lofhay

Much has been said about the need for reform in how political campaigns are financed. The legislation which requires a candidate to choose between using public funding and private funding was an attempt to deal with the problem, but, in my opinion, has accomplished nothing useful. Most political candidates can raise lots more money from contributions from the big money interests than would be allocated to them if they accept public (taxpayer) funding under the present system. Thus, the advantage goes to the monied interests, i.e. wealthy candidates and big corporations. The less wealthy, particularly challengers, have less money for campaigning than do the more wealthy and the incumbents. Few careerist politicians want to change this system, because they like the advantage it gives them.

What if the rules were changed to allow only public money to be used for campaigning---no personal or private or corporate money allowed? What if any and all candidates were restricted to a fixed amount (provided by the federal government) to be spent on campaigns? Would this not eliminate the undue influence of lobbyists and big business, all of whom want some favor in return? Would this not put all candidates on an equal footing and force them to focus on the issues instead of on how to raise money?

Without strictly public funding and limited campaign spending, are our politicians really any different from those corrupt officeholders in other countries where bribery and graft are common practice?

Such reform is another one of those badly needed changes, like term limits, which will come about only when enough of us citizens demand it.

urville

I could see a temporary term limit package that expires later to remove the career politicians. I rather wish service was and voting in the govt in some form or another was some kind of compulsary experience. Certainly regarded as more important and taught better.

If voting was compulsary to get a drivers license or something similar. And educational class that goes with it on how American politics work.

I do believe lobbys should be outlawed, and PACs, think tanks, etc.

Earmarking, essentially piggybacking bills too. Why shouldnt a bill be made into a plain english version by independent group, shared with voters, and then voted on by constiuents? A little work, but a real change. I'm no expert just spitballing here.

Basically, allow each politician a set amount of public funds and thats it, nothing extravagant, just enough to make a solid campaign. All equal to other candidates in the same race, and more debates.

No more money in politics except a bit of campaign financing and the politicians pay check from the USG. All they need beyond that is our voices and swift criminal action if they accept property, goods, or any kind of compensation from any entity private or otherwise to sway or vote in any direction besides the popular vote.

I also think the electoral college should be dissolved.

Willravel

I think, ultimately, this boils down to a few core questions:

1) Do you believe money is free speech? The Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporate funding of political campaign ads can't be legally limited because corporations are protected under the First Amendment. Glenn Greenwald (former civil rights attorney, current liberal political blog icon) basically made the point that a law that violates the Constitution can't be upheld simply because the law produces good outcomes, therefore the ruling, while possibly disastrous, was the right one. Not being an attorney myself, though, I don't find this argument particularly compelling. I'm not sure how the Constitution would matter if corporations ran the United States government, and clearly corporate influence has already caused numerous violations of the Constitution, even just in the last decade.

2) What are our alternatives, and which is the best? In the United States, the primary source of campaign funds comes from individuals, followed by PACs (hard money), however advertisements and donations to parties and other political activities (soft money) are primarily funded by corporations, political organizations, and unions. This leads to certain imbalances. Alternatives to this system generally involve public financing. Clean elections, for example, are entirely free of private money. As to which is best? I really don't know. Just as the American system is complicated and difficult to understand in its entirety, other countries, from Canada to Germany to France are also quite complicated and objectively comparing them is difficult to say the least.

3) How can significant campaign finance reform be accomplished? This may be the most difficult question of all. Various attempts have been made, however many of them have failed because of entrenched interests. The way campaign finance works now is to the benefit of those who have the power to change it, namely members of the House and Senate, and the President. While some individuals are able to choose principle over self-interest, it's been made clear time and again that most don't. The strategy then becomes making it in the interest of these individuals to support campaign finance by threatening their power, be that through elections or through preventing the individual from otherwise profiting from the campaign finance system. Unfortunately, the level of organization necessary to pursue such a thing is incredibly difficult to attain and then maintain. While this in part due to apathy, it also has to do with #2, in that not many people are educated on the alternatives, and even among them, there's disagreement on how the current system could be changed for the better. The best chance I can see currently are the numerous movements which came into being in the wake of Citizens United, which want to create a Constitutional Amendment or otherwise undo the consequences of the ruling. Still, the amount of money and manpower necessary to accomplish such a thing is unlikely to come together.

urville

I'll give my answers to that! Try something I figure, this isnt working

1) No sir I do not. Everyone has a voice and it should be taken equally. Not everyone can equally get dollars. Why replace what isnt broken. Speech is not dollars and dollars should not represent speech.

2)Public indeed.

