"Foreign Nationals Campaigns may not solicit or accept contributions from foreign nationals.3 Federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local. This prohibition includes contributions or donations made to political committees and building funds and to make electioneering communications. 110.20(b)-(g). Furthermore, it is a violation of federal law to knowingly provide substantial assistance in the making, acceptance or receipt of contributions or donations in connection with federal and nonfederal elections to a political committee, or for the purchase or construction of an office building. 110.20(h).

This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, acting as a conduit or intermediary for foreign national contributions and donations. 110.20(g) and (h). A person acts knowingly for the purposes of this section when he or she has: • Actual knowledge that the funds have come from a foreign national; • Awareness of certain facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that there is a substantial probability that the money is from a foreign national; or • Awareness of facts that should have prompt-ed a reasonable inquiry into whether the source of funds is a foreign national.110.20(a)(4). Pertinent facts that satisfy the “knowing” requirement include knowledge of: • Use of a foreign passport or passport number;• Use of a foreign address;• A check or other written instrument drawn on an account or wire transfer from a foreign bank; or • Contributor or donor living abroad.110.20(a)(5)(i)-(v)."

"Determining Nationality of Contributor- The Commission stated, in AO 1998-14, that the use of any surname on a contribution check (or similar instrument) would not, by itself, give any reason to inquire as to the person’s nationality. Nonetheless, the Commission advised the commit-tee to take the following minimally intrusive steps to ensure that the contributions it received did not come from foreign nationals: • Ensure that public political ads and solicitations directed to audiences outside the U.S. contain a summary of the foreign national prohibition of 52 U.S.C. §30121. • Make further inquiry into the nationality of the contributor if the committee receives a contribution postmarked from any non U.S. territory. • Make further inquiry into the nationality of the contributor if the committee receives a contribution indicating that either the bank or the account owner has a foreign address.In all of the above instances, if the contribution is submitted along with credible evidence (e.g., a copy of a valid U.S. passport) that the contributor is a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national or a permanent resident alien, no further inquiry need be made. However, if the committee has actual knowledge that the contributor is in fact a foreign national, it may not rely on these documents as a defense. 110.20(a)(7)."

FEC

I have made political contributions where the candidate asked on a form if I was a US Citizen, but I have also simply sent checks to candidates which were accepted with no questions asked.

Dark money simply provides another layer of protection from getting caught at using foreign money, which would only happen if somebody, say a reporter, dug into your records to search for violations. There is no US Government agency which verifies compliance with this law. The FEC certainly doesn't do it. Probably doesn't have enough funding to do that. We can only imagine why.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Celticguy,

They already cant campaign "at work". No change.
Revolving door... could this be any easier to bypass ? No.
Ranked voting... feelgood nonsense.
Money still buys influence so long as giving a candidate money is considered free speech. When it ceases to be free speech then you can regulate it else it runs afoul of "congress shall pass no bill...".

Thanks for explaining how you take such a negative view that anything might be done to fix the legal corruption in our government. I do not share such pessimism. I believe there must be a solution waiting for us and all we have to do is find it. I would be interested in hearing how you would (predictably) feel that the following might also be futile:

"Make it illegal for politicians to take money from lobbyists.
Politicians get extraordinary sums of money in the form of campaign donations from the special interests who lobby them. In return, politicians create laws favorable to these special interests – even when those laws hurt voters.

Under the American Anti-Corruption Act, people who get paid to lobby cannot donate to politicians."

Anti-Corruption Act

[NiftyNiblick]

So you support massively high taxes on the middle class?

When you pay for something with taxes, all the money goes to the goods and services that you're buying.
Pay for the very same goods and services with your own discretionary spending and you get half as much because half the money goes to corporate profits.

You think that you're smart enough to know how to spend your own money, but if you voted for Donald Trump, you're one of the most stupid 63,000,000
idiots roaming the earth. You don't even deserve to share the world's oxygen supply.

Also, if you work for paychecks rather than profits, you're NOT middle class, You're on the proletarian side of the equation opposite capitalists who profit off their capital. That even applies if you're a major league batting champion making 30,000,000 dollars a year.

I get skeptical of anybody who throws the term "middle class" around without knowing what it means.

[countryboy]

When you pay for something with taxes, all the money goes to the goods and services that you're buying.
Pay for the very same goods and services with your own discretionary spending and you get half as much because half the money goes to corporate profits.

You think that you're smart enough to know how to spend your own money, but if you voted for Donald Trump, you're one of the most stupid 63,000,000
idiots roaming the earth. You don't even deserve to share the world's oxygen supply.

Also, if you work for paychecks rather than profits, you're NOT middle class, You're on the proletarian side of the equation opposite capitalists who profit off their capital. That even applies if you're a major league batting champion making 30,000,000 dollars a year.

I get skeptical of anybody who throws the term "middle class" around without knowing what it means.

Was that a yes? I couldn't tell. It was a yes or no question.

