Politicians overseeing Internet received over $8 million from major cable companies in 2014

[Ron Johnson]

How do we still allow this practice? How does the phrase "Get money out of politics" turn into something people mumble whenever we see stories like this, yet no action ever takes place? We can't continue to function as a society where our politicians spend the vast majority of their time raising money rather than governing.

We've simply institutionalized bribery.

Quite simply, they (that is bureaucracy and we can all point fingers) have made it impossible to cross into the giant chasm. You get two opinions, just like two political parties. You are either 'pro' and you shut up because your representative knows more about than you and does all your talking, or you are a conspiracy nut like that guy in PA and the trolls (ewarriors) will harass you. So, you shut up. A marvelously engineered system where no matter what you do you are either stupid or evil sometimes both. The only answer is to speak your mind honestly, respectfully, but still consistently. A part of being a real American. That is of course, until you have to sign into another forum. And another, and another, because you aren't allowed to speak your mind without approval. hehehee

 

[Guest]

Vote for a independent.

I'll LOL to that. I don't vote for anyone who disagrees with me on important issues, anyone who I don't trust to do what he says he'll do or anyone who I don't trust to always do the exact opposite of what he says he'll do if the exact opposite would be what I would want him to do, anyone who plays politics like a blood sport as though a political party has relevance of some sort which is above and beyond the preservation and advancement of the nation and the society the nation represents, or anyone who (like Darrell Issa) has a fourth rate mind and compounds that by having risen to undeserved heights via a lifetime of corruption and criminal activity. I would vote for Elizabeth Warren but I don't live in Massachusetts, so I'll have to simply use her as an acceptable standard by which to judge less deserving pretenders.

 

[Guest]

Money is becoming the power at the expense of the people, because of the people, but not for the people. It's not hopeless, it is because of use after all. The ignorance of the masses. Even if voting on a ballot has less and less power and meaning for the People everyday there's still one surefire way to vote. One way that holds the very power that is being stripped from us. One way the cannot be denied. They very thing that makes the world go round. Money. Vote with your money. Unfortunately, that means giving up a lot of things we have been conditioned to want. If we can basically stop being spoiled babies for long enough, the government, corporations, everyone has to listen to US the People once again.

Know who and what you pay your money to. Know what intentions will be used with your money.

You can no longer really know anything about corporate intentions as those intentions relate to government action or inaction except in the rare case where a corporate team makes their intentions abundantly clear. We now live in the era of 'dark money' where the prodigious sums of money recorded as having been contributed is currently only about 40% of the total money flowing to political office candidates. In another 2-8 years, nearly all political contributions will be 'dark' and, I have no doubt, politicians everywhere will be telling us all about how great it is that most of the money has been taken out of the political process (and Republicans will fall for that lie hook, line and sinker just as they do for all lies).

 

[Guest]

That's the problem with career politicians. They go into politics to earn money, not to help people. You have a lot less power when your source of income is based in politics. It's sometimes controversial but I would rather have rich guys who already have power in office than a poor man with nothing. That way you know bribes are going to have less sway and they cannot be strong armed.

Even 'rich guys' sell their souls (and yours) to the highest bidders when it comes time to campaign for election. Very few individuals in the U.S. can afford to finance their own political campaigns without giving away more money than they want to lose on a campaign which might possibly be a loser. The ONLY solution to the problem is limiting each and every individual and corporate individual to a small amount of money which they can contribute to political campaigns in any given year...and outlawing the right of any politician to leave office and work for any corporation in any capacity (including, of course, lobbyist) which might influence politicians still in political office.

 

[Guest]

The change needs to be made. Corporations, and groups representing strictly CORPORATE interest have no place in Washington. It isn't about the instrest of the Corporations. This isn't a nation of the Corporations, it is a nation of the People.

Ban them. What's more any politician who takes money from a Corporate sponsor must at a minimum wear that sponsor's corporate label on his jacket in 3.5" print, in a ledgible location. No more hiding in the shadows who your serve, if it isn't your constituency it needs to be public who it is!

Lobbyists should not be banned at all. However, they should not have the power over politicians which comes from giant bags of money. Also, no former politician must EVER be permitted to act as a paid lobbyist for as long as he/she should live.

 

[Guest]

How would you go about selling 300,000,000 million people, one single person to lead them?

If no one (including corporate 'persons') could contribute more than a total of $10 per year to political campaigns, and if only those eligible to vote could contribute anything at all, we would reduce the corruption of the political process by at least 75%, and there would still be plenty of money to spend. In fact, it makes really good sense to reduce the total max contribution per year to $1 per eligible voter and limiting the politician to $1 of his own money.

