Help #POP remove dirty money to ensure fair elections 2.0

[adisongrace]

http://act.unitedrepublic.org/event/cosponsor/3886

Greetings once again freedom fighters,

I am re-posting this petition to attempt to discuss the issues addressed by the bill.
I want this to be an intellectual look at the dirty money issues in our political system.

Here are are Romney's SUPERPAC donations & expenses.
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00483586/819835/#DETAILED

this link talks about Obama's donors and the $240 million projected
donations for his campaign.

*At request I also have the articles for Dr.Paul & the third party candidates.

[DeMintConservative]

What's exactly "dirty money"? Can you define that with some precision? Does it exist as opposed to "clean money"? What makes some money admissible but not the other?

You can't have an intellectual discussion if you start by using charged lexicon.

My early contribution is: remove all limits to campaign contributions, made by individuals or associations of any kind. At the same time, enhance the transparency mechanisms: require immediate disclosure of campaign contributions of all amounts. Ditto for expenditures. Apply the same rules to any type of political action committees.

[tod evans]

Money and politics have always been bedfellows, the best I could hope for is sound currency.


As I said earlier regarding legislation;


Equality is never legislated, it is fought and died for one person at a time....Same for liberty, "blood of patriots"...

[adisongrace]

What's exactly "dirty money"? Can you define that with some precision? Does it exist as opposed to "clean money"? What makes some money admissible but not the other?

You can't have an intellectual discussion if you start by using charged lexicon.

My early contribution is: remove all limits to campaign contributions, made by individuals or associations of any kind. At the same time, enhance the transparency mechanisms: require immediate disclosure of campaign contributions of all amounts. Ditto for expenditures. Apply the same rules to any type of political action committees.

Dirty money, IMO, is defined by corps. who have been involved with backdoor deals, those
under the wing of shyster organizations such as the IMF bank, Bilderberg, and the CFR.

I disagree with somewhat of what you are saying. But do see very beneficial things coming out of that
idea as well. I can't stand behind unlimited donations, due to the fact that at that point it becomes
who has the bigger wallet gets the seat of power.

*Keep in mind this is all withing our current system. This system isn't based on votes
and the numbers are pre-predicted to determine a winner before hand. As leaked in this video below:

http://patdollard.com/2012/10/disturbing-cbs-news-affiliate-accidentally-runs-khyron-dated-november-6-declaring-obama-winner-of-2012-election-4340-40237966-votes-to-38116216/?u#ooid=UycW9hNjoqkwlzWTy6bz-ziHRBBb2VLN

[Zippyjuan]

If you want to "follow the money" here is a link to a list of SuperPacs- you can click on each one and see who the major contributors are.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012
The Top Ten account for three fourths of the money spent so far (as of October 23rd) and a handful of donors account for much of that.
Individiual donations.

[CaptUSA]

You've got persistence, I'll give you that!

The problem is that this is a Ron Paul forum and most supporters of Ron Paul are going to be against this sort of thing. None of us like the money going to politicians, but we see that as a symptom of the problem, not the problem. And any good doctor will tell you that if you only treat the symptoms, the underlying problem is going to get worse. Sure, it may make you feel better, but it's not going to make things better.

See my sig line. Try liberty. Not more regulations.

[Kodaddy]

What constitutes a 'backdoor deal'?
If you really want to reform campaign financing, I think your best bet would be to deregulate the federal government as much as possible. No one in their right mind is going to dump a load of cash on a candidate that doesn't have the power to grant him some sort of benefit...

[adisongrace]

What constitutes a 'backdoor deal'?
If you really want to reform campaign financing, I think your best bet would be to deregulate the federal government as much as possible. No one in their right mind is going to dump a load of cash on a candidate that doesn't have the power to grant him some sort of benefit...

Ron Paul exposed $17B in backdoor deals
with wall st. These deals were record lapses
in which the books were being cooked.

[adisongrace]

You've got persistence, I'll give you that!

The problem is that this is a Ron Paul forum and most supporters of Ron Paul are going to be against this sort of thing. None of us like the money going to politicians, but we see that as a symptom of the problem, not the problem. And any good doctor will tell you that if you only treat the symptoms, the underlying problem is going to get worse. Sure, it may make you feel better, but it's not going to make things better.

See my sig line. Try liberty. Not more regulations.

I agree with you. The establishment is the issue. The paradigm is the issue.
This issue is only a fraction of the causes I'm involved in. However if you follow the money you will see who and what corps can and cannot be trusted. We have to work towards an attainable goal. One that will safe guard against corruption.

You want to go to point C without first touching point B.
That is an unrealistic expectation IMO.

