Who would want to be in Congress?

[d-ray657]

I have read a lot of terrific ideas on this board from a variety of participants. Of course, Congress has been a favorite punching bag. Most people here think Congress does a lousy job. We all probably think we could do better.

Here are my questions:

How many here would actually want to hold a seat in Congress?

Would you be concerned about the number of compromises you would have to make to be elected? Or do you you think you could get elected with no compromises?

How long do you think you could avoid the seductive feeling of power and the effect of Lobbyists fawning all over you?

How long would it take you to get convinced that, however powerful your position might appear, you are really powerless to get something worthwhile enacted before it was watered down and perverted by political maneuvering?

Why would anyone else want to have that job?

Am I a cynic?

Regards,

D-Ray

[Grumpy]

Sure I'll bite. Always wanted a job where I got paid to do nothing.

[Writewing]

The people who have that sort of Arrogance to think they should be in political office are so self absorbed with power and ambition their soul is of no value to them to begin with.

[doucanoe]

I'd serve, but only if there were term limits.

I'd hate to find myself in the Paul Wellstone quandary of going back on my promise to the people, and making a career out of it. ;)

RC

[rickr15]

1. Yes
2.Compromise is part of Democracy. As long as I didn't have to compromise my principals.

3. I would like to think I'm above all that.(would I be?) I also think many corrupt politicians start out with good intentions. Money and power are a hell of an aphrodisiac.

4. If you aren't worried about re-election I think you can get a lot done. Much of the watering down comes from delegates more concerned with a career in congress than their constituents.

5.Plus you can't beat the health and retirement package. Its like winning the lotto.

[rickr15]

The people who have that sort of Arrogance to think they should be in political office are so self absorbed with power and ambition their soul is of no value to them to begin with.

Thats why I always thought instead of electing officials we should conscript them like the draft. They couldn't do any worse than the "proffesionals" currently stinking it up and would probably try a lot harder to actually do the right thing.

Plus look at all the campaign financing we the taxpayers would no longer have to pay for.

[d-ray657]

Sure I'll bite. Always wanted a job where I got paid to do nothing.

It would be hard for me to turn down a salary in the $200K neighborhood. I might wonder what it is worth, however, when the devil wants his due.

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

The people who have that sort of Arrogance to think they should be in political office are so self absorbed with power and ambition their soul is of no value to them to begin with.

When I am feeling my most cynical, I agree with you on this one. See previous post.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Writewing]

When I am feeling my most cynical, I agree with you on this one. See previous post.

Regards,

D-Ray

I am gonna cherish this forever:D

[d-ray657]

I'd serve, but only if there were term limits.

I'd hate to find myself in the Paul Wellstone quandary of going back on my promise to the people, and making a career out of it. ;)

RC

Based on your comment on taxing the hell out of the job-exporting corporations, you would have at least vote from one of the posters on another thread here. I for one, would enjoy harassing you if you ever held a town hall meeting.:D

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

I don't think I could stand the constant campaign that is part of the political scene. It might be interesting to serve one term without a thought of reelection. You could therefore do as you saw fit. The whole constituent services part of the job would suck too (although if you weren't worried about reelection, you wouldn't have to do much of that either.)

One of my best friends left a defense contractor job to become the Chief of Staff for a Blue Dog Democrat from northern Alabama. He dug the excitement and all for a little while, but the whole thing wore him down quickly. He bailed and went back to the military-industrial complex.

I serve on a couple of national consensus standards committees that, unknown to me when I got onboard, are very political (labor, management, manufacturers, insurers, Fed and state gov't. are represented). The technical aspects of the work are fun and interesting. The political bullshit is sickening.

[doucanoe]

:DBased on your comment on taxing the hell out of the job-exporting corporations, you would have at least vote from one of the posters on another thread here. I for one, would enjoy harassing you if you ever held a town hall meeting.:D

Regards,

D-Ray


If I had the balls to run for office and enough support to get elected, I'm sure a guy like you wouldn't phase me in the least ;)

Next question??? :D

RC

[Boreas]

I started to respond to this thread but when I looked at what I'd written I found I didn't really believe what I was writing. I'm in a far too cynical mood today.

I will say, however, that as long as there's big money in politics it will be very hard for any elected representative to retain his or her principles.

