Slashdot Mirror

Going further off topic...

Wikipedia:

"Bribery: Bribery is an act of implying money or gift giving that alters the behavior of the recipient."

How is this marked +5 insightful? Wikipedia is blatantly wrong here. If this were a correct definition of bribery, then buying groceries would be bribery.

Bribery is the offering of value in order to persuade someone to do something illegal, or something that is considered should be illegal, or something against a policy such as a workplace policy. Giving a cashier money so you can leave with groceries isn't bribery because no one thinks buying groceries should be illegal. Giving a cop money to get you out of a speeding ticket is bribery, because a police officers job is to give out tickets.

Giving congressmen money in order to vote a certain way might be considered bribery because you can say "well they aren't voting their conscience." But that ignores the fact that people will support congressmen because the congressman voted in a way the contributor agreed with. Example:
Financing a congressman who supports SOPA? People called that bribery.
Financing a congressman who was against SOPA? That was considered respectable.

If you want to start with fixing campaign financing, start here:
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml
Individuals are allowed to give $2,500 per election to a candidate. But they are allowed to give $30,800 to a political party every year. And political parties are allowed to give $5,000 to candidates per election. Political parties have made it illegal for anyone to financially compete with them. You want to give $5,000 to a candidate that you like? Well to hell with you, you have to give it to the Republican Campaign Corporation or the Democratic Campaign Corporation and hope that they give it to who you like.

Lobbyists aren't the problem, they are the solution. I'd rather see a list of which lobbyists support someone on a ballot than simply an R or D after a candidate's name. We have to take away the financial immunity that the major parties have given themselves.

[...] wealthy people setup shell corporations that donate to "Super PACs" in a way that allows the donors to remain anonymous.

I seriously doubt that it's at all common. Billionaires should want to donate in their real name, and brag about how much they've donated to a righteous cause. Anonymous donations are irrational, and would also constitute a free rider problem.

To borrow a popular example... The Koch Brothers are not really all that great as individuals, but they get huge amounts of respect for their philanthropic donations (only about a tenth of which is even remotely related to politics, but among non-socialists they get respect for their politics as well). Hippies who claim they'll boycott Koch Industries usually don't have any money anyway, and they have rather short attention spans. I've been exclusively using Brawny paper-towels for years, precisely because I knew about the Koch Brothers' donations. So, even if more people hate than love them, love is much more significant than hate.

That way billionaires can corrupt politics without the negative publicity that should come with donating millions to a political campaign.

What do you mean "corrupt"? If I am to assume that your statement is more than a pointless truism, then you must have meant that there's more to the (alleged) corruption than the (alleged) anonymity. Do you call all opinions you disagree with "corrupt"? Or does the mere fact that people donate a lot of money in your mind constitute "corruption"?

If, instead of spending so much time writing online rants I had founded a company and made lots of money, would it constitute "corruption" for me to pay someone to write the Slashdot comments I'd want to write for me? Of course not! Focusing on your comparative advantage is a way to maximize your accomplishments - people who are particularly good at making money should make money, and then finance the people who are particularly good at doing the things they want done.

Money donated toward promoting a cause is therefore a form of communication. You can say something through your mouth, you can say something through your computer and an Internet forum, or you can say something by making lots of money and paying others to say it for you. This should most certainly be protected by the Right to Free Speech, and, while you are free to disagree with an opinion, a powerful expression of one's opinion does not constitute "corruption".

People are inherently unequal in their abilities. Some people create ideas that revolutionize the world, while others spend their lives playing video games and producing nothing - c'est la vie. Hollywood celebrities can get a million times more eyeballs for whatever they have to say, and, likewise, some people can create a million times more wealth. Bimbo celebrities don't loose their Right to Free Speech just because they are massively popular, and neither should billionaires just because they can communicate through others on a massive scale.

When ordinary people give to political campaigns, that information is (in theory) available to the public.

All important financial transactions should ideally be transparent. Without the various government-invented "positive rights", like the "right to privacy", that would most likely be the case. Causes that get blobs of unknown funds would be viewed with suspicion, as would rich people who spend their money on something mysterious. Accountability is a virtue that leads to trust, and thus competitive evolutionary processes among both donors and donation-seeking institutions would result in survival of the most transparent.

--libman

Imagine that corporations would send money to politicians, hiding it by claiming "privacy". Obviously, privacy is a right intended for natural persons (some formulations of human rights include a definition of privacy). Corporations do not need a right to privacy*. And it is easily exploited for blatant corruption.

