The Darkest Secret of American Politics.

[Landslide Lyndon]

http://www.frumforum.com/this-is-what-anonymous-funding-looks-like

Who paid William McKinley’s presidential campaign expenses?

The short answer is: we have no idea. Prior to the 20th century, and especially prior the 1970s, campaign finance was the darkest secret of American politics. Money was raised in secret, often in very large amounts, and spent in ways often very difficult to trace.

For 40 years, the US tried to achieve a more transparent finance system. It proved an uphill struggle, now ending in failure. The dark mystery of anonymity is closing in again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who gives that money? In what amounts? We’ll never know. But there’s one haunting question that is not shrouded in secrecy. What do they get in return? The answer to that is evident all around us.

[Wonkish1]

http://www.frumforum.com/this-is-what-anonymous-funding-looks-like

Who paid William McKinley’s presidential campaign expenses?

The short answer is: we have no idea. Prior to the 20th century, and especially prior the 1970s, campaign finance was the darkest secret of American politics. Money was raised in secret, often in very large amounts, and spent in ways often very difficult to trace.

For 40 years, the US tried to achieve a more transparent finance system. It proved an uphill struggle, now ending in failure. The dark mystery of anonymity is closing in again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who gives that money? In what amounts? We’ll never know. But there’s one haunting question that is not shrouded in secrecy. What do they get in return? The answer to that is evident all around us.

Interesting that the distinguished gentlemen from Greece of all places would actually bring this up! You're government is run like the damn mafia.

[Insula Dei]

Uhm, nobody would pay 240 million for the Greek government,...

[Link]

http://www.frumforum.com/this-is-what-anonymous-funding-looks-like

Who paid William McKinley’s presidential campaign expenses?

The short answer is: we have no idea. Prior to the 20th century, and especially prior the 1970s, campaign finance was the darkest secret of American politics. Money was raised in secret, often in very large amounts, and spent in ways often very difficult to trace.

For 40 years, the US tried to achieve a more transparent finance system. It proved an uphill struggle, now ending in failure. The dark mystery of anonymity is closing in again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who gives that money? In what amounts? We’ll never know. But there’s one haunting question that is not shrouded in secrecy. What do they get in return? The answer to that is evident all around us.

Interesting that the distinguished gentlemen from Greece of all places would actually bring this up! You're government is run like the damn mafia.

Uhhh... wow.  Is this an argument for or against campaign finance reform or just an unprovoked attack on Greece?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Uhhh... wow.  Is this an argument for or against campaign finance reform or just an unprovoked attack on Greece?

Just proof that he should change his username to Wanker1.

[Wonkish1]

http://www.frumforum.com/this-is-what-anonymous-funding-looks-like

Who paid William McKinley’s presidential campaign expenses?

The short answer is: we have no idea. Prior to the 20th century, and especially prior the 1970s, campaign finance was the darkest secret of American politics. Money was raised in secret, often in very large amounts, and spent in ways often very difficult to trace.

For 40 years, the US tried to achieve a more transparent finance system. It proved an uphill struggle, now ending in failure. The dark mystery of anonymity is closing in again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who gives that money? In what amounts? We’ll never know. But there’s one haunting question that is not shrouded in secrecy. What do they get in return? The answer to that is evident all around us.

Interesting that the distinguished gentlemen from Greece of all places would actually bring this up! You're government is run like the damn mafia.

Uhhh... wow.  Is this an argument for or against campaign finance reform or just an unprovoked attack on Greece?

No just curious as to why someone would even care about campaign finance in this country when his home country is a political cesspool of parties handing out the equivalent of no-show government jobs to supporters and corruption so widespread that even if they did pass legislation trying to control political spending in Greece it would just be shrugged off as politicians did everything under the table like the way everything else is done in Greece.

[Wonkish1]

Uhhh... wow.  Is this an argument for or against campaign finance reform or just an unprovoked attack on Greece?

There's actually an elegant (though subtle) argument here. Spelling it out explicitly may ruin its beauty, but perhaps that is the only way to convince you.

1. The government of Greece is corrupt
2. Landslide Lyndon is from Greece

Therefore:

Campaign finance reform is not a significant problem in the United States.

Hey look I'm not trying to make a political argument here even though you guys think I am. But for me its like someone coming onto a forum like this from North Korea asking us why there is food stamps in the United States. It just leaves you scratching your head.

[opebo]

Concerns about campaign finance are misplaced - the problem runs much deeper.  Do away with the private fortunes if you don't want a plutocracy.  Otherwise, don't fuss about the details.

[Link]

Uhhh... wow.  Is this an argument for or against campaign finance reform or just an unprovoked attack on Greece?

