The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

In my book, that means that the candidate is thereby bought and beholden to Walmart.

I disagree. Walmart might think that the policies supported by Candidate A are better for their business than the policies supported by Candidate B. The issue then comes down to the integrity of the candidate, not the money donated (or the commercial in support of the candidate....whatever type of donation it is). The candidate may have voted for a certain piece of legislation with or without what Walmart did. The problem is when the incumbant says "I want Walmart to support me, so even though I don't like this legislation, I will vote for it anyway.". If the incumbant votes against the legislation, Walmart should be allowed to run ads saying why the incumbant hasn't been good for the community or country or whatever.

The problem isn't the corporation. It is the politician.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I disagree. Walmart might think that the policies supported by Candidate A are better for their business than the policies supported by Candidate B. The issue then comes down to the integrity of the candidate, not the money donated (or the commercial in support of the candidate....whatever type of donation it is). The candidate may have voted for a certain piece of legislation with or without what Walmart did. The problem is when the incumbant says "I want Walmart to support me, so even though I don't like this legislation, I will vote for it anyway.". If the incumbant votes against the legislation, Walmart should be allowed to run ads saying why the incumbant hasn't been good for the community or country or whatever.

The problem isn't the corporation. It is the politician.

How naive.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

How naive.

I don't think so. What power does the money (or whatever type donation) have over the politician except his desire to have more of it?

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

The problem isn't the corporation. It is the politician.

Well I think that is true in a vacuum. But the politician that simply votes his/her conscience, outside the political game and beholden to none is a creature that has gone the way of the jubjub bird.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

Well I think that is true in a vacuum. But the politician that simply votes his/her conscience, outside the political game and beholden to none is a creature that has gone the way of the jubjub bird.

Indeed, the Constitution and numerous pieces of legislation rely on many "legislative facts" and assumptions about the world without bothering to define them or set them out. We know what life, liberty and property are without their being defined. Similarly, we know that our leaders lack integrity and devotion to the common good. Indeed, we fought a revolution over that.

Of course, if, in enacting the law, Congress had made a finding of fact that "the politician that simply votes his/her conscience, outside the political game and beholden to none is a creature that has gone the way of the jubjub bird," the law would certainly survive rational basis scrutiny.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Of course, if, in enacting the law, Congress had made a finding of fact that "the politician that simply votes his/her conscience, outside the political game and beholden to none is a creature that has gone the way of the jubjub bird," the law would certainly survive rational basis scrutiny.

LMAO..... I'd love to see THAT in the legislative notes

Though I don't think ALL of our leaders "lack integrity and devotion to the common good" (at least, not now in 2010). I just think that they all play a political game (duh),they are all forced to compromise on their values to do so, and where their money comes from is a big part of that. Who doesn't want to help the people that helped them?