The Son Also Rises.

[JimC]

The issue with campaign funding via "interest groups" is that the level of political influence does not depend on the number of people who take a stand on a particular issue, but simply on the amount of cash available. That automatically slants political influence in the direction of the wealthy...

[Seth]

The issue with campaign funding via "interest groups" is that the level of political influence does not depend on the number of people who take a stand on a particular issue, but simply on the amount of cash available. That automatically slants political influence in the direction of the wealthy...

Or really big groups of ordinary non-wealthy people, like the seven million members of the NRA, or the Sierra Club, or the ACLU.

Believe it or not, politicians actually do understand that they have to win actual votes of actual people, which is why the NRA has such influence. It's not just about the money, it's about getting those seven million people to vote for you. That's why democrat politicians will lie through their teeth during an election cycle (like Obama did) to falsely claim they "support" 2nd Amendment rights, and then turn around and try to pass "common sense" anti-gun legislation.

Well, the NRA figured this out a long time ago and it keeps track of most state and federal candidates and their actual history of proposing, supporting or voting for gun rights legislation, and they tell the membership who's a real patriot and who's a lying sack of shit. And it makes a difference, trust me.

And what's the alternative exactly? If I want my voice heard in a presidential election with respect to gun rights, the NRA is the only way for me to accomplish that. I could not possibly have any impact at all without banding together with others of like mind and appointing paid representatives to speak on our behalf in Washington, or some state legislature.

And every side has "special interest" groups, left, right, middle, up, down, top and bottom. There's nothing wrong with that because different groups of people have different "special" interests they want politicians to deal with, so they get together to fund campaign activities to get legislators who say they will represent those interests elected.

It's been happening roughly since the beginning of time, and there's really no alternative if anyone is to have a voice in electing government representatives.

[Blind groper]

It is not just the NRA, Seth. It is a wide range of right wing groups subsidised by the gun manufacturing industry. One problem is that "the will of the people" tends to be what the heavily financed lobby groups tell them it is. In other words, propaganda rules.

Of course, it is hard to get any government to be non corrupt. New Zealand, along with Denmark is at the top of the least corrupt list every year for the last decade. And we still fight corruption. But we have little tolerance for corruption in government. Right now, a politician is fighting to overcome a charge in court that he accepted a campaign contribution without revealing to the public who it was from - corruption in my country. We locked up another politician for 7 years who had accepted work on his home by a Filipino builder in return for assistance in migrating to NZ.

Perhaps if the USA was more willing to lock up its corrupt politicians, there would be less of a problem.

[JimC]

The issue with campaign funding via "interest groups" is that the level of political influence does not depend on the number of people who take a stand on a particular issue, but simply on the amount of cash available. That automatically slants political influence in the direction of the wealthy...

Or really big groups of ordinary non-wealthy people, like the seven million members of the NRA, or the Sierra Club, or the ACLU.

Believe it or not, politicians actually do understand that they have to win actual votes of actual people, which is why the NRA has such influence. It's not just about the money, it's about getting those seven million people to vote for you. That's why democrat politicians will lie through their teeth during an election cycle (like Obama did) to falsely claim they "support" 2nd Amendment rights, and then turn around and try to pass "common sense" anti-gun legislation.

Well, the NRA figured this out a long time ago and it keeps track of most state and federal candidates and their actual history of proposing, supporting or voting for gun rights legislation, and they tell the membership who's a real patriot and who's a lying sack of shit. And it makes a difference, trust me.

And what's the alternative exactly? If I want my voice heard in a presidential election with respect to gun rights, the NRA is the only way for me to accomplish that. I could not possibly have any impact at all without banding together with others of like mind and appointing paid representatives to speak on our behalf in Washington, or some state legislature.

And every side has "special interest" groups, left, right, middle, up, down, top and bottom. There's nothing wrong with that because different groups of people have different "special" interests they want politicians to deal with, so they get together to fund campaign activities to get legislators who say they will represent those interests elected.

It's been happening roughly since the beginning of time, and there's really no alternative if anyone is to have a voice in electing government representatives.

I accept that the NRA has a wide popular base, and is therefore one of the important, legitimate voices in US politics. But this is absurd partisanship on your part:

"...who's a real patriot and who's a lying sack of shit..."

Groups who advocate stronger gun control aren't lying, they too are a legitimate voice of a section of the population, whether you agree with them or not.

On the more general issue, though, wealthy people and corporations can clearly have a disproportionate influence both on individual politicians, and via massive investment in propaganda advertising, a disproportionate effect on election results, and thus the direction and policy of a state. That is true to an extent to all democracies, but it seems to reach a peak in the US, contributing to the gap between rich and poor in your society being closer to third world countries than the western norm...