You have it backwards; in the US wealthy people setup shell corporations that donate to "Super PACs" in a way that allows the donors to remain anonymous. That way billionaires can corrupt politics without the negative publicity that should come with donating millions to a political campaign. When ordinary people give to political campaigns, that information is (in theory) available to the public.

There's no contribution limit for corporations contributing to super PACs. For me, it's $5000 per election. How do you explain that?

Anyway, you guys need to come join our wonderful 'write an X on paper' system. We get results the same night, too.

We had mechanical voting booths in the Bronx and NY in general, but then had to change to electronic ones to comply with federal law. (Stupid HAVA.)

Bloomberg called its first use on primary day 2010 a "royal screw-up". I've voted with both old and new machines, and while both seemed to work well, who knows what bits flipped (or were flipped) between feed and count. Personally I think the change was as necessary as the impending invasion of internet TLDs (i.e. not at all).

Although he received 543,895 fewer individual votes than Gore nationwide, Bush won the election, receiving 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266.[82]

82. ^ "2000 Official General Election Presidential Results". Federal Election Commission. December 2001. Retrieved September 1, 2008.

- scraped from Wikipedia

Umm...never mind. Thought I was being all clever and such, but it seems the US already has such limits in place...sort of.

Soo...anyone know why these limits aren't working out? Maybe because there doesn't seem to be an overall cap to contributions, just spending caps on campaigns (I guess anything else is gravy)? Maybe the spending caps are just way too damn high ($84 million per candidate in 2008? seriously?) or not monitored closely enough? IDK.

Gingrich said this in Florida, a few weeks before the Floriday primary. Newt needs a win here to cement his momentum, because if Romney wins it's a serious blow to his candidacy.

Gingrich has at best a 4% chance of winning. 96% of the time the candidate with the most money wins the primary and the election.

As of September of 2011 Romney had raised $30 million and Gingrich $3 million. Assume Gingrich has doubled his take since then and Romney has gained nothing. Romney could match Gingrich dollar for dollar in Florida and in the worst case come out with $24 million in the bank while Gingrich ends up broke. I'm tilting the numbers way beyond reason in Gingrich's favour here and they still don't work for him.

Talking about "momentum" or other such nonsense is as silly as Gingrich promising a base on the Moon. Nothing will give you a deeper insight into the outcome or a higher probability of judging it correctly than a trivial comparison of the dollars each candidate has raised.

Here are the numbers: http://www.fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational.do

Conclusion: Romney will win the Republican nomination unless Gingrich finds a way to improve his fund raising by a factor of ten. That doesn't seem likely even assuming Rick Perry's backing comes with full financial support.

Numerous posters are arguing for term limits, campaign financing regulations, publically-funded elections, restricting lobbying and so on. None of these will succeed in the long run, and only create barriers to entry for well-qualified candidates. Have you seen the current regulations - they are byzantine, a lawyer's dream, and will only get worse. http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf

No, the only way is to remove from government the power to make such regulations in the first place. If they were not able to hand out sweetheart legislation, they would not have dollar bills waved in their faces. Some would argue that this is already in the constitution.

Imagine the government were allowed to billet troops in your house. Imagine the continuous lobbying and legislation that would result, trying to influence who would receive how many soldiers, what the homeowners responsibilities should be? Imagine the government could favor one religion or sect over another, in the form of tax breaks, subsidies and so on. The value of a Congress seat would double. But we (mostly) do not have a problem in this regard, because Congress does not have the power.

It also speaks further about his judgment, when you realize that Newt has spent over 1 million dollars "developing" his personal website, and pays $10,000 a week for it. Who is he hiring to do this stuff? Apparently he hired a Home Remodeling contractor to do most of the work.

No wonder it costs so much and they missed even the most basic steps.

This is all visible and public information on campaign disclosure forms: http://www.fec.gov/disclosurep/PDownload.do?candId=P60003654&electionYr=2012&candNmTitle=Gingrich,%20Newt&downloadComeFrom=pCandDetail&detailComeFrom=pCandList

Can slashdot form a PAC? I'm sure there are 15k people here that care enough about copyright to do something like that, and I'd certainly spend $10 a year to maybe get something accomplished..... rather than just endlessly troll.