John

[d-ray657]

If I had the balls to run for office and enough support to get elected, I'm sure a guy like you wouldn't phase me in the least ;)

Next question??? :D

RC

C'mon, you know I'd make you quake in your boots. :cool: You'd go and spoil all of the fun though by offering pragmatic answers. ;) They'd be wrong, but they wouldn't be the reactionary BS spouted by too many candidates.

Regards,

D-Ray

[doucanoe]

C'mon, you know I'd make you quake in your boots. :cool: You'd go and spoil all of the fun though by offering pragmatic answers. ;) They'd be wrong, but they wouldn't be the reactionary BS spouted by too many candidates.

Regards,

D-Ray


I guess when it comes to politics or general conversation, you just can't please everybody.




Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself.
Mark Twain

RC

[d-ray657]

I guess when it comes to politics or general conversation, you just can't please everybody.




Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself.
Mark Twain

RC

Sometimes when it comes to humor, however, I can't please anybody. Mark Twain, on the other hand, that old Sam knew how to write.

Regards,

D-ray

[Boreas]

Sometimes when it comes to humor, however, I can't please anybody. Mark Twain, on the other hand, that old Sam knew how to write.

Regards,

D-ray

Darned if he couldn't and his heart was in the right place too. He was a committed pacifist.

John

[doucanoe]

Sometimes when it comes to humor, however, I can't please anybody.

Regards,

D-ray


Aw, don't sell yourself short, D.

For me, forgetting to add the proper smilie at the end of most of my sarcastic comments gives the appearance that I have gone serious all of a sudden :D

[d-ray657]

Aw, don't sell yourself short, D.

For me, forgetting to add the proper smilie at the end of most of my sarcastic comments gives the appearance that I have gone serious all of a sudden :D

Don't worry about that. I'm six feet tall.

But, now you see what I mean, and why my son blames me for his pun proclivity.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Fast_Eddie]

The question gets to the heart of the matter. It's a shit job, but very difficult. People who have the ability to do it well have the ability to make a lot more money elsewhere. Seriously, you all heard how much a Wall Street banker makes just in bonuses.

So we count on people who have already got money to do it. Then we bitch that they all have a lot of money. Well what do you expect? This isn't so much different than trying to attract better employees to any job. I know when I get more money, better benefits and better hours I can hire better people.

But that'll never fly 'cause if Congress gives themselves a raise all hell breaks lose. "Why should he make more money than me just because he actually has a law degree, works a job that separates him from his family for months at a time, has no job security and everyone hates him?"

Uh, do the math. We're lucky they're as good as they are.

[BlueStreak]

The people who have that sort of Arrogance to think they should be in political office are so self absorbed with power and ambition their soul is of no value to them to begin with.

You just described my cousin. He lives in Howland and keeps talking about running for office---Republican of course, because he's a phony, greedy bastard. Maybe you'll have the opportunity to vote for him someday. If you do, build yourself some titanium underpants, and leave the f**kin' soap on the shower floor.

Dave

[Writewing]

You just described my cousin. He lives in Howland and keeps talking about running for office---Republican of course, because he's a phony, greedy bastard. Maybe you'll have the opportunity to vote for him someday. If you do, build yourself some titanium underpants, and leave the f**kin' soap on the shower floor.

Dave

Somehow I doubt we will ever meet but I will keep that in mind and if I ever drop my wallet I will kick it to Germany before picking it up.

[Grumpy]

I hope you people knew I was joking. The last thing in the world I would want is to be put in a room with so many people that stand for everything I stand against.

[Sandy G]

This is part of the problem w/politics, I think...It tends to attract the exact wrong kind of people to it...They are master manipulators, are by & large experts in prevaricationing, & deftly know how to game the system. If ANY of "The people's business" actually gets done, its almost by accident. The Founding Fathers, as usual, had it right-They kinda set things up for "Citizen legislators" to come & do their civic duty for awhile & then go home. I don't think they ever envisioned somebody making a lifelong career of it-and CERTAINLY not to become as fabulously wealthy as many of these jokers are...

[merrylander]

The funny thing is that the Conservative party back in Canada did want me to run when our local MP died prematurely from cancer. He and I had a long correspondence so I guess that they found my letters in his files.

However, I was already down here so that idea got sqelched. As a sanforized citizen I am still elegible to run for office but Florence would divorce me so that is not going to happen.