[Seth]

It is not just the NRA, Seth. It is a wide range of right wing groups subsidised by the gun manufacturing industry.

Even if it's true, which you've not proven, so the fuck what? Gun manufacturers have a right to subsidize anybody they think will advance their interests before Congress.

One problem is that "the will of the people" tends to be what the heavily financed lobby groups tell them it is. In other words, propaganda rules.

And that is true on BOTH SIDES of the political spectrum. Derp!

Of course, it is hard to get any government to be non corrupt. New Zealand, along with Denmark is at the top of the least corrupt list every year for the last decade. And we still fight corruption. But we have little tolerance for corruption in government. Right now, a politician is fighting to overcome a charge in court that he accepted a campaign contribution without revealing to the public who it was from - corruption in my country. We locked up another politician for 7 years who had accepted work on his home by a Filipino builder in return for assistance in migrating to NZ.

Perhaps if the USA was more willing to lock up its corrupt politicians, there would be less of a problem.

Problem is, you think that ordinary political lobbying and campaigning is "corrupt." You're just too dense to live.

[Seth]

I accept that the NRA has a wide popular base, and is therefore one of the important, legitimate voices in US politics. But this is absurd partisanship on your part:

"...who's a real patriot and who's a lying sack of shit..."

Groups who advocate stronger gun control aren't lying, they too are a legitimate voice of a section of the population, whether you agree with them or not.

That's not who I was talking about, although gun banners are lying sacks of shit...they have to be because the truth is exactly the opposite of what they propagandize...I was talking about democrat politicians who PRETEND to support gun rights during the election cycle and then immediately do the opposite once they get elected. They are lying sacks of shit because they won't simply tell people the truth about their anti-gun agenda and suffer the consequences. They have to lie to even have a chance at getting elected, like Obama lied about his gun control platform...TWICE...to get elected, and then betrayed the trust of those who voted for him thinking that he was not a pathological lying sack of shit.

[mistermack]

Er, if it's legal, it's not bribery, by definition.

How dumb can your posts possibly get? Bribery is paying officials to do what you want.
If they make that legal, it's suddenly not bribery?

Maybe not on the ga ga planet that you inhabit.

[Blind groper]

Making something legal does not make it right. This applies to bribery, and it applies to more serious crimes like murder.

I think of the Nazi followers who ended up getting hung after the Nuremberg trials. They committed murder, which was legal at the time, since the government said to do it, but their claims that they were just following orders did not save them from the noose.

One definition of 'murder' is an illegal killing, but it is clear to me that murder may be legal, and still be murder, and wrong. Exactly the same applies to bribery.

[Seth]

Er, if it's legal, it's not bribery, by definition.

How dumb can your posts possibly get? Bribery is paying officials to do what you want.

No, bribery by definition is illegally paying officials to do what you want.

If they make that legal, it's suddenly not bribery?

Er, yes.

Maybe not on the ga ga planet that you inhabit.

Um, in a system of representative government we ALL pay officials to do what we want them to do, or had that simple fact escaped you? Government is the servant, you see, not the master. That's why it's called "government service" as a matter of fact.

[Seth]

Making something legal does not make it right. This applies to bribery, and it applies to more serious crimes like murder.

Neither does making something legal make it wrong. You just want to call campaign contributions "bribery" because you don't have enough money, or enough people who think like you, to affect the outcome of elections through campaigning. You're just envious and jealous.

One definition of 'murder' is an illegal killing, but it is clear to me that murder may be legal, and still be murder, and wrong. Exactly the same applies to bribery.

Let's see...what fallacy is this again...Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief? No, not quite, but a whiff...Hm...Red Herring? Again, not quite, but the odor is getting stronger...Slippery Slope? Yeah, a bit of that too, and the argument begins to stink...Appeal to Emotion? Yup, a lot of that. Getting pretty rancid now. Trying to equate murder and campaign financing is a rancid appeal to emotion...How about a dash of Guilt by Association? Yeah, that's there too.

Man, who farted in the elevator?

[mistermack]

Er, if it's legal, it's not bribery, by definition.

How dumb can your posts possibly get? Bribery is paying officials to do what you want.

No, bribery by definition is illegally paying officials to do what you want.

If they make that legal, it's suddenly not bribery?

Er, yes.

Maybe not on the ga ga planet that you inhabit.

Um, in a system of representative government we ALL pay officials to do what we want them to do, or had that simple fact escaped you? Government is the servant, you see, not the master. That's why it's called "government service" as a matter of fact.

