Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

WASHINGTON — The leader of the Federal Election Commission, the agency charged with regulating the way political money is raised and spent, says she has largely given up hope of reining in abuses in the 2016 presidential campaign, which could generate a record $10 billion in spending.

“The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim,” Ann M. Ravel, the chairwoman, said in an interview. “I never want to give up, but I’m not under any illusions. People think the F.E.C. is dysfunctional. It’s worse than dysfunctional.”

Her unusually frank assessment reflects a worsening stalemate among the agency’s six commissioners. They are perpetually locked in 3-to-3 ties along party lines on key votes because of a fundamental disagreement over the mandate of the commission, which was created 40 years ago in response to the political corruption of Watergate.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us ... ?referrer=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GannonFan wrote:Yeah, 226 years give or take of a country where money has been spent increasingly in elections more and more in each successive election, and now we decide that money has past some magical threshhold where now democracy is dead. Let people raise whatever money they can and make it all transparent, it's really not all that difficult. Freedom of speech and the freedom to vote for or against anyone we want based on the information presented. What a terrible idea.

Ivytalk wrote:I agree. Abolish the FEC. That'll save us a few billion.

ASUG8 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Yeah, 226 years give or take of a country where money has been spent increasingly in elections more and more in each successive election, and now we decide that money has past some magical threshhold where now democracy is dead. Let people raise whatever money they can and make it all transparent, it's really not all that difficult. Freedom of speech and the freedom to vote for or against anyone we want based on the information presented. What a terrible idea.

* passed *

Democracy may not be dead yet, but it's on life support if it even really existed in the first place. We're an oligarchy in the US IMHO. Do you really believe that the people you elect are going to do something in your best interest? Do you think this bloated bureaucracy can or ever will go on a diet, but rather become even more pervasive? Do you believe that an individual actually has a chance of getting what they would like without being part of a significant lobby or special interest group?

Sure, you can say what you want and vote for who you want to just like the constitution says. Voting for who you want likely won't make much difference, and speaking your mind may get you on an FBI/NSA/Homeland Security watch list. The system is broken, and the players don't have the incentive to fix it.

Ivytalk wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
* passed *

Democracy may not be dead yet, but it's on life support if it even really existed in the first place. We're an oligarchy in the US IMHO. Do you really believe that the people you elect are going to do something in your best interest? Do you think this bloated bureaucracy can or ever will go on a diet, but rather become even more pervasive? Do you believe that an individual actually has a chance of getting what they would like without being part of a significant lobby or special interest group?

Sure, you can say what you want and vote for who you want to just like the constitution says. Voting for who you want likely won't make much difference, and speaking your mind may get you on an FBI/NSA/Homeland Security watch list. The system is broken, and the players don't have the incentive to fix it.

My, aren't we Debbie Downer this morning!

You sound an awful lot like klam.

Gary Johnson will save America!

ASUG8 wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
My, aren't we Debbie Downer this morning!

You sound an awful lot like klam.

Gary Johnson will save America!

I do have an increasingly pessimistic view of how the US is trending in a lot of ways and not just from this administration. Someone needs to come in and kaizen the hell out of our government to increase its efficiency. I just don't think we need all the czars and their supporting casts and we could do a better job with less overhead if the special interests weren't busy stirring the pot.

And that kalm comparison was simply mean.

Ivytalk wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:


I do have an increasingly pessimistic view of how the US is trending in a lot of ways and not just from this administration. Someone needs to come in and kaizen the hell out of our government to increase its efficiency. I just don't think we need all the czars and their supporting casts and we could do a better job with less overhead if the special interests weren't busy stirring the pot.

And that kalm comparison was simply mean.

Cool word, kaizen!

But this guvmint is beyond kaizening. It's time for amputating!

And sorry about the klam thing...terrible thing to say about a fellow Pontiac fan.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Cool word, kaizen!

But this guvmint is beyond kaizening. It's time for amputating!

And sorry about the klam thing...terrible thing to say about a fellow Pontiac fan.

Here I go and start a limited government thread to further develop my moderate cred and this how I get treated?

You two can go blow each other!

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Cool word, kaizen!

But this guvmint is beyond kaizening. It's time for amputating!

And sorry about the klam thing...terrible thing to say about a fellow Pontiac fan.

Here I go and start a limited government thread to further develop my moderate cred and this how I get treated?

You two can go blow each other!

kalm wrote:to further develop my moderate cred

kalm wrote:Another useless government regulatory agency. What's the point?

WASHINGTON — The leader of the Federal Election Commission, the agency charged with regulating the way political money is raised and spent, says she has largely given up hope of reining in abuses in the 2016 presidential campaign, which could generate a record $10 billion in spending.

“The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim,” Ann M. Ravel, the chairwoman, said in an interview. “I never want to give up, but I’m not under any illusions. People think the F.E.C. is dysfunctional. It’s worse than dysfunctional.”

Her unusually frank assessment reflects a worsening stalemate among the agency’s six commissioners. They are perpetually locked in 3-to-3 ties along party lines on key votes because of a fundamental disagreement over the mandate of the commission, which was created 40 years ago in response to the political corruption of Watergate.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us ... ?referrer=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ivytalk wrote:I agree. Abolish the FEC. That'll save us a few billion.

93henfan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I agree. Abolish the FEC. That'll save us a few billion.

Not really. $67.5M.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/budget/fy2015/ ... budget.pdf

HI54UNI wrote:

kalm wrote:Another useless government regulatory agency. What's the point?

Why don't you just move to Somalia if you don't like the government?

People can see through your thinly veiled attempts.
Image

JohnStOnge wrote:I agree. We could do without the Federal Election Commission. And, really, the government shouldn't be regulating how money for political campaigns is raised and spent per se. People and/or institutions should be able to give as much as they want to pay for the candidates of their choice. There should be no regulation of that whatsoever.

What gets me is that so many people actually want total public funding of campaigns so that GOVERNMENT controls whether people get money to run for office or not. THAT is insane.

JohnStOnge wrote:Remember that the whole "free speech" thing is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. It's a prohibition on Congress making laws. When you start talking about Congress actually making laws to say someone can't spend as much money or effort of whatever to say what they want you are moving in direct opposition to the principle involved.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Remember that the whole "free speech" thing is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. It's a prohibition on Congress making laws. When you start talking about Congress actually making laws to say someone can't spend as much money or effort of whatever to say what they want you are moving in direct opposition to the principle involved.

So it's ok for private entities to limit speech? How about if they limit speech via the government?

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
So it's ok for private entities to limit speech? How about if they limit speech via the government?

Comcast has proven that you can get pretty much everything you want from our government
if you bribe enough people and fund a large enough lobby
Congress was pushing billions ($50 Billions + ) right into Comcast pockets with ZERO regulation
and no oversight

Now THAT is Freedom baby..!!!



It takes a lot of money to get that kind of freedom
Example: It cost Comcast $18 Million of un-regulated freedom bribery and lobby
to get $50 Billion of the American Tax Payers money

Why do you hate freedom so much Kalm..?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

Comcast has proven that you can get pretty much everything you want from our government
if you bribe enough people and fund a large enough lobby
Congress was pushing billions ($50 Billions + ) right into Comcast pockets with ZERO regulation
and no oversight

Now THAT is Freedom baby..!!!



It takes a lot of money to get that kind of freedom
Example: It cost Comcast $18 Million of un-regulated freedom bribery and lobby
to get $50 Billion of the American Tax Payers money

Why do you hate freedom so much Kalm..?

Good god man...you act as if Comcast INVENTED this shit.