The entire system is rigged. I don't disagree with that. But it makes voting appear as a joke. Those with money cast the loudest and most important votes, in terms of policies. That sets up a caste system of the ruling class and then everyone else.
It's not the advertising. It's dictating policy, from the outside. No one voted for the Koch brothers.
So McCarthyism is cool again?
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." - PJ O'Rourke
And how are they "dictating policy"? By talking to their friends and supporting their campaigns? You going to stop them from doing that? By that measure, we should isolate all Senators and Representatives from the time they file to the time they leave office, because their advisors and supporters might be "dictating policy". We should also separate them from each other, because Harry Reid might "dictate policy" to his fellow Democrats.
What you want is censorship, plain and simple.
Nice try, but I want is for legal bribes and ethically questionable financial incentives to not exist.
What I do like is pragmatic defensible and eloquent characterizations of the real and tragic problems the bastions of power present.
So, This is what Harry did not do?
What I seem to get is a half assed ad hominem attacks where we could have had have real substance and get appropriately and justifiably pissed off.
And, this is what Harry did do from your POV?
I think I follow now.
So, I'm not sure a different speech would have had any more impact. I think I am just glad to know that HR is speaking out on the Senate floor, against them. That's not nothing, is it? Is a speech you find fault with worse than no speech at all? What could have been achieved if HR had hit the rhetorical points you wish he had? Honest questions.
And I want a unicorn pony. Unfortunately, reality gets in the way. As long as the government controls a huge portion of the economy, there will be people using their influence to get it, and people looking to get elected so they can control who gets what. The only way to stop it is to stop the government from taking all those resources in the first place - nothing to give away, nothing to bribe for.
What does this mean? For every dollar donated by these two people, organizations representing tens of thousands of people donate 14?
Or is it for every free speech dollar given by these noble individuals, 14 are chunked in by satan's spawn, the unions?
Yes, the Democrats do that as well as the Republicans (see California). You'll have to do better than that to show that the Kochs are more than just another crony.
Using their influence to get stuff is one thing, Using their influence to prevent those they disagree with from having any counter-influence is something else. "Dirty pool" seems a good term.
Isn't that precisely what Harry Reid is doing here - trying to prevent the Kochs from having counter-influence to his own?
Precisely? Not at all. That's a really inapt word choice you made there.
Harry has a seat at the table, the voters did that. What he is doing is his job. The counter influence to HR is to elect someone else.
The Koch Bros are trying to influence him and his peers in how they do their job. They are not equals to HR in the same sense that the KBs and say, the unions, are equals. They both wish to influence politicians. That's the rub.
Any notion that their money is de facto more spendable in politics because reason, is a farce.
Good try though.
these noble individuals . . . . satan's spawn, the unions
Apparently you did not read my original post in which I noted that I had no problem with either the pro-Democrat or the pro-Republican contributors. It's the bipartisan palm greasers who are the real corrupters.
I asked you a clarifying question about something I read in your original post. I quoted it. I don't understand the answer you just gave. Please try some additional words about what you think, and not about what I did. I am not asking about me. Thanks.
Hah - stop trying to bring up salient points that demonstrate the hypocrisy in all this tedious grandstanding.
Remember one of the founding tenets of politics: It's only a bad thing when the other side does it.
[quote=“AcerPlatanoides, post:31, topic:24888”]
Using their influence to prevent those they disagree with from having any counter-influence is something else.[/quote]
Even though that’s precisely what the democratic party has done in recent months - both in California, and in the Senate, by removing minority checks within the system.
And who headed up the action removing filibustering from procedures in the Senate? That’d be the honorable Sen Harry Reid. So much for checks and balances when one party’s in power.
If you’re looking for a reputable, principled politician to frame an argument around, you’re going to have to try harder.
I am not arguing about Harry Reid. Pro or Con. I said he was elected. Elect someone else and my points stand.
Koch Industries is one entity making political donations.
David H. Koch is another.
Charles G. Koch is yet another.
I believe Harry's speech relates to their near-untraceable contributions made as individuals, as well as those made by Koch Industries.
So, how is it different from Unions dumping money and doing similar things? The difference that I see is that the Koch brothers are using their OWN money to swing elections. Unions spend the money of their members, many of whom are forces to join the union in order to keep their jobs. So a lot of money thrown about by unions are financed by people who may not even agree about how the money is spent.
The Teamsters and IBEW combined spent a combined total of over 25 million in the 2012 election cycle, and both are overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party (according to opensecrets.org). Please explain how it is OK for unions to influence elections with the money of others, but private individuals cannot spend their own money.