Slashdot might be able to sponsor a PAC, or at least allow a PAC to use the Slashdot name. Or you could just start a PAC without any affiliation. The Federal Election Commission has good information regarding connected and nonconnected PACs, including registration toolkits. But, PACs are highly-regulated entities, so expect to spend a lot of time dealing with paperwork in order to stay legally compliant.

If you are serious about starting a PAC, you should try to find a lawyer who is willing to work pro bono to get things started. You can contact professors who teach copyright law. Some of them might be willing to help you or at least refer you to someone willing. At a certain point you'll probably need to use a portion of the PAC's income to hire some professional accounting or legal help. But, when you are just starting, you might find volunteer support is available if you take the time to seek it out.

Despite the other poster's comments, helping to fund political campaigns is not necessarily akin to "bribery." Campaign money cannot be used candidates for their own personal use. Yes, each candidate uses that money to try to get elected. But spending that money improperly (e.g., taking the family on a vacation or paying the mortgage) can land a candidate in serious legal waters.

Political campaigns are expensive. Each Representative and Senator has a constituency in the hundreds of thousands or millions. Candidates face tremendous costs trying to reach out to such a large population. And candidates cannot do it alone. In supporting campaigns, some people volunteer their time (which is worth money) while others provide money (which can be used, among other things, to compensate others for their time). Campaign financing makes it possible for those who are not extravagantly wealthy to accumulate the funds needed to run a meaningful campaign. And PACs make it easier for a large number of people, each providing small donations, to speak with one voice on a issues that they care about.

Can slashdot form a PAC? I'm sure there are 15k people here that care enough about copyright to do something like that, and I'd certainly spend $10 a year to maybe get something accomplished..... rather than just endlessly troll.

Slashdot might be able to sponsor a PAC, or at least allow a PAC to use the Slashdot name. Or you could just start a PAC without any affiliation. The Federal Election Commission has good information regarding connected and nonconnected PACs, including registration toolkits. But, PACs are highly-regulated entities, so expect to spend a lot of time dealing with paperwork in order to stay legally compliant.

If you are serious about starting a PAC, you should try to find a lawyer who is willing to work pro bono to get things started. You can contact professors who teach copyright law. Some of them might be willing to help you or at least refer you to someone willing. At a certain point you'll probably need to use a portion of the PAC's income to hire some professional accounting or legal help. But, when you are just starting, you might find volunteer support is available if you take the time to seek it out.

Despite the other poster's comments, helping to fund political campaigns is not necessarily akin to "bribery." Campaign money cannot be used candidates for their own personal use. Yes, each candidate uses that money to try to get elected. But spending that money improperly (e.g., taking the family on a vacation or paying the mortgage) can land a candidate in serious legal waters.

Political campaigns are expensive. Each Representative and Senator has a constituency in the hundreds of thousands or millions. Candidates face tremendous costs trying to reach out to such a large population. And candidates cannot do it alone. In supporting campaigns, some people volunteer their time (which is worth money) while others provide money (which can be used, among other things, to compensate others for their time). Campaign financing makes it possible for those who are not extravagantly wealthy to accumulate the funds needed to run a meaningful campaign. And PACs make it easier for a large number of people, each providing small donations, to speak with one voice on a issues that they care about.

Can slashdot form a PAC? I'm sure there are 15k people here that care enough about copyright to do something like that, and I'd certainly spend $10 a year to maybe get something accomplished..... rather than just endlessly troll.

Slashdot might be able to sponsor a PAC, or at least allow a PAC to use the Slashdot name. Or you could just start a PAC without any affiliation. The Federal Election Commission has good information regarding connected and nonconnected PACs, including registration toolkits. But, PACs are highly-regulated entities, so expect to spend a lot of time dealing with paperwork in order to stay legally compliant.

If you are serious about starting a PAC, you should try to find a lawyer who is willing to work pro bono to get things started. You can contact professors who teach copyright law. Some of them might be willing to help you or at least refer you to someone willing. At a certain point you'll probably need to use a portion of the PAC's income to hire some professional accounting or legal help. But, when you are just starting, you might find volunteer support is available if you take the time to seek it out.

Despite the other poster's comments, helping to fund political campaigns is not necessarily akin to "bribery." Campaign money cannot be used candidates for their own personal use. Yes, each candidate uses that money to try to get elected. But spending that money improperly (e.g., taking the family on a vacation or paying the mortgage) can land a candidate in serious legal waters.

