Interesting look at Special Interest Influence in WI

[keefe]

http://www.propublica.org/article/in-wisconsin-dark-money-got-a-mining-company-what-it-wanted

[Bocephys]

[brandx]

This is happening not just in Wisconsin. In Richmond, California (a city the size of KENOSHA), Enron has given almost a $1.5 million to one of the candidates for mayor.

Yes, almost $1.5 million to a candidate for mayor of a small town. You think they will expect any special treatment?

Thanks a lot Supreme Court!!

[tower912]

Keefe, I am going to miss you when you are gone again. 

[Benny B]

This is happening not just in Wisconsin. In Richmond, California (a city the size of KENOSHA), Enron has given almost a $1.5 million to one of the candidates for mayor.

Yes, almost $1.5 million to a candidate for mayor of a small town. You think they will expect any special treatment?

Thanks a lot Supreme Court!!

It happens everywhere to elected officials of any affiliation. 

The shocking part is why every registered voter in this country continues to elect scumbag politicians despite it being well-known that this occurs.

[Hards Alumni]

Get the money out of politics.  Only solution.

[keefe]

Keefe, I am going to miss you when you are gone again. 

I try to offer thought-provoking topics for conversation by a sophisticated audience. One would think that a university-based affinity group such as Scoop would welcome intelligent dialogue on contemporary issues by an astute, discerning membership.

The spirit and intent of the prohibition on political discourse here is correctly on partisan matters since it is impossible in this forum to achieve anything close to consensus or agreement. If you will note, my posts are on issues designed to stimulate thought on matters of interest while not personally taking a sectarian or biased position; the issues themselves are hardly red or blue in nature. Special interest funding of politicians is not a partisan issue but, rather, a systemic problem that is contributing to enormously flawed policy.

If I get banned for posting thought provoking articles from such credible and diverse publications as The Atlantic, NYT, WSJ, National Review, Mother Jones, the Guardian, FP, Current, American Spectator, or Utne while others argue about the legitimacy of racist imagery or construct polls that mock and belittle ethnic names then the moderators need to take a hard look at their editorial policy.

Not everything is serious nor should it be. But we as a community are far better than some of the drivel that drives discourse here.

[jesmu84]

Get the money out of politics.  Only solution.

This. But good luck getting those who benefit from the situation to vote against their own benefit.

[rocket surgeon]

i know this will never happen, but i would suggest whoever is running against whoever, a set amount of money for each race should be established.  depending on the scope or the position being sought and it's political ramifications, the amounts would vary proportionately.  for example, u.s. senator would be allowed to obtain and spend more than u.s rep. etc...  that is it!  no more!  cap it!  limit it!  whoever is the most efficient/effective  wins  boom, done.  i know, i can wake up now.  now comes the fun part, how much money do they get?

[GGGG]

Get the money out of politics.  Only solution.

But that's not going to happen.  And to me the biggest problem isn't money, but the lack of transparency behind the money. 

[rocket surgeon]

But that's not going to happen.  And to me the biggest problem isn't money, but the lack of transparency behind the money. 

but when the big guns come out, it's like bribery.  you cannot deny when someone gives another a big wad of cash, they expect to get something back,  I have a toothache?  that would lead me to believe money ranks right up there as a pretty big problem.  so i have to respectfully disagree sultan

[GGGG]

but when the big guns come out, it's like bribery.  you cannot deny when someone gives another a big wad of cash, they expect to get something back,  I have a toothache?  that would lead me to believe money ranks right up there as a pretty big problem.  so i have to respectfully disagree sultan

The money problem is less easily solved than the transparency problem however.

Oh both these problems would be solved by an educated and informed electorate...but that's not happening either.

[rocket surgeon]

The money problem is less easily solved than the transparency problem however.

Oh both these problems would be solved by an educated and informed electorate...but that's not happening either.

agree 110%!!  and a fair, well balanced, NON-partisan media and that ain't gonna happen either.  whenever you involve human beings, the human part get's in the way  people don't pay attention today.  when you have people running around and they know who snoop-dog is but not who some of our most influential political big dogs are-houston, we've got problems

[keefe]

The issue brought out in the article is not that money is used to state a position, which is a constructive and essential element of the political discourse. Nor is it really the amount of capital employed. Rather, it is the fact that cash is used to advance destructive criticism of the opposition - especially those who dare represent the wishes of their constituency or even merely their own personal convictions.

When did we ever become so vulgar in our dialogue that evisceration of another person's name, character, integrity, or honor became acceptable practice?

I am reminded of how Adams and Jefferson, despite profoundly different views on the nature of governance, were able to respect the inherent dignity of the other's intellect. I recall Cokie Roberts' eulogy for Betty Ford where she noted how her father and Jerry Ford, as the leaders for the two sides of the House, would have dinner together at Martin's in Georgetown and figure out the legislative solution that was best for the nation.

The idea of a collaborative political process is now such a remote concept and we as a people are short changed for the fatuity of what passes for politics.

 

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Plenty of money passed out to both sides. Latest figures I have seen show that the big banks are almost 50-50 on which party gets the largess. What disgusts me about politics are the  efforts at personal destruction and the lack of real information on candidates and their views.

[brandx]

The issue brought out in the article is not that money is used to state a position, which is a constructive and essential element of the political discourse. Nor is it really the amount of capital employed. Rather, it is the fact that cash is used to advance destructive criticism of the opposition - especially those who dare represent the wishes of their constituency or even merely their own personal convictions.

When did we ever become so vulgar in our dialogue that evisceration of another person's name, character, integrity, or honor became acceptable practice?

I am reminded of how Adams and Jefferson, despite profoundly different views on the nature of governance, were able to respect the inherent dignity of the other's intellect. I recall Cokie Roberts' eulogy for Betty Ford where she noted how her father and Jerry Ford, as the leaders for the two sides of the House, would have dinner together at Martin's in Georgetown and figure out the legislative solution that was best for the nation.

The idea of a collaborative political process is now such a remote concept and we as a people are short changed for the fatuity of what passes for politics.

 

Probably the late 1700's. At least newspaper items from that period seem to indicate such.

You gave a perfect example. Adams and Jefferson were able to do it because they were men of integrity. We don't see that so much anymore. And, unfortunately, I think modern technology only acerbates the problem.

[rocky_warrior]

If you will note, my posts are on issues designed to stimulate thought on matters of interest while not personally taking a sectarian or biased position

Maybe you won't stray across the line, but if we let your topics go, then someone will.  And then someone else will complain that we don't let them post political topics.

If I get banned for posting thought provoking articles from such credible and diverse publications as The Atlantic, NYT, WSJ, National Review, Mother Jones, the Guardian, FP, Current, American Spectator, or Utne while others argue about the legitimacy of racist imagery or construct polls that mock and belittle ethnic names then the moderators need to take a hard look at their editorial policy.

I took a hard look.  I have no problem with the policy.

Not everything is serious nor should it be. But we as a community are far better than some of the drivel that drives discourse here.

If you're going to stick to this, I expect better out of you on the rest of your posts.  I remember this guy that repeatedly posted pictures of poo.  I think you know him.

I'm also curious why you've signed up for about 100 different usernames?  Just for good natured fun?

No politics.  Last warning.  AGAIN!