RNC, still owned by Wall Street...

[DKW 86 7,932]

I HATE Wells Fargo. Dirtiest bank in America. TD Bank is just as bad. If you support trump, you are the problem...

 

[AuburnNTexas 7,350]

Both sides of the aisle are owned by big money corporations. Both sides get huge amounts of PAC money from the type PAC that does not need to list who or how much money they received. I am not 100% sure I agree with the Supreme Court decision years ago that limiting campaign donations is the equivalent of limiting free speech.  What I would like to see is all Groups who spend money towards helping somebody get elected has to provide a list of all donors and if over some set amount how much was donated.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

26 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Both sides of the aisle are owned by big money corporations. Both sides get huge amounts of PAC money from the type PAC that does not need to list who or how much money they received. I am not 100% sure I agree with the Supreme Court decision years ago that limiting campaign donations is the equivalent of limiting free speech.  What I would like to see is all Groups who spend money towards helping somebody get elected has to provide a list of all donors and if over some set amount how much was donated.

Equating money to speech is a ridiculous notion.  Money is power. 

Changing a system that was created as one man/one vote.  Undermining that system with money does nothing other than further the idea that those who own the country should be the ones to run the country.

And yes, to be fair, Wall Street originated the idea of supporting both parties, always favoring the party in power.  They began in the late 40s.

[AuburnNTexas 7,350]

9 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Equating money to speech is a ridiculous notion.  Money is power. 

Changing a system that was created as one man/one vote.  Undermining that system with money does nothing other than further the idea that those who own the country should be the ones to run the country.

And yes, to be fair, Wall Street originated the idea of supporting both parties, always favoring the party in power.  They began in the late 40s.

We don't often agree but money the way it is used to get people elected is part of the problem. You must be independently wealthy or sale your soul to one group or another to have the money that is needed to get elected. I wish the Supreme court would revisit the campaign donation and  find a way to limit how much money can be donated by an individual or a group.

[aubiefifty 18,398]

49 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Both sides of the aisle are owned by big money corporations. Both sides get huge amounts of PAC money from the type PAC that does not need to list who or how much money they received. I am not 100% sure I agree with the Supreme Court decision years ago that limiting campaign donations is the equivalent of limiting free speech.  What I would like to see is all Groups who spend money towards helping somebody get elected has to provide a list of all donors and if over some set amount how much was donated.

i think with very very few exceptions pols are helped to get elected by how much they can do for the money folks and not the people and i believe it happens on both sides. who gets the most i have no idea.

[AuburnNTexas 7,350]

1 minute ago, aubiefifty said:

i think with very very few exceptions pols are helped to get elected by how much they can do for the money folks and not the people and i believe it happens on both sides. who gets the most i have no idea.

It used to be the Republicans but in the last couple of cycles the Democrats but the amount both got was so huge it didn't really matter who got the most. I agree with you the politicians on both sides are beholden to the people who pay to get them elected.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

18 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

We don't often agree but money the way it is used to get people elected is part of the problem. You must be independently wealthy or sale your soul to one group or another to have the money that is needed to get elected. I wish the Supreme court would revisit the campaign donation and  find a way to limit how much money can be donated by an individual or a group.

I think we agree in principle on many issues.

The force for money in politics, from the Wall St. perspective, has NOTHING to do with the parties, partisan issues.  Money in politics is about the interests of Wall St., the true capitalists and, their belief that they should run this country, they should be the defacto government.  In many ways, they are.  Who else could move congress to hand over trillions without any debate, any strings, any hesitation?

I wish we could put aside all of the partisanship and social issues just long enough to, not even restore, just revive the most important founding principle, a "government of the people".  We must restore the balance between capital and society.