The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Elected officials owned by the Koch Bros.

I was talking about the article writers not the subjects. Naturally you have only bad things to say about those you oppose but nothing to say about those you support even when they do what you oppose.The quote you highlighted has nothing to do with the Kochs unless you also have the same to say about unions.

My stance on unions is following:

I do not support public sector unions. They should not exist since it is conflict of interest.

I support private sector unions, and see them as a necessary evil.

On political contributions:

I do not support any kind of organizational political contributions - be it from unions, corporations, trade organizations or whathaveyou.

I support full disclosure and personal limits to all political contributions. I also support per-voter public subsidies to political parties.

I view SuperPACs, no-profits that hide contributor lists, and any kind of 'dark money' as affront to democracy. These people belong in jail.

Well we agree on most.
Only thing we disagree on is I don't think its anyones business who gives to who.
If its going to be a tax break then it should be know but the idea that you think you need to know who gave who money makes you Big Brother.

What is this "I also support per-voter public subsidies to political parties." not sure what this means.

I wont ever agree with public political subsidies. I understand the thinking behind it, but to me it just looks like status quo reinforcement.

Once pols can start directly voting themselves bigger campaign warchests, and their cronies bigger campaign consulting paydays dont expect it to end well.

Every time you vote, party you vote for gets small, like 1$, public contribution. It is like reverse poll tax. The idea behind it twofold - not only all votes start matter, and not only ones in tie-breaking states; and votes outside of mainstream parties no longer simply protest votes.

You need to know is to keep money from buying disproportionate influence. If you can only donate, say up to $10,000 per candidate, then you can't buy legislation no matter your net worth. At the very least, it informs other voters of your conflicts of interest.

The alternative, of whoring themselves out to outside interests and lobbyists, leads to much less desirable outcomes.

Good example is Bloomberg - true independent politician. You might disagree with his politics, but you can't claim that it was tainted by the outside money. People voted for him, and for what he stood for, not for what his donors stood for.

Huh. Wait. I think you are confused. Very, very confused.

Going to see if you accidentally used wrong name before I comment. I cannot possibly believe you are talking about Bloomberg.

Mayor of New York. You might dislike his politics, you certainly should dislike his third term, but you have to appreciate his independence. Whatever he has done, you could be sure this was not because of campaign debts to lobbyists.

When talking about a billionaire there is more to money-interest than campaign debt.

I have a hard time thinking turning Manhattan into a panopticon police state, empowering the financial corp private militias despite his anti-gun stance, and working with the CIA to turn NYC police and surveillance forces into a veritable enforcement arm of said private corporate powers had nothing to do with his financial and business ties to said Wall St powers.

I also heard he stopped beating his wife.