Goose wrote:

The Man wrote:

Goose wrote:

Then only the extremely rich could ever run effectively for state or national office.

 
You mean like we have now?

 
No. I mean worse than we have now.

 
How so?

Goose wrote:

Well, the median networth of a Congressman (Reps and senators lumped in) is about $1 million.*

Not really that much. If someone could not raise money from others, and had to run using exclusively their own personal assets, you'd see an even greater advantage to the rich. The House would be restricted to those with a wealth of perhaps $5 million. State-wide races like the senate would be dominated by those with wealth in excess of $50 million. So, we'd have a Congress with more Darrel Issa's, and Diane Feinsteins, and fewer Kirstin Gillibrands, or Chris Murphy's.
The Presidential race would quickly be Nothing but Trump and Clinton. 

Hey perhaps it wouldn't be so bad. In Edwardian Britain the only people standing for Parliment were the landed aristocracy who never worked a day in their lives.

Doesn't seem very representative of our population, or our ideals, however.

*http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/millionaires-club-for-first-time-most-lawmakers-are-worth-1-million-plus/

 
The thing is though, the extremely wealthy can do that now if they want.  Donald Trump has all the money of his own needed to fund his own campaign, so does Jeb Bush and so does Hillary Clinton.  Why should they be permitted to accept campaign contributions?

Last edited by The Man (8/01/2015 1:39 pm)

Goose wrote:

The Man wrote:

Goose wrote:

Well, the median networth of a Congressman (Reps and senators lumped in) is about $1 million.*

Not really that much. If someone could not raise money from others, and had to run using exclusively their own personal assets, you'd see an even greater advantage to the rich. The House would be restricted to those with a wealth of perhaps $5 million. State-wide races like the senate would be dominated by those with wealth in excess of $50 million. So, we'd have a Congress with more Darrel Issa's, and Diane Feinsteins, and fewer Kirstin Gillibrands, or Chris Murphy's.
The Presidential race would quickly be Nothing but Trump and Clinton. 

Hey perhaps it wouldn't be so bad. In Edwardian Britain the only people standing for Parliment were the landed aristocracy who never worked a day in their lives.

Doesn't seem very representative of our population, or our ideals, however.

*http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/millionaires-club-for-first-time-most-lawmakers-are-worth-1-million-plus/

 
The thing is though, the extremely wealthy can do that now if they want. Donald Trump has all the money of his own needed to fund his own campaign, so does Jeb Bush and so does Hillary Clinton. Why should they be permitted to accept campaign contributions?

Hey, all other things being equal, it will always be better to be rich than poor. I don't think that donating to a political campaign is going to become illegal any time soon (ever). And there certainly will not be a law restricting fund raising based upon the candidate's net worth.

But, today, someone with a net worth of about $300,000 can get donations to run an effective Senate campaign in the state of NY, like Gillibrand.

Someone with a personal net worth of $82,000 (like Chris Murphy) can raise enough money to run for the Senate seat from CT, and win against a woman with a personal fortune of over over $800 million (Linda McMahon).
That would not have happened if it were illegal to solicit political donations.

 
Oh I know campaign contributions will never be outlawed, it's just my personal opinion that it should be. (To think that, would be like thinking property tax elimination ever has a chance of happening. Lol)  I just get sick of seeing outside money influencing political campaigns, especially national campaigns.  At least if politicians had to fund their own campaigns, with their own money, they would be backing up their BS with their own money, not taking the attitude of 'oh well, whatever, guess I'll just go hide in my mansion now'.

Last edited by The Man (8/01/2015 1:56 pm)

So as we skip down the road to plutocratic oligarchy, this is what you need to know:

The race for 2016 is being funded, so far, by its smallest-ever concentration of donors, with less than 400 families responsible for raising half the money so far, reported The New York Times on Saturday.

Of the $388 million raised for presidential campaigns, the majority is being streamed to super PACs – external groups that, for five years now[/url], have not been limited in the amount of contributions they can accept from individual donors. Nearly all of the candidates have been encouraging their donors to [url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2015/0801/Money-talking-loudly-A-guide-to-the-super-PACs]give to these committees, according to The Associated Press.

Donations to individual candidates cannot exceed $2,700 but super PACs can receive unlimited amounts. 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0801/Who-s-paying-for-the-2016-campaign-So-far-America-s-1-percenters

Let us join hands and thank the Supreme Court.  Amen.
 

Last edited by Just Fred (8/01/2015 6:45 pm)