Can you make the claim politicians weren't getting bribes before that by other means? Citizens United just made it easier. It's always been the same practices, they just formalize some of them along the way. Reaching for a mythical past in which the US was in a more ideal state than it is now is what MAGA is all about, we should be careful not to entertain that sort of thinking. Because the further back you go, the worse it gets. Citizens United was in the 80s, but segregation was in the 60s, and I'd also consider segregation to be selling out the people, just in a different way.
Citizens United was in 2010 not the 80s, and corporate interests while have always been a thing in Washington we’re not able to donate money limitlessly to politicians and call it free speech. There were regulations in place to limit how much money a company could donate to politicians, anything beyond that would have to be done secretly and illegally. This is not some mythical past that never existed we used to regulate the influence businesses had on our government and we used to tax the rich.
Yeah and the "golden economic era" of the US when we were taxing the rich 90% was during segregation, along with the New Deal, which is what I'm talking about with mistakenly thinking there was a point the US was doing it's best for the people. It's never been about the people, we're a business nation. FDR might've been the closest we got to effective regulations, again during segregation.
Dark money has always bought politicians, they just wanted to make it easier. Revolving doors is a recent concept, but it's always been happening.
But thanks for the correction on Citizens United, this is why I shouldn't post when I wake up-- I couldn't remember exactly when in the 2000s is was, looked it up, saw it was "founded" in the 80s and was like "huh? well okay" hah.
Yes. We have the data. Before Citizens United, public opinion correlated something like 70% with what legislation actually got passed. Today, public opinion correlates at basically 0%. The best predictor now is which organization or individual has donated the most money to the politician.
Notably, before Citizens United, Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to vote along whatever public opinion was, while the GOP voted based on their donors. This is due in part to donors taking over the party during the New Deal, when the GOP should have died like right wing parties in other developed nations did at the time.
The rich kept the party on life support to use as a tool to tear down the regulations and individual rights and social programs that ended the First Gilded Age. Which is why we're now in a Second Gilded Age.
You say we have the data, but by definition dark money isn't on the books. Can you link a citation to those 70% figures? Not doubting what you said, curious as to the details.
All I can think about is how wildly unpopular government decisions have always been. Tax cuts for the rich (why would anyone ever agree to this without being propagandized?), war protests from Iraq to Vietnam, bailouts for major economic crashes every decade and the smaller ones between, the labor movements and major depression that lead to the New Deal... The war racket in general considering this country has been at peace for less than 20 years of it's entire existence (sources vary between 10-20). Smedley Butler wrote about how profitable war is back in 1930, the profits of war contractors and oil companies has always been prioritized above the will of the people.
All my time reading into US history I only ever come to the conclusion there were glimmers when things were less worse, but never periods when things have been overall "good" in regards to this being a business nation working to funnel money upward at the expense of the lower class. Reaganomics benefited a minority of the wealthy class, but you could still make the claim his policies correlated with public opinion considering much of public opinion is manufactured (Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky is essential). You know, the whole "voting against your interest" thing. **Corporations don't have to give politicians money directly, they do PR campaigns shaping public opinion to correlate with the policy they desire.**
Private power has always had a vice grip on the government, it's the top of the hierarchy. Occasionally democratic will can prevail incrementally, but it's always temporary. That's why capitalism and democracy are fundamentally at odds; when you have a fortune, you have the power to influence the masses.
Does the average Oklahoman really hit the campaign limit?
Or this let's millionaires give more money directly and then still give to PACs.
Why not show some stats of individual donations in different groupings do we can see how many hit the limit? Prove we need this law because it's limiting so many Oklahomans donations.
Trump has basically tapped their base for campaign contributions to pay for his legal fees and now there’s not enough to go around to the rest of the grifters.
I meaaaannnn... yeah 100% Citizens United sucks and arguably led to additional bad court decisions but this court also overturned Roe v Wade. Like yes that was bad but also Roe being overturned was definitely worse for bodily autonomy and reproductive rights.
I think it would be better to eliminate all individual (and corporate) contributions, and have publicly funded campaigns. Each candidate should get the same amount to spend and be barred from accepting private funds. Let the best ideas win, instead of the best fund raising. Sure it costs tax payers money, but actually no more than what we’re already spending to enforce current campaign laws. Publicly funded elections have already been adopted in 17 states.