Political campaigns are expensive. Each Representative and Senator has a constituency in the hundreds of thousands or millions. Candidates face tremendous costs trying to reach out to such a large population. And candidates cannot do it alone. In supporting campaigns, some people volunteer their time (which is worth money) while others provide money (which can be used, among other things, to compensate others for their time). Campaign financing makes it possible for those who are not extravagantly wealthy to accumulate the funds needed to run a meaningful campaign. And PACs make it easier for a large number of people, each providing small donations, to speak with one voice on a issues that they care about.

Can slashdot form a PAC? I'm sure there are 15k people here that care enough about copyright to do something like that, and I'd certainly spend $10 a year to maybe get something accomplished..... rather than just endlessly troll.

Slashdot might be able to sponsor a PAC, or at least allow a PAC to use the Slashdot name. Or you could just start a PAC without any affiliation. The Federal Election Commission has good information regarding connected and nonconnected PACs, including registration toolkits. But, PACs are highly-regulated entities, so expect to spend a lot of time dealing with paperwork in order to stay legally compliant.

If you are serious about starting a PAC, you should try to find a lawyer who is willing to work pro bono to get things started. You can contact professors who teach copyright law. Some of them might be willing to help you or at least refer you to someone willing. At a certain point you'll probably need to use a portion of the PAC's income to hire some professional accounting or legal help. But, when you are just starting, you might find volunteer support is available if you take the time to seek it out.

Despite the other poster's comments, helping to fund political campaigns is not necessarily akin to "bribery." Campaign money cannot be used candidates for their own personal use. Yes, each candidate uses that money to try to get elected. But spending that money improperly (e.g., taking the family on a vacation or paying the mortgage) can land a candidate in serious legal waters.

Political campaigns are expensive. Each Representative and Senator has a constituency in the hundreds of thousands or millions. Candidates face tremendous costs trying to reach out to such a large population. And candidates cannot do it alone. In supporting campaigns, some people volunteer their time (which is worth money) while others provide money (which can be used, among other things, to compensate others for their time). Campaign financing makes it possible for those who are not extravagantly wealthy to accumulate the funds needed to run a meaningful campaign. And PACs make it easier for a large number of people, each providing small donations, to speak with one voice on a issues that they care about.

I don't want my tax dollars being used to support a war I don't agree with.

Neither do I. I opposed the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. I opposed them when Dubya ordered them, I opposed them when his father sent troops to evict Saddam's army from Kuwait, and I opposed Clinton ordering airstrikes in both nations too. Most of all I oppose it when both Reagan and Bush Sr supported Saddam and hated when Bush and Clinton left Afghanistan to fester after the Soviet withdrew.

I don't want them used on entitlement programs that I consider to be straight-up vote-buying. I don't want them used to build a "bridge to nowhere" as part of typical pork-barrel politics. I don't want them used to support drug prohibition or any other victimless-crime enforcement because I oppose those on principle. I don't want them used to perpetually extend copyright. I don't want them used to pay a salary to people who spend even one picosecond looking for a way to censor the Internet.

Obviously you haven't read many of my posts dealing with politics and government. I oppose all these too, so don't say I do. No, for years and years I've posted right here on Slashdot how I hate big government and want the small government the USA Constitution authorizes.

I'd be glad to fund politicians I dislike. This would serve a crucial function. It would mean that other voters can choose to vote for those candidates even if I personally wouldn't. I want them to have that choice and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

Come on, the lack of public funding does not prevent a person from running for office. If it were required no candidate would ever run, no one can simply decide to run and have public funds handed to them.

Right now it's a contest of who can raise the most money and if you don't believe that, do the research yourself. Organizations (incl. corporations) wouldn't be able to support candidates for the same good reasons that organizations don't get to vote -- they're not human beings.

I suggest you do your own research, the candidate with the most money does not always win. This tyme Obama, who had the most money, did win. And where did the money come from? Millions of voters.

And just like so many other imbeciles you concluded, without asking me or reading what I said elsewhere, that I support corporate donations to candidates or supporting one side of an issue or another. Nowhere did I say I did, but I have repeatedly said a corporation is not a person and does not have the same rights.

Now if you want an intelligent conversation we can have one, but do not make things up about me.

Falcon

Vote 3rd party.
Send the message that the status quo isnt going to cut it.

Spread the message. You only have 98.58% of the voters to convince...

