Florida legalizes bribery.

Exactly what it says on the tin.

A lawmaker can now take unlimited amounts of money from those seeking favorable treatment.

edited 28th Mar '11 3:49:37 PM by Wheezy

Project progress: The Adroan (102k words), The Pigeon Witch, (40k). Done but in need of reworking: Yume Hime, (50k)

This should help murderers with just intentions evade the ever-present law easier.

Alpha Parum est esse aliquid.

That's it, New England's leaving from the union. I have decided.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Only in Florida, guys.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I don't suppose there are non-column sources on this.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

Notice that only Republicans voted yes, and barely any voted no.

I wouldn't be surprised if other Republican states began trying this. And I won't be surprised when these republican politicians get reelected by their ignorant base.

My other signature is a Gundam.

Normally I would ask for better sources because it's rather farfetched, but considering what wisconsin did with the unions and what my own state just tried to do with its open records law I'm starting to think anything's possible.

So far my impression of politics is this: Democrats, annoying wide-eyed idealists; Republicans, dangerous.

edited 28th Mar '11 4:08:50 PM by CDRW

and

Ding.

And here's one from Miami.

This one's from before the bill was passed.

edited 28th Mar '11 4:11:30 PM by Wheezy

Project progress: The Adroan (102k words), The Pigeon Witch, (40k). Done but in need of reworking: Yume Hime, (50k)

If a person wishes to donate money to a political party, they should be free to donate as much as they want to who ever they want, so long as it is recorded.

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

This isn't about people donating money, this is specifically for big companies to bribe officials.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

A "private" business should be able to donate "their" money to whoever "they" like. So long as the politician or the party make it clear who they are getting the donation from and how much they are receiving.

edited 28th Mar '11 6:04:02 PM by izumoshep

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

Not if it gives them the ability to sway a politician they don't. Despite what the courts say, companies are nor people. They don't have the same rights accorded to individual citizens. The only rights they have are the rights to practice responsible business.

Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...

The judiciary are actually the ones who can make that decision not you. The judiciary has both the constitutional authority and intelligence to make such decisions, both of which you lack. You lost the argument the moment you admitted the judiciary allowed it.

edited 28th Mar '11 6:22:53 PM by izumoshep

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

You can't really win an argument in politics, you just come back with another counter argument and wait for the other side to shoot back...

---

And to be perfectly honest...NO PARTY should ever be allowed to accept donations.

It turns political parties into a big joke and turns elections into a contest to see who can pander harder. Even worse, it's not even the party running the country in their own ideals, it's essentially twisting the laws of a country to suit the people rich enough to pour money into a party.

"Pssh, screw the country! Tell us what it will take to get your votes, and we'll do it for the right price!"

edited 28th Mar '11 6:31:21 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

And this is exactly why this whole deal is a bad thing.

Who watches the watchmen?

God, things like this piss me off so much. It's the Internet age; college age You Tubers with part-time jobs can get millions of people to watch them. Have a fucking budget for campaigns, and make it low, and enforce it well. It's unfair that only the very wealthy can afford to run for office in America. How much money do you even need to let people know you exist and inform them of your policies? If you're running for office, you will be covered by the news media anyway. If you need more exposure, start a blog or a You Tube channel. There. You've just reached all of America without spending a cent.

edited 28th Mar '11 6:54:05 PM by OnTheOtherHandle

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."

Ugh, it it...real? They are insane, it seems.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Not insane. Just that greedy and corrupt.

My other signature is a Gundam.

This...is horrible.

You know, I may not seem like it at times (or maybe I do, I'm probably a bit different over the Internet) but I'm actually something of an idealist. This...this makes me ashamed of my country. I believe in America, and I believe in democracy. I believe in a republic that doesn't trample on the people who make it up. Is that so much to ask?

And out comes this. Politicians should be idealists. Campaigns shouldn't be dependent on the ability to advertise. That's simply ridiculous. And yet these people have taken a bad situation and made it worse.

This, right here, is why I don't like the Republican party. This is a mockery of the ideals I believe this country should stand for.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

-glances at title-

-clicks thread-

WHAT... THE HELL.

-sobs-

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

So you object to them being idealists for ideals you don't like?

Fight smart, not fair.

The more I think about this, the more pissed I get. We've always been something of a plutocracy because only the wealthy can afford to run for office. Now with the Internet it's actually theoretically possible for a normal person to get their voice heard, and yet politicians still rely on huge, expensive campaigns that span years of time and inevitably shut out the middle and lower classes.

That needs to change, and it can change now. We don't just need politicians who "empathize with the working man", we need politicians who are working men. I wish the law would get with the times. Set a budget limit and a time limit, and make both of them very small - say, one or two thousand dollars as a donation limit, and three to six months as a time limit. Exceeding that will get you booted out of the running. Have all the candidates set up You Tube accounts, make their cases, and move on without excessive marketing. Politics is not business; politicians don't need advertisements. They just distract from the actual platform.

If some candidates can't afford to skip work, subsidize their income during the election season, so they can work half days and run their campaign or something.

edited 28th Mar '11 10:35:11 PM by OnTheOtherHandle

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."

Campaigns already rely on private funding. Now Florida just has a specific system for depositing and recording that money. Dismissive as that column is of this serving to increase transparency, that is exactly what it does.

Where, exactly, is this a bad thing? Never mind the fact that "bribery" has nothing to do with it.

Well, for one, they're now giving it to people who've already been elected. It's not giving someone you like money to help him pay for ads to get elected - you're just going directly to the already-in-power lawmakers and giving them a check in exchange for whatever.

It may seem like a small difference, but I don't think it is.

Plus, only political buffs with the hardest of cores will actually bother reading those reports...

Which, if they follow the pattern of everything else about government, will probably be so confusingly-worded that they're damn near impossible to decipher anyway.

edited 28th Mar '11 10:52:45 PM by Wheezy

Project progress: The Adroan (102k words), The Pigeon Witch, (40k). Done but in need of reworking: Yume Hime, (50k)

izumoshep:

Lost the argument did I? On a 5/4 decision? Such decisions have a tendency to be thrown out with the next court because, quite simply, the only reason they are affirmed are for technicalities or in lieu of a better idea. It also shows the decision made is not a universally accepted idea. So I don't care if the guys running the court are all Popes and thus have the backing of almighty God behind them, nevermind constitutional authority: They are human, they are fallible, and the idea at the heart of that decision was by no means universally held true and for good reason. A corporation is a legal entity, to the extent of contracts and other means of conducting regulated business. Not for having power in elections.

---

And I agree with the notion that no party should be able to do so, I was just arguing with the above because that was what the subject was on at the time.

Politicians shouldn't get any donations, bribery or otherwise. The election system needs to be changed up so that a middle class citizen, if he or she so chooses, can start a bid for the presidency. If they're good enough to get the primary's nod, then the PARTY should handle funding. And once elected, no funding whatsoever. Reelection should be even cheaper than election. With a shorter election season, this is entirely feasible. But I digress.

The ultimate point is that laws should not make it EASIER for well-financed interests to have even MORE of a say than they already do in this country.

Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...