3)REVOLUTION! lol, maybe not. you'd have to end lobbying? Might have to do somethingto undermine their abilities to do what they do... even if illegal. or revolution lol

lofhay

Even if one thinks that money is free speech, there must be limits on it's use just as there are limits on free speech. Speech which incites to riot or promotes treason can not be permitted because it endangers others. Money used to garner excessive political power must be guarded against because it takes advantage of those who are powerless to defend themselves from abuse. The supreme court was wrong about this.

roachboy

the consequences of the conservative-dominated supreme court's citizen's united decision continue to roll out:

Secret Donors Multiply in U.S. Election Spending - Bloomberg

this is the machinery that transforms the united states into a plutocracy.
at some point the plutocracy will go too far in asserting its interests at the expense of the rest of us and maybe at that point the united states will start to catch up with tahrir.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

TBH, I kinda hope this thing with Clarence Thomas (breaking ethics law requiring federal employees to disclose their spouse’s income and employers and the massive conflict of interest with Citizens United) ends with him retiring. Never asking questions is one thing, but he clearly isn't an objective jurist and America is suffering in part because of his inability to divorce himself from his politics.

aceventura3

Regarding the need for campaign finance reform I have one starting question:

How much does money affect election results?

My initial belief is that once a candidate has enough money, having more is of little consequence. Once I am aware of a candidate (local, state, national) and I know their positions, my vote has never been influenced by an ad or other marketing materials. I am aware of many situations where the candidate with the most money or the best marketing campaign did not win - so I wonder are we trying to fix something that is not a problem? If so, why? I suspect the real goal is for those currently in power to establish rules that will make it increasingly difficult for people "outside" the system to gain political power rather than opposite being true.

---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 PM ----------

How far would you go with an alleged conflict of interest based on an association? Significant others? Life partners? Parents? Children? Mistresses? Hunting buddies? College roommates?

Thinking of my marriage, my wife is an independent thinker and that is the basis of our relationship. I don't control her political activities and she doesn't control mine. In your view, would a conflict she has automatically be mine? Why? And if so, why would my relationship with her be different than relationships I have with others?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

filtherton

While the consolidation of power is likely an implicit goal of most people who have power, there are studies that show statistically significant correlations between campaign contributions to politicians and subsequent voting by those politicians. So that politicians tend to vote for things that help the people who give them money. Certainly, some of this effect has to do with the fact that people give money to politicians who share their interests, but given the fact that large donors seem to have better access to politicians than the average person, it seems plausible that the effect extends beyond just being a function of likemindedness. This is the problem. It has nothing to do with the fact that the better funded candidate doesn't always get elected.

Why does your relationship with your wife matter at all? Your particular experience could not be less relevant, unless you're Clarence Thomas.

People tend to look out for the interests of their friends and family. Sometimes, people aren't even aware that their perspective is being clouded by their conflicts of interest. The simplest and most consistent way to deal with this is to exclude people who have conflicts of interest from taking part in the decisions from which the conflict arises.

Willravel

I'd go precisely as far as you're willing to lie.

I seriously doubt that Clarence Thomas, one of the supposed great legal minds of our time, can't understand a simple tax form for six years straight. And the part he made a 'mistake' on happens to be the part about his wife working for two conservative organizations, the Heritage Foundation and Liberty Central. I'm sure you're aware that these groups were very active in opposing healthcare reform. I'm also sure you're aware that the Affordable Healthcare Act's constitutionality has been challenged and may end up before the Supreme Court. Kagen promised to recuse herself from the same case because she used to be the solicitor general.

On top of that, he lied about an all expense paid trip in 2008 to Palm Springs to make a speech paid for by Koch Industries, who benefited directly from the Citizens United case which now is allowing them to significantly expand their influence in American politics. This is no small conflict of interest. Scalia is also guilty of speaking at the Koch event and should have similarly recused himself. The event was organized around the goal of creating new conservative strategies to affect political change and prevent liberal political movement, so it was clearly partisan.

BTW, Thomas had a 60 Minutes interview last year. I'm really disappointed that he didn't spend the entire hour in silence.

aceventura3

In my experience the influence you describe has more to do with motivation than money.

I recall a school board election I was directly involved in and when I spoke to people they fit into four categories with different levels of impact on the election based on their motivation. The group with the least impact were young and some old adults who had no children/grand-children in the school. The next was people who had children in school followed by parents of children with special needs and unions (we had a teachers union and a civil service workers union). Candidates who had the support of the unions and parents of children with special need won. If there was a meeting/rally/debate those motivated to show up were people in those groups. If letters appeared in the paper it was from those groups. Volunteers were from those two groups. People in those two groups attended the school board meetings. So, at the end of the day, those groups held the most influence - and it had almost nothing to do with money, but with their motivation. I see other special interest groups having the same kind of impact across the political spectrum. I suspect motivated people can have a bigger impact than the biggest campaign donors.

So, I am either optimistic about the power regular people have or I am a pollyanna. I truly believe that once regular people have had enough and get motivated, they will easily over-come big money interest. I think the Tea Party is and will be a reflection of that.


Unless you see the context of my bringing that up, you won't understand why it matters.

---------- Post added at 08:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 PM ----------

I don't lie.

I don't dispute Thomas' problem - my issue has more to do with the importance of the question. If the point of the question was really to disclose real conflict of interest, the question falls short. It is no longer 1950 were people have Leave It To Beaver family relationships.

I begin to think that you would have double standards on these issues based on political point of view.