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

the results of the 2000 elections were decided by a razor slim margin. meaning those who chose not to vote had a real effect: they helped bush win

and if you say "politicians are all the same": tell me with a straight face gore would have invaded iraq

those who don't care, or don't want to be involved, are just as guilty as everyone else for the sorry state of the world, if not more so

I voted for Obama based on my belief that he would make better decisions than McCain. We tend to forget that the election was not a yea or nay vote for Obama. It was a contest between two contenders.

No, it was a contest among 24 contenders, but thanks to people like yourself it turned into a contest between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

(And more importantly who are the idiots who vote for them?!?!)

According to this report 98.58% of the US voters, who obediently keep voting for either Kang or Kodos.

To the best of my knowledge newspapers in the United States are not regulated in the manner that you claim. Nor should they be if the 1st amendment is to mean anything.

Here's one. There are others. Education is an attitude, not a document.

No, I've made my bed on the side that says Government has no business regulating the manner or content of speech.

Speech is already regulated. You're again confusing commercial with political speech. And even political speech is not fully protected. If you don't believe me, post a blog article that you think that Obama should be killed at his next public appearance. If you don't get your terminology straight, you have no chance of making a reasonable argument.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the majority from stripping those rights away from the minority.

Nonsense and day-dreaming. Jim Crow laws were acceptable to the majority while they were in force. Slave ownership used to be acceptable. These things were acceptable because the majority - both numerical and of political, economical and legislative power - believed them to be acceptable. Any sufficient majority can strip the constitution of any protection it currently offers, and can even completely remove the constitution. You clearly have no historical perspective. What's more, your lack of historical perspective blinds you to the changes that are possible.

Quote from from the fec.gov. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml#PAC_Contributions

PAC Contributions for Federal Activity

A domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation may not establish a federal political action committee (PAC) to make federal contributions if:

      1. The foreign parent corporation finances the PAC's establishment, administration, or solicitation costs; or
      2. Individual foreign nationals:
                    * Participate in the operation of the PAC;
                    * Serve as officers of the PAC;
                    * Participated in the selection of persons who operate the PAC; or
                    * Make decisions regarding PAC contributions or expenditure. 11 CFR 110.20(i).
                        (See also AOs 2000-17, 1995-15, 1990-8, 1989-29, and 1989-20.)

and

Soliciting, Accepting, or Receiving Contributions and Donations from Foreign Nationals

As noted earlier, the Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals. In this context, "knowingly" means that a person:

        * Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national;
        * Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are likely to be from a foreign national;
        * Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national.
            11 CFR 110.20(a)(4)(i), (ii) and (iii).

Pertinent facts that may lead to inquiry by the recipient include, but are not limited to the following: A donor or contributor uses a foreign passport, provides a foreign address,

makes a contribution from a foreign bank, or resides abroad. Obtaining a copy of a current and valid U.S. passport would satisfy the duty to inquire whether the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national. 11 CFR 110.20(a)(7).

The US has limits on individual donations as well. $2400. And corporations are prohibited from donating anything. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml Perhaps Canada isn't all that much better than the USA after all...

You haven't paid attention to the small print in the bottom of most of the election ads have you?

I lived in Florida during the 2008 election. For your information, I have seen more of that small print than I ever cared to. Don't assume the person you are talking to is uninformed unless they have demonstrated their ignorance.

Guess what they have now a days? WEBSITES!

A PAC is not some informal group of politically minded people, it is a legal entity that accepts donations for political purposes, which may or may not have a website. The fact this was a website is only relevant insofar as the vehicle for the message, as well as for receiving donations. If they had printed flyers with the same content the PAC would still be in violation.

If you notice, as long as its not a Leadership PAC, and they aren't funding one of their own for election, what they're doing is NOT against FEC regulations.

If you are reading Wikipedia for your information on this matter you may be slightly over your head. The documentation from the FEC is fairly clear. When you register a PAC you have to declare some basic information, such as if you are only supporting or opposing a single candidate, multiple candidates, if they are affiliated with some other group, etc. When "Mycongressmanisnuts.com" registered as a PAC, they reported the purpose of the committee was to "supports/opposes more than one Federal candidate". Emphasis mine. Thus far the only action the committee has taken is to attack Grayson, which by itself is fine by me (the guy is an idiot). They should have checked the box marked "This committee supports/opposes only one candidate" as that is how they have operated.

Keep in mind we have these rules to help shut down dishonesty like the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth".

Also: Thank you for raising your point in a way that doesn't make you seem like a jackass, like the previous replier did.

