What would our country be like if politicians.......

[dgskydive 0]

Were not allowed to take money from corporations? If they had to give up all rights to any private businesses that they may have?

Would we have anyone that would actually want to serve the country for the sake of serving the country?

i bet we would be better off as a country.

Dom

[wmw999 2,588]

Quote

Were not allowed to take money from corporations? If they had to give up all rights to any private businesses that they may have?

I think the two are separate discussions.

Taking away someone's right to a business would discourage them from serving for a period and then going back to private life -- you just took the private life away, after all. That does set up conflict of interest issues, but there has to be a happy medium somewhere.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 226]

Agreed, the pool to draw a candidate from would diminish to near nothing.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

Taking away someone's right to a business would discourage them from serving for a period and then going back to private life

That is kinda the point though. They would be making a choice to either serve the country or be a business owner. I would rather have a guy that would give up that right and truly get rid of any conflict that he may have. At least then maybe we could trust that person.

I also don't think that industry should be able to lobby our government. Industries are not citizens and should have no say in our Govt. We are supposed to be "By the People and For the People"

Dom

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Agreed, the pool to draw a candidate from would diminish to near nothing.

Well, that near-nothing would logically be made up only of the ultra-rich who have enough of their own money to finance their campaigns. (That would be especially the case if nobody was allowed to even borrow campaign finance money.)

It is true that, above the local level, most politicians are essentially bought and paid-for. But at least until they are, they bring with them whatever background, upbringing and life experience they have. At least with corporate contributions, our politicians will reflect a representative cross-section of society. Without corporate contributions, politics will reflect only the ultra-rich. Sure, a few of them may be self-made people from humble beginnings, but most of them will be Rockefellers. Do we really want that?

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

Agreed, the pool to draw a candidate from would diminish to near nothing

Because the big pool we have know is doing us so proud? I am talking both sides here.

What did Albert say about insanity? Seems like we just do the same thing over and over again. Expecting different results. When the truth of the matter is things just keep getting worse. No matter which party is in charge.

Politics have degraded so much over the last few years that nothing actually seems to be getting done anymore. Other then name calling and finger pointing.

Dom

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I also don't think that industry should be able to lobby our government. Industries are not citizens and should have no say in our Govt. We are supposed to be "By the People and For the People"

I agree. Unfortunately, a majority of the SCOTUS, with whom I disagree, ruled to the contrary just a couple of months ago.

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

Without corporate contributions, politics will reflect only the ultra-rich.

Only the ultra rich run the country know. Ok we could argue over what is rich and what is Ultra rich, but you get the point.

Name me one guy sitting in any seat of real power that is not rich. Ultra of otherwise. Just because a person is a good lawyer or business person, doesn't meant that they are going to make good decision for you and me. Most rich people I have met are only looking out for themselves in the long run. Hell that is how they got rich in the first place. Well maybe not all but the majority.

Dom

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

I also don't think that industry should be able to lobby our government. Industries are not citizens and should have no say in our Govt. We are supposed to be "By the People and For the People"

I agree. Unfortunately, a majority of the SCOTUS, with whom I disagree, ruled to the contrary just a couple of months ago.

Funny how we didn't get a vote in that huh?

Dom

[Glitch 0]

Hell, why not just impose mandatory drug testing for anyone holding political office, and limiting their compensation package to the 'average of their constituency'?

Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

limiting their compensation package to the 'average of their constituency'?

I dont mind a politician making more money then most. As long as they arent making that money from big corporations. If they are willing to give up a private business to truly serve and look out for the betterment of the our country, then I say pay them well.

Dom

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Without corporate contributions, politics will reflect only the ultra-rich.

Only the ultra rich run the country know.

Oh, I'll be the first person to agree with you on that: the ultra-rich rule the country, and one of the tools through which they do so is by buying and paying for politicians to front for them.

Still, many top politicians started with very humble beginnings: Lincoln, Eisenhower, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Clinton, Obama. That's still a plus, FWIW.

