Comments on: Soros: Big money can’t buy elections – influence is something else http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/09/soros-there-is-no-idyllic-pre-citizens-united-era-to-return-to/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: rikfre http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/09/soros-there-is-no-idyllic-pre-citizens-united-era-to-return-to/#comment-152795 Thu, 12 Feb 2015 20:53:48 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=37866#comment-152795 thanks, I needed a good laugh today….

]]>
By: QuietThinker http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/09/soros-there-is-no-idyllic-pre-citizens-united-era-to-return-to/#comment-144708 Thu, 12 Feb 2015 01:09:31 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=37866#comment-144708 While money mostly buys “influence” if you broaden “influence” to sometimes include laws specifically designed to benefit the contributors, elections can be bought. I have recently seen a state senate seat and a few years ago a state house seat just plain bought.

]]>
By: mzscreen http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/09/soros-there-is-no-idyllic-pre-citizens-united-era-to-return-to/#comment-137213 Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:31:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=37866#comment-137213 With all respect. But this whole article is utter rubbish. Money buy elections and especially in the US.

]]>
By: TigerFalls http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/09/soros-there-is-no-idyllic-pre-citizens-united-era-to-return-to/#comment-136361 Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:44:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=37866#comment-136361 Because the real problem with money in politics is not that there is too much of it — it’s that there is only one source. This gives that incredibly small fraction of us who provide the vast majority of funding enormous influence and access.

That’s all you had to say. You wasted my coffee time w/ your poor excuse.

]]>
By: diluded0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/09/soros-there-is-no-idyllic-pre-citizens-united-era-to-return-to/#comment-136336 Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:39:51 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=37866#comment-136336 I think campaign finance reform efforts should be directed at elected officials, not donors. Define what constitutes a conflict of interest, and prevent an elected official from voting on legislation that provides a material benefit to their donors.

]]>
By: michaelryan http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/09/soros-there-is-no-idyllic-pre-citizens-united-era-to-return-to/#comment-135975 Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:50:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=37866#comment-135975 1. The supreme court should have thrown out gerrymandering a long time ago.
2. Contributions to candidates should only come from VOTING Constituents. No out of district or out of state funding.
3. Corps, Unions and other organizations can do whatever they want – but their ads need to be identified as coming from which union/organization and information on who contributes to these other organizations must be made public before any ads or campaigning is done.

]]>
By: LetBalanceCome http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/09/soros-there-is-no-idyllic-pre-citizens-united-era-to-return-to/#comment-135573 Tue, 10 Feb 2015 14:39:06 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=37866#comment-135573 How about the $50 MILLION that Bloomberg just wasted trying to strip US citizens of their 2nd amendment rights? He tried to buy elections for sheriffs and other local elections and he didn’t win anything.

This also shows that money doesn’t always win- in fact he lost BIG TIME.

]]>
By: rsloat http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/09/soros-there-is-no-idyllic-pre-citizens-united-era-to-return-to/#comment-135486 Tue, 10 Feb 2015 14:20:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=37866#comment-135486 Soros is exactly right when he says money doesn’t buy elections as much as it buys influence. But this is exactly what Citizens United said would not happen. They only looked at quid pro qua bribery, not influence buying, or “legalized bribery”. Soros might be right that money can’t be taken out of politics, but it does not have to be unlimited as Citizens United brought us. Through unlimited campaign donors and “revolving door” lobbying, Washington has become all about money ,wealth and the influence it buys.

My performance art piece, is now on YouTube. It is a political satire, entitled “Washington Money Talk”. Here is the link;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etPwzJvhx yI

]]>
By: creightt http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/09/soros-there-is-no-idyllic-pre-citizens-united-era-to-return-to/#comment-134904 Tue, 10 Feb 2015 12:57:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=37866#comment-134904 Citizens United continues to jeopardize the actual and perceived viability of public financing. News out of Santa Fe today:

Santa Fe’s public campaign financing system got a bleak assessment from candidates who ran in the 2014 city elections Monday, enough to persuade one member of the city Ethics and Campaign Review Board that public financing for candidates should be repealed.

Member Roderick Thompson said he’d changed his mind on using taxpayer money to finance campaigns and that there’s now “no way” he would recommend continuing the system in Santa Fe.

That came after Councilors Bill Dimas and Patti Bushee — who both lost to Javier Gonzales in the 2014 mayoral election — and Councilor Sig Lindell — who won her race last year — all portrayed the public financing scheme as a failure at keeping the influence of big money out of local politics

http://www.abqjournal.com/539208/politic s/santa-fes-public-campaign-financing-sy stem-panned-over-outside-spending-for-go nzales.html

]]>