There is enough idiocy out there already. (Just look at what we're discussing here)

You can read the Statement of Organization on the FEC's website. Note that Grayson has accused Mycongressmanisnuts.com of checking box f instead of box c, thus misrepresenting the function of their PAC and violating the law. Additionally Grayson has alleged the PAC is in fact a connected committee due to her status as the former head of the Lake County Republican Party. They will haul you away if you file your taxes improperly, and this isn't any different. The FEC even gives you a guide to filling out the paperwork, which believe it or not is actually pretty simple for the relevant form.

The applicable instructions read as follows:

Line 5. Type of CommitteeCheck box (f) if the committee supports or opposes more than one federal candidate. Box (c) applies if the committee supports or opposes only one candidate. (These are the only boxes on Line 5 applicable to nonconnected committees.)

I think the problem they would have here is demonstrating intent. Nevermind the political idiocy of it. I think that filing the complaint was ok, but specifically asking for jail time was a bit much in my opinion.

As explained below, Ms. Langley and the Committee falsely represented to the Federal Election Commission that the Committee "supports or opposes more than one candidate." In fact, however, the committee name corresponds to a website that attacks me and only me, while soliciting contributions to be used against only me. Moreover, Ms. Langley has falsely depicted herself as a constituent, in order to further this scheme.

Although you may claim it's just another stupid technicality that Florida Rep. Alan Grayson clings to in order to shut down a website that is probably too painfully close to the truth for his comfort, there is another complaint other than the use of the word 'my.' Now, if you visit the about us page on the committee in question's site you can find:

Central Floridians formed My Congressman Is Nuts PAC as a response to the outrage and embarrassment within Central Florida over Alan Grayson's liberal positions and childish approach in Washington, D.C. We could no longer sit by and accept his inappropriate behavior and leftist big government agenda. He does not represent the values of Central Florida.

Emphasis mine. Now a key part to the argument is that since it is a PAC with pac registration, it receives taxation status benefits from the government making it subject to the law of United States Code Title 18 Section 1001.

I mean, he might have a case here if that US code applies to PACs. I'm not sure. Were I in his shoes, I would have instead taken the angle of attack related to the title line of the site which is "Alan Grayson is Nuts" and proven that I am not legally insane. Actually, I wouldn't have done anything. As Barbara Streisand might have pointed out that before this news I had never heard of nor visited My Congressman Is Nuts but now I have scanned the entire site out of curiosity.

A quick google reveals:
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml
"The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment."

Imagine how your government would react if it finds that a foreign nation (eg China) has been funding the opposition party.

I think Cuba's reaction is quite normal. Cuba does have human rights violations, but I'm not sure if this is one of them.

"The law also prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, profit or nonprofit."

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/disclosure_data_search.shtml

Have fun.

Oh come on. I'm so sick of that argument. Every vote matters. I'm as fed up with mainstream Democrats and Republicans as anyone, both tend to have major flaws... That said, do you really think that McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are equal? Even if I don't agree with them on many issues, I'll take someone with a constitutional law degree over a senile old man and a far-right nutjob any day.

That said, I've voted for a third party all of my life. I've never lived in a swing state, so my vote won't change the outcome anyway. Does that mean my vote was wasted? Absolutely not! I vote for the third party that is most likely to get 5% of the vote, a requirement in order to receive matching funds during the next cycle (see the Public Funding of Presidential Campaigns Brochure). I recommend that everyone who lives in a solid blue or red state does the same. More voices and more opinions brought to the table will only help us.

Saying that every vote is wasted is absurd. If you don't care to educate yourself on the issues or involve yourself, that's one thing. By all means, stand aside and let those of us who do care take care of things. But if you give a damn, either stand up and be counted or shut the hell up.

(...) irrespective of Bush's theft of two elections.

From my point of view, there could have been a theft of ONE election, not TWO. In any case, he still got a few people to vote for him, hasn't he? (2000, 2004)

Who's to blame, here?

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm

educate yourself, then open your ignorant hole

You already have control over a a small percentage of your (U.S.) tax money! It's the box on your 1040 that asks whether you want $3 to go into the Presidential Campaign Fund. It's not much, but it's a start!

Do you realize that the only reason McCain was on public funding was because he could not cut through the red tape to get out of it?

Here is the letter McCain's campaign sent to the FEC early in 2008 to attempt to withdraw from public funding:
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2008/mccainletter.pdf

Furthermore, it isn't really all that relevant because when people could not donate directly to McCain's campaign, they were still free to donate to the RNC and a variety of other campaign 'support' organizations. RNC donations were 2x or 3x greater than DNC donations.