There's actually an elegant (though subtle) argument here. Spelling it out explicitly may ruin its beauty, but perhaps that is the only way to convince you.

1. The government of Greece is corrupt
2. Landslide Lyndon is from Greece

Therefore:

Campaign finance reform is not a significant problem in the United States.

[Napoleon]

Did anyone see Colbert's Ham Rove? LOL

[Link]

Concerns about campaign finance are misplaced - the problem runs much deeper.  Do away with the private fortunes if you don't want a plutocracy.  Otherwise, don't fuss about the details.

Well I think if we removed corporations and unions from the equation it would help a lot.  If we limited campaign contributions to $3000/individual/yr per candidate and only let people within a candidate's constituency donate that would help as well.  I would eliminate PACs too.

[Insula Dei]

BTW, I think Opebo has a bit of a point. Complaining about campaign financing or corruption is a bit like complaining about the low definition of you TV-set while it's on fire. The US system is intrinsically dysfunctional and is in a lot of ways an anachronism that properly belongs in the early 19th century.

[Wonkish1]

Campaign finance laws should aim to make the donation process as direct and transparent as possible. Limiting the amount that an individual can contribute actually interferes with this goal by forcing donors into exploiting loopholes, making the money more difficult to track. I really don't care how much anyone donates as long as the process is open and subject to scrutiny.

Agreed. At this stand point I think you would be hard pressed to find anybody that would rather have the current situation of unlimited money from outside groups and no disclosure than having unlimited money for the candidates and full disclosure.

Campaign finance reform has done an amazing job of shifting money out of the candidates and their usually more positive messages during campaign season and towards outside groups that just run attack ad, after attack ad, after attack ad.

I think a first step in the right direction is to start allowing unlimited donations to the candidates from within the boundaries of what they are running for. So if you're running for house you get unlimited donations from those that live in your CD and if you're running state wide you can get unlimited from your state. At least then you can recenter politicians to the constituents they represent instead of somebody in city 800 miles away.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

http://www.frumforum.com/this-is-what-anonymous-funding-looks-like

Who paid William McKinley’s presidential campaign expenses?

The short answer is: we have no idea. Prior to the 20th century, and especially prior the 1970s, campaign finance was the darkest secret of American politics. Money was raised in secret, often in very large amounts, and spent in ways often very difficult to trace.

For 40 years, the US tried to achieve a more transparent finance system. It proved an uphill struggle, now ending in failure. The dark mystery of anonymity is closing in again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who gives that money? In what amounts? We’ll never know. But there’s one haunting question that is not shrouded in secrecy. What do they get in return? The answer to that is evident all around us.

Interesting that the distinguished gentlemen from Greece of all places would actually bring this up! You're government is run like the damn mafia.

Uhhh... wow.  Is this an argument for or against campaign finance reform or just an unprovoked attack on Greece?

No just curious as to why someone would even care about campaign finance in this country when his home country is a political cesspool of parties handing out the equivalent of no-show government jobs to supporters and corruption so widespread that even if they did pass legislation trying to control political spending in Greece it would just be shrugged off as politicians did everything under the table like the way everything else is done in Greece.

I think the government of the United States is fairly important on the world stage whereas the government of Greece is, while not insignificant, not really important to the same degree outside Greece itself. Just my opinion, though. Priorities, priorities...

BTW, I think Opebo has a bit of a point. Complaining about campaign financing or corruption is a bit like complaining about the low definition of you TV-set while it's on fire. The US system is intrinsically dysfunctional and is in a lot of ways an anachronism that properly belongs in the early 19th century.

Barring truly catastrophic failure, revolutionary change is not happening. I understand your point, but I don't think that systemic dysfunction is a reason to avoid more politically feasible minor improvements.

We've been living catastrophic failure for the past four years and it hasn't happened yet. I think this demonstrates your point rather nicely.

[Wonkish1]

http://www.frumforum.com/this-is-what-anonymous-funding-looks-like

Who paid William McKinley’s presidential campaign expenses?

The short answer is: we have no idea. Prior to the 20th century, and especially prior the 1970s, campaign finance was the darkest secret of American politics. Money was raised in secret, often in very large amounts, and spent in ways often very difficult to trace.

For 40 years, the US tried to achieve a more transparent finance system. It proved an uphill struggle, now ending in failure. The dark mystery of anonymity is closing in again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who gives that money? In what amounts? We’ll never know. But there’s one haunting question that is not shrouded in secrecy. What do they get in return? The answer to that is evident all around us.

Interesting that the distinguished gentlemen from Greece of all places would actually bring this up! You're government is run like the damn mafia.

Uhhh... wow.  Is this an argument for or against campaign finance reform or just an unprovoked attack on Greece?

