There's plenty of examples either through what I heard or someone I worked with. A nice old lady that works in my office was let go about 2 months away from retirement, and she did nothing wrong except maybe she's too old and replaceable. She does not have a contract. She also got all kinds of employee awards, been working there for at least 15 years (longer than most people worked there). The sad thing is, what the company did is completely legal & within their rights.
I considered misleading people to war a CRIME. So what Bush and his men did was not a worst act that's not a crime, it's a crime. The funny thing is, people I knew sent to Iraq and die there, and their family is nervous wreck 'cause they don't know when someone will come bearing the bad news, and no one is being responsible about it. No one gets fire or gets suit.
Yes, but IMO, it should be restricted to $0. This government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people, not the PACs, corporations, unions, or any other special interest group. In large part, yes. I would guess that the biggest reason those groups have influence is due to the contributions they give. I would like to see a system where those groups "flex their political muscle" with membership numbers and voting strength (this may be the AARPs biggest "flex" already) rather than legalized bribery.
So the Bush/Kerry/whoever campaign will have to live without the $2000.00 contribution per year by the NRA/AFL-CIO/etc.? The impact would be microscopic in scale $2000.00 is the most that each group can give - same as you and me. (mind you, there is a distincition between a group's contribution (NRA-inc.) and an individual contribution by a members of a group (joe the NRA member, etc.) So in large part, the answer is no.
The impact would be pretty dramatic after you consider that tens of thousands of organizations give their max every election cycle (some to both candidates in a race to cover all bases). Also, most of the money given by organizations is given directly to the parties, not to the candidates themselves. I would still allow that, but the parties would be forbidden from advertising or giving money to the candidates, shutting of the flow of legal bribery even more. Again, you are simply ignoring the massive contributions given directly to the parties, contributions that are unlimited. As I said earlier, I would also prohibit these organizations from running ads to influence campaigns, minimizing the impact that people like the Swift Boat liars could have. Big money rules the government and as long as we allow big money to go to campaign contributions, corporations, unions, PACs, and other special interests will always have more leverage than the PEOPLE that the elected officials are supposed to represent.
I won't bash you, because I'm unclear on what you are saying. Are you saying that drinking is the worst thing that isn't a crime and that wanting to legalize pot is the worst thing that isn't a crime?
I don't know how big those direct contributions are as a proportion - but again I doubt that the $2000.00 check from the NRA was a motivating factor for a lot of politicians rather than thousands of checks/votes from private citizens that it can deliver. And you're simply ignoring the BCFRA of 2002 (aka McCain-Feingold) which put the skids on soft money. The 527 loophole was exploited precisely because soft money is no longer a free for all. However - what's wrong with a bunch of people banding together an running an advertisement? You already said people can organize and hold demonstrations - why can't they organize and express their opinion via broadcast media? Why draw the line there? I'm not defending the Swift Boat liars actions - but in constitutional terms its very difficult for you to be able to justify limits on political speech like that in any consistent fashion. Well yeah, interest groups will form and compete for their interests - that's the system we have and always will have - our system is pluralistic and groups will form to promote their members self interests, simply because 2>1. I don't know if it's anything I'd quantify as something that ought to be criminalized - it's just a fact of life.
And those checks/votes should be the ONLY thing that the organization can deliver. I would be willing to bet that the tens of thousands of dollars the NRA gives to the GOP is a HUGE motivating factor in those politicians who are beholden to them. However, the impact they should be able to have is that of their member's votes, eyes, and ears, which is an impact that can easily be had without the organization bribing the politicians. IIRC, they put the skids on the parties giving unlimited amounts of money directly to candidates or campaigns. The parties are still free to run their own advertisements in markets where the outcomes are closely fought, nullifying the intended effect of putting the brakes on soft money contributions. Nothing at all as long as it is not in the context of trying to influence an election. As far as I am concerned, the 527s are the problem because they can run ads funded in private and the ads can be completely, absolutely false. This has the effect that we saw with the SB liars' ads. If the NRA wants to run issue ads, they would be free to do so for 18 out of every 24 months and would only have to rein it in during the lead up to the election itself. If they cannot influence the people they want to influence in those 18 months, then their message will go by the wayside as it should. If a group runs false or misleading ads, those falsehoods can be examined and revealed in the months leading up to the election and the electorate can (hopefully) be fully armed with actual facts when they go to the ballot box. Because with broadcast, the ads could be funded by a single person and reach millions. At least with a protest march or demonstration, if it is large enough to rate media coverage, they still get the message out. If it is just one rich guy, nobody will pay attention if he is the only one demonstrating, but if he is allowed to buy ad time, he can influence millions with claims that could be entirely false. Which is the reason I included the caveat that what I have in mind would require a constitutional amendment. They would still be free to form and compete for their interests, they just wouldn't have an avenue for legal bribery.