[dgskydive 0]

I wonder though. Would lets say, the last 5 on your list, have run if they knew that they wouldn't be getting money from any other source then a Govt. pay chec until after they were out of office?

I bet everyone on that list would say yes, but would they really?

Dom

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I wonder though. Would lets say, the last 5 on your list, have run if they knew that they wouldn't be getting money from any other source then a Govt. pay chec until after they were out of office?

I bet everyone on that list would say yes, but would they really?

Hard to say. Carter, for one example, put all his assets into a blind trust (one managed by others without his or his family's participation or even contemporaneous knowledge) while he was President. It was very poorly managed; and when he and his wife returned to private life, they found out that they had been practically wiped out financially over the preceding 4 years.

[wayneflorida 0]

Quote

Agreed, the pool to draw a candidate from would diminish to near nothing.

And, if lawyers were banned
Are lawyers an industry/business pertaining to this discussion??

[wmw999 2,588]

Quote

Carter, for one example

Unfortunately, Carter is probably a pretty good example of why intelligent selfless people don't get involved in politics as a public service thing.

Not that he was a brilliant president, but he was a proven leader, provably intelligent, a good business man, and widely recognized as a principled, honest and honorable man.

Now -- who wants him as President again? I think we could do, and have done, worse. But working the system is part of being a politician, and he just didn't do that, and it made him both ineffective and sometimes unresponsive.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,116]

>They would be making a choice to either serve the country or be a business owner.

You'd also get politicians whose primary qualification is that they are unable to run a business, due to lack of intelligence, drive, organization etc. That would not be ideal IMO.

The original intent of the US Government was that it be run by people with lives and jobs; they would take a few years out from their jobs, serve the govenment, then return to the 'real world.' The change to career politicians was perhaps inevitable, but was not a good thing overall (IMO.) When we did that we lost some of the connection between everyday life and government.

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

Hard to say. Carter, for one example, put all his assets into a blind trust (one managed by others without his or his family's participation or even contemporaneous knowledge) while he was President. It was very poorly managed; and when he and his wife returned to private life, they found out that they had been practically wiped out financially over the preceding 4 years.

Didnt know all that about Carter. Shoulda picked better people to run his trust. FOr the record, in my original post, I never said give up all rights to what ever money they may have when they take office. Just dont think they should be running corporations and letting that interfere with the good of the people.

Dom

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

You'd also get politicians whose primary qualification is that they are unable to run a business, due to lack of intelligence, drive, organization etc. That would not be ideal IMO.

Possibility, but what good are the giant brains we have in office doing us know? I guess I am hoping that a different breed of person would step forward.

Quote

The original intent of the US Government was that it be run by people with lives and jobs; they would take a few years out from their jobs, serve the govenment, then return to the 'real world.' The change to career politicians was perhaps inevitable, but was not a good thing overall (IMO.) When we did that we lost some of the connection between everyday life and government.

Agreed.

Dom

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

if lawyers were banned, the pool to draw a candidate from would be nothing.

All non-lawyers prominent in modern US politics

Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, Hubert Humphrey, Carter, Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Jack Kemp, Al Gore, John McCain, G.H.W. Bush, Jed Bartlett, G.W. Bush, Howard Dean, Ron Paul

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

what good are the giant brains we have in office doing us know? I guess I am hoping that a different breed of person would step forward.

One certainly has:

Look! No giant brain!

[dgskydive 0]

Ok, no brain.

Wrong breed. They must at least be human.

Dom

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Ok, no brain.

Wrong breed. They must at least be human.

Wrong Sex too, right?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[dgskydive 0]

nope. I like women

Your trying hard to get me to be a racist and now a sexist. WOnt work

Dom

[champu 1]

Quote

Were not allowed to take money from corporations? If they had to give up all rights to any private businesses that they may have?

Would we have anyone that would actually want to serve the country for the sake of serving the country?

Even more bizarre thought experiment: Remove all term restrictions on public offices and just shoot everyone who fails to get re-elected in the head.