Thomas is who he says he is, it seems to me that you simply want a system where people hide what they truly are. I find that much more of a problem than how a person fills out a form, who pays them for a speech, or what their wife does.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

I was talking about Clarence Thomas' blatant lies of omission.
By clearly trying to hide his wife's income, this suggests there's something he's trying to hide. That's where my concern comes from. Why would he lie if there was nothing to hide?
If who Clarence Thomas is is someone who is happy to be very politically active using his title as Supreme Court Justice to influence politics, that's not someone who belongs on the bench, period. And clearly he IS trying to hide it. It took some investigative journalism to find out he and Scalia were speaking at this political events. How many others have yet to be discovered?

lofhay

What is being overlooked in this discussion is that it takes lots of money to run a campaign, and that those already in office spend an inordinate amount of time attending fundraising meetings. Former Senator E. F. Hollings recently wrote a column in the Charleston Post and Courier detailing this fact. Also, bear in mind that the hundreds of lobbyists have an existence only because they have monetary support to offer and every candidate needs the money. The interests represented by the lobbyists don't put up this money for free. They expect, and get, the supported candidate's favor in legislation which affects them. Thus the conflict of interest affects legislation, and money is the big influence.

urville

The point for me is not how money effects outcome of elections, though I'm sure others can show it does and how it does. Its how the money spent equals votes for those lobbyists interests instead of the popular voice of the constituency, even if they happen to agree.

If only... what a world that would be.

I agree, but then not really... I cannot consider a billionaire/corporate backed group as being a reflection of people easily overcoming money interests. It's a money interest overcoming another money interests and using a wide swath of societal ignorance to create the illusion of a peoples populist movement by sticking them out in the front. I think the real reflection is yet to come and with it will come finance reform, laws that support truth in campaign advertising,

Everyone Lies. It's not just a clever line from a TV show. This is my area of expertise, it is a fact.


I think they are all relevant to character and in considering if a conflict of interest exists.

Baraka_Guru

Politicians don't campaign for those who are already going to vote for them.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

First, I am not making excuses for Thomas, but I am looking at the issue from a broader perspective.

In today's world it is easily possible for a husband not to know his spouses income. To me the thought that one spouse has to be responsible for the other in this regard is presumptuous and clearly does not take into consideration other types of relationships that are comparable to marriage.

Thomas may be guilty of not properly answering the question, it is possible that he lied (versus making an error, guessing, etc.), but does the question serve a valid purpose? If so, why not be consistent?

Again, how far are you willing to take your position? You say Thomas is using his title to influence politics, does that mean that a Supreme court Justice no longer has a right to free speech? Even passively a Supreme Court Justice may influence politics, for example if a justice is observed driving a hybrid car, that would have influence politically. do you expect Judges to live in a vacuum? What is your standard?

Also, one doesn't have to give much thought to some inconsistencies, for example did you study the forms of other Justices for errors or inaccuracies? What is your view on the Treasury Secretary and his tax issues?

---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------

This is where most people here get upset with me because I try to look at theory and see how the theory works on an individual level. My thinking is that in general the collection of individual behaviors needs to be consistent with the broad theory on behavior being argued.

So in this case the broad theory is that money buys political influence. So I immediately want to start testing that on an individual basis. I always start with me, what would I do, how would I behave? Then I start looking at, observing, and questioning others Here is my answer.

If I am indifferent on an issue - others can influence me.

The degree that they influence me is based on my primary motivators at the time. If I am in need of money, money could influence me. But I could just as easily be influenced by a young person displaying courage and conviction and my desire to champion the cause of an under-dog.

But regardless, if I have strong views on an issue - money, emotion, nothing will move me. I have never sold-out on my strongly held convictions, have you? I think there are more people like me than there are the opposite. So I question the broad theory that money buys political influence.

---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------

Wow! Where to go with the above? I am curious. If you are married, do you ever buy your wife flowers?

My wife is my biggest supporter, and I treat her like gold and would never take her for granted. I believe the best politicians are the same way and spend a lot of effort with those that give them votes and support.

P.S. - If you answered the question no, try it. And report back to us what happened. Even the best of us are somewhat voyeuristic.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

Another failed analogy, ace.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

The question serves the most valid of purposes: determining the truth. I find it unlikely that one of the keenest legal minds of our time failed, 6 years in a row, where TaxAct succeeds. Because of this, I believe he did this intentionally, and you don't do something like this intentionally without reason. Why would a Supreme Court Justice who's wife works for active political organizations in line with his political views choose not to include his wife's income? The answer to that question is the reason for my (I believe valid) concern.
This isn't a free speech issue at all. This is fundamental judicial responsibility, impartiality. The fact that Thomas' speaking engagement was funded by people who stood to gain a great deal with Citizens United suggests a possible conflict of interest. The fact that his wife's employer pushed for Citizens United suggests a possible conflict of interest.

My standard is being paid by people who gain directly from your decisions.
Tu quoque, ace.

aceventura3

There are many who feel as you do, so the next steps should be clear. At the very least it is a civil violation and it could lead to his impeachment and disbarment. When those steps are not taken come back and then tell me the purpose of the question. It is clear the question is out-dated and/or of no real importance. I simply believe the more compelling discussion is regarding the broader issue.

I believe Thomas' response was that his wife's activities are of no consequence. He presented the challenge to those who hold your point of view. If his wife's activities are of consequence, prove it. Do something about it. The suggestion that person A has to be accountable for person B's political activity seems odd to me. Perhaps, I don't understand your point of view.

