Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Campaign Finance Reform - It's Not Just Liberals Anymore

+2
Hospital Bob
Floridatexan
6 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/36457-campaign-finance-reform-its-not-just-liberals-anymore

Campaign Finance Reform - It's Not Just Liberals Anymore
By Bill Moyers, Moyers & Company
22 April 16


Bill Moyers recently interviewed Richard Painter, author of Taxation Only With Representation: The Conservative Conscience and Campaign Finance Reform and former White House counselor and chief ethical advisor to President George W. Bush. Here is the full transcript of their conversation. We encourage you to listen to the interview and subscribe to our podcast here.

Transcript

"Bill Moyers: Welcome.

Richard Painter: Well thank you very much, Bill.

Bill Moyers: Do you feel like the loneliest man in the Republican Party?

Painter: Well, among grassroots Republicans and ordinary voters I do not. I think there is an overwhelming support for campaign finance reform, and that includes conservatives and Republicans. Where the problem is is with the leadership; with the politicians who are benefiting from the big campaign contributions, and the dark money in the electioneering communications and so forth. And the leadership in the Republican Party, in particular, has failed to address this issue.

Moyers: Well that’s interesting to me, because I was impressed over my lifetime with two prominent conservatives who really argued effectively, and efficiently, and powerfully, for campaign finance reform. One was Barry Goldwater, and as you know I was on Lyndon Johnson’s staff in 1964 when President Johnson defeated Goldwater. But Goldwater was an advocate for trying to reduce the power of money in politics. He said, and I’m quoting from him, “In order to achieve the widest possible distribution of political power, financial contributions to political campaigns should be made by individuals and individuals alone. I see no reason,” said Barry Goldwater, “for labor unions or corporations to participate in politics. Both were created for economic purposes and their activities should be restricted accordingly.”

And of course John McCain was a strong advocate — the McCain-Feingold bill to limit the power of influence. What’s happened to conservatism that it’s so far from the positions of its two leaders then, Barry Goldwater and John McCain?

Painter: I don’t think that the change has been with conservatives, with ordinary conservatives. The problem has been with the political leadership; that the politicians of both political parties have become dependent upon campaign money from vested interests. And that has led to a situation where people, such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, are adamantly opposed to campaign finance reform even though the vast majority of voters, including voters who support them, want campaign finance reform. And this is a situation that in the long term is going to lead to a political disaster for the Republican Party if it isn’t addressed.

Moyers: And I think that’s true too for the Democratic Party. I mean, it was astonishing to me recently to pick up the paper in the morning and realize that the Democratic National Committee had relaxed the rules on raising money from lobbyists and the revolving door in Congress, even as both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were calling for reducing the power of money in politics. Don’t you think both parties are equally threatened by losing their legitimacy if they continue in this great gulf that separates the leaders from the people?

Painter: Absolutely. The difference between the two parties is that the Democrats, at least some of them, recognize there’s a problem, say there’s a problem. They don’t necessarily want to do something about it that’s effective — there’s a great deal of hypocrisy on the Democrat side — but they do recognize there’s a problem and propose some solutions. So that’s put them out ahead of the Republican side where we still are struggling to get the elected leaders to realize there is a problem. The voters realize that it’s a problem, but the elected leaders need to recognize it as well. And one thing I should emphasize is that a lot of former members of Congress, who are Republicans, clearly recognize this as a problem. The difficulty we’re running into is with the current elected leaders.

Moyers: We’re going to move on in a minute to what you think can be done about it, but let’s stay for a moment with the landscape among conservatives. It was the conservatives on the Supreme Court who gave us Citizens United, so it brings me back to the question: What happened to conservatism between Barry Goldwater and John Roberts to give us a five-to-four majority on the Court that ruled in favor of Citizens United?..."

(read the rest at the site)



Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

"a lot of former members of Congress, who are Republicans, clearly recognize this as a problem. The difficulty we’re running into is with the current elected leaders"

The difficulty is with incumbents. They like the system the way it is because it favors them.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Let's START the revolution by limiting term limits!!

Down with Amerika Inc.!!

RealLindaL



Wordslinger wrote:Let's START the revolution by limiting term limits!!

Down with Amerika Inc.!!

I hope you meant we should start by implementing term limits, not by "limiting term limits."     (Joshing you.)

In any case, I certainly agree it's something we need to do, but somehow turning the Citizens United decision around is right up there, too.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

RealLindaL wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:Let's START the revolution by limiting term limits!!

Down with Amerika Inc.!!

I hope you meant we should start by implementing term limits, not by "limiting term limits."     (Joshing you.)

In any case, I certainly agree it's something we need to do, but somehow turning the Citizens United decision around is right up there, too.

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Yes, it should be: Let's start the revolution by implementing term limits!

And indeed Citizens United has to be overturned.

Sal

Sal

We have term limits.

They're called elections.

What we need is a better informed electorate.

knothead

knothead

Salinsky wrote:We have term limits.

They're called elections.

What we need is a better informed electorate.


Sal, what you said is true but an 'informed' electorate is a bridge too far I fear. The electorate is subjected to so much partisan hyperbole that few will exert the effort to discover the principles and/or the facts . . . . it has become a well-oiled political machine to instill fear of the sky is falling and objective rational thought is the result.

RealLindaL



knothead wrote:. . . it has become a well-oiled political machine to instill fear of the sky is falling and objective rational thought is the result.

Objective rational thought is the result?  As if that were a bad thing?     Unless I misunderstand, methinks there's a word or two missing here, knot.  Could you please clarify?

knothead

knothead

RealLindaL wrote:
knothead wrote:. . . it has become a well-oiled political machine to instill fear of the sky is falling and objective rational thought is the result.

Objective rational thought is the result?  As if that were a bad thing?     Unless I misunderstand, methinks there's a word or two missing here, knot.  Could you please clarify?
objective rational thought is the result.


LOL, you are correct Linda  a complete ambiguously structured sentence. . . lemme try again please and modify I will change result to absent? Will that work . . . I am not so hot in my writing skills. . . . it's a hit and miss thing!

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Liberals don't like term limits because they would prefer Obama stay in office as long as the voters are willing to keep him there.
But what they aren't thinking about is, without term limits, a Bush or Trump or Cruz would also stay in office as long as the voters want them there.

Here's my take on it for both the executive and legislative branches.
NO politician is worth more than two terms. Not Lincoln. Not Jefferson. Not Washington. Not Obama. Not Bernie Sanders. Not nobody. No human being is that special or that important or that crucial that he/she needs more than two terms. They're ALL replaceable.

Another argument against term limits is it takes away the "expertise" politicians gain with seniority.
Fuck all that, that seniority shit is part of the problem, not a solution.



Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum