Daily Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 9

Toledo Blade ^ | 12/19/03 | JIM PROVANCE

[Valin]

COLUMBUS - Former Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr said that federal campaign-finance reform upheld last week by the U.S. Supreme Court amounts to the "criminalization of politics."

It

[Valin]

Yesterdays Thread.
Daily Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 8
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042715/posts?page=17#17

[Valin]

If you would like to be on or off this campaign finance reform list please let me know.

[GOPJ]

Freeper "American in Tokyo" found a new foreign money story -- so much for reform: "Academic" seems to be another word for "Chinese agent".

And one of these now involves the CHINESE. Uncovered just about 30 minutes ago.

A Red Chinese "academic" in the United States (Silicon Valley to be exact) publicly encouraging, openly on the Net, Japanese involvement in the campaign for Kucinich. A foreign national based in the USA, heading up a 501(c)3 TAX EXEMPT organization at that! Using his official leadership title of the organization and their website (in Japanese). This should blow the lid off of some dark doings, IMHO.....

[JimRed]

I've said it before and I'll say it again...any individual, group or company should be able to give any contribution they choose to any party or candidate they choose. "But", you say, "that leads to selling influence", and you are correct.

Therefore, all donors must remain anonymous. Politicians cannot sell themselves when they do not know who the buyer is. If Soros wants to support socialists with millions, that's his business. If the unions want to back commies, fine. They won't know who to pay off if they get elected!

This will insure that donors are giving because they support the party or candidate's agenda or positions rather than looking for a payoff down the road.

The IRS can receive and distribute the donations, so we won't need a new beaurocracy to do it. They'll be a lot less busy once we take firm control of the senate and institute REAL tax reform.

OK, now; where am I going wrong?

[DustyMoment]

The "criminalization of politics" argument that Starr makes is particularly valid since, in essence, that is what the Congress was admitting when they passed CFR.

The problem is that rather than punish themselves for being weak, immoral and unethical enough to avoid the temptation of corruption, the Congress transferred the blame to the voters. This is one of many fundamental flaws with McCain-Feingold.

The irony of this legislation is that the Congress admitted that it was corrupt by passing the law but refuses to actually do anything about it. This is similar to a drunk blaming the alcoholic beverage manufacturers for his problem, rather than accepting any personal responsibility.

Of course, we know that accepting responsibility for anything is anathema to the Congress. IMO, the Congress needs to be permanently adjourned until a new Continental Congress can eliminate all of the existing laws that dilute the Constitution and restore it as the framework of this nation's system of government.

In short, when a minority party like the Dems today, can hijack operations and circumvent the procedures documented in the Constitution, our system of government is broken and is in dire need of repair. We DO NOT need a major overhaul of the Constitution itself, but of the laws passed that dilute its framework; laws such as the 17th Amendment; laws that allow the court to make law from the bench; laws that allow the lifetime appointment of federal judges; laws that support depravity, pornography and corruption, but demonize Christianity; laws that support political correctness.

These are things that we have allowed to happen while the Congress went merrily along its way, creating an elite ruling class while we slept. Well, the wake-up call has been sounded and the time has come to take action to take back OUR country from those whose agenda is to destroy it and hand it over to the America-haters.

[Valin]

Could you post a link?
Thanks.

[Valin]

Isn't there something in the Bill of Rights about petitioning congress for redress of grievances? :-)

Not that something written by a bunch of dead whitemen means anything. I mean what did they know.

[Valin]

Please add me to the CFR ping list. Thanks

Got any money? :-)

[Congressman Billybob]

Good afternoon, my friend,

I have already thanked personally the dozens of people who've volunteered to help me stick a thumb in the eye of CFR, and the Court itself. Please put up a link to the thread on that as a way of inviting hundreds more folks to join that effort.

There are logical questions that many people have about how the in-your-face challenge to CFR can be conducted. Those questions are answered, sometimes repeatedly, on that thread. Also, it saves typing to have it there.

Ken Starr is absolutely right that this amounts to "the criminalization of politics." And that means somebody has to risk jail time to challenge the law. I'm willing to do exactly that.

John / Billybob

[Smile-n-Win]

I've said it before and I'll say it again...any individual, group or company should be able to give any contribution they choose to any party or candidate they choose. "But", you say, "that leads to selling influence", and you are correct.

It shouldn't ... as we discussed on Day 7, the buying and selling of influence wouldn't be a problem if the government were made to stick to its constitutional duty of protecting citizens' rights. If the government has no power to redistribute income or to impose regulations on us etc., then there is nothing a politician can sell to anyone.

As soon as the government is allowed to redistribute income, people will begin to buy their share of redistributed income from politicians. As sooon as the government is allowed to regulate private industry, compaines will be bidding to get the regulations they like passed. And as soon as politics becomes a business where you can obtain power for free and sell it, it will attract the nation's most corrupt people like a magnet.

But if the government is there to do what the Declaration of Independence says it is there to do, the only type of person attracted to politics will be the honest, principled, freedom-loving leaders such as the first President of the United States was.

[Smile-n-Win]

...or like our Congressman Billybob is!

[DustyMoment]

"Wouldn't it be better if you just stopped being a crook and I got to keep my First Amendment rights?"

Well said!!

[Smile-n-Win]

Federalist 10 refutes your premise that problems with corruption in goverment flow from modern redistributionist policies.

That wasn't my premise. I just cited redistribution as an example of the government ignoring and violating, rather than protecting, individual rights.

In fact, the problem of corruption in goverment flows from human nature

You mean:

human nature = corrupt

?

I don't think God created us corrupt. Nor do I think that money corrupts people. To paraphrase the pro-2nd-Amendment slogan: "Money doesn't corrupt people. People corrupt themselves."

without regard to the size of government.

As I said on Day 7, it's not a question of size; it's a question of whether or not individual rights are respected.

[GOPJ]

I have no idea how to do links, but here's the name of the thread:
FREEPER: "I HAVE DISCOVERED SOLICITATION OF FOREIGN FUNDS FOR HOWARD DEAN ON THE WEB (JAPAN)" ^

[The_Eaglet]

Bump - please ping me with the Day 10 article!