Taken as a whole Congress really needs an outsider to re-write their rules because as written it is a most un-democratic institution, but there are some good people in there.

If we could, as a nation, outlaw bribery, make this business of some 7000 or more appointees by the incoming president a thing of the past and limit him/her to appointing only cabinet level people and judicial positions. This would be with the usual 'advise and consent' (but none of this BS of a single senator being able to put a 'hold' on any appointee) we would be on the way to a better government. Finally campaign funding would come from federal funds and be a lot more limited than at present, no more 'swift boaters' and other such pandering.

As it stands today, Congress is much like the gentleman in the bar who asked the young woman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. When she acquiesed he than asked her if she would do it for one hundred dollars. She exlaimed "What sort of woman do you think I am?" to which he replied "We have already established that, we are only haggling over the price."

[cabinover]

Rob you're dead on.

[cabinover]

So we count on people who have already got money to do it.

The problem here Eddie is that yes, they already have more money than most folks do and that leads to an indifference to normal everyday working folks as far as I can see.

I think we should have term limits in Congress. It's too cushy of a job...scratch that...career for all of them in there.

I wouldn't want to be in Congress but then again the perks are outstanding and unheard of in any field.

[cabinover]

Double post

[piece-itpete]

The question gets to the heart of the matter. It's a shit job, but very difficult. People who have the ability to do it well have the ability to make a lot more money elsewhere. Seriously, you all heard how much a Wall Street banker makes just in bonuses.

So we count on people who have already got money to do it. Then we bitch that they all have a lot of money. Well what do you expect? This isn't so much different than trying to attract better employees to any job. I know when I get more money, better benefits and better hours I can hire better people.

But that'll never fly 'cause if Congress gives themselves a raise all hell breaks lose. "Why should he make more money than me just because he actually has a law degree, works a job that separates him from his family for months at a time, has no job security and everyone hates him?"

Uh, do the math. We're lucky they're as good as they are.

Good post. Lousy thankless job. I head one guy say, politicians are the best salemen of all - they've got to close 51% of their sales.

One of the (many) things I respect in the Founders, they had a great grasp of human nature. You can't change human nature, so you channel some's quest for power into useful ways.

Pete

[merrylander]

The problem here Eddie is that yes, they already have more money than most folks do and that leads to an indifference to normal everyday working folks as far as I can see.

I think we should have term limits in Congress. It's too cushy of a job...scratch that...career for all of them in there.

I wouldn't want to be in Congress but then again the perks are outstanding and unheard of in any field.

Yep, all we want is Cheney Care, same as they have,

Welcome back Tom.

[d-ray657]

This is part of the problem w/politics, I think...It tends to attract the exact wrong kind of people to it...They are master manipulators, are by & large experts in prevaricationing, & deftly know how to game the system. If ANY of "The people's business" actually gets done, its almost by accident. The Founding Fathers, as usual, had it right-They kinda set things up for "Citizen legislators" to come & do their civic duty for awhile & then go home. I don't think they ever envisioned somebody making a lifelong career of it-and CERTAINLY not to become as fabulously wealthy as many of these jokers are...

That probably describes that vast majority of them, but I agree with some of the posts discussing how corrupting the environment can be. But also think of what kind of mind-set it takes to avoid what has become increasingly nasty commentary about office-holders. It even corrupts their vocabulary. I remember seeing John McCain interviewed about difficulty in attracting the best and the brightest into politics. He talked about the intrusion in to their private lives and the criticism to conclude that young people are "disincentivized" to participate.

Regards,

D-Ray

[doucanoe]

Term limits may solve much of that.

RC

[piece-itpete]

Can you imagine if a Congressman simply spoke the truth as he saw it?

Can you say, the boot?

Pete

[d-ray657]

Hey, but don't forget, a majority of them are lawyers. Um . . er . . but, I mean . . . Oh, never mind.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Can you imagine if a Congressman simply spoke the truth as he saw it?

Can you say, the boot?

Pete

I'm not sure who is less prepared for (or receptive of) the truth, his congressional colleagues or the public.

[piece-itpete]

If they can't speak the truth as they see it because the public doesn't like it, then we are indeed on the road to ruin.

Pete

[finnbow]

If they can't speak the truth as they see it because the public doesn't like it, then we are indeed on the road to ruin.