Would you suggest that Michele Obama be restricted from being actively involved in her political party activity or that Obama be held directly responsible for her activity.


Perhaps Thomas and his wife simply spend time together focusing on their relationship and don't talk money and politics! There are a few guys in the world who after a 10 or 12 hour day at work, don't want to come home and talk about work! And going back to one of my points, a guy's hunting buddy may influence his politics and create a bigger conflict of interest than the activities of his wife - but you have no interest in that regard - hence I question the whole purpose of this. "Truth", I doubt it. I think you just want Thomas to go away and will pursue any means to get it done.

---------- Post added at 08:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 PM ----------

I believe it was the Great Bambino who said:

"Every strike brings me closer to the next home run."



I have no fear of failure.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

I agree with all of the above, except the part about Thomas being one of the "keenest legal minds of our time."

His paid speech at a conservative/libertarian event organized by the Koch brothers was improper.

And his wife working for a political organization opposed to the Affordable Care Act is reason enough for Thomas to recuse himself when the law's constitutionality reaches the Court.

I would suggest both would violate canons of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judicial Employees on "appearance of impropriety" issues alone.

Unfortunately, when the Code was adopted, the Supreme Court exempted itself and its employees.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Is your primary concern "appearance"?

Is their any proof that his spouse's behavior has or will actually influence his official conduct?

Is it a surprise that Thomas has a Constitutional view point that may lead him to rule the health care law unconstitutional. Anyone who has ever read anything he has written or said can anticipate what his position is - that as a given, how could anyone believe his wife will influence his official behavior?

You folks are not fooling anyone, we know the issue is purely political. Why not own up to it?

This issue with Thomas has been on the table for a long time now, why not act on it and stop the complaining?

I have blown off my steam, I know the answers to my questions above. There is no reason to engage me further on this topic.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

ace, once again, you missed the point. You consistently ignore the facts placed in front of you.

The issue is not my concern about "appearance," it is the Code of Conduct that refers to "appearing to advance the private interests of others."

And, it is not a question of proof, but adherence to the Code of Conduct, even if only on a voluntarily basis.

Given that the Court is exempt from the Code, there is no procedure to act on it, even if Congress had such an inclination.

I agree, your adherence to your ideology to the point that you are unwilling or unable to understand the value of such a Code is political.

---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------

The credibility of the Supreme Court is dependent not only on the legal merits of its judgements, but also, unlike the legislative or executive branches, on assurances of its independence from political influence.

When a justice is payed by a political interest to participate in a meeting or when a justice's spouse is paid to lobby against legislation that may come before the Court, appearance of independence from political influence matters.

Do you see no value in a code of conduct for federal judges, or just no value in the code including standards that judges "should not lend prestige of the office ...that appear to advance the private interests of others?"

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

urville

Once you take ona position like Supreme Court Justice, that excuse goes out the door. Thats your responsibility in public service. so even if that is the case he fails on being competent, however, it is the case as has been pointed out.



To the bank. I expect as a supreme court justice that you act with integrity and that yes you abstain from any opinion and influence based on political standing or bias or you do not take the oath. He can still vote, what more influence does he need, thats the one we all get by law and right.

I dont even have time to go through everything wrong with your reasoning here. You are not a politician in this system we are talking about on the level we are talking about and are therefore not relevant as subject for testing. Secondly you can never use yourself in testing, its a bias no matter how hard you try or what you believe. It's not allowed in actual testing for someone to take a test serious, for a reason. Everyone has a price, its easy for you ina discussion to talk, but that doesnt not accurately and can not accurately represent a model for testing. You also by limiting to one and yourself throw out the possibility to statistically determine what percentage of a whole of a testing model would function like or unlike you, because there is only you.

In fact... this is like what I was explaining to you in that other thread, that you do... in all these arguments. You need to read up on Critical Thinking and the difference between Objective and Subjective reasoning. Thats probably why people get upset at you.



---------- Post added at 09:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 AM ----------

I actually think a fair and balanced system must have many viewpoints involved, but done so in a manner that is clear and not in a conflict of interest. Period. Thomas himself is not the issue for me, it is this kind of allowed conflict in all levels of government. This is as good as any to be vocal. I am just as vocal about Obama and his allowing these people involved in the financial meltdown to continue their existence in government and without ramifications as i was on every president going all the way back, and thats just one other subject and summarized.

I've covered this, now your just resorting to accusations...

aceventura3

I will try one more time.

I acknowledged the facts and have gone on to a bigger issue. Thomas clearly stated that his wife's actions are of no consequence. Translated - It is true, F-you, what you gonna do about it?

It appears that either you don't understand the Code or I don't. I ask questions seeking clarification. The segment of the Code in question is vague, the only way to understand it is to understand how it would apply to different circumstances. For me to understand your point of view I need to offer you hypotheticals. You won't respond to them, so I will never really understand your point of view it it is anything other than politically motivated. I have come to my conclusion.

He voluntarily told the world that his wife's actions are of no consequence. He put the ball in "your" court. If her actions are of consequence, don't you have to provide proof?