They were in 2004.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/federalelections2004.pdf

W = Write-In

Florida mattered because of the way that elections are determined in the United States; we have an electoral system for reasons that are somewhat disputed. Electoral votes are not directly related to population of a state, thus a candidate can win the election if he wins enough of the right states even if he does not actually capture a majority of the popular vote. This is what happened in 2000. Gore won the popular vote, but failed to win the majority of the electoral votes. The way that things turned out meant that whoever won Florida, won the election, and the vote was extremely close in Florida. It was close enough that there was not a clear winner, and thus a recount was initiated in accordance with state law.

In accordance with Florida law, this put the deciding vote as to who would determine the Presidency in the hands of one Katherine Harris, who had been appointed to the position of Florida Secretary of State by Jeb Bush, (Florida governor, Bush's brother), and had been appointed George Bush's campaign manager in Florida by George Bush. She was granted fairly broad powers in her role as Secretary of State, which she basically used to rig the election, determining that Bush had won the election. At this point, a lawsuit was filed which reached the Supreme Court in record time. The Supreme Court halted the recount, on the grounds that having a democracy was unfair to G. Bush. You'll note my editorial opinion there, but I am outraged to this day that our President of the last eight years was installed not by vote, but by corruption and judicial fiat. Is it any wonder that the usurper ruled unjustly?

If you want to import data from the *money* in politics, which I generally find more amusing/entertaining check out the Federal Election Commission's FTP site

Citation please.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/10/us/politics/10fannie.graphic.jpg . That's a graphic showing contributions from the officers of Fannie and Freddie.

And then look at this: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html. Read the comments at the bottom. Several people come up with seemingly plausible and vastly conflicting numbers, using cherry-picked data from the source: http://www.fec.gov/disclosure.shtml.

This from politico is ubiquitous: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11781.html. From July.

International Herald Tribune: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/10/america/lobby.php. Note that several top members of McCain's team were actually real-life lobbyists for Fannie Mae (they've all since found Jesus, of course).

Even after all that, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

[...] or whatever they are called [...]

Indeed. You should read about them. It sounds like you aren't even sure about what they are.

You probably need to know this, too:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateralized_debt_obligation
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

Your credulity is being cynically taken advantage of. Either that, or you're racking up your McCain points.

Actually you have to be over 35 to hold the office of President, not to run for the office. Anyone can file the paper work and run for office.

The Statement of Candidacy is a very simple form with a minimal amount of information on it:
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm2.pdf
The directions provided the guidance you'd expect for such a simple form:
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm2i.pdf

There doesn't seem to be anything about not meeting the requirements of actually preventing you from running for office, at least for the House, Senate & for President. The form doesn't ask for age, or even if you're a citizen, just that the information as provided is correct.

Main FEC page with links to all the forms:
http://www.fec.gov/info/forms.shtml

Its a bigger hurdle to get your name printed on the ballot in the state or states, otherwise you're a write-in candidate.

I might have missed something but this seems pretty straight forward, anyone can run, not anyone can actually hold office.

Actually you have to be over 35 to hold the office of President, not to run for the office. Anyone can file the paper work and run for office.

The Statement of Candidacy is a very simple form with a minimal amount of information on it:
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm2.pdf
The directions provided the guidance you'd expect for such a simple form:
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm2i.pdf

There doesn't seem to be anything about not meeting the requirements of actually preventing you from running for office, at least for the House, Senate & for President. The form doesn't ask for age, or even if you're a citizen, just that the information as provided is correct.

Main FEC page with links to all the forms:
http://www.fec.gov/info/forms.shtml

Its a bigger hurdle to get your name printed on the ballot in the state or states, otherwise you're a write-in candidate.

I might have missed something but this seems pretty straight forward, anyone can run, not anyone can actually hold office.

Actually you have to be over 35 to hold the office of President, not to run for the office. Anyone can file the paper work and run for office.

The Statement of Candidacy is a very simple form with a minimal amount of information on it:
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm2.pdf
The directions provided the guidance you'd expect for such a simple form:
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm2i.pdf

There doesn't seem to be anything about not meeting the requirements of actually preventing you from running for office, at least for the House, Senate & for President. The form doesn't ask for age, or even if you're a citizen, just that the information as provided is correct.

Main FEC page with links to all the forms:
http://www.fec.gov/info/forms.shtml

Its a bigger hurdle to get your name printed on the ballot in the state or states, otherwise you're a write-in candidate.

