• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

More PSA Insight

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
MRJ, "BTW, Mike, aren't political "kickbacks" illegal? How do you define the difference between "kickbacks" and campaign contributions? Or do you believe there is no difference? How are good people supposed to help good candidates get elected if not via campaign contributions?"

What is the difference between a "kickback" and a favorable ear for a contributor? Whether it is a direct payment or just a favor that the "contributor" benefits from really makes no difference. It's all the same in the end.
 
Sandhusker said:
MRJ, "BTW, Mike, aren't political "kickbacks" illegal? How do you define the difference between "kickbacks" and campaign contributions? Or do you believe there is no difference? How are good people supposed to help good candidates get elected if not via campaign contributions?"

What is the difference between a "kickback" and a favorable ear for a contributor? Whether it is a direct payment or just a favor that the "contributor" benefits from really makes no difference. It's all the same in the end.
Click to expand...

Is that an affirmative that you do not want individuals or organizations or businesses to fund campaigns?

How do you propose funding them?

How would you insure that no one gets "a favorable ear"?

Or that no political pressure is applied to lawmakers?



MRJ
 
MRJ said:
Sandhusker said:
MRJ, "BTW, Mike, aren't political "kickbacks" illegal? How do you define the difference between "kickbacks" and campaign contributions? Or do you believe there is no difference? How are good people supposed to help good candidates get elected if not via campaign contributions?"

What is the difference between a "kickback" and a favorable ear for a contributor? Whether it is a direct payment or just a favor that the "contributor" benefits from really makes no difference. It's all the same in the end.
Click to expand...

Is that an affirmative that you do not want individuals or organizations or businesses to fund campaigns?

How do you propose funding them?

How would you insure that no one gets "a favorable ear"?

Or that no political pressure is applied to lawmakers?



MRJ
Click to expand...

The politicians say they need the money for campaigning, so I'd cut the problem off at the head and put a cap on election spending - say $1 per registered voter in the jurisdiction.
 
I believe there are less than 37,000 registered voters in Rapid City, the second largest city in SD. I wonder how many ads that would buy for candidate? And the total statewide registered voter numbers wouldn't do much to even get a candidates name recognized for a statewide race, would it?

Sounds good in theory, until one begins to think about how sparsely populated areas would play out in funding.

Simple solutions are not always best, IMO.

Between listing every contributor, and requiring every vote to be recorded, I think we could go a long way toward cleaning up politics. Seniority determining who is on committees and having power should be limited, too. That would make elected officials more accountable to the voters. Then if voters had the guts to turn them out to earn an honest living instead of making a career of political office, we might truly have government of, by and for the people.

MRJ
 
Sandhusker said:
$37,000 would buy a lot of space in the Journal.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that, and wonder how many voters subscribe. It sure wouldn't go far in TV ads or radio. It does seem to require a multi-media campaign to reach all voters and a one shot campaign wouldn't do that by any stretch of imagination.

MRJ
 
MRJ said:
Sandhusker said:
$37,000 would buy a lot of space in the Journal.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that, and wonder how many voters subscribe. It sure wouldn't go far in TV ads or radio. It does seem to require a multi-media campaign to reach all voters and a one shot campaign wouldn't do that by any stretch of imagination.

MRJ
Click to expand...

I've been thinking about this. They system we have now just invites problems and I hear a lot of excuses. I think I've got some ideas that make sense. I"ll post in political bull and let you know.
 
No, MRJ, the donations that have gone to candidates that have not provided the oversight responsibilities in the USDA for avg. farmers and ranchers need to just be returned. It is kind of like the Indian deal and Abramoff.

If the packers want to influence the USDA, they should do it with funds that are not comingled with cattleman's contributions or interests. Comingling of those funds is one of the most idiotic things I can think of, especially in light of the problems of their regulatory agency, GIPSA. JoAnn did not do everything all on her own. If she did, there has to be a real change at the USDA and not the usual musical chairs B.S.

I still want my taxpayer money paid to JoAnn returned and for her to be personally liable for the inadequacies and frauds of the agency during her tenure----unless she actively helps in uncovering every part of the fraud--which includes McBride and the other legal staff at OGC. That show might just be very interesting--and worth the ticket price.
 
ME TOO !!!!!! I still want my taxpayer money paid to JoAnn returned and for her to be personally liable for the inadequacies and frauds of the agency during her tenure----unless she actively helps in uncovering every part of the fraud--which includes McBride and the other legal staff at OGC.
 
The same special interests which have effectively taken control of the GIPSA referees have also invested in key Congressman, who will see that the measure never comes up for a vote in Congress. They own GIPSA, they own the USDA, they own Congress.

We NEED A LIST of the congressman that gathered handouts and PAC moneys.
 
PORKER said:
The same special interests which have effectively taken control of the GIPSA referees have also invested in key Congressman, who will see that the measure never comes up for a vote in Congress. They own GIPSA, they own the USDA, they own Congress.

We NEED A LIST of the congressman that gathered handouts and PAC moneys.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Always follow the money.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top