Progressives (Liberals)

If you spend the most and win and are then obligated to vote in favor of the bribe payer, what is the point of serving, except self enrichment?

The point is that money coming into a campaign, even from business entities or from wealthy individuals, cannot be axiomatically attributed to a bribery motive - "I give you this money and you give me policy X". Obviously, there are huge and powerful industries (resource extraction, etc) who operate (or try to) in such a manner through donations, lobbying etc. Obviously, many government policies are affected in this manner. None of that is a revelation. But you cannot take those instances and then say all political giving is so narrowly motivated. That's just lazy.

Every politician who accepts donations from a business entity is therefore motivated only by personal greed? That is, sorry, nuts.

Here's the situation in Canada
Many other western nations also have such laws in place and yet there are none where candidates are difficult to find. Humans, most of us, are not so narrowly, cynically and selfishly motivated.

I also think it puts the cart in front of the horse. I have two politicians, one supports policies I support, the other doesn't so I donate to the one I like. Corporations are the same way, they support candidates whose positions they like. That doesn't mean the candidate has been bought off and will always support the corporations.

I don't give a sh-- about Canada at this point. You are turning yourself inside out to justify big money in politics. But since it became the norm to flood politics with big money, the shift rightward has accelerated and Democrats rely on progressive sounding promises, while their so-called increments advance us backwards. Almost every guarantee the common citizen needs or expects his vanished or is in danger of vanishing. He is conned and squeezed for every nickle that can be extorted. Democrats have to own their failures. They sound concerned but they are warmongers and enablers of rightwing ethics.

Did you notice corporations or trade unions are not allowed to donate to candidates? Only individuals. Looks like a good idea. It would seem to take big money out of the equation. How does big money get around this rule?

Coercion.

Union leaders, have talks, send out letters endorsing particular candidates and urge members to dig deep and donate.

One side of the question. How about big money which has a much larger impact on elections.

Finding a few contrary facts cannot change the overall flow of politics.

Money dribbles in and gradually accrues to levels which can alter the path of an election campaign. Money buys air time. Money buys advertising in print media. Money buys campaign buttons, posters and other items which are given to perspective voters, no charge.

I'm stepping back for a bit. I have been singlehandedly putting roll vinyl throughout the house, while also wrestling a dead french door refrig out and a new one in. Just a little tired right now.

We'll see you later then. Rest and relax.

I sympathize. I'm doing renovation work for some folks up here. It's a substantial job and though I quite like making homes more beautiful and functional, at 71 (in the summer) I feel it.

I will be 77 next month and I can safely say that 77 is the new 85.

😆

When I was still in the Navy, I began reading Ayn Rand and even received the Objectivist Newsletter from her. For about two months, I was enamored of her. Gradually, in the final weeks of my infatuation, I realized I myself was the world she shrugged off. I had been uncomfortable with my fellow objectivist, also a shipmate, as he planned his city founded on Rand's philosophy. I never could see myself, in any capacity, but a manipulated worker, in his schemes. He thought it his right to offer workers anything he chose to offer and they were free to accept or reject, but not free to collectively bargain. He hurt my feelings when he called Bertrand Russell some kind of a hideously unsavory bastard. One day, I asked him if he couldn't imagine the flowers raging against human industry. He looked at me with the sudden cognition that Edgar had shrugged off the yoke of Rand's objectivism and I don't recall that we ever spoke again.

Just hang in two more years and you'll be 100.

Thinking Rand superior to Russell - now that is hideous and unsavory.

Years ago I saw an interview with Russell's publisher. He said that Russell delivered his manuscripts hand-written and first drafts always and never with a single correction.

Russell was not perfect but I loved him dearly.

Yes. One of my first intellectual (and moral) heroes.