Politicians managed to reach 10 million people across a thousand miles before there was any sort of timely long distance communication of any kind. In a youtube world, the message can be delivered effectively, and it WOULD be seen and heard if that were the ONLY way for a politician to get his/her message across. Screw the major media...and the minor media, for that matter. Put them all in a pigpen with all of the politicians, if they like, and start recording the video.

 

[Guest]

Interestingly enough the Supreme Court choose to overturn campaign finance laws that have been in existence for nearly 80 years. While it is not unprecedented, those kinds of changes are usually given with a lengthy explanation followed by factual examples. Sadly, the court has become so stacked in favor of political organization and against the everyday man that a fair hearing seems nearly impossible and with the chief justice being so young we will be forced to live under this new age ternary for a long, long time.

Worse than that. They overturned campaign finance law going all the way back to 1904. How far back into time will 'conservatism' take the U.S.? Will it take us back to Dixie? There are those who seem to want to go back to the Articles of Confederation...but that's largely indistinguishable from Dixie. We could go back to Norman Britain. That was a good ol' boy Viking production and, hey, you could still burn witches so what could be better? What the radical rightists (there are no actual 'conservatives' anymore) really want is to drive out all the sane people from the country so that they can run their asylum unchallenged.

 

[captaincranky]

Well Guest, your first post (#56), fails to take into account many believe the internet was a big part of what got Barack Obama elected. The fly in the ointment is, there was also in excess of a billion (*) dollars spent on top of it.

Your 2nd post, (#57), overlooks a part of conservatism that proudly displays bumper stickers saying, "don't breed 'em, if you can't feed em".

I'm conservative to the extent that I believe social entitlements and illegal drug imports, are going to be major factors in America's bankruptcy proceedings. (I don't have a job, so I'll go on social security, and then get hooked on heroine to pass my time. Sounds like a lot of people's plan, eh)?

I enjoyed your idealism and rage though..(y).

(*) Wild guess on my part, or something I seem to remember hearing. Better check those numbers for yourself.

 

[cliffordcooley]

I don't vote for anyone who disagrees with me on important issues, anyone who I don't trust to do what he says he'll do

Your only choice then would be not to vote.

 

[Guest]

It's always good to vote and it's always good to vote out the incumbents. If we have a democrat in the White House the vote republican everywhere else. A divided government works better than a United government. It's a big den of thieves pointed against one another so either party doesn't go too far.

 

[Guest]

In 2008 The majority of donations to both parties were the under $200. in 2012 Both parties benefited from larger donors; otherwise Obama would not have been in San Francisco & LA every other week.

 

[Guest]

All of this whining about politicians, and the corruption of the system, and it will go on until the lights go out in DC. The real issue here is not why Cruz said what he said, but is he right? Treating the internet like another utility is a back door way of allowing the government to regulate the whole thing. To decide who gets domain names, how much they cost, what content they can have. Does that really sound like a good idea?

 

[captaincranky]

All of this whining about politicians, and the corruption of the system, and it will go on until the lights go out in DC. The real issue here is not why Cruz said what he said, but is he right? Treating the internet like another utility is a back door way of allowing the government to regulate the whole thing. To decide who gets domain names, how much they cost, what content they can have. Does that really sound like a good idea?

Telephone service is a "utility", and while the government regulates it, collects taxes on it, I don't see a lot of "Big Brother's presence otherwise.
In fact, what you say, and who you say it to, is a lot safer and private. than running your yap on your cell phone.

On my land line, I have no reservations about telling a "telephone sales representative", to flat out, "go f*** yourself", and in all likelihood, the NSA will never get wind of the sordid mess.

The more dangerous an issue is, the more control the government exerts on it.

Would you like to see commercial air traffic, and some psycho at Amazon' drones flying into one another in an unregulated air traffic environment , with no governmental regulation?

 

[MrFeverhead]

Oddly enough, the utility that is most regulated is also the one that is dying out from lack of innovation. Strange. I wonder if there is some sort of connection.

 

[MrFeverhead]

Here's an idea. Let us consolidate the power to regulate into a huge bureaucratic agency that answers to federal politicians and then stand around in wonderment that the leaders of large organizations of people spend tons of money to influence those politicians.

Wait. Never mind it looks like you've already thought of that.

 

[captaincranky]

Here's an idea. Let us consolidate the power to regulate into a huge bureaucratic agency that answers to federal politicians and then stand around in wonderment that the leaders of large organizations of people spend tons of money to influence those politicians.

Wait. Never mind it looks like you've already thought of that.

Oddly enough, the utility that is most regulated is also the one that is dying out from lack of innovation. Strange. I wonder if there is some sort of connection.

Speaking of "consolidating", try using the edit button to "consolidate your thoughts