Pete

True enough. However, there is frequently a lot of "Sturm und Drang" when a politician who utters a truth about us that we are uncomfortable hearing. A recent example is the furor over Reid's (true) statement about Obama (light complected Negro without a Black accent). Or whenever a true statement about a particular American action abroad being a causative factor in a negative reaction by our adversaries is labelled as "Blame America First."

[Fast_Eddie]

The problem here Eddie is that yes, they already have more money than most folks do and that leads to an indifference to normal everyday working folks as far as I can see.

I agree. And that's the problem really. It really is in many ways a thankless job and if you have the metal to do it you could probably do a good deal better financially in the private sector. So you have to question the motives of anyone who goes into politics. I'm sure there are some who have a genuine desire to make things better. But honestly, with no assurance of longevity, I wouldn't take the job if they offered it to me. I have a family and want to retire someday. The job I have now pays about the same and I have more security. And hard as it is, there's no way it's as hard as churning through that cess pool.

I think we should have term limits in Congress. It's too cushy of a job...scratch that...career for all of them in there.

I wouldn't want to be in Congress but then again the perks are outstanding and unheard of in any field.

I don't know. Term limits sound like a good idea when everyone is frustraited. But really, that makes no one responsible for anything beyond a few years down the road. Many in California say their current financial mess is due in large part to term limits. No one worries what the long term effects will be since they *know* they won't be there to deal with them. They just make as much noise as they can along the way in hopes of securing their next job. The day they start, they know they're going to be fired. So job #1 is finding the next job.

[piece-itpete]

Here in Ohio we have term limits, it drives the politicians into the (waiting and willing) arms of the lobbyists.

But not having them is bad too :yes: as usual screwed either way!

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

This is part of the problem w/politics, I think...It tends to attract the exact wrong kind of people to it...They are master manipulators, are by & large experts in prevaricationing, & deftly know how to game the system. If ANY of "The people's business" actually gets done, its almost by accident. The Founding Fathers, as usual, had it right-They kinda set things up for "Citizen legislators" to come & do their civic duty for awhile & then go home. I don't think they ever envisioned somebody making a lifelong career of it-and CERTAINLY not to become as fabulously wealthy as many of these jokers are...

I think you're absolutely right on every point. I would add, though, that the world is a much different place than it was back then. I would think most people who served owned large farms and had a family that could run the farm in their absence. So they could go off for six years and volunteer their time and know they had a livelihood to return to. Not so in these times.

Which gets back to your first point- why are they doing it and what attracts people to this job. Power, prestige, notoriety. These are not the qualities you really want in the job if you think about it. These are people who by definition are putting themselves first when we really need them to put the "greater good" first.

[Fast_Eddie]

Can you imagine if a Congressman simply spoke the truth as he saw it?

Can you say, the boot?

We crusify the ones who do. Look at the grief Ried got for his statement recently. And Biden has been raked over the coals for speaking his mind his whole career. Yeah, we say we want a straight shooter, but when we get one we kill them. What we reward is a very savvy politician who can act like he's a straight shooter. You can see how that gets us to a lot of slime balls. Lately, being a straight shooter means you stand in front of TV cameras are are very angry- you're reflecting the anger of the people! But, no, not really. You're just putting on a show and then going back to pushing your agenda.

[Boreas]

Term limits sound like a good idea when everyone is frustraited. But really, that makes no one responsible for anything beyond a few years down the road. Many in California say their current financial mess is due in large part to term limits. No one worries what the long term effects will be since they *know* they won't be there to deal with them. They just make as much noise as they can along the way in hopes of securing their next job. The day they start, they know they're going to be fired. So job #1 is finding the next job.

+1!!! Get in office, kiss some serious lobby ass and land your next gig for a few mil a year in the industry you pimped for.

John

[piece-itpete]

Truman spoke straight. I saw a quote of his, when asked about Cuba going over to the commies, he said on record, 'That's what happens when you have a g*d d*mn fool in the White House' lol!

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

Truman spoke straight. I saw a quote of his, when asked about Cuba going over to the commies, he said on record, 'That's what happens when you have a g*d d*mn fool in the White House' lol!

Pete

Oh yeah. I think the modern era is different than a few decades ago. Shoot, I don't think it really got to be as bad as it is now until Carter or Reagan. Carter got into office because he looked and acted honest. "I'm just a peanut farmer from Georgia". Trouble is, it turned out he was just a peanut farmer from Georgia. Reagan really played the same card in a different way. "I'm just one of you guys." That's been the Republican mold since. Bush II was the first one they packaged up specifically to play that role. Shoot, I saw a clip of this Brown fellow saying "I drive a pick up truck". Really? Why? What do you need a pick up truck for if you're going to be a Senator? To carry all your bull shit in? It's gotten silly and it's amazing how easy it is to fool people. "I drive a pick-up truck" is an actual campain position?

[BlueStreak]

Truman spoke straight. I saw a quote of his, when asked about Cuba going over to the commies, he said on record, 'That's what happens when you have a g*d d*mn fool in the White House' lol!

Pete

1959. So, Ike Eisenhower (One of my favorite Republicans.) was a fool, Pete?

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Reagan really played the same card in a different way. "I'm just one of you guys." That's been the Republican mold since.

It was bullshit with Reagan, and it's still bullshit with Brown.

Dave

[finnbow]

Look at the trouble Michael Steele got into when he stated "Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it's incendiary." Or how about the Alabama gubernatorial candidate who boldly stated "I believe there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be literally true and parts that are not." He was forced to recant and say "I believe the Bible is true, every word of it." Similarly, McCain was forced to later recant the revelation that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were "agents of intolerance."

Seems like truth hurts (in politics, at least).

[Fast_Eddie]

It was bullshit with Reagan, and it's still bullshit with Brown.

Dave

Exactly right- it's very interesting. The one time we really did give the job to a "regular guy" it didn't go so well. So now we give it to the best actor. But you know, that's not going so well either.

Sorry folks, and many will disagree, but people like Al Gore are better suited for the job. Oh, but we can't elect someone who is so elite! Seriously? Yeah, I'm thinking might be time try finding the smartest guy in the room and seeing what he can do. You can keep your big smile, pick up drivin', flannel shirt wearin' regular guy cutting wood at the ranch. Give me the guy with three inch thick glasses and a pocket protector. We need a geek. How 'bout Cliff Stoll for President!?

Only one who really struck a good balance was Clinton. Rhodes Scholar but could play the "regular guy" role well.

[piece-itpete]

1959. So, Ike Eisenhower (One of my favorite Republicans.) was a fool, Pete?

Dave

Nope! But the Truman comment is still very funny imo and a great example of a straight talker, agree or disagree.

That's too bad though, we could've disagreed on a GOP President, but the other way around! :D :D :D

Pete

[rickr15]

+1!!! Get in office, kiss some serious lobby ass and land your next gig for a few mil a year in the industry you pimped for.

John

The only reason to spend millions beating out other contestants for a job that pays 200K. These guys are a lot of things but stupid is not one of them.

Plus as I said before the health and retirement plan kicks ass.

[merrylander]

The only reason to spend millions beating out other contestants for a job that pays 200K. These guys are a lot of things but stupid is not one of them.

Plus as I said before the health and retirement plan kicks ass.

Not intelligent either, think the word you were looking for is cunning.:D

[BlueStreak]

No.
I don't give a damn what it pays. I wouldn't take a public office in this thoroughly whacked society if you put a gun to my head.

Regards,
Dave

[Boreas]

The only reason to spend millions beating out other contestants for a job that pays 200K. These guys are a lot of things but stupid is not one of them.

But, unless you're Mittens or Bloomberg, it's other peoples' millions they're spending.

John

[rickr15]

But, unless you're Mittens or Bloomberg, it's other peoples' millions they're spending.

John

Well from todays supreme court decision looks like theres gonna be a lot more millions to spend.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/01/21/20100121supreme-court-overturns-campaign-finance-law21-ON.html

I can already smell the stench from the upcoming war of slander/attack ads on both sides.

[merrylander]

Leave it to the Supremes, I thought they were supposed to interpret the Constitution, not rip it to shreds.

[finnbow]

Well from todays supreme court decision looks like theres gonna be a lot more millions to spend.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/01/21/20100121supreme-court-overturns-campaign-finance-law21-ON.html

I can already smell the stench from the upcoming war of slander/attack ads on both sides.

Philosophically, I agree with this decision. As a practical matter, however, it'll makes things even uglier than they already are. FWIW, I think the courts are the only semi-functional branch left in government.