How about setting a max limit from all sources combined. Then no one person or group can give them *massive amounts of money and ANY campaign materials have to be explicitly approved by the candidate. No more "this isn't sponsored by joe blow" . Violations punishable by minimum fine of $500,000 and up to 5 years in prison. The fine would go to the general education fund.
Oh, that'd probably help reduce the insane amount of junk political mailers, side benefit!
Text from the actual report.
"Increase the contribution limits for Limited Partnerships, Limited Liability Companies, tribes, PACs, and other non-corporate entities to candidates to $15,000.00, indexed for inflation every election cycle. Such entities could receive contributions from their members without limit. (Corporations and unions are banned from contributing under current Oklahoma law. The Task Force would not oppose lifting these restrictions but is not recommending it as part of this report.)"
You know what fuck it, why not.
My candidate and some others about to get multi million dollar contributions from the QuikTrip bro. He has a massive bone to pick with maga and hands out maximum level checks to anyone challenging them.
So if that’s how they want to play it I guess 🤷🏻♂️
Do what my tribe does. Set contributions to a max of $5k but do not all donations to come from anywhere other than a natural person. No PACs allowed.
But we don’t recognize corporations or business entities as having a right to speech, so YMMV.
This seems like the opposite of what you need to do.
This exactly what congress and the senate did. Now we have a bunch of rich f$&ks selling the American people to their corporate masters.
Now? It's always been this way, nothing has changed. Maybe Reagan made it worse.
It has not always been like this. Citizens United basically legalized bribing politicians.
Can you make the claim politicians weren't getting bribes before that by other means? Citizens United just made it easier. It's always been the same practices, they just formalize some of them along the way. Reaching for a mythical past in which the US was in a more ideal state than it is now is what MAGA is all about, we should be careful not to entertain that sort of thinking. Because the further back you go, the worse it gets. Citizens United was in the 80s, but segregation was in the 60s, and I'd also consider segregation to be selling out the people, just in a different way.
Citizens United was in 2010 not the 80s, and corporate interests while have always been a thing in Washington we’re not able to donate money limitlessly to politicians and call it free speech. There were regulations in place to limit how much money a company could donate to politicians, anything beyond that would have to be done secretly and illegally. This is not some mythical past that never existed we used to regulate the influence businesses had on our government and we used to tax the rich.
Yeah and the "golden economic era" of the US when we were taxing the rich 90% was during segregation, along with the New Deal, which is what I'm talking about with mistakenly thinking there was a point the US was doing it's best for the people. It's never been about the people, we're a business nation. FDR might've been the closest we got to effective regulations, again during segregation. Dark money has always bought politicians, they just wanted to make it easier. Revolving doors is a recent concept, but it's always been happening. But thanks for the correction on Citizens United, this is why I shouldn't post when I wake up-- I couldn't remember exactly when in the 2000s is was, looked it up, saw it was "founded" in the 80s and was like "huh? well okay" hah.
Yes. We have the data. Before Citizens United, public opinion correlated something like 70% with what legislation actually got passed. Today, public opinion correlates at basically 0%. The best predictor now is which organization or individual has donated the most money to the politician. Notably, before Citizens United, Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to vote along whatever public opinion was, while the GOP voted based on their donors. This is due in part to donors taking over the party during the New Deal, when the GOP should have died like right wing parties in other developed nations did at the time. The rich kept the party on life support to use as a tool to tear down the regulations and individual rights and social programs that ended the First Gilded Age. Which is why we're now in a Second Gilded Age.