Your statement here clearly shows a lack of imagination. If this was truly a serious issue, I think Congress could find some way to act and influence the situation. this is simply another one of those issues where people in your party can go around and fake your outrage knowing full well there is no real intent to do anything. How many times in the past 10 years have conservatives given liberals the figurative finger ( yea, I did it, what are you gonna do about it) and liberals have just rolled over? You folks have no credibility.

I am curious in light of your presentation on this issue of Ethics and the appearance of a conflict of interest. In the case Gore V Bush, where we had Supreme Court Justices who clearly had past party affiliations, spouses and children with party affiliations, Justices who had been nominated by past Presidents of specified parties, where Gore had a track record of supporting and opposing various Justices in their nominating process, etc, etc, etc - yet no one recused themselves from the case because of the "appearance"? Were you vocal about the Code in that case? Why not if no?

Codes don't make me feel warm and fuzzy - I look at specific behaviors and actions, or what is real.

---------- Post added at 04:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

It is not an excuse. It is a vague and useless question. It fails to address other types of relationships. The question put one person at risk for the behavior of another.

Are you really comfortable with the idea of being held accountable for the actions of another? How far do you go with this? Your wife gave $100 to a church, therefore you can not rule on any issue involving religion????Your son worked delivering for the NY Times, therefore you can not rule on issues involving the press??? Or, your wife tells you she made $50,000, but she really made $60,000 (she put $10,000 in her secrete divorce account because you take her for granted and don't buy her flowers any longer similar to Baraka-G outlook involving politicians), and you get impeached???

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

urville

When tis my wife and i'm a supreme court judge? Are you joking? Yes of course, I'd be certain of it. No, it would be a discussion before I even took the bench obviously. If i dot his there are certaint hings we cant do, is that okay? Now your being hyperbolic. Those examples are not indicative of what we are talking about here... really? This is about hiding money from the wrong people for the wrong reasons. In public service your accounts and activities should be just that public. Dont like it, dont run. it serves a very distinct and good purpose to make sure your not getting money from or giving money to the wrong kinds of things, things that create a conflict of interest. Thats the point. Conflicts of interest. Thats what this is. We're talking hundreds of thousands and considerable influence. It wouldnt matter to me if they were FOR the cause, its not right.

aceventura3

Is being a Supreme Court Justice require your spouse to forfeit her rights as an individual? Does it require the spouse to get "approval" for her actions? These questions are not hyperbolic. My question to you was how far are you willing to take this. It is easy to address in a Leave it To Beaver, 1950's tradition of marriage, but this is not 1950. Imagine - well Mrs. you are married to Clarence Thomas - you need to get his permission before we hire you...??? Yes, we will sell the car to you as soon as you bring permission from your husband, because after all you are no longer an individual when you get married....???? Or, if he doesn't know everything his wife is doing you would subject him to some form of discipline???


If the issue is really about money, the best way to get the information is to have them submit their tax forms, even if they file separately.

I bet you could ask many married professionals with separate careers or entrepreneurs how much their spouse made and the best you would get is an estimate. Not even to mention those who have complicated financial arrangements, i.e. was the income to her business, to her personally, a trust, a charitable flow through, etc. To the guy who is a middle manager married to a person who is a teacher and they do a 1040EZ, that is pretty simple. But for some it ain't that simple. There are some rich people who could even tell you what they make without consulting an army of accountants and lawyers, even then the number can be disputed by reasonable people. All this with no intent to hide anything.

I fundamentally disagree. I think even public officials should have some privacy rights.

There are many highly qualified people who don't serve the public good for that very reason. Our question should be, do the requirements actually make things better?

And I bet you want to judge what the "wrong kinds of things" are. And that you will know it when you see it, so you need to see everything...then if you have a political agenda, I bet you find something!

Right, conflicts of interest is what you are talking about. To me the bigger point is actual fraud and deceit.

Remember Enron?

They had a nice well written Code of Ethics. In fact it was more like a 64 page booklet. Every employee had to agree to it, every once in a while managers would hold special meetings talking about it, it was only printed on paper blessed by leaders of every major religion...(I just made that last part up)...

The point is not in vague wording regarding conflicts and ethics but in the actual culture of an organization and the behaviors of the people! It is very easy to have a real conflict of interest and do the right thing. And the pretense that vague words on a piece of paper sets the tone for ethical behavior is laughable to me. I would rather have people who will do what is right even when faced with a conflict. It does not take spending much time to know when you are dealing with a person who will do the right thing - regardless of politics.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

urville

Does the question your asking differ from Mrs.Obama and her interests in fighting obesity. On party lines they would seem similar, in rhetoric certainly. but one is wholly different from another. We are talking about influencing and lobbying legislation here and in one case its a position expected to be partisan, the other is supposed to be blind to all of that. How can it claim to be when it isnt, when it hides that it isnt. this isnt the executive branch, this is the judicial branch. As i said before, when it come to this branch of govt I'll take it as far as it has to go to guarantee it is blind as it is supposed to be.

