From the Chicago Tribune profile of Howard Dean (registration may be required)...

Favorite Movie: Animal House

Goddamn, that is funny...

Gephart was successful in hit hit job on Dean, allowing the chosen candidate Kerry to get the win. NPR played a cut of Dean doing an awful Kennedyesque (Teddy) cheerleading scream this morning... I guess we'll just assume thats a Kerry endorsement. Imus is running the sound byte now, Howard might as well go home.

I saw that televised last night and it was absolutely frightening.

UT Wrote:
I listened to it on the web this am. It bore a chilling resemblence to Jim Jones' last speech. Frightening is about right.

[Pointless Rambling]
I don't see a one of the dems whoopin' W. As a conservative, I am wondering why that doesn' t make me any happier than it does.

I'm not sure which is worse - Bush, Ashcroft and Cheney using the Consitution and Bill of Rights as toilet paper and the Treasury as corporate spoils or someone like Kerry transforming our wonderfully efficient capitalistic economy into a socialist nightmare even the French would envy.

Some conservatives think its a good sign that W can and is raising such unprecedented sums of campaign money. To me, its a sign that "everything" is for sale.

We really need to get the corporate dollars out of elections.
[/Pointless Rambling]

Correct me if I'm wrong.... isn't the hallmark of a "wonderfully efficient capitalistic economy" that everything's for sale? How can you be pro-capitalism and then tell people they can't spend their money as they see fit, whether it's for a new television, an addition to their house, an endowment to give scholarships to prospective schoolteachers, or funding for Republican presidential campaigns? Won't the invisible hand of the marketplace take care of these things?

SteveDallas wrote:
I do not find the two highlighted quotes of my prior post to be contradictory.

The invisible hand theory applies to the sum of the economic activity of consumers buying and selling goods and services. I'm all for unrestricted gifts to campaigns from individuals who are registered voters. I oppose the large corporate contributions because it reeks of bribery. When a company donates THAT kind of money, there is an under-the-table agreement or, at the very least, the appearance of one. Either way, its a perversion of the political process.

When I complain about "everything" being for sale, I'm not talking about consumer goods and services. I'm talking about elected officials writing and passing laws and engaging in other conduct which creates an unfair economic advantage as compensation for large political contributions.

That's the important part of limited government that a lot of people seem to miss. If the scope of government is limited, there is less for crimin..er..politicians to sell.

Griff, are you saying that he should back out of the race?

cock-us

I don't think he can win with a sound byte like that floating around, but he should stick it out to force the others to be substantive.

Let's keep in mind, though...this is only one state. Gephardt won Iowa in '88...and we all know how well he did in the end.

So do you object to the fact that it's a corporate donation, or that it's a large donation? If we agree for the sake of argument that a donation of $10,000,000 from MegaConglomerate to the Republican Party is perverse, would a $10,000,000 donation from a private citizen be equally perverse? It seems to me that if case a) results in undue influence being exerted on behalf of the donor, then so does case b). The only difference is whether a single person or a corporation (a "person" in some legal senses, as I understand) benefits.

I'm not trying to be an asshole (which doesn't mean I'm not :angel: ), but I've thought about these things a good bit and haven't come up with any good answers.

One difference is that if it is a publically held corporation, they are legally required to use their money for the benefit of the corporation, or their shareholders can sue them. If they are not getting something in return for the donation, they are wasting the money.

This isn't a guarantee - they could merely expect the recipient to already support the corporation's goals rather than expect the donation to change the mind of the recipient. I suspect the latter is more likely than the former, though. Another option is that the corporation hopes to get good PR from the donation, but that only applies if they publicize it - which they usually don't.

I would guess that an individual is much more likely to donate altruistically than is a publically held corporation. A privately held corporation is essentially the same as an individual - the one(s) who own(s) it.

In the end, though, I support donation limits across the board to remove the appearance and fact of bribery, and level the influence game's playing field.

Kerry and Bush belong to what society?
 

Interesting piece, do not access without proper tinfoil precautions.

Good find, Griff.:eek: