Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

We do acknowledge that as it's part of the process.

The process of what?

Elections.

 whembly wrote:

I would also mandate that any contribution over "x" dollars is publically identified. (Sunshine laws)

Why stop at "X"? Why not publicly identify everyone who makes any sort of monetary, political contribution?

It's a balancing act... sure.

If you want to encourage everyone to participate w/o reprisal, then make it anonymous under "x" amount. But, if the concerns are the big boppers, publicize that individual/group.

 whembly wrote:

Elections.

Indeed, but American conservatives have been electing lots of intractable people in recent years...and subsequently blaming them without any attempt at looking inwards. This is a problem, a problem only the relevant voters can fix.

 whembly wrote:

If you want to encourage everyone to participate w/o reprisal, then make it anonymous under "x" amount. But, if the concerns are the big boppers, publicize that individual/group.

The numerous 501(c)(4)s that were founded in 2012 got rather upset when the IRS investigated them over a similar matter.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Elections.

Indeed, but American conservatives have been electing lots of intractable people in recent years...and subsequently blaming them without any attempt at looking inwards. This is a problem, a problem only the relevant voters can fix.

Still not tracking you.... this is more than just a "conservative" complaint. This complaint is directed towards the Beltway crowd.

 whembly wrote:

If you want to encourage everyone to participate w/o reprisal, then make it anonymous under "x" amount. But, if the concerns are the big boppers, publicize that individual/group.

The numerous 501(c)(4)s that were founded in 2012 got rather upset when the IRS investigated them over a similar matter.

Indeed, because the current laws we're written in mind to protect their anonymity from government abuse.

http://weeklysift.com/2014/08/11/not-a-tea-party-a-confederate-party/

Not a Tea Party, a Confederate Party

Tea Partiers say you don’t understand them because you don’t understand American history. That’s probably true, but not in the way they want you to think.

 whembly wrote:

Still not tracking you.... this is more than just a "conservative" complaint. This complaint is directed towards the Beltway crowd.

You are correct, but American conservatives are presently the best example of the phenomenon that I'm describing; passing blame. You, a stereotypical American conservative, are doing it right now: "It isn't my fault, it is the fault of the Beltway crowd!"

 whembly wrote:

Indeed, because the current laws we're written in mind to protect their anonymity from government abuse.

And yet here you sit, claiming that those laws should be altered in order to reduce the political anonymity of individuals.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Still not tracking you.... this is more than just a "conservative" complaint. This complaint is directed towards the Beltway crowd.

You are correct, but American conservatives are presently the best example of the phenomenon that I'm describing; passing blame. You, a stereotypical American conservative, are doing it right now: "It isn't my fault, it is the fault of the Beltway crowd!"

Um... the only thing anyone can do is vote.

Are you suggesting that there are ways to hold our elected officials accountable beyond the elections?

 whembly wrote:

Indeed, because the current laws we're written in mind to protect their anonymity from government abuse.

And yet here you sit, claiming that those laws should be altered in order to reduce the political anonymity of individuals.

If there's a system in place to ensure that the repeat of the IRS' abuse doesn't repeat... don't we all want to have some sort of sunshine laws?

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Still not tracking you.... this is more than just a "conservative" complaint. This complaint is directed towards the Beltway crowd.

You are correct, but American conservatives are presently the best example of the phenomenon that I'm describing; passing blame. You, a stereotypical American conservative, are doing it right now: "It isn't my fault, it is the fault of the Beltway crowd!"

Um... the only thing anyone can do is vote.

Are you suggesting that there are ways to hold our elected officials accountable beyond the elections?

Too bad we don't have a recall system.

Another idea I've had is to implant all politicians with a small device. When their individual and/or collective approval ratings go down, the device gives them an electric shock. When the ratings go up, the device gives them a, shall we say, "pleasurable" feeling. Make that rating system widely available online and make it realtime. CSPAN's ratings will skyrocket as people all over the world will be tuning in to watch the politicians reduced to a state of incoherent gibberish from all the zaps, or to see the ones that are just sitting there with a goofy look on their faces from the orgasms. And then, if we make CSPAN pay-per-view, we just might pay off the national debt in a few years.

As an added bonus, that device can also double as a pacemaker for all those old guys with bad hearts.

 whembly wrote:
To do we Sebster recommend wouldn't work.

I'd institute a cap of individual AND groups.

That doesn’t work. If you cap company contributions at say $3000, for instance, and I really want to give a candidate $500,000, I’d just go to my tax accountant and pick up 167 shelf companies he’s got ready to go. I then put $3,000 in to each of these, and hey presto, my work is done.

Any cap on companies will be sidestepped by just spamming lots of little companies.

The only way to avoid this is to place the cap on something you can’t divide in to smaller and smaller pieces – a person.

 sebster wrote:
The only way to avoid this is to place the cap on something you can’t divide in to smaller and smaller pieces – a person.

Well, you can if you have an axe...

 dogma wrote:
Indeed, but American conservatives have been electing lots of intractable people in recent years...and subsequently blaming them without any attempt at looking inwards. This is a problem, a problem only the relevant voters can fix.

Conservatives often seem to be frustrated that nothing gets done, and see any suggestion of dealing with Democrats as ‘giving in’.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The only way to avoid this is to place the cap on something you can’t divide in to smaller and smaller pieces – a person.

Well, you can if you have an axe...

The defendant proclaimed his innocence, stating that he personally had only given $3,000 to the election fund. His dismembered foot had given another $3,000, with the final $3,000 paid by his left ear, which had subsequently been re-attached.

 whembly wrote:

Um... the only thing anyone can do is vote.

I thought they could also spend money and appear in various forms of media.

 sebster wrote:

Any cap on companies will be sidestepped by just spamming lots of little companies.

Or opening a series of 501(c)(4)s and getting very upset when you're called on what you're doing.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Um... the only thing anyone can do is vote.

I thought they could also spend money and appear in various forms of media.

Like Trump?

Here's an amusing little story about that time Carly Fiorina made a deal with Steve Jobs.

 Ouze wrote:
Here's an amusing little story about that time Carly Fiorina made a deal with Steve Jobs.

Pretty good find... didn't know that.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Like Trump?

Like any person concerned with American politics.

Yeah, but let's face it, the more money you have, the more you can do in politics...like Trump.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Yeah, but let's face it, the more money you have, the more you can do in politics...like Trump.

Hence my advocacy of sunshine laws...

Or hell, was it you or d-usa saying that we should have congress-critters wear Nascar styled jackets?

Someone else thought of the NASCAR suit first, but I did submit it as a survey question to isidewith.com.

 whembly wrote:

Hence my advocacy of sunshine laws...

And yet you, seemingly, have no interest in NPO tax code reform.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Hence my advocacy of sunshine laws...

And yet you, seemingly, have no interest in NPO tax code reform.

Doggie... that is my interest.

Do you thing the 501(c)(3) Organizations are part of the problem?

If so... how would you either shield or mitigate possible abuse?

 whembly wrote:

Do you thing the 501(c)(3) Organizations are part of the problem?

501(c)(3)s are not allowed to engage in political activity. The extent to which they are a problem is a matter of the IRS not enforcing the law.

Unfortunately the IRS tried to enforce the law regarding 501(c)(4)s, and many people got upset. So it seems a lot of people don't want the IRS to enforce the law.

 dogma wrote:

Unfortunately the IRS tried to enforce the law regarding 501(c)(4)s, and many people got upset. So it seems a lot of people don't want the IRS to enforce the law.

You mean, when Loris Lerner's IRS dept was only "enforcing" the laws on Conservative/Tea Party 501(c)(4)s...

The issue wasn't the fact the IRS was enforcing the laws, the issue was that the IRS only targeted one political group.

But, you knew that and by omission I can assume you're okay with it.

 whembly wrote:

The issue wasn't the fact the IRS was enforcing the laws, the issue was that the IRS only targeted one political group.

No, that is what a select group of people decided was the issue. That group of people was wrong. It was shown to be wrong by many people, and yet it refused to admit to being wrong.

Why is that?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The issue wasn't the fact the IRS was enforcing the laws, the issue was that the IRS only targeted one political group.

No, that is what a select group of people decided was the issue. That group of people was wrong. It was shown to be wrong by many people, and yet it refused to admit to being wrong.

Why is that?

O.o

Proven wrong? Seriously?

If Lerner wasn't wrong, why is she still pleading the 5th?

 whembly wrote:

If Lerner wasn't wrong, why is she still pleading the 5th?

She is smart.

I would plead the 5th every time I had the opportunity to do so.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If Lerner wasn't wrong, why is she still pleading the 5th?

She is smart.

I would plead the 5th every time I had the opportunity to do so.

Okay... then we're free to infer that she did do something that warrants all this.

 whembly wrote:

Okay... then we're free to infer that she did do something that warrants all this.

Your're free to infer whatever you want, but Pleading the Fifth is not tantamount to admitting to wrongdoing; indeed that is much of the point of it's existence.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Okay... then we're free to infer that she did do something that warrants all this.

Your're free to infer whatever you want, but Pleading the Fifth is not tantamount to admitting to wrongdoing; indeed that is much of the point of it's existence.

It's not an admission... it's also not a denial.

Pleading the 5th makes you as guilty as asking for a warrant before letting someone search your home.

 d-usa wrote:
Pleading the 5th makes you as guilty as asking for a warrant before letting someone search your home.

D... that's not what doggie and I is arguing over...

The court may draw an adverse inference whenever a defendant invokes the 5th... especially during Civil Cases as well.

What muddies this is that this isn't occurring in court, but in a Congressional hearing under oath.