[NiftyNiblick]

Was that a yes? I couldn't tell. It was a yes or no question.

True to your user name, you're illiterate. There was nothing complicated about my post.

[countryboy]

True to your user name, you're illiterate. There was nothing complicated about my post.

For the purposes of statistical analysis, the term middle class is based solely on income levels. My question was, do you support massively high taxes on the middle class? Yes, or no? why is it whenever confronted with the difficult questions, liberals always feel the need to obfuscate?

[PoliTalker]

Time to fix the problem.

The New American Anti-Corruption Act:

The American Anti-Corruption Act is model policy that sets a framework for city, state and federal laws to fix our broken political system. It fundamentally reshapes the rules of American politics and restores the people as the most important stakeholders in our political system. An Anti-Corruption Act has three primary goals:

Stop political bribery so special interests can’t use job offers and donations to influence politicians.
End secret money so people know who’s buying political power.
Fix our broken elections so the people, not the political establishment, are the ones in control.

RepresentUs members are passing sweeping Anti-Corruption Acts in cities and states across the nation. Find out where we’ve won.


1
Stop political bribery

Make it illegal for politicians to take money from lobbyists.
Politicians get extraordinary sums of money in the form of campaign donations from the special interests who lobby them. In return, politicians create laws favorable to these special interests – even when those laws hurt voters.

Under the American Anti-Corruption Act, people who get paid to lobby cannot donate to politicians.

Ban lobbyist bundling.
Lobbyists regularly bundle together big contributions from their friends and colleagues and deliver them in one lump sum to politicians. This turns lobbyists into major fundraisers, giving politicians an incentive to keep them happy by working political favors.

The Act prohibits lobbyists from bundling contributions.

Close the revolving door.
Lobbyists and special interests routinely offer public officials high-paying lobbying jobs. Politicians and their staff routinely move straight from government to these lucrative lobbying jobs, where they get paid to influence their former colleagues.

The Act stops elected representatives and senior staff from selling off their government power for high-paying lobbying jobs, prohibits them from negotiating jobs while in office, and bars them from paid lobbying activity for several years once they leave.

Prevent politicians from fundraising during working hours.
Most federal politicians spend between 3 and 7 hours a day fundraising from big donors instead of working on issues that matter to voters.

Under the Act, politicians are prevented from raising money during the workday, when they should be serving their constituents.

2
End Secret Money

Immediately disclose political money online.
Current disclosure laws are outdated and broken. Many donations are not disclosed for months, and some are never made available electronically, making it difficult for citizens and journalists to follow the money in our political system.

The Anti-Corruption Act ensures that all significant political fundraising and spending is immediately disclosed online and made easily accessible to the public.

Stop donors from hiding behind secret-money groups.
Elections are being flooded with big money funneled through groups with secret donors. These secretive groups spend money directly to influence elections and make unlimited contributions to super PACs, which run ads to elect and defeat candidates.

Under the Act, any organization that spends meaningful funds on political advertisements is required to file a timely online report disclosing its major donors.

3
Fix Our Broken Elections

End gerrymandering.
Politicians are intentionally drawing the lines around voters in order to guarantee their own re-election and give their political party an unfair advantage.

The Anti-Corruption Act ends gerrymandering by creating independent, fully transparent redistricting commissions that follow strict guidelines to ensure accurate representation for all voters, regardless of political party.

Let all voters participate in open primaries.
By controlling the primaries, the political establishment controls which candidates we can vote on.

The Act makes all candidates for the same office compete in a single, open primary controlled by voters, not the political establishment. This gives voters more control over our elections and more choices at the ballot.

Let voters rank their top candidates, avoid “spoilers.”
Outdated voting systems force voters to choose between the “lesser of two evils” at the ballot box or vote for a “spoiler” candidate.

Under the Act, voters can rank their top candidates, allowing them to support their top choice without fear of inadvertently helping elect the other party’s candidate. If their top choice isn’t going to win, their vote transfers to their second choice, and so on. This makes it easier to elect independent-minded candidates who aren’t beholden to establishment special interests.

Automatic voter registration
Our voter rolls and registration systems are outdated, error-prone, and costly. New and proven systems can save taxpayer money and ensure that all eligible voters are able to participate on Election Day.

The Act automatically registers all interested eligible voters when they interact with government agencies – whether it’s when they go to the DMV, get a hunting license, apply for food assistance, or sign up for the national guard. Voters can always opt-out from being registered. Information is transmitted electronically and securely to a central source maintained by the state.

Vote at home or at the polls
Election Day is a mess. Forcing voters to take time off from work and their families to stand in long lines on a Tuesday is ineffective, insecure, and outdated.

The Act improves voter service by sending ballots to voters at home and allowing them to mail it back on their own timeframe, or drop it off at a professionally-staffed voting center. Voters can still vote in person or receive assistance at a voting center.

