What if they made us broke so that in November only big corps could contribute?

[free1]

What if this was planned so that there's no way the "small" people could contribute as much as the big corporations that got bailouts?

Maybe this internet campaign contribution thing really scared them and so they thought let's just make everyone broke so they don't have any extra money to give.

Just a thought!

[djdellisanti4]

You know i was kind of thinking about this for 2012. What if, and it probbaly will, the economy gets worse and people no longer have time or money to give to campaigns? I feel it could realistically happen.

Could be another victory for the corporations.

[ItsTime]

how poor would you need to be to not be able to walk door to door to talk to people?

[djdellisanti4]

how poor would you need to be to not be able to walk door to door to talk to people?

What if it interferes with your work schedule? What if you are a blue collar worker who works long hours? Chances are you would probably be too tired to door knock. People will worry about paying the bills and spending time with their children first.

[free1]

how poor would you need to be to not be able to walk door to door to talk to people?
No car to get over to a non progressive neighborhood?

And another thing that happened, when the feds lowered interest rates, the banks got a bailout since then they didn't have to pay as much interest on deposits, but yet they kept existing loans at the same rate.

Even with that bailout, they still needed more.

Bankers, always needing more money.

[Mini-Me]

I somehow doubt it. Direct monetary contributions have always been a tertiary factor in corporate/establishment control over politics anyway...which is probably why they're so heavily emphasized by the media and by politicians blowing smoke about campaign finance reform. ;) That's what it is, a smokescreen to blind people to the larger factors involved.

Consider that paid ads are only a minute or so long, but the MSM constantly plugs the establishment candidates day in and day out during election season, and they waste no opportunity to tell viewers who's "viable" and who's "fringe." Paid ads during commercials are one thing, but the normal MSM programming is constant propaganda for the establishment.

Basically, donations are not the major tool for corporate/establishment control over politics. A bigger factor involves under-the-table favors and revolving door government/corporate leadership, but even that is secondary: The primary factor has always been the fact that they control the party leaderships, the election laws, the debates, and especially the MSM.

If there is any kind of deliberate plot involving donations, it probably revolves around manipulating people into focusing more and more on them, to better hide the man behind the curtain.

[libertybrewcity]

You have a good point. The Supreme Court did just overrule the campaign corporation law. (not too sure exactly what it did, but I know it allowed for corporations to give more).

It would benefit candidates but they still rely on donations from small donors. Barack Obama raised tens of millions from small donors. What is funny is many of those people will probably not be able to donate again.

I don't think this will be a problem for RPers because many are willing to help in other ways that don't involve much money if any life canvassing and sign waving, etc.

[libertybrewcity]

how poor would you need to be to not be able to walk door to door to talk to people?

unless you're working three jobs and have kids you would probably be able to go door to door. if you couldn't do that I am sure one could make phone calls, write emails, or send letters or something..

[Zippyjuan]

If the "small people" are broke and have no money the corporations don't have anybody buying their products and filling their coffers either. Busting the individuals eventually would bust the corporations too.

[free1]

If the "small people" are broke and have no money the corporations don't have anybody buying their products and filling their coffers either. Busting the individuals eventually would bust the corporations too.

Not when they are "too big to fail" :)

[speciallyblend]

mission accomplished

[heavenlyboy34]

What if this was planned so that there's no way the "small" people could contribute as much as the big corporations that got bailouts?

Maybe this internet campaign contribution thing really scared them and so they thought let's just make everyone broke so they don't have any extra money to give.

Just a thought!

Wow, the conspiracy nuts are busy today! :eek: lolz

[speciallyblend]

Wow, the conspiracy nuts are busy today! :eek: lolz

sure they are ,once you lose everything let me know;) i already have! nutty eh! FTG

[angelatc]

You have a good point. The Supreme Court did just overrule the campaign corporation law. (not too sure exactly what it did, but I know it allowed for corporations to give more).



No, it did not allow corporations to give anything at all directly to campaigns. It allowed the corporations the right to speak out during election season.

[free1]

mission accomplished

Pretty much.