How powerful is the NRA politically?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Any person or company with enough "money" has power politically which myself I think is a bad thing.
I think ALL lobbying should be outlawed, zero tolerance.

How is a democracy supposed to work if citizens cannot tell their elected representatives what they want?

 

[OhReally?]

"How is a democracy supposed to work if citizens cannot tell their elected representatives what they want? "

Please explain how that works now?

If you are not a lobbyist with millions to bribe with then Congress could absolutely not care less what you have to say.
That is not "democracy" its called fascism when only corporations with huge bank rolls get what they want politically.

Get rid of lobbyist and then EVERYBODY is equal, not just those with millions/billions to blow for bribery.

I can get on the phone and call or go right up to my Congress critters office and gripe just like everybody can, if enough people do the same especially large groups like the NRA then there should be no need to BRIBE said critter with money that he/she is clearly not earning.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I guess I am not seeing the difference in your statement. If I want to give $2,000 to help a Congressman I like get re-elected, what is wrong with that? How is that different than a small business owner who wants to do the same?

I can get on the phone and call or go right up to my Congress critters office and gripe just like everybody can, if enough people do the same especially large groups like the NRA then there should be no need to BRIBE said critter with money that he/she is clearly not earning.

I think you have a lot of assumptions that may not be valid. For example, the NRA isn't anywhere near the biggest political donor; yet it is one of the more powerful lobbies. It seems to me like votes do count for a lot more than money does.

In 2009, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was the lobby that spent the most money out of all the lobbies. Should the U.S. Chamber of Commerce be prohibited from supporting candidates who are business friendly?

 

[44 AMP]

Part of the problem is the difference between lobbying and "bribing". Taking/offering bribes is against the law. Spending money to get your point of view across is not.

Technically, elected officials are under no compunction to do what those who donate to their campaigns want. Human nature being what it is, they usually do, because that encourages further contributions. But its not a bribe. One person giving them a million dollars and wanting them to do X has influence, true. But it does not have the same influence as one million people giving a dollar (or nothing) and a vote wanting the politician NOT to do X. Which one do you think is going to get listened to the most?

And, the other thing, the laws we are talking about is not just about what can be spent (or given) to a politician to get their vote. It is about what we, the people can spend to get our message out to other people! THAT is supremely important, and more important that the part directly involving politicians!

You and I, the NRA, and everybody else must be allowed to freely use our resources to conduct political speech. That's the whole issue. Those in power don't care about how much a dissenting voice spends telling them their dissent, they care about how much we can spend telling each other about it. Even when it is nothing more than purely, verifiably factual information (and maybe, especially when it is such!)

When its a law that you cannot spend your own money to print an ad saying candidate X voted for A, B, & C during his last term in office (and nothing more than that) within a given number of days prior to an election, THAT is stifling your right to free speech.

And making the rules so complex that while you are not technically prohibited from doing that, but are practically prohibited, at risk of running afoul of some tiny regulation and thereby violateing the law, that amounts to the same thing.

I won't deny that money has influence, but votes have influence too. And remember, it is votes that put the politicians in office, or not.

 

[OhReally?]

"I guess I am not seeing the difference in your statement. If I want to give $2,000 to help a Congressman I like get re-elected, what is wrong with that? How is that different than a small business owner who wants to do the same?"

That opens up another whole can of worms, Congress, all government officials, all challengers, everybody that qualifies should be given EXACTLY the same amount of Federally funded cash. PERIOD and thats it. They cant spend more than that in anyway, if they spend so much as a dollar of their own money they are disqualified immediately.
ALL broadcast stations should be mandated to give "Public Airtime" to ALL candidates for FREE.
It is public airwaves not private, we allow them to use it to make billions of dollars each year.
They should be forced to give each an every candidate exactly the same amount of airtime in the same time slots for free. Also each campaign add that airs should be vetted by several parties, station/federal and state governments to check the validity of what the add is saying. NO LIES should be allowed PERIOD.
Personally I am sick and damn tired of lying politicians taking advantage of the simple minded.

What is wrong with politicians that need 100s of millions of dollars to be elected? It basically makes it so that only multi-millionaires and corporate hacks can ever be elected for anything. It turns those running for office into lying POS no more than a prostitute for money and will do ANYTHING for it, lie, cheat, steal you name it.
In fact today flat out bald faced lies is the norm.