No just curious as to why someone would even care about campaign finance in this country when his home country is a political cesspool of parties handing out the equivalent of no-show government jobs to supporters and corruption so widespread that even if they did pass legislation trying to control political spending in Greece it would just be shrugged off as politicians did everything under the table like the way everything else is done in Greece.

I think the government of the United States is fairly important on the world stage whereas the government of Greece is, while not insignificant, not really important to the same degree outside Greece itself. Just my opinion, though. Priorities, priorities...

BTW, I think Opebo has a bit of a point. Complaining about campaign financing or corruption is a bit like complaining about the low definition of you TV-set while it's on fire. The US system is intrinsically dysfunctional and is in a lot of ways an anachronism that properly belongs in the early 19th century.

Barring truly catastrophic failure, revolutionary change is not happening. I understand your point, but I don't think that systemic dysfunction is a reason to avoid more politically feasible minor improvements.

We've been living catastrophic failure for the past four years and it hasn't happened yet. I think this demonstrates your point rather nicely.

Not if you live in Greece, then its extremely important. Again I just found it weird that its the guy from Greece that brings up this!

[Link]

Not if you live in Greece, then its extremely important. Again I just found it weird that its the guy from Greece that brings up this!

Mmm... I live in America and our domestic and foreign policy was atrocious under Bush.  I would hope that I would not be limited to only speaking about topics that Bush handled well.  Not having first hand experience, there is only so much about being an alcoholic that I can comment on.

[republicanism]

And I thought this thread would be about the JFK assassination.

[Wonkish1]

Touche,

But would you really create a thread in a Spanish forum about Columbia moving 5 tanks to the border of Venezuela, given 2 wars that have gone on in this country? I mean there is quite the disparity wouldn't you say?

I mean that is scale of difference in corruption that exists between Greece and the US. You'd think the average Greek would just shrug off what he sees in the US relative to what they've got to deal with.

[Sbane]

Did anyone see Colbert's Ham Rove? LOL

Yup, that segment was awesome.

[Sbane]

Campaign finance laws should aim to make the donation process as direct and transparent as possible. Limiting the amount that an individual can contribute actually interferes with this goal by forcing donors into exploiting loopholes, making the money more difficult to track. I really don't care how much anyone donates as long as the process is open and subject to scrutiny.

Agreed. At this stand point I think you would be hard pressed to find anybody that would rather have the current situation of unlimited money from outside groups and no disclosure than having unlimited money for the candidates and full disclosure.

Campaign finance reform has done an amazing job of shifting money out of the candidates and their usually more positive messages during campaign season and towards outside groups that just run attack ad, after attack ad, after attack ad.

I think a first step in the right direction is to start allowing unlimited donations to the candidates from within the boundaries of what they are running for. So if you're running for house you get unlimited donations from those that live in your CD and if you're running state wide you can get unlimited from your state. At least then you can recenter politicians to the constituents they represent instead of somebody in city 800 miles away.

Good ideas. I like it. Although getting rid of money in politics would be the ideal, getting full disclosure is even more important. And limiting it to your constituency is a brilliant idea.

[Wonkish1]

Campaign finance laws should aim to make the donation process as direct and transparent as possible. Limiting the amount that an individual can contribute actually interferes with this goal by forcing donors into exploiting loopholes, making the money more difficult to track. I really don't care how much anyone donates as long as the process is open and subject to scrutiny.

Agreed. At this stand point I think you would be hard pressed to find anybody that would rather have the current situation of unlimited money from outside groups and no disclosure than having unlimited money for the candidates and full disclosure.

Campaign finance reform has done an amazing job of shifting money out of the candidates and their usually more positive messages during campaign season and towards outside groups that just run attack ad, after attack ad, after attack ad.

I think a first step in the right direction is to start allowing unlimited donations to the candidates from within the boundaries of what they are running for. So if you're running for house you get unlimited donations from those that live in your CD and if you're running state wide you can get unlimited from your state. At least then you can recenter politicians to the constituents they represent instead of somebody in city 800 miles away.

Good ideas. I like it. Although getting rid of money in politics would be the ideal, getting full disclosure is even more important. And limiting it to your constituency is a brilliant idea.

I can't take full credit for it. Tom Coburn came out with the idea and Newt has mentioned it a few times over the last 8 years.

I do think though that you have to maintain both the few thousand dollar cap for outside the boundaries and the unlimited cap for inside if you are going to take this first step. The problem with driving the amount of outside boundaries to $0 is that you create way to high of an incentive for people to establish locations all over the country so they can get unlimited donations to many politicians. But even that would be better with full disclosure than what we have now.

[Franzl]

And I thought this thread would be about the JFK assassination.

And I thought we would be subjected to some new sex scandal or something.