This has nothing to do with what year it is. As a citizen if you want man to man encounters on the side of your wife that's your business, as a public employee such as a representative, judge, etc. You set an example as does your parenting, choice in spouse, finances, etc. Your character up to and during is of the utmost importance. No one is being forced. If you don't like it, don't take the appointment. The appointment is the privilege earned not guaranteed, taken by choice not force.

In this case i think its clear cut. An adult can certainly make the decision whether they are putting themselves in a position of creating a conflict of interest. My wife works for a major national law firm, i cant be involved in any litigation against any of their clients. The job, like the appointment, is a privilege not a right and thus is subject to certain rules. It's not about me or you or gender roles, its about ethics. As Mrs. Thomas, my husband being a justice, I'd be a fool not to expect that, I expect it now. Of course she can sell her car, this is indeed hyperbolic. Lobbying however is another thing, anything involving money in politics... not so much. If you cant tell why one is different from another, God help you.

Yeah, your a justice but you cant make sure your maid is a legal citizen? That your wife is not lobbying? etc... In my opinion you do not deserve the privilege. This isnt like being the CEO of Kmart. This is the law of the United States as it may sometimes or not pertain to every aspect of every citizens life including legislation and legislators, etc. In this case the legality of that legislation in question.

It's not punishment for her doing, its considering whether as a result of not knowing or bothering to know or purposely hiding it that your character is deserving of the privilege. Conflict of interest. By taking that appointment your making a promise, its a lot of responsibility and maybe it isnt for everyone. Dont take the appointment if it isnt for you.

A public officials rights are one thing. His employment is not complete freedom like his citizenship. They come with rules, a job is a privilege. Follow the rules or get a different job. The private sector does this everyday the public sector has no reason to be different. If you see your job requires transparency and you think thats not right, dont take the job. Your not being forced to do anything, you choose. Thats the difference.

There are many criminals who do not for that very reason. There is nothing wrong with this rule as a requirement of employment or in this case appointment or conduct. he had every opportunity to consider not accepting it.

Is that how you operate? Is that how some conservatives operate? Is it only the left, only those you disagree with? i told you, if the same was true and it had been pro the legislation, I'd still think it was BS and want him held accountable. This isnt a game of ideologies... I actually believe it should be determined by a vote, this probably means congress unfortunately which wont get us a nonpartisan vote. Maybe a popular vote, I dont expect to get that though. I think we should have all kinds of voting on everything because reps cant be trusted anymore, or... (gasp) finance reform! So we actually get our voice back. Voices are not dollars, dollars are not free speech, we all get a vote a voice by the nature of our being. What need do we have for more?

It's called the law! What do you expect when we dont enforce it? of course they wont fear and respect it. Enron is not the courts, and we shouldnt let it be the courts. Why do think we're arguing this? Oh right partisan politics. Well your wrong. its because we find this to be outside whats right, it should be outside the law, the standards of the seat, and he should suffer those consequences.

dc_dux

ace...your arguments just get weaker and and less defensible when you make statements like:
This is nonsense. The issue is not that Justices may have political affiliations or were nominated by a president of one party or the other, but that while sitting on the Court, they should not be paid for a speaking engagement by a partisan political organization that may have interests coming before the Court.

Or this:
No one has suggested that Thomas's wife cant work for a partisan political organization on a specific issue that will come before the Court, but that simply he should recuse himself when that occurs.

Keep digging a deeper hole in denying that an appearance of the potential of conflict of interest may taint the public perception of the Court's independence.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Let me cut to the chase for you regarding Conflict of Interest. It is not possible for a Supreme court Justice to not regularly have "conflicts of interests" in the cases they hear. The whole point of being a judge on the Supreme Court is to put the Constitution in front of all other issues, including potential conflict of interest.

If you put any case ever heard by the Court on the table, conflicts of interest can be found. If you don't think some Justices had conflicts of interest in the Gore V Bush case, you need to take some time and re-visit the case and some of the history. You consequently make claims about my supposed indefensible positions and eventually you hide from the truth.

When I press for clarity you fail to provide it. There are clear differences between general conflicts of interest, and perpetuating a fraud leading to the direct enrichment personally and/or of family members. When I asked for proof of how Thomas' spouses actions was a violation of the code, the point was dismissed.

Again, if you ever decide to get serious, let me know.

---------- Post added at 11:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 PM ----------

You keep going back to the spouses activities. I don't care what the spouse does or did. It is of no importance to me. I would not care if the spouse actually made an argument in front of the Court, I think it would be her privilege to do so and if she exercised that privilege I would still expect a Supreme court Justice to do his job and provide sound Constitutional justification for his/her ruling.

Then be clear and say it in plain language. Judges and politicians, in your view should be held accountable for the behaviors of others. I disagree.

In a case the "people" versus a client of your spouses law firm, technically it means you are involved - what they mean is that you can not be a direct party named in the litigation or be privy to inside information that can impact the case. But, a judge does not represent clients they represent the Constitution and the laws of the land.


Then how do you define "lobbying"? Where do you draw the line? Giving Money? Giving a speech? Stuffing envelops? Writing a letter?

Regarding getting paid, if a justice was married to a teacher or professor would the justice then not be allowed to hear a case involving education? Again, where do you draw the line, give me some specifics, some examples of what you want.