[Kodaddy]

Just curious... How much time and research have you put into this? I see so many things that really don't make a lot of sense...
1) disempower superpacs while protecting free speech seems antithetical...
2) expand the definition of lobbying to include all types of influence peddling... Isn't that the definition of lobbying?
3) citizen-funded elections? Aren't they already citizen-funded?
These were just the first to jump out at me..... I don't think more regulations are going to have the effect that you think they're going to have.... There may be worthier causes out there, or at least a better avenue to get where you want than the one you're on...imho

[jmdrake]

http://act.unitedrepublic.org/event/cosponsor/3886

Greetings once again freedom fighters,

I am re-posting this petition to attempt to discuss the issues addressed by the bill.
I want this to be an intellectual look at the dirty money issues in our political system.

Here are are Romney's SUPERPAC donations & expenses.
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00483586/819835/#DETAILED

this link talks about Obama's donors and the $240 million projected
donations for his campaign.

*At request I also have the articles for Dr.Paul & the third party candidates.

Ummm....the Obama link is missing.

The Romney link is to the RNC convention committee. I wouldn't call that a "Romney SuperPAC".

[jmdrake]

Dirty money, IMO, is defined by corps. who have been involved with backdoor deals, those
under the wing of shyster organizations such as the IMF bank, Bilderberg, and the CFR.

I disagree with somewhat of what you are saying. But do see very beneficial things coming out of that
idea as well. I can't stand behind unlimited donations, due to the fact that at that point it becomes
who has the bigger wallet gets the seat of power.

*Keep in mind this is all withing our current system. This system isn't based on votes
and the numbers are pre-predicted to determine a winner before hand. As leaked in this video below:

http://patdollard.com/2012/10/disturbing-cbs-news-affiliate-accidentally-runs-khyron-dated-november-6-declaring-obama-winner-of-2012-election-4340-40237966-votes-to-38116216/?u#ooid=UycW9hNjoqkwlzWTy6bz-ziHRBBb2VLN


Ron Paul exposed $17B in backdoor deals
with wall st. These deals were record lapses
in which the books were being cooked.

Good information. But it undermines your argument IMO. Here's why.

1) Ron Paul has had some limited success with SuperPACs.

2) Ron Paul has been the main one exposing the back door deals.

3) The problem your referring regarding the "fix" by the media existed before Citizen's United and will continue to exist if your proposals became law.

4) While it's possible for a RP like candidate to compete against SuperPACs with his own SuperPAC, effectively competing against the media with your own media is a much more daunting proposition.

So rather than ask "How do we fix the current system without getting rid of SuperPACs?" The real question is "How can we effectively fight where we are weak (MSM) if we give up the one area where we have had some success? (SuperPACs)?" Regardless of the whole "liberty" issue, there's the practical issue of this sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[adisongrace]

Good information. But it undermines your argument IMO. Here's why.

1) Ron Paul has had some limited success with SuperPACs.

2) Ron Paul has been the main one exposing the back door deals.

3) The problem your referring regarding the "fix" by the media existed before Citizen's United and will continue to exist if your proposals became law.

4) While it's possible for a RP like candidate to compete against SuperPACs with his own SuperPAC, effectively competing against the media with your own media is a much more daunting proposition.

So rather than ask "How do we fix the current system without getting rid of SuperPACs?" The real question is "How can we effectively fight where we are weak (MSM) if we give up the one area where we have had some success? (SuperPACs)?" Regardless of the whole "liberty" issue, there's the practical issue of this sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The backdoor deals weren't exactly the focus of this petition, it was where the money flows is the issue.
In no way was I even undermining Dr.Paul's success with the superpac platform, I'm merely speaking
on the influence that this money has over the political machine as a whole.

Lastly I never asked how we can achieve progress without the elimination of superpacs...
I asked the question how do we as the liberty movement achieve progress in a broken
system that ignores our votes.

I'm taking your other points into consideration. Thank you for your response.

[thoughtomator]

I don't blame money for corruption in politics any more than I blame a gun when someone gets shot.

What needs to be dealt with are the bribe-givers and the bribe-takers, not the bribe itself.

[GunnyFreedom]

I think the best way to get dirty money out of politics is to come up with a way to heavily enforce the Constitution. A government that cannot do anything beyond what the Constitution allows, can do almost nothing for the special interests to pay or lobby for.

That's why my idea to eliminate dirty money from politics, is to make it a class B or C felony for an elected official to violate their oath of office, specifically in regards to obedience to the Constitution (which is the only part of the oath that can be judged in court anyway). When elected officials face 15-25 years in prison for violating the Constitution, they will be more careful to do only those things that the Constitution allows.

Governments that only do those things that the Constitution allows are not attractive to big money lobbyists because they will be unable to give the special interests the things they want. Voila, big dirty money goes away because they can't get anything worthwhile from their big money in the first place.

[thoughtomator]

the core problem is really that no form of government is workable for an immoral people - tinkering won't help

[adisongrace]

I think the best way to get dirty money out of politics is to come up with a way to heavily enforce the Constitution. A government that cannot do anything beyond what the Constitution allows, can do almost nothing for the special interests to pay or lobby for.