[Boreas]

Well from todays supreme court decision looks like theres gonna be a lot more millions to spend.

I can already smell the stench from the upcoming war of slander/attack ads on both sides.

Face it, guys, our democracy just got the coup de grace from the Supremes.

John

[merrylander]

FWIW, I think the courts are the only semi-functional branch left in government.

You are being kind.

[d-ray657]

Philosophically, I agree with this decision. As a practical matter, however, it'll makes things even uglier than they already are. FWIW, I think the courts are the only semi-functional branch left in government.

The ruling advances a legal fiction that has so far outgrown its original purpose as to become obscene. The legal fiction makes corporations persons. Originally is was intended to make it more practical for incorporated to enter into contracts and enforce them or have them enforced in court. That personhood has spread to give corporations equal protection rights, rights to hold patents, and now a full fledged right to free speech. Corporations receive the rights of citizenship without the obligations. They might profit from war, but they will never be conscripted. Indeed, their only moral imperative is make a profit, other social concerns be damned unless it enhances the bottom line.

Corporations do not come together for the purpose of petitioning the government for redress. They come together to limit liability and to make a profit. In no way were corporations contemplated by the Framers as entities in need of, or entitled to the protection of the First Amendment.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

The ruling advances a legal fiction that has so far outgrown its original purpose as to become obscene. The legal fiction makes corporations persons. Originally is was intended to make it more practical for incorporated to enter into contracts and enforce them or have them enforced in court. That personhood has spread to give corporations equal protection rights, rights to hold patents, and now a full fledged right to free speech. Corporations receive the rights of citizenship without the obligations. They might profit from war, but they will never be conscripted. Indeed, their only moral imperative is make a profit, other social concerns be damned unless it enhances the bottom line.

Yeh, but I guess under our Common Law system, it would have probably been a surprise if it had gone the other way. As you say, the personification of corporations didn't start with this ruling.

[merrylander]

Our common law was pretty much modeled after British Common Law but they do not have lobbyists nor are corporations considered citizens. Once again the Supreme Court has displayed a complete ignorance of English, perhaps if we were to send Roberts, Alito and Scalia a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary they might someday display at least a familiarity with the language, if they cannot acquire a competency.

Repeat after me - corporations and foreign countries are not citizens,

a one hundered dollar bill is not a petition,

redress is a post facto function.

Do you think we could actually get those simple concepts through their thick skulls?

[Fast_Eddie]

Repeat after me - corporations and foreign countries are not citizens,

a one hundered dollar bill is not a petition,

If money is "speech" than speech is not free.

[finnbow]

While I fully understand the consternation and disgust with the Court's ruling, I'm a bit more ambivalent about it. For better or worse, it has long since been decided that "money = speech" in contemporary politics. No matter what is done in the area of campaign finance law, ways to circumvent these laws are discovered before the ink dries on the legislation. Rather than this being the death blow to our country, it seems to me to be a codification of business as usual (i.e., removing well-meaning but ineffective campaign finance restrictions). The Golden Rule still applies.

[merrylander]

While I fully understand the consternation and disgust with the Court's ruling, I'm a bit more ambivalent about it. For better or worse, it has long since been decided that "money = speech" in contemporary politics. No matter what is done in the area of campaign finance law, ways to circumvent these laws are discovered before the ink dries on the legislation. Rather than this being the death blow to our country, it seems to me to be a codification of business as usual (i.e., removing well-meaning but ineffective campaign finance restrictions). The Golden Rule still applies.

Right, them as has the money gets to make the rules.:rolleyes:

Not quite what Rabbi Hillel had in mind.

[Boreas]

For better or worse, it has long since been decided that "money = speech" in contemporary politics.

The camel's nose.

QUOTE]No matter what is done in the area of campaign finance law, ways to circumvent these laws are discovered before the ink dries on the legislation.[/QUOTE]

"What the hell, they were doing it anyway. Might as well make it legal?" Tighter control of corporate influence is preferable to codification of the status quo.

The Golden Rule still applies.

Yes, the other golden rule.

John

[finnbow]

Right, them as has the money gets to make the rules.:rolleyes:

Not quite what Rabbi Hillel had in mind.

I think Hillel's version of the Golden Rule has long since been discarded in modern American politics, or probably never did exist. It probably didn't even exist in the politics of his day 2000 years ago.