Nice red herring.
Trying to take attention away from the fact that you haven't got a clue.
BRIBERY is paying officials to do what you want.
The CRIME OF BRIBERY is illegally paying.
If they make bribery legal, it might not be the crime of bribery, but it's still bribery.

Just as groper pointed out about murder.

You do struggle with the simple things, don't you?

But funnily enough, even though taxation is legal, you still call it theft. Even though theft is by definition the illegal taking of property.
How do you work that out, Einstein?

[Hermit]

Er, if it's legal, it's not bribery, by definition.

How dumb can your posts possibly get? Bribery is paying officials to do what you want.

No, bribery by definition is illegally paying officials to do what you want.

If they make that legal, it's suddenly not bribery?

Er, yes.

Er, no. Care to consult a dictionary?

bribe1. Money or some other benefit given to a person in power, especially a public official, in an effort to cause the person to take a particular action.
2. Something offered to induce another to do something: tried to use dessert as a bribe to get the child to cooperate.

Nothing about the necessity of something to be an illegal about an inducement for someone to do something in order for the inducement to be considered a bribe.

[mistermack]

Seth needs to look up the definition of definition.

[Hermit]

No use. On the rare occasion he concedes that he was in error about something he immediately qualifies his concession in a way that neutralises it. Basically he'll say that even though he was wrong he was right, or to put it in his own words: "Yes, I was wrong about that, but the point remains."

[Seth]

Er, if it's legal, it's not bribery, by definition.

How dumb can your posts possibly get? Bribery is paying officials to do what you want.

No, bribery by definition is illegally paying officials to do what you want.

If they make that legal, it's suddenly not bribery?

Er, yes.

Maybe not on the ga ga planet that you inhabit.

Um, in a system of representative government we ALL pay officials to do what we want them to do, or had that simple fact escaped you? Government is the servant, you see, not the master. That's why it's called "government service" as a matter of fact.

Nice red herring.
Trying to take attention away from the fact that you haven't got a clue.
BRIBERY is paying officials to do what you want.

And that's what every single one of you does when you elect someone and pay taxes. You're paying officials to do what you want.

The CRIME OF BRIBERY is illegally paying.

Yup.

If they make bribery legal, it might not be the crime of bribery, but it's still bribery.

Pettifoggery. "To bribe" in modern usage means to pay money to an official to do something for you illegally, and you know it.

Just as groper pointed out about murder.

Wrong. There's a word for killing a person, it's "homicide." Illegally killing a person is "murder."

You do struggle with the simple things, don't you?

Yes, I struggle with you simpletons all the time. It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.

But funnily enough, even though taxation is legal, you still call it theft. Even though theft is by definition the illegal taking of property.
How do you work that out, Einstein?

Not all "legal" taxation is moral, just as not all "homicide" is moral. Some taxes are both legal and moral, other taxes are technically legal, but immoral. Likewise, some "bribery" is moral and legal, while other "bribery" is illegal and immoral. If you want to pettifog about technical definitions, fine, I can play that game too. But you and I both know that the connotation of the word "bribery" is specifically the unlawful payment of money, goods or services to a government official in order to persuade that person to do some favor for you that would not otherwise be sanctioned or lawful. You pay a building inspector to come inspect your electrical wiring, and that's technically "bribery" by your hyperliteral definition, but it's not illegal unless you give him money to pass an installation that does not meet the code, in other words you "bribe" him with money to perform an illegal act that is not within his job duties or violates the standards he's supposed to enforce.

Since it is not illegal for an elected politician to give consideration to the interests of his constituents, so long as it is not a quid pro quo transaction causing him to violate ethical boundaries, contributing to a candidate's campaign is not "bribery" because it's a campaign, which means that any money donated to the candidate could be simply a waste if the candidate is not elected. Therefore there is no quid pro quo involved. One can really only criminally bribe a politician AFTER he's been elected, not before.

Your complaint seems to be that giving money to candidates so they will get elected is somehow immoral and illegal "bribery", but you fail to explain why this is so. If you want a candidate who is sympathetic to your political needs and desires, then you desire that he be elected and giving him money so he can successfully campaign to garner enough votes to do so is hardly "bribery." It's you expressing yourself politically, you know, that whole "free speech" thing that applies most stringently to political speech, by giving your preferred candidate the money he needs to run a successful campaign.

To say that campaign funding is somehow immoral or illegal, which is the obvious intent of this particular argument of yours, is to effectively silence the voices of the voters and remove their right to get the candidate they prefer elected, which is what democracy is all about, isn't it?