Discussion for article #235941
âCongress set this place up to gridlock,â Republican commissioner Lee E. Goodman said. âThis agency is functioning as Congress intended. The democracy isnât collapsing around us.â
True, if and only if money is the democracy Goodman refers to.
1 Like
After spending $2, 3 or 4 billion it will be a glorious new day in the shining city on a hill. And, if you believe that, Iâve got some swamp land I want to sell youâŚ
âCongress set this place up to gridlock,â Republican commissioner Lee E. Goodman said. âThis agency is functioning as Congress intended.â
If you truly believe that, why do you even bother to show up for work? Donât you feel that collecting any sort of salary is akin to outright fraud? Youâre doing nothing - absolutely nothing.
His job is to be a professional sandbag. Doing nothing would be so much better.
2 Likes
Once again, Republicans are on the FEC simply to make sure it does NOTHING.
Just like they are in Congress.
3 Likes
Sheâll do the best she can with a bad situationâŚBLOW THE WHISTLE my dear. Tell it like it is, from the rooftops let the world know about the âREPUBLICANSâ. In the long run after their dime has been spent on the 2016 campaign their track record will be in place and then weâll see what Lee Goodman has to say about the 'REPUBLICAN;S TRACK REORD.
Another Bush will lose to a CLINTONâŚ
I think publicizing these fraudulent or inappropriate transactions is better than arguing about them in private. At least people will know where money is going and can make their own informed decisions.
2 Likes
âThe democracy isnât collapsing around us.â
Thatâs because it already melted away like shits in a rainstorm.
1 Like
I did a research project on campaign finance in law school and heâs right. The commission is actually set up so that only 3 dems and only 3 repubs can be on the FEC.
But youâre right, the FEC does nothing, and that is how they like it. For years, people submit violations to them, and they do nothing because if itâs a Democrat violating, the 3 Dems vote no, if itâs a Repub violating, the 3 Repubâs vote no.
The system is NOT broken, it is working as the two major parties intended. But Goodman is wrong about one thing, our democracy IS crashing down around us. The only issue that really matters is campaign finance reform (which includes legislative reform, a constitutional amendment, FEC reform, and much more). Without it, no issue can possibly get fixed. Example: Healthcare - what should we have done? Single payer, getting the insurance companies out of the system entirely. What did we get? A half solution that is a big fat handout to the insurance companies while nothing is really being done to curb the costs of healthcare.
3 Likes
Well, the ACA is far more than you say â the uninsured rate is down beyond expectations, as is health-care inflation. And itâs real insurance, coverage that canât be pulled out from under you because the insurance company discovers you hid that hangnail you got in summer camp. And even the much-maligned Dodd-Frank has proven far more effective than most of us expected. Iâm with Paul Krugman: theyâre not what weâd have done given no constraints, but both are genuine reforms that constitute real progress, and saying nothing can be done until we fix the campaign-finance system is simply not true, and a recipe for cynicism, lower voter turnout and backsliding.
That said, it is imperative that we fix that system, or weâll forever be moving in increments and fighting to keep whatever we gain (Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and basically the whole New Deal are in danger if we get a Republican president and a compliant House and Senate any time soon). And the Kochs et al. are learning how to focus their spending more effectively, making that outcome ever more likely. So while Iâd say that ânothing can be done untilâ is an inaccurate and counterproductive argument, Iâm with you completely on how high a priority tackling campaign financing needs to be.
2 Likes
Agreed. But what I said was âno issue can possibly get fixed,â (now thatâs not even completely true, as there are few special interests that will be getting a windfall from LGBT rights and same sex marriage) not ânothing can be done untilâ. Even if we make progress, we will continue to see half measures that pander to the top 1%. Over sixty percent of campaign contributions came from the top 1% in 2012 (and thatâs not even including dark money), and the top 1% of the top 1% contributed somewhere between 20 and 30% of the total in the last three cycles. I think it was Joseph Stiglitz that said on Real Time this Friday that these arenât âdonationsâ they are âinvestments.â
Perhaps my comment came across as too harsh on the ACA. It has some great things, but if we had fixed campaign finance reform 15-20 years ago, Iâm convinced weâd have had something completely different. As for Dodd-Frank, sure there are a few protections, but it is a band-aid on severed arm. Call me a cynic, but I think Krugman was way off the mark on Dodd-Frank. And, even if he wasnât, Republicanâs began gutting it as soon as they possibly could. Both sides are in bed with Wall Street and the banks are bigger than ever.
2 Likes
Very little there Iâd disagree with. Iâd just say that with millions of people reaping real, significant benefits from the ACA (and of course almost everyone reaping benefits theyâre not aware of), and with the insurers now under real, significant regulation they werenât before (not just no-preexisting-conditions but the medical-loss ratio and more), itâs a problem well on the way to actually being fixed. (Regulated private insurers are common in countries with universal coverage; and even Social Security and Medicare have been improved over the decades from their imperfect beginnings.)
Now, whether or not the ACA, and Dodd-Frank, will get the chance to be improved rather than gutted, not to mention whether other issues will even be addressed in any real way, depends crucially on having a government willing to do all that, and never having one that aims to do the opposite. Which means neutralizing the power of the money guysâ money to buy the government they want. But it also means, especially while weâre still fighting those guys under their rules, increasing voter turnout; which depends on making people realize that even under those rules, their votes matter. So arguments, especially inaccurate/hyperbolic ones, that would lead those people to conclude otherwise are the last thing we need.
Iâm not someone who thinks progressive âpuristsâ cost us the 2010 and 2014 midterms because they stayed home; but I do think the tenor of some of the criticism (not the fact of criticism, but the âDems are no different from Republicans/Obamaâs a corporate shillâ stuff, of which there was a ton) did affect the perceptions of less-involved folks, who then figured it wouldnât matter if they stayed home. So forgive me if I seem over-sensitive to whatâs a tangential disagreement between us â to me, itâs a small illustration of a significant phenomenon. On the larger issue, we couldnât agree more.
2 Likes
But Republicans on the commission donât see an outbreak of finance abuses.
Then they have misplaced their glasses that allow them to see an outbreak of voting fraud.