Again why not clearly state your point of view. Are you saying that the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice no longer has the same Constitutional rights that you have? Ever American has the right to lobby or to influence legislation. If your view is as I suspect, I disagree.

If Thomas broke the rules, then those who think he did have a responsibility to act. Wake me up when you see someone doing something rather than the non-stop complaining.


No it is how the left is currently operating. The only conflicts they are interested in are the ones that may help their cause.

The law doesn't stop people from doing wrong.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

ace, its hard to get serious when you post such nonsense.

You clearly dont understand or are unwilling to acknowledge the difference between justices having known ideologies as opposes to justices with those known ideologies being paid by parties with similar ideologies.

Now you are claiming that any case put before the Court has conflicts of interest.

Tell me, ace, in the DC gun ban case, which justice was paid to speak at an event sponsored by the NRA or whose spouse works for the Brady Center?

In the Arizona decided this week regarding employers hiring illegal immigrants, which justice was paid to speak at an event sponsored by the AZ Chamber of Commerce or whose spouse works for an immigration advocacy organization?

You want me to get serious? Certainly, when you stop raising these bullshit assertions about conflict resulting from a presidential nomination, infringement of free speech of justices and/or spouses, alleging that all cases have conflicts of interest....

You do try one's patience with your nonsense, but I'm done with you on this one.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

urville

Not a work, easier to convey thought...

She is involved in willfully supporting, through funding and lobbying action, the partisan attack on a piece of legislation already adopted. Couple with that her eyebrow raising comments. Weiner said it best, "His wife has already taken nearly $700,000 from health care opponents and now openly advertises herself as a crack lobbyist with the “experience and connections” to overturn the law of the land."

Your hardly one to talk.

She is relevant, as she was also involved. She makes some statements that raise questions for more than just a few people. They profit off of it at a decent level and he supposedly is ignorant to it all. It makes no difference to me what you believe. I see no issue in simply making sure everything is as it "appears to be" given the ramifications and odd behavior.


Now that i have time let me be clear. Judges and politicians should be held accountable for thier actions, actions of those they directly influence to act, or accomplices to the fact. They should also be held in regard of thier character not to exclude those they associate with and allow to influence them. This is not outside reason. Specifically in this case: If he tried to hide the activity, which means he willfully was doing so, he needs to step down. If he participated in it and/or he is one of the "connections" he needs to serve time. If he wasnt aware, which i find in this instance incredibly far fetched (impossible), then he must recuse himself from any cases regarding the constitutionality of the health care reform law. That is what i am saying. This is not selling a car, this is about money in politics, possible abuse of the justice system, etc. It raises questions that need to be answered.


They dont really do "people" vs cases, however, what i was saying to clarify is that I cannot nor can she be in litigation against any client they represent because its a conflict of interest. He took an oath and your right about what he represents. This is all about legislation that will be determined lawful or not and whether it will be repealed. His involvement or lack of involvement, especially in light of statements made, in that lobbying needs to be revealed... investigated. She needs to prove her intent and meaning by that statement and he needs to prove that he was not involved, his position makes it an imperative. Either way at the very least he should not be sitting for any of those cases.

Everything else you said was either too subjective, loaded, nonsense, or just not worth addressing. Especially the multiple times you accused someone of something you were doing. Good luck with all of that.

aceventura3

Hey DC,

Have you had a chance to actually think about Gore V Bush in context of an "appearance" of a conflict of interest and do you still stand by your statement that my bringing it up is nonsense?

On one hand you have the actions of a spouse involved as a private citizen in a cause that has not appeared in front of the court.

On the other we have...

Oh, let's see...perhaps a conversation that I am sure never happened but could have:

Thomas - Thank you President Bush for giving me the opportunity to realize my highest life long dream, if not for you I would have never gotten this opportunity, did I say of a life time? And did I say it is the one thing I have wanted the most in my life above everything else. I repeat something I value more than anything. You have helped me cement my legacy, I will go down in history - I am in your debt. Hell, I am not even qualified. Even in light of me sexually harassing Anita Hill, you stood with me. I love you more than life itself.

G.H.W. Bush - Some day and that day may never come (you may remember that from the God Father , an excellent movie i might add), I may ask you for a favor...

Fast forward to 2000 Gore V Bush comes along....and the rest is history!

First, I believe Thomas did what he thought was right, my point is regarding the "appearance" of a conflict of interest. You clearly don't get it. I do. I also understand the liberal agenda concerning Thomas and his spouse and it has nothing to do with the issues you pretend to be concerned about.

You can not tell me where you would draw the line, your position lacks clarity. Regarding Supreme Court Justices, I don't care how their spouses get paid or who pays them. Nor do I care how the Justices got paid in the past. Nor do I care if they get paid to give a speech. What I do care about is sound reasoning and Constitutionally based rulings. The "appearance" of conflicts of interest can not be avoided.

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------

I think I understand your point of view, and we simply disagree.