What we have now are politicians (4 years for House, 6 for Senate) that spend almost all of their time campaigning and begging for money. How much they get and from whom is directly reflected in their vote.
With very few exceptions in either party.

Also when the way Congress works all a huge corporation has to do is buy 3-4 Senators that's it, don't matter what the rest do because those 3-4 can derail anything the big corporation wants them to.

Classic example is Big Oil, they basically OWN this country.
If not for the billions they have spent the past few decades "bribing" Congress and lying through their teeth on TV ads and buying up patents, then we would have been off of oil/gas decades ago and the Middle East wouldn't have trillions of US dollars in their coffers it would be in OURS.

That is just for starters I can go on & on with the cons of how the system works today, there are no pros.

This predicament is largely why the government doesn't work today regardless whom is in office.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

ALL broadcast stations should be mandated to give "Public Airtime" to ALL candidates for FREE.

It is public airwaves not private, we allow them to use it to make billions of dollars each year.

And they pay licensing fees for that privilege. Should their licensing fees be reduced to compensate them for the free bandwidth they provide? What about DSL or cable providers that provide their own infrastructure?

They should be forced to give each an every candidate exactly the same amount of airtime in the same time slots for free.

Each and every candidate? Or only those candidates who qualify for the ballot?

Also each campaign add that airs should be vetted by several parties, station/federal and state governments to check the validity of what the add is saying. NO LIES should be allowed PERIOD.

So every statement a candidate makes must be approved by:

1. Federal government
2. State government
3. Several opposing political parties
4. The station broadcasting the ad

If none of those finds anything they feel is dishonest, then the statement can be aired? And you believe this will result in freer elections with less influence from powerful organizations of varying types?

It seems to me that when this country was founded, there were no restrictions of any type on funding and political speech - even though things like the printing press made dissemination of information much more concentrated than it is today. Do you perceive these same problems back then? If not, then what is the difference?

 

[Mike Irwin]

Let's leave the political hyperbole, conspiracy theory, and comparisons to the Democratic party to Stalin OUT of this discussion, folks.

If your post disappeared, don't even bother to ask where it went.

And don't repeat it.

As long as this discussion remains focused on the civil rights issues posed by this bill, as opposed to the political process, it will remain open.

The second it tips, it will be closed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The primary issue for us, I believe, is to keep the NRA effective. If their maneuvering here can kill this bad bill, that's a fine result. If they do so by rallying other interests in opposition, that's fine too. But if the best they can wind up accomplishing is getting carved out, that's better than not getting carved out.

...Congress, all government officials, all challengers, everybody that qualifies should be given EXACTLY the same amount of Federally funded cash...

There are many things which if changed might make the world better. But politics is "the art of the possible" not "the art of the impossible."

While waiting for Godot we still have real business to conduct in the real world. Fortunately for us, the NRA is adept at conducting that business.

 

[publius42]

The bill was on thin ice, or the NRA would never have been offered any deal in the first place.

That opens up another whole can of worms, Congress, all government officials, all challengers, everybody that qualifies should be given EXACTLY the same amount of Federally funded cash. PERIOD and thats it.

Everybody that qualifies? You do know that ballot access restrictions are a major reason we don't see more third party candidacies?

What if I'm a blogger and write in support of a candidate? Is that a "contribution" that would go beyond the taxpayer cash?

 

[OhReally?]

"Everybody that qualifies? You do know that ballot access restrictions are a major reason we don't see more third party candidacies?"

yes I do, this has nothing to do with that.
Yet again another can of worms that needs to be changed.
The reason 3rd party candidates can never get a chance is because of the "Electoral College" fiasco.
That is why the 2 parties in power right now flatly refuse to abolish what should have been abolished 75+ years ago.
They want to keep their duopoly power structure.

That means the bottom 98% will continue to get screwed regardless of whom is elected.
Both parties are bought and paid for by big corporations.

 

[Mike Irwin]

And I can see that I was ******* into the wind.

Closed for veering off topic and no one paying any attention to my direct warnings that it needs to stay on topic.