$25,000 a plate fund raising dinner

[Frostbit]

These are fairly common to raise money for political organizations and candidates. Why if someone wants to donate a million dollars to conservation causes to have dinner with the President Elect it's somehow different?

[Djharkavy]

A difference in scale, if nothing else.

To me, both are examples of a major problem in our political system .

Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
All mistakes are caused by the phone.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

[Frostbit]

A difference in scale, if nothing else.

To me, both are examples of a major problem in our political system .

Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
All mistakes are caused by the phone.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

So as long as there's less than 40 people at the $25,000/plate dinner you're fine with it?

How about a fund raiser for Muscular Dystrophy with $XXX amount per plate at the Governor's Mansion. Problem?


Just trying to wrap my head around this. The MSM is obviously checking Trump's toilet paper daily to check for blood they can report but as yet I see no difference in the $1,000,000 one time donation to a great cause happening because someone with a large disposable income wants a selfie with Trump at dinner.

[Djharkavy]

So as long as there's less than 40 people at the $25,000/plate dinner you're fine with it?

How about a fund raiser for Muscular Dystrophy with $XXX amount per plate at the Governor's Mansion. Problem?


Just trying to wrap my head around this. The MSM is obviously checking Trump's toilet paper daily to check for blood they can report but as yet I see no difference in the $1,000,000 one time donation to a great cause happening because someone with a large disposable income wants a selfie with Trump at dinner.

No I'm not.

As I said it's a perfect example of what's wrong with our political system.

Being a constituent doesn't give you access to your politicians. Buying a dinner or winning a bid gets you access to them.

Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
All mistakes are caused by the phone.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

[Frostbit]

No I'm not.

As I said it's a perfect example of what's wrong with our political system.

Being a constituent doesn't give you access to your politicians. Buying a dinner or winning a bid gets you access to them.

Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
All mistakes are caused by the phone.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

Are you a fan of removing all private campaign funding?

[Djharkavy]

Are you a fan of removing all private campaign funding?

My goal would be that only constituents could contribute to a candidate.

I go back and forth about limiting amounts.

Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
All mistakes are caused by the phone.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

[Frostbit]

My goal would be that only constituents could contribute to a candidate.

I go back and forth about limiting amounts.

Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
All mistakes are caused by the phone.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

So any American can contribute to a Presidential campaign?

[Djharkavy]

So any American can contribute to a Presidential campaign?

Any person. Yes.

But not corporations or other organizations.

Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
All mistakes are caused by the phone.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

[phillygirl]

Any person. Yes.

But not corporations or other organizations.

Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
All mistakes are caused by the phone.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

So no unions?

[Djharkavy]

So no unions?

Not if I made the rules.

Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
All mistakes are caused by the phone.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

[Gingersnap]

I understand both the pro and con arguments for various campaign finance strategies. Given the incredible corruption in the system and the ability of large wallets to influence even little local elections (it's happened out here), I'm almost at the point where I want to see set and equal campaign war chests.

Because there is so much huge money thrown around, we've believed that a candidate has to do that to elected but I think that's false. The money itself has created a self-fulling prophecy.

If candidates at every level competed with the same amounts of money we'd see saner pitches and less posturing. There would also be less cash to work specific interest groups. Whoever is elected to any office should expect to represent everybody - not just their interest groups. But doing that means compromising and that means (or should mean) that both pro and con groups lose something.

As it is now, only one side loses the big issues but both sides lose during the sausage-making.

[Frostbit]

I understand both the pro and con arguments for various campaign finance strategies. Given the incredible corruption in the system and the ability of large wallets to influence even little local elections (it's happened out here), I'm almost at the point where I want to see set and equal campaign war chests.

Because there is so much huge money thrown around, we've believed that a candidate has to do that to elected but I think that's false. The money itself has created a self-fulling prophecy.

If candidates at every level competed with the same amounts of money we'd see saner pitches and less posturing. There would also be less cash to work specific interest groups. Whoever is elected to any office should expect to represent everybody - not just their interest groups. But doing that means compromising and that means (or should mean) that both pro and con groups lose something.

As it is now, only one side loses the big issues but both sides lose during the sausage-making.

Yup!! Just not sure how to have e that occur. Would you end up with groups of people forming parties and traveling around the country on the government (our) dime.

[Gingersnap]

Yup!! Just not sure how to have e that occur. Would you end up with groups of people forming parties and traveling around the country on the government (our) dime.

I'm not sure how it would work. It's difficult to think of something that would also avoid corruption. We Children of Adam are so inventive!

But I'm at least willing to hear some proposals.

[scott]

I understand both the pro and con arguments for various campaign finance strategies. Given the incredible corruption in the system and the ability of large wallets to influence even little local elections (it's happened out here), I'm almost at the point where I want to see set and equal campaign war chests.

Because there is so much huge money thrown around, we've believed that a candidate has to do that to elected but I think that's false. The money itself has created a self-fulling prophecy.

If candidates at every level competed with the same amounts of money we'd see saner pitches and less posturing. There would also be less cash to work specific interest groups. Whoever is elected to any office should expect to represent everybody - not just their interest groups. But doing that means compromising and that means (or should mean) that both pro and con groups lose something.

As it is now, only one side loses the big issues but both sides lose during the sausage-making.

The problem with removing individual donations made freely is that the system to fund campaigns is then controlled by a group that has no option but to be corrupt. If you're a government worker in charge of deciding who gets funding are you going to pick the guy who wants to downsize your department? Before the money is doled out who will have visibility? Those preferred by the mainstream news. So instead of donors picking the contenders by donating to campaigns they will just buy up news organizations. That's no better than what we have now.

[Frostbit]

The problem with removing individual donations made freely is that the system to fund campaigns is then controlled by a group that has no option but to be corrupt. If you're a government worker in charge of deciding who gets funding are you going to pick the guy who wants to downsize your department? Before the money is doled out who will have visibility? Those preferred by the mainstream news. So instead of donors picking the contenders by donating to campaigns they will just buy up news organizations. That's no better than what we have now.

How about the parties have to raise their own money. Donations directly from individuals only with $XXXXX amount individual limit. No Companies, no unions, no special interests and all parties are caped at $XXXXXXX. Just like the NFL salary cap. All money must be used in that calendar year and any money left over goes to the charity of the party's choice.