I use humor, but within that humor are some very serious points. When people try to defend the indefensible or make charges without thinking the issue through, I enjoy having fun with it - sort of like when a cat toys with its prey. I do need to grow up. Perhaps I will start tomorrow.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

at the risk of bringing the thread back to it's topic and away from ace talking about himself....this editorial from the guardian gives a fair picture of the overall damage neo-liberalism has visited upon the united states, the irrational tax structure that has been foisted on us, the increasingly authoritarian political structure that neo-liberalism requires as its policies shred the socio-economic structure of the united states, and, within that, the role and problems of the current form of campaign finance:

After the crash: the pauperisation of middle-class America | Richard Wolff | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

It shouldn't come as a surprise that the natural conclusion of neoliberalism is a disproportionate distribution of wealth to the extent that it destabilizes the whole system.

No, it's not nothing new, but as with most things these days, you need to keep repeating it in hopes that it will stick. You need to keep repeating it to overcome the repetitious propaganda, which produces far too much interference.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

Stop directing comments towards me. Focus on the issues and the issues will be discussed.

The author stated the following:

The housing contraction was the result the excessive speculation in the highly leveraged derivatives market. so from the beginning his premise is incorrect. And to blame the crisis on capitalism is also incorrect. The problem is with a select few trying to micromanage markets and the economy.

---------- Post added at 03:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 PM ----------

What is "neoliberalism?" If you define it the way I suspect you and Roach would, I suspect the real problem is in this hybrid type economic model you have supported in other threads. And if "neoliberalism" is the problem, what is the solution?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

ace, take the most notoriously loathsome/controversial politicians in Canada on both the federal and provincial levels. Those are neoliberals. These are the politicians who do things like lower taxes and pay for it by dismantling healthcare and education, among other things.

If the "real problem" is an operational mixed economy over a conceptual free-market economy, then I suppose it's a problem in that it tends to get in the way of the desires of those who dream of a Friedmanesque utopia. Beyond that, I don't see how a mixed economy is any more problematic than unstable alternatives considered and even attempted via economic experimentation.

---------- Post added at 12:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------

You're ignoring a number of other factors that made for this perfect storm. Speculation and the policies of government and central banks are only a few of several factors, and their level of impact is debatable. If you're going to correct a premise, you might want to be more comprehensive.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

the problem, ace, is that you (routinely) isolate factoids and then mangle them because your markety market metaphysics are too weak to allow anything else.

every time you do that, you evacuate the politics from political discussion and replace it with religion.

so instead of actual discussion there is just you nattering on about your inner world where the only necessary empirical correlate for a "belief" is the fact that you, apparently, believe it.

of course you're wrong about the housing crisis. you're wrong about it like you're wrong, materially, about almost everything else you address.

and the ways in which you're wrong are fundamental.

but to have a discussion would entail that there be some reasonable expectation that a discussion is possible.

and that you've entirely undermined.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

Then I don't understand the difference between a neoliberal and a fiscal conservative, a free market conservative or a Reagan conservative, are they all the same in your view?

The author cited by Roach describes problems that stem from a mixed economy. I don't understand what the author wants, nor do I understand what you want.

I also read an article by Krugman today, he complained about American politicians falling in the trap of believing that nothing can be done about unemployment (of course blaming Republicans for this condition) but not saying what needs to be done. I find his positions pretty convenient, he always complains about an economic issue but rarely offers real solutions.

I responded to a simplistic presentation of our economic condition in a simplistic manner. I don't ignore the complexities and many factors. The author cited was blatantly wrong.

---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 PM ----------

Rather than making this about me, set the record straight.

I stated that the author of the article you cited was operating on a factually incorrect premise. What is your response to that? Gee!

Your guy is a simpleton! He does not know what he is talking about! That is what I present to you. You cited this guy for a reason, defend him! But you can't and we know it. So write some gobbledy gook about me, been there done that. Then if I respond, defending myself, more gooledy gook about me with a complaint about how I always make it about me - been there and done that too.

The reality is that your guy (author cited) has a political agenda that has nothing to do with truth, he simply wants to shape public opinion and will do what it takes to accomplish his goal, even use misdirection. Did you really believe our economic crisis was the result of housing prices collapsing?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

you don't know what neo-liberalism is.
any rational person would have done a search.
but you didn't.
because it's too much work.
so was reading the article.
which you didn't.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

I believe my problem is in the way the term is used by you and others. It often does not fit the text book definition when it it used here. I also suspect when you use the term you are referring to one thing and when others use it they are referring to something else.

This is a discussion board it is very appropriate to ask people to clarify the terms and concepts being used.


You do not know what I do and what I don't do within the context of a question.

I often start reading something you write or something written by a source you provide, and if it clearly starts off with a faulty premise I will usually stop reading in detail and scan the remaining looking for some rationale for the faulty premise, as I did in the article you most recently cited here. Your guy is clearly wrong and did not provide any support for his faulty premise. The laziness is on his part and on your part - he could have very easily presented an accurate characterization of the economic crisis and went on to his other points - but he did not and you got caught providing something you did not vet. Before making your charges against others, look in a mirror.

In my first response I stated what the problem with the article was, you have refused to address that and instead direct attacks toward me personally. Be careful, I may breakout a series of analogies or start responding with my dry uninspired humor.

Or, even sarcasm.

Have a nice day.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."