Friday, October 2, 2009

Robbing Peter to Pay Pelosi

Can someone explain why groups, entities or businesses that "need" government funding, and then are granted dollars out of the pockets of hard working Americans are then permitted to turn around and give money to political figures, lobbyists, or campaigns in hopes of them granting MORE funds to said organization?

It's a terrible cycle. A business, group, union needs money so they SPEND money petitioning congressmen, senators, throw fundraisers, GIVE money to campaigns, or lobby for reform that would give them taxpayer dollars- the government then takes money from the tax payers to give to these groups, who in return a portion back to their peeps in government, who take more from the taxpayers to give to said groups, who give back some to their government peeps, who take more from the taxpayers....

If any entity gets money from the US Government in the form of a subsidy, grant, or otherwise they should there forward be restricted in contributing anything, ANYTHING to any government party, person, function, proposition, reform- regardless of party.

Sure members of that organization can do what they want, but the organization itself must be banned from all political activity while receiving tax payer dollars.


Steve said...

Well, I agree with you 100% there! See, it DOES happen, ha.

The solution for all of this is ONLY allowing public financing and setting conservative spending limits, nothing like the silliness we've seen the past several elections. Hell, we could have healthcare paid for for what the past 6 candidates have spent! Do away with all individual contributions, PACs, and lobby donations. The only donations allowed should go directly to parties, not individuals. And even then, there should be clear and enforced limits.

JustRandi said...

I could not agree more.

And your title Cracked Me Up!

davers said...

Actually it doesn't sound like your 100% in agreement, Steve, when you think gov't funded entities should STILL be able to contribute to political parties (within certain "limits"). That's not what Kory said.

To work it must apply also to party donations, not just politicians.

Just think about absurd level's of cash spent in the recent congress elections. It's not the candidates who are making it a spending competition. It's the parties. The parties don't even care who's representing them ... they just want to push their agenda regardless of the politician. Now that's screwy.

People complain about campaign corruption and collusion with industry interests, but I'm convinced it occurs mainly at the party level, and it must be dealt with at that level.

Steve said...

Good point Davers. I'm fine with taking away anything but a limited individual donation to a party level. The problem is, all the special interests (NRA, lobbyists, etc.) say it is a violation of free speech, which I disagree with. Dollars don't equal free speech rights. I can't give money to terrorists, for instance.

You are right about the party, but it is also b/c unless the individual candidate has deep pockets ala McCain, most NEED the party money to win. If there is a cap of $X money to be spent on an election, something much smaller and reasonable than we've seen in recent years, then the individual politicians could afford to become more independent and not have to suck at the teet of the party treasurer.