I might have missed something but this seems pretty straight forward, anyone can run, not anyone can actually hold office.

If the services is offered by someone other then the individual offering the service like a company or organization (PAC), it is considered a contribution based on the normal value that the same services would be change in the course of normal business (even if it is a user group offering a members service and not the member himself).

Only an "individual" can volunteer their "own" services, time, or property and in some cases food without it counting as a donation. A concerted effort would most likely fall under some umbrella like a PAC or something that should cause the the effort to count as a contribution. There are some exemptions for parties and state or local parties too along with some flyers and button exemptions.

You also can't technically ask for volunteers. The volunteers would have to step up themselves. You could organize them once they did, and there is a fine line about not asking too. Obama's camp is looking to hire someone to manage their website (and security because of a "bogus hack" if we are to believe the summery). If someone was to offer their services, they could probably get away with it as a volunteer. But if they advertised we need someone to volunteer for this, it would count as a contribution.

The laws are sort of complex and spread around but the federal elections commission has put together a comprehensive collection of them. Most of the laws that effect volunteers are spelled out in the definitions of the laws in where the law say what needs to be reported and volunteer activities are specifically exempted. However they are exempted in different ways for specific parts of specific laws and not in others which means that a blanket statement is difficult to make about all situations. There are also laws that only count if the candidate is planning on limiting their spending to receive Government matching money or not.

The reason for that box was actually an attempt to lessen the influence of money in the political process. How it is supposed to work is the FEC determines who are "serious" candidates and then distribute the money evenly amongst them. It is fairly tipped and a damn shame though as it strongly favors Republicans and Democrats over third parties.

More info here at the FEC website.

You have a two party system because the system is built in a way to favor a two party system, smaller parties have huge barriers of entry and they cannot gain traction.

No, actually, it's really not inherently set up that way. Read this info about how loosely-organized parties are.

1. seek nomination by a political party to the office of President.
2. establish eligibility by showing broad-based public support.
3. raise in excess of $5,000 in each of at least 20 states (i.e., over $100,000). Although an individual may contribute up to $2,300 to a primary candidate, only a maximum of $250 per individual applies toward the $5,000 threshold in each state.

$100 million? You're a little off.

presidential elections are a state matter

Rove successfully manipulated public opinion, yes, but he did so with innuendo, lies, and manipulation.

As if the other side never does that? Please.

I take offense at wanting to count votes that blatantly violate election law.

It wasn't "Gore's team", it was "one person on Gore's team".

"Check the facts, do the math"

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presge.htm

CA, FL, NY add up to about 24 Million of the 100+ million votes. Bring it on!

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)

Your facts are wrong.

Funding:

http://www.debates.org/pages/natspons.html
http://www.fec.gov/info/checkoff.htm#anchor1394115

Broadcast rights:

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6179153.html

The company is concerned that this relatively small and marginally profitable unit is hurting the company's overall image.

"The company has already achieved its goals of delivering Ohio to the Republican Party as their founder promised, and no longer needs to be involved in electronic voting."

There, fixed that for you.

It of course is a reasonable reason given; it's definitely made me very aware that every time I use an ATM with the Diebold logo, I'm using a probably-insecure device. That's why the reason is so plausible.

I did find portions of the article interesting, such as this bit:

But in an annual report filed last week with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Diebold's discussion of its election systems business pointed out various ongoing concerns. Diebold acknowledged that complaints about its voting products and services have hurt relations with government election officials.

Diebold indicated it still is "vulnerable to these types of challenges because the electronic elections systems industry is emerging." The report also mentioned inconsistency in the way state and local governments are adapting to federal requirements for upgrades in voting technology.

This is probably true. If electronic voting had been in place for decades, perhaps no one would have even noticed that this horribly insecure-by-design system was so full of holes. So while Diebold complains about how unfair the system is, they highlight an area of concern - complacency.

Also interesting is this tidbit which I somehow missed at the beginning of this particular storm:

Voting machine makers such as Diebold; Election Systems & Software, of Omaha, Neb.; Sequoia Voting Systems, of Oakland, Calif., and Hart InterCivic, of Austin, Texas have had the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 as a sales catalyst. HAVA, with $3.9 billion of funding, urged the nation to move past punch card voting and hanging chads that delayed the conclusion of the 2000 presidential election.

Here is the Help America Vote Act (or at least a link to a federal page about the same.)