When most congressional campaigns (the few competitive ones there actually are) cost in the millions, I doubt this. No it severely limited issue ads too. False ads is a different question entirely. Yeah - but so what? You can't exercise your rights to act collectively or to free speech becasue your voice will be heard by too many? That certainly is a kick in the constitutional ass - and I don't think amending the constitution to allow for this is very tenable either. But why is bribery (or blackmail) with votes or boycotts or whatever any different than bribery via 2k contributions? Interest groups deliver $, votes, campaign workers, - whatever - to politicians in exchange for promoting their interests - either way it is a quid pro quo and always will be.
I would actually prefer completely publicly funded elections. The government takes bids, buys the ad time, and metes it out to the candidates. I believe that we could elect the entire slate of Representatives, Senators, and the President for less than the $200 million that GWB alone spent in the last election cycle. Personally, I don't doubt it at all. Large contributors are given access to politicians and appointees and in some cases are rewarded with appointments themselves. If you don't think that contributions by organizations turn the heads of politicians, then you are ignoring facts. That isn't what I remember from the Chronicle writeup of McCain/Feingold, but I could be wrong. And it is the biggest question that I am trying to "answer." I am disgusted that the electorate can be so completely snowed by false or misleading allegations that are generally proven false after the election and long after the damage is done. Apparently, you aren't understanding. People collectively demonstrating, marching, writing letters to the editor, or even canvassing neighborhoods is the RIGHT way for them to make their voices heard. However, one rich guy can run an advertisement in prime time and affect MILLIONS more than even a million person march through Washington DC (or NY during a convention) would. Money does not equal free speech. I don't want to restrict people's ability to speak, I want to restrict the ability to use money to amplify that speech. If you don't think that money speaks louder than votes or boycotts, then you are again ignoring reality.
If you think $2000.00 contributions that come directlly from organizations are enough to get you noticed, you're being a bit naive. I think it is because you are blurring the distinction. Look, if Halliburton gives GWB 2 grand, who cares? If Halliburton gives GWB 2 grand, and then 10-12 of its boardmembers host $1,000 a plate fundraisers for 20 or so of each of their friends, then we are talking about serious money and access. That said, the focus of your ire and the act you state is the most damaging is the actual transfer from the entity to the candidate. I keep trying tell you - it's really not. I think it's a crime that people are stupid too but I don't know waht to do about that. Why? Even the letter writers or marchers are spending some money. Shouldn't I be able to use my own personal resources the way I want - especially if that is for political speech - the most protected form of speech around? If i own a printing press and I want to print out a million advertisements that says "Journey is the greatest rock and roll band of all time" - I should be allowed to do so, no? Why I can't I do the same thing with one that says "Kinky Friedman for governor" Again, any restriction on how "loudly" you can express yourself seems to eviscerate the purpose of the first amendment (and a few other rights as well) Andy - campaign contributions are spent to secure votes - they aren't kept at the end of the day. Do I think money - that is spent to buy votes - speaks louder than votes? I think they're pretty fungible.
If you are talking about the morality of stopping genecide in Iraq vs Sudan, then you have to consider the motives about why we attacked Iraq. Stopping genocide was not the primary justification provided to us. It was barely an after thought. For something as atrocious as genocide, as in Kosovo, genocide should be the primary justification. For Iraq, the primary reason given was WMD and that turned out to be wrong. So if you are going to talk about the "Morality" of the Iraq war, please come up with something better. Therefore, on the morality bit, assisting Sudan would be more moral than assisting Iraq.