That's why my idea to eliminate dirty money from politics, is to make it a class B or C felony for an elected official to violate their oath of office, specifically in regards to obedience to the Constitution (which is the only part of the oath that can be judged in court anyway). When elected officials face 15-25 years in prison for violating the Constitution, they will be more careful to do only those things that the Constitution allows.

Governments that only do those things that the Constitution allows are not attractive to big money lobbyists because they will be unable to give the special interests the things they want. Voila, big dirty money goes away because they can't get anything worthwhile from their big money in the first place.

Excellent points! However I do think it would almost near impossible
for anyone to get that sort progress moving. But I'd love to see this outcome.

[John F Kennedy III]

I think the best way to get dirty money out of politics is to come up with a way to heavily enforce the Constitution. A government that cannot do anything beyond what the Constitution allows, can do almost nothing for the special interests to pay or lobby for.

That's why my idea to eliminate dirty money from politics, is to make it a class B or C felony for an elected official to violate their oath of office, specifically in regards to obedience to the Constitution (which is the only part of the oath that can be judged in court anyway). When elected officials face 15-25 years in prison for violating the Constitution, they will be more careful to do only those things that the Constitution allows.

Governments that only do those things that the Constitution allows are not attractive to big money lobbyists because they will be unable to give the special interests the things they want. Voila, big dirty money goes away because they can't get anything worthwhile from their big money in the first place.

I love it.

[Working Poor]

That's why my idea to eliminate dirty money from politics, is to make it a class B or C felony for an elected official to violate their oath of office, specifically in regards to obedience to the Constitution (which is the only part of the oath that can be judged in court anyway). When elected officials face 15-25 years in prison for violating the Constitution, they will be more careful to do only those things that the Constitution allows.

Governments that only do those things that the Constitution allows are not attractive to big money lobbyists because they will be unable to give the special interests the things they want. Voila, big dirty money goes away because they can't get anything worthwhile from their big money in the first place.

I think this is the only thing that will really work. Politicians need to be held to the Constitution and their oath of office. Ron Paul has said this many times. Why don't you start a movement to hold them to their oath of office to obey the Constitution that might actually get some traction...

[CaptUSA]

You want to go to point C without first touching point B.
That is an unrealistic expectation IMO.
Yeah, the problem is that I don't think your solution is point B. I think it's going in the opposite direction.

Gunny's solution, though, could definitely be a point B, moving in the right direction. But I don't know how feasible it is. Could you imagine? Congressmen signing a bill that automatically makes 99% of them felons?! And them could you imagine that subsequent trials that would begin immediately?! Each judge and jury trying to decide if this politician or that one violated their interpretation of the Constitution?! It would make for great reality TV! After the clearinghouse, we might be able to have a Consitutional government again. In the meantime, the popcorn would be popping!

[ClydeCoulter]

The courts would need to be held accountable also, especially non-jury courts where appeals would take place and judges would have to be required to let the constitution back into "their" court. (Obamacare mandate, NDAA detention amendments, for example). Big money/power influence in the court system would need to addressed. I could see someone going to jail for trying to uphold the constitution(s) at the Federal or State level on some technicalities that sounded good, etc...

Laws determined to be unconstitutional...maybe just start over with laws other than the constitution?

Maybe a reset, with some things held in place where people have become dependent because of all the devaluation and theft.

We may see a need for all of this in the near/not-so-far future anyway. As Ron has said several times, that I've heard, there needs to be preparations made in our minds for a replacement of the current system. I think he may have been referring to the monetary system, but perhaps more, likely more.

[jmdrake]

The backdoor deals weren't exactly the focus of this petition, it was where the money flows is the issue.
In no way was I even undermining Dr.Paul's success with the superpac platform, I'm merely speaking
on the influence that this money has over the political machine as a whole.

Lastly I never asked how we can achieve progress without the elimination of superpacs...
I asked the question how do we as the liberty movement achieve progress in a broken
system that ignores our votes.

I'm taking your other points into consideration. Thank you for your response.

Thank you for your response as well. In retrospect I think I'm less than clear. My point about Ron Paul and his SuperPAC is that it's working. A reform that limits it's ability to work, even if that reform isn't specifically aimed at his SuperPAC, is a potential problem IMO.

Now, how to address the problem of them ignoring our votes? Well our votes were ignored prior to Citizen's United. The issue, to me, isn't "too much money in politics". It's too much concentration of control over the media. How was the MSM (CNN/Fox/MSNBC) coverage that people like Mitt Romney, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton got worth? And how do you counteract that when media bias isn't part of the political funding equation? When Archer Daniels Midland funds "Meet the Press" is that the funding of a SuperPAC? Oh, supposedly it's all "objective", but is it really?

