Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Common Sense Legislation

Common Sense Legislation
Thread Tools
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2004, 11:39 AM
 
I have been thinking about this for a long time. In Congress, a majority of legislation includes "fluff" that is meant to help the bill get passed. For example, a new Iraq war spending bill may also include legislation to help agriculture farmers in some state or tax breaks for some companies. Happens all the time. I think a bill should have to stand ON IT'S OWN. No added fluff, no special interest. This would also solve the problem of the opposing side using your vote against you. It's easy to say X Senator voted against the Iraq spending bill when most people wouldn't realize that the reason it may have been voted against was because of some other piece of legislation that was tacked on (for example). IMO all bills should only need to be a few pages long (plus the legalese).
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2004, 11:59 AM
 
One way to prevent this is to have a line-item veto, so the prez could strip silly junk out of a bill. They passed it in the 90s, Clinton used it, and it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I can understand why it was ruled unconstitutional, but it's too bad.
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2004, 12:24 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
One way to prevent this is to have a line-item veto, so the prez could strip silly junk out of a bill. They passed it in the 90s, Clinton used it, and it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I can understand why it was ruled unconstitutional, but it's too bad.
I think the line-item veto was too dangerous a tool. The President could have easily have abused it (Technically, could he not eliminate every line but the fluff).

No, in order to solve the problem you have to get long before it hits the President's desk. You'd have to impose specific rules as to what could and could not be added to a bill (based on relevancy perhaps...). Unfortunately, such solutions just add another layer of buracracy.
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2004, 12:37 PM
 
There is a simple way to eliminate the fluff:

Convince a majority of Americans to reel in the hand they have out whenever someone runs for office.

OK, maybe it's not that simple to do. We're talking elimination of programs, subsidies, etc.

It's only "fluff" when it's not your pet program. Only when every American is willing to give up the one program they hold dearest will "fluff" be eliminated.

But who has the better chance of being elected/reelected:

The Senator who promises to eliminate wasteful spending, consequently voting against farm subsidies that help his home state

OR

The Senator who sneaks more of those subsidies into a bill and can come home and say "I brought 5 Billion dollars to the state."

Sadly, it's the second. And it's Republicans and Democrats doing it. That is why they are entrenched (it's nearly impossible to defeat a sitting Congressman/Senator.)
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2004, 12:42 PM
 
Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
And it's Republicans and Democrats doing it. That is why they are entrenched (it's nearly impossible to defeat a sitting Congressman/Senator.)
If here's one thing I'd love to see (among some other wild ideas I have) is term limits. There is no reason some one should make a career out of being a politician. And, as I understand it, it was never the intent of our founding fathers for a person to do so.
     
BlackGriffen
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2004, 12:49 PM
 
It would probably take a constitutional amendment, but I'd support such an amendment that any amendment has to have some provable connection to the main bill.

Maybe not. They'd just make the subject of all the bills "regulation of interstate commerce."

It's a tough nut to crack, that's for sure.

BG
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. -Galileo Galilei, physicist and astronomer (1564-1642)
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 10:03 AM
 
When Montana passed term limits it included term limits on our US Rep and Senators. But that was ruled unconstitutional, so it only applies to state legislators.

I'm not a big fan of term limits. They make the parties stronger, and individuals less strong. I'd rather have fair campaigns that make it easier for an incumbent to lose.

Here's what I mean about parties getting stronger. When you can only elect a state Rep three or four times before they are ineligible, that's something like 8 years. The effect is people start voting more for party than person.

I know this from experience. My father was term-limited from serving any more in the Legislature. And being one of the more "liberal" Republicans, the party hasn't really support him all that well in some of his more resent races.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 10:49 AM
 
Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
When Montana passed term limits it included term limits on our US Rep and Senators. But that was ruled unconstitutional, so it only applies to state legislators.

I'm not a big fan of term limits. They make the parties stronger, and individuals less strong. I'd rather have fair campaigns that make it easier for an incumbent to lose.

Here's what I mean about parties getting stronger. When you can only elect a state Rep three or four times before they are ineligible, that's something like 8 years. The effect is people start voting more for party than person.

I know this from experience. My father was term-limited from serving any more in the Legislature. And being one of the more "liberal" Republicans, the party hasn't really support him all that well in some of his more resent races.
You have a good point. Term limits are just attacking the problem after its occurred (that is people are elected continuously). The question is what steps are better? Limiting fund used during campaigning? Limiting donations? Banning certains types of ads?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 11:01 AM
 
Originally posted by Dakar:
You have a good point. Term limits are just attacking the problem after its occurred (that is people are elected continuously). The question is what steps are better? Limiting fund used during campaigning? Limiting donations? Banning certains types of ads?
We could stop corporate and union donations to campaigns, as well as limit the amounts that corporations and unions can donate to special campaigning groups (moveon, swiftvets, etc.).
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 11:09 AM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
We could stop corporate and union donations to campaigns, as well as limit the amounts that corporations and unions can donate to special campaigning groups (moveon, swiftvets, etc.).
It's certainly a start. It'd probably be best to take money out of it completely, if that were possible.

Does anyone how often the candidate who raises the most money wins?
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 11:43 AM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
One way to prevent this is to have a line-item veto, so the prez could strip silly junk out of a bill. They passed it in the 90s, Clinton used it, and it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I can understand why it was ruled unconstitutional, but it's too bad.
The problem with a line-item veto is that it is far too easily abused, and there is no good way to check its power. If these issues could be ironed out, then I wouldn't see any problem with it.