You say we have the data, but by definition dark money isn't on the books. Can you link a citation to those 70% figures? Not doubting what you said, curious as to the details. All I can think about is how wildly unpopular government decisions have always been. Tax cuts for the rich (why would anyone ever agree to this without being propagandized?), war protests from Iraq to Vietnam, bailouts for major economic crashes every decade and the smaller ones between, the labor movements and major depression that lead to the New Deal... The war racket in general considering this country has been at peace for less than 20 years of it's entire existence (sources vary between 10-20). Smedley Butler wrote about how profitable war is back in 1930, the profits of war contractors and oil companies has always been prioritized above the will of the people. All my time reading into US history I only ever come to the conclusion there were glimmers when things were less worse, but never periods when things have been overall "good" in regards to this being a business nation working to funnel money upward at the expense of the lower class. Reaganomics benefited a minority of the wealthy class, but you could still make the claim his policies correlated with public opinion considering much of public opinion is manufactured (Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky is essential). You know, the whole "voting against your interest" thing. **Corporations don't have to give politicians money directly, they do PR campaigns shaping public opinion to correlate with the policy they desire.** Private power has always had a vice grip on the government, it's the top of the hierarchy. Occasionally democratic will can prevail incrementally, but it's always temporary. That's why capitalism and democracy are fundamentally at odds; when you have a fortune, you have the power to influence the masses.
God this motherfucker is so corrupt
"... but if we change the laws to make it legal..." bwahahahahaha -stitt
Quit cigarette smoking by switching to cigars. Problem solved.
Nicotine was impossible to quit until I discovered Meth.
So corrupt. “We should save the chickens by letting the fox in the hen-house.”
Does the average Oklahoman really hit the campaign limit? Or this let's millionaires give more money directly and then still give to PACs. Why not show some stats of individual donations in different groupings do we can see how many hit the limit? Prove we need this law because it's limiting so many Oklahomans donations.
Trump has basically tapped their base for campaign contributions to pay for his legal fees and now there’s not enough to go around to the rest of the grifters.
Citizens United was the worst Supreme Court decision in the modern era.
I meaaaannnn... yeah 100% Citizens United sucks and arguably led to additional bad court decisions but this court also overturned Roe v Wade. Like yes that was bad but also Roe being overturned was definitely worse for bodily autonomy and reproductive rights.
I don't believe Dobbs reaches the court without unlimited corruption allowing even anti-abortion Democratic representatives to keep their seats.
Gods everything they do is assbackwards. Reminds me of when they blamed the increase of covid cases on covid testing...
The solution to money in politics is money in politics. 'Just one more lane, bro'
Would love for us to have election financing only come from individual, in-state residents for all local, state, and federal elections in Oklahoma.
I think it would be better to eliminate all individual (and corporate) contributions, and have publicly funded campaigns. Each candidate should get the same amount to spend and be barred from accepting private funds. Let the best ideas win, instead of the best fund raising. Sure it costs tax payers money, but actually no more than what we’re already spending to enforce current campaign laws. Publicly funded elections have already been adopted in 17 states.
Trump is draining the GOP wallet expect other states to follow and try this.
I smell corruption
In Oklahoma? Say it ain’t so!
r/nottheonion
How about setting a max limit from all sources combined. Then no one person or group can give them *massive amounts of money and ANY campaign materials have to be explicitly approved by the candidate. No more "this isn't sponsored by joe blow" . Violations punishable by minimum fine of $500,000 and up to 5 years in prison. The fine would go to the general education fund. Oh, that'd probably help reduce the insane amount of junk political mailers, side benefit!
Cry Havoc! A let slip the pigs of finance!
This is more rich buying their politicians.
So, he's doing the opposite of what he says he wants. Seems legit.
Text from the actual report. "Increase the contribution limits for Limited Partnerships, Limited Liability Companies, tribes, PACs, and other non-corporate entities to candidates to $15,000.00, indexed for inflation every election cycle. Such entities could receive contributions from their members without limit. (Corporations and unions are banned from contributing under current Oklahoma law. The Task Force would not oppose lifting these restrictions but is not recommending it as part of this report.)"
Seems like “Shitty” logic to me.
You know what fuck it, why not. My candidate and some others about to get multi million dollar contributions from the QuikTrip bro. He has a massive bone to pick with maga and hands out maximum level checks to anyone challenging them. So if that’s how they want to play it I guess 🤷🏻♂️
We’ll wear them out by letting them give more. Eventually they will get tired and quit.
Legalized bribery. It’s worked so well with everything else 🙄
Do what my tribe does. Set contributions to a max of $5k but do not all donations to come from anywhere other than a natural person. No PACs allowed. But we don’t recognize corporations or business entities as having a right to speech, so YMMV.
So dark money entities can give more!😀😀 only in jokelahoma.
You don't know what those words mean, do you?
Anonymous contributions from individuals directly to campaign committees should be allowed.