Change how elections are funded.
Running a political campaign is expensive, but few Americans can afford to donate to political campaigns. That makes politicians dependent upon – and therefore responsive to – a tiny fraction of special-interest donors.

The Act offers every voter a small credit they can use to make a political donation with no out-of-pocket expense. Candidates and political groups are only eligible to receive these credits if they agree to fundraise solely from small donors. The Act also empowers political action committees that only take donations from small donors, giving everyday people a stronger voice in our elections.

4
Enforce the Rules

Crack down on super PACs.
As a result of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that super PACs can spend unlimited money influencing elections, so long as they do not coordinate directly with candidate campaigns. Since then, there has been tremendous coordination between campaigns and their super PACs, making a mockery of the “independence” the Supreme Court said must exist.

The American Anti-Corruption Act enforces the Supreme Court’s mandate by fixing the rules aimed at preventing and punishing super PAC coordination.

Eliminate lobbyist loopholes.
The definition of “lobbyist” is weak and outdated. As a result, lobbyists regularly avoid disclosure, and former politicians and their staff can receive big money to influence politicians without formally registering as lobbyists.

The Act prevents lobbyists from skirting the rules by strengthening the definition of lobbying and penalizing lobbyists who fail to register.

Strengthen anti-corruption enforcement.
Agencies routinely fail to enforce the anti-corruption rules that already exist due to partisan deadlock – and when they are able to act, they often lack the enforcement tools necessary to uphold the law. The result is an elections system where even lax rules can be skirted or broken with impunity.

The Act strengthens enforcement of anti-corruption laws by overhauling the broken Federal Election Commission and giving prosecutors the tools they need to combat corruption.

Here is a link where you can download the details:

Anti-Corruption Act

[NiftyNiblick]

The term "middle class" refers to "class," not to income.
Not using language properly is typical of regressive conservatives. It's like calling the Estate Tax a 'death tax." Or the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party." Fucking morons.


Yes, progressive, sophisticated cultures are heavily taxed to provide a proper social safety net.

[Celticguy]

Hello Celticguy,



Thanks for explaining how you take such a negative view that anything might be done to fix the legal corruption in our government. I do not share such pessimism. I believe there must be a solution waiting for us and all we have to do is find it. I would be interested in hearing how you would (predictably) feel that the following might also be futile:

"Make it illegal for politicians to take money from lobbyists.
Politicians get extraordinary sums of money in the form of campaign donations from the special interests who lobby them. In return, politicians create laws favorable to these special interests – even when those laws hurt voters.

Under the American Anti-Corruption Act, people who get paid to lobby cannot donate to politicians."

Anti-Corruption Act

Giving money is free speech (as currently recognized) which is protected by the 1st amendment.
You cannot declare it illegal without changing the constitution.
And realize that by attempting to declare it illegal that also applies to unions as both serve to voice the needs of the group they represent.
Your video people really need to think things through before they start this stuff.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Celticguy,

Giving money is free speech (as currently recognized) which is protected by the 1st amendment.
You cannot declare it illegal without changing the constitution.
And realize that by attempting to declare it illegal that also applies to unions as both serve to voice the needs of the group they represent.
Your video people really need to think things through before they start this stuff.

Lawyers wrote the new proposed Act. I doubt it is in violation of the Constitution.

btw, I have zero problem holding Unions to the same rules as everybody else.

Would that also apply to Republicans who make laws limiting the rights of workers to organize?

Management is already organized. The same freedom should apply to labor, no matter where.

[Celticguy]

Hello Celticguy,



Lawyers wrote the new proposed Act. I doubt it is in violation of the Constitution.

btw, I have zero problem holding Unions to the same rules as everybody else.

Would that also apply to Republicans who make laws limiting the rights of workers to organize?

Management is already organized. The same freedom should apply to labor, no matter where.

Im glad you see union political financing in the same light as PACs as nd lobbyists.
It is reasonable that noone has tested the limits from individuals as no individual has the resources to do so and those that do have other ways around it.
But have fun with it all you want.

[Flash]

Apparently there is no oversight. It is up to the candidates to determine if they are following the law. It's a wink-wink, nod-nod thing. The FEC distributes a guide of how to get around Federal Law. You can accept millions from foreign nationals but you just have to avoid being blatantly obvious about it. You just can't have a paper trail of it. Otherwise, you won't be checked, as there is no verification system.

The FEC enforces these rules but I'm sure they cannot check all of them. After every election there are stories about candidates who were fined and/or had to return campaign funds because they violated regulations. The paperwork and regulations are onerous. A candidate can easily finance violate laws without intention or knowledge.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

The FEC enforces these rules but I'm sure they cannot check all of them. After every election there are stories about candidates who were fined and/or had to return campaign funds because they violated regulations. The paperwork and regulations are onerous. A candidate can easily finance violate laws without intention or knowledge.

Did you see the guide? You don't have to verify your donors are Americans. You can simply assume it.