That said, if the Campaign for Liberty quit trying to be a political organization and instead became a 24 hour cable news channel, that might be an improvement.

[adisongrace]

Yeah, the problem is that I don't think your solution is point B. I think it's going in the opposite direction.

Gunny's solution, though, could definitely be a point B, moving in the right direction. But I don't know how feasible it is. Could you imagine? Congressmen signing a bill that automatically makes 99% of them felons?! And them could you imagine that subsequent trials that would begin immediately?! Each judge and jury trying to decide if this politician or that one violated their interpretation of the Constitution?! It would make for great reality TV! After the clearinghouse, we might be able to have a Consitutional government again. In the meantime, the popcorn would be popping!

That's your right. For those that do agree with what is being proposed though should still sign.
This is a cause I believe in. But I do agree. Gunny's solution is much a better starting place, but
it would be very difficult to get congress to sign their occupational death warrants lol.

[adisongrace]

Thank you for your response as well. In retrospect I think I'm less than clear. My point about Ron Paul and his SuperPAC is that it's working. A reform that limits it's ability to work, even if that reform isn't specifically aimed at his SuperPAC, is a potential problem IMO.

Now, how to address the problem of them ignoring our votes? Well our votes were ignored prior to Citizen's United. The issue, to me, isn't "too much money in politics". It's too much concentration of control over the media. How was the MSM (CNN/Fox/MSNBC) coverage that people like Mitt Romney, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton got worth? And how do you counteract that when media bias isn't part of the political funding equation? When Archer Daniels Midland funds "Meet the Press" is that the funding of a SuperPAC? Oh, supposedly it's all "objective", but is it really?

That said, if the Campaign for Liberty quit trying to be a political organization and instead became a 24 hour cable news channel, that might be an improvement.

1) Votes: Our votes still aren't being counted. They are being tossed away and laughed off. Just last week someone from a CBS affiliate leaked the presidential election results. Our voting system is corrupted and needs to be fixed if we ever want to have fair and constitutional elections.

2) Media consolidation: The voice of our media today is the voice of the paradigm. However citizen journalism is taking the media back. We as a resistance must unite in this cause, and put cameras in the hands of our people. I'm actually starting a fundraiser to do just that for two of the collectives I participate in.

Media Funding: Of course the consolidation of media is nothing more than a political brainwashing scheme. They keep their pay and live in a fantasy world. *However, that isn't to say all journalists working in MSM are evil. They are just misguided and not awake to reality.

[Kodaddy]

Maybe you might have a little more success if the website you linked to was a little more well thought out and made sense... You might want to find its creator and make it a little more clear.

[ClydeCoulter]

Maybe you might have a little more success if the website you linked to was a little more well thought out and made sense... You might want to find its creator and make it a little more clear.

If you mean this link: http://act.unitedrepublic.org/event/cosponsor/3886
I can read it okay, and I'm red/green color blind.

[Kodaddy]

I am so sorry for your affliction, however I was referring to the content as I spoke of in my above post. No need to get snarky if that was your intent. I'm offering constructive criticism, not attacking your ideas. I'm not above helping out people even if I disagree with them. I could easily refer you to Emily Post or Dale Carnegie if I wanted to get snarky back.

[jmdrake]

1) Votes: Our votes still aren't being counted. They are being tossed away and laughed off. Just last week someone from a CBS affiliate leaked the presidential election results. Our voting system is corrupted and needs to be fixed if we ever want to have fair and constitutional elections.


Yes. And that's largely a function of electronic voting machines without audit trails. If you started an initiative on that it would probably have near universal support here at RPF.



2) Media consolidation: The voice of our media today is the voice of the paradigm. However citizen journalism is taking the media back. We as a resistance must unite in this cause, and put cameras in the hands of our people. I'm actually starting a fundraiser to do just that for two of the collectives I participate in.


That's good. The other problem we face though is that in the demographic Ron lost (seniors despite being a senior), they don't really spend a lot of time on the internet. So citizen journalism has to be more than low cost net journalism to be effective. Breaking into talk radio, starting newspapers, consolidated letters to the editor campaigns have to be a part of this IMO. And as far as the net goes, the liberty movement needs websites approaching Google/Wikipedia level traffic. SOPA was stopped because those companies felt it was outside their interest and let their users know it. How to get there? I don't know.



Media Funding: Of course the consolidation of media is nothing more than a political brainwashing scheme. They keep their pay and live in a fantasy world. *However, that isn't to say all journalists working in MSM are evil. They are just misguided and not awake to reality.

Oh I agree! I love me some Ben Swann! And Judge Napolitano was great. The problem isn't the journalists. It's the owners. I doubt Ben Swann will get a major slot on the Fox network as opposed to a local affiliate. And was saw what happened to Judge Nap's show.