The concept of a line-item veto isn't a new thing by any stretch of the imagination. When the South seceded to form the Confederacy, its constitution included a line-item veto for its President. The issue was hotly debated even then. However, no one has come up with a way to put adequate safeguards on such a power, which is why I can't in good conscience support the concept.

Mind you, I'm not sure I could support it in good conscience anyway. Veto power is an important check against the power of Congress, as I'm sure everyone would agree. If a President vetoes a bill, then Congress must go back and edit the bill, in order to improve it further. A line-item veto would allow the President to edit bills and put them immediately into effect, without approval from any other body. This is clearly not an acceptable situation.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 11:53 AM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
We could stop corporate and union donations to campaigns, as well as limit the amounts that corporations and unions can donate to special campaigning groups (moveon, swiftvets, etc.).
The problem there is that you have to deal with free-speech issues.

The sad fact is that our law treats corporations as persons, which entitles them to the same rights as real people even when those rights do not make sense. Unfortunately, the doctrine of corporate personhood is a legal necessity, brought about by the current definitions in contract law which state that only persons can enter into contracts. So in order to revokr corporate personhood -a thing which should certainly be done- large portions of contract law will have to be rewritten, and this will have to be done very carefully to ensure that no loopholes are opened.

I still believe that this is worth doing. However, it is not as simple as it might first seem.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 03:02 PM
 
Originally posted by Dakar:
You have a good point. Term limits are just attacking the problem after its occurred (that is people are elected continuously). The question is what steps are better? Limiting fund used during campaigning? Limiting donations? Banning certains types of ads?
I'd take the opposite tactic. Remove funding limitations. Completely. Just so long as there are publicly available detailed records of donors.

Instead of limiting someone's free speech (which political donations are), just make sure that someone is accountable to the people for where they get their money.

Take huge donations from known mobsters? Document it and be prepared to defend it.

This puts the responsibility on the candidate for picking and choosing who his donors are, rather than limiting what someone can give to each candidate.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 03:08 PM
 
Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I'd take the opposite tactic. Remove funding limitations. Completely. Just so long as there are publicly available detailed records of donors.

Instead of limiting someone's free speech (which political donations are), just make sure that someone is accountable to the people for where they get their money.

Take huge donations from known mobsters? Document it and be prepared to defend it.

This puts the responsibility on the candidate for picking and choosing who his donors are, rather than limiting what someone can give to each candidate.
The reason I dislike removing fuding limitations is that gives quite a bit of power to those with the money. All of a sudden the candidate backed by x is running 4 times the TV ads attacking his opponent constantly because he's got so many funds.

The last thing politics needs is to see more money come in for media wars.
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 11:55 AM
 
Originally posted by Dakar:
The reason I dislike removing fuding limitations is that gives quite a bit of power to those with the money. All of a sudden the candidate backed by x is running 4 times the TV ads attacking his opponent constantly because he's got so many funds.

The last thing politics needs is to see more money come in for media wars.
I would argue that those with money to spend already have more power the way things are now.

Check George Soros.

At least they'd have to be open and transparent about it - and the candidates would have to answer to the people for who is funding them.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 12:47 PM
 
Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I would argue that those with money to spend already have more power the way things are now.

Check George Soros.

At least they'd have to be open and transparent about it - and the candidates would have to answer to the people for who is funding them.
I'd tend to agree. However, sorporations won't go along with this, because of privacy issues. Once again, corporate personhood gets in the way of justice.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 12:55 PM
 
Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I would argue that those with money to spend already have more power the way things are now.

Check George Soros.

At least they'd have to be open and transparent about it - and the candidates would have to answer to the people for who is funding them.
I admit that my instinct is 1) that the concentration of wealth is a serious problem and 2) that the problem is exacerbated by the influence of money in politics. I also wonder whether transparency is really a cure. Don't we have transparency now?

And it's more ideology than party politics: I believe that money corrupts Democrats just as much as it corrupts Republicans, and I think my Democratic party would be a better party if the influence of money was taken out of the equation.

Having said that, our political/free speech tradition probably prevents any real reform that could truly work, so I basically accept what we have, though I reserve the right to bitch about it when I'm grumpy.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 01:05 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
[B]I admit that my instinct is 1) that the concentration of wealth is a serious problem and 2) that the problem is exacerbated by the influence of money in politics.
I disagree about concentration of wealth being a serious problem. The influence of money in politics, on the other hand, is a serious issue, and although it isn't completely escapable it can and should be minimized.
I also wonder whether transparency is really a cure. Don't we have transparency now?
We're supposed to, given the last round of campaign finance reform, but workarounds have already been found. Among other things, these independent organizations (MoveOn, the Swifties, and so on) have gained prominence in this year's election because they're seen as a way to get around the rules.
And it's more ideology than party politics: I believe that money corrupts Democrats just as much as it corrupts Republicans, and I think my Democratic party would be a better party if the influence of money was taken out of the equation.
It would be nice, but campaigns do need money to run, and that money must come from somewhere. You cannot remove the influence of money from politics without completely doing away with the concept of money in the first place.
Having said that, our political/free speech tradition probably prevents any real reform that could truly work, so I basically accept what we have, though I reserve the right to bitch about it when I'm grumpy.
I don't think it's so much the tradition of free speech; it's really just a matter of the fact that campaigns are run by the lawyers nowadays, and if anyone can find a loophole in a law, lawyers can.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 01:07 PM
 
Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I would argue that those with money to spend already have more power the way things are now.

Check George Soros.

At least they'd have to be open and transparent about it - and the candidates would have to answer to the people for who is funding them.
I have no issue with transperancy, that's a good idea. But the last thing politics needs is more money going into it, legit or not.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:49 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,