Goverment motives
- Thread starter Juize
- Start date
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
As a whole the labour government should be more interested in the problems of me and my fellow countymen/women. But with Mr. Blair in charge I find that the governments interests are no longer that of the people, more that of the big businesses which help them get re-elected, and the fact that I feel that the media is now biased in their favour (whilst before it was biased towards the Tories, note: as i'm only 16 I am mostly going by what my Dad has told me on this issue concerning life under the Tories compared to New Labour. He's 46 so i figure he should know about these things!).
But in my own view, yes the Government cares more about big bussiness
(and if they get them onside they get the media onside so get the votes)
But in my own view, yes the Government cares more about big bussiness
(and if they get them onside they get the media onside so get the votes)VoodooAce
Emperor
Guuess I'll post this here, then, since it looks like this poll might work....
I think when you allow corporations to donate money to a candidates campaign, it's unrealistic to think that the donor would not have undue infuluence with that polician.
It's not so much the money already donated. It's more the promise of money to come, for future elections.
Unfortunately, it costs a lot of money, at least in America, to run a half way decent political campaign. To compete. Of course, Al Gore proved in 2000 that you can have the $$ and still run a crappy campaign, lol. But, anyway....
Do I think that a congressman is at least a little more likely to vote for an issue based on the desires of a major donor? Do I believe that lobbiests for the donor, or his industry, will imply to that congressman that all that money may not be forthcoming in the next election should said congressman not vote their way? An emphatic yes to both questions.
It's just obvious to me that, until money is out of politics, we can not expect our government to work in OUR best interest.
Is it a First Ammendment issue. Yeah, it probably is.
That's why, rather than limiting or banning political contributions, the need for said contributions should be removed. It should not cost millions and millions of dollars to run for office. It shouldn't cost a dime.
I think when you allow corporations to donate money to a candidates campaign, it's unrealistic to think that the donor would not have undue infuluence with that polician.
It's not so much the money already donated. It's more the promise of money to come, for future elections.
Unfortunately, it costs a lot of money, at least in America, to run a half way decent political campaign. To compete. Of course, Al Gore proved in 2000 that you can have the $$ and still run a crappy campaign, lol. But, anyway....
Do I think that a congressman is at least a little more likely to vote for an issue based on the desires of a major donor? Do I believe that lobbiests for the donor, or his industry, will imply to that congressman that all that money may not be forthcoming in the next election should said congressman not vote their way? An emphatic yes to both questions.
It's just obvious to me that, until money is out of politics, we can not expect our government to work in OUR best interest.
Is it a First Ammendment issue. Yeah, it probably is.
That's why, rather than limiting or banning political contributions, the need for said contributions should be removed. It should not cost millions and millions of dollars to run for office. It shouldn't cost a dime.
Yeah, I kind of agree with you here. Allowing people or organizations to exercise free speach in an election is a very bad thing to do.
And allowing the government (ie the incumbent) to decide how much total money a candidate can recieve is the solution to our problems.
VoodooAce
Emperor
Hhmm...I can't tell to what degree you're being sarcastic.
Lol, cuz unless you're being very sarcastic, you're post makes no sense as a reply to mine. Because it ignores everything I said other than the part you took out of context and quoted me on.
Did you read the rest of my post? Like the part where I say:
"That's why, rather than limiting or banning political contributions, the need for said contributions should be removed. It should not cost millions and millions of dollars to run for office. It shouldn't cost a dime."
Everybody can still exercise one of my favorite Ammendments, the First.
I do think it IS probably a First Ammendment issue.
THAT is why I think candidates should not need to raise ANY money. Running for office shouldn't depend on so much on how much capital you can raise, which is what we have now.
Lol, cuz unless you're being very sarcastic, you're post makes no sense as a reply to mine. Because it ignores everything I said other than the part you took out of context and quoted me on.
Did you read the rest of my post? Like the part where I say:
"That's why, rather than limiting or banning political contributions, the need for said contributions should be removed. It should not cost millions and millions of dollars to run for office. It shouldn't cost a dime."
Everybody can still exercise one of my favorite Ammendments, the First.
I do think it IS probably a First Ammendment issue.
THAT is why I think candidates should not need to raise ANY money. Running for office shouldn't depend on so much on how much capital you can raise, which is what we have now.
VoodooAce
Emperor
In fact, DinoDoc, you bring up a good point...about the incumbent.
An incumben would surely have an advantage with regards to 'campaigning', wouldn't he.
All Presidents do, anyway, I suppose, but it is still a valid point. If no money was involved, there surely wouldn't be as much zipping around the country. Not being able to do so, while the President is (under the pretention that he's just showing up here, or making a speech there, as part of his job as President.
Shoot, I don't have all of the answers, but I do believe all of the money in politics just adds to the slime.
An incumben would surely have an advantage with regards to 'campaigning', wouldn't he.
All Presidents do, anyway, I suppose, but it is still a valid point. If no money was involved, there surely wouldn't be as much zipping around the country. Not being able to do so, while the President is (under the pretention that he's just showing up here, or making a speech there, as part of his job as President.
Shoot, I don't have all of the answers, but I do believe all of the money in politics just adds to the slime.
I can't say that I dislike this concept. Now the question is how to implement it and to what degree? I assume that your statement means that it shouldn't cost a candidate a dime, cause the signs and ads and travel and stuff will always cost something. Now how do we determine who should get this free ride election support? We can't give millions to the hundreds if not thousands who would apply for the money if there was no risk. We also shouldn't limit it to a select few.
We also run into problems of stopping people from helping campaigns outside our guidelines. If we say candidate X gets 20 million for their campaign, what stops candidate X's rich friend from buying a billboard or a TV ad with their own money? Should they be stopped? No one objects if I make a 1'X2' sign and stick it in my yard, but what about if Bill Gates makes a 100'X200' sign, puts it in his property near the freeway and light it with spotlights and such. An extreme example, but should the law draw any lines between the two...
A wheighty issue to be sure. Unfortunately I need to go or I would explore it further.
PS Voodoo, don't think I am down on your idea. It may be hard, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. We will have to balance freedoms with social need, just like when it is determined that shouting "Fire" in a theater is wrong, because the freedom to do it is not worth the trouble it causes.
VoodooAce
Emperor
The million dollar question. The answer to which I haven't the slightest idea. Somebody smarter than me needs to come up with a solution. There has to be one, I just can't fathom what it could be.
I don't think your example was too extreme, though. It's a legitimate question. I mean, what do you do? Make it a law that Bill Gates can't run an add on TV? I think not. Then who decides what is an 'add' for a candidate. Too many cans of worms to be opened up, here.
Anyway, I just point out and cause problems, I don't fix them.
