Why do you oppose the DISCLOSE act? (1 Viewer)

[RCon]

I don't disagree but I think term limits are the answer...right now our political class is nothing more than legalized Mafia...they need $ and the people who invest in them own them more often than not...and that ownership can last decades...if they are not there for a long period there is less incentive to put $ into them or for the pols to need $...there has not been one congressman in the past 50 years that this country could not have lived without...if anything this country would be a better place without losers like Pelosi, McConnell or Ted Kennedy entrenched in power for as long as they were.

I'm not necessarily against term limits, but I don't see how term limits prevent special interest groups (whether corporations or other groups) from "buying" politicians. Either they buy the same guy 25 years in a row or they buy a new guy every few years, it's not really any different, is it?

I think it is...if they aren't there for life $ becomes less of a motivating factor...I have had friends run for some pretty high offices and they all said the same thing...they could not believe how much money mattered and how much of an advantage an incumbent already had...now, I won't be naive and think special interests will go away but I think it is 100 times better if they have to start new a lot in their attempts to buy them as opposed to not have to worry about it for 30 years.

I think this misses several key points. First, term limits don't stop people from running for different offices. State Rep, State Sen, US House Rep, US Senator, Governor, etc. Plenty of time for politicians to collect funding. Second, you seem to be implying that once bought, a politician stays bought without the need for more money. I don't think that's true, which gets back to my comment of negligible difference between buying the same guy six times in a row or buying six different guys. Third, I'd suggest that it's easier to buy someone new than repeatedly buy someone who is already wealthy from previous money. That is, it's easier to buy someone who's middle class than someone who's quite wealthy.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I don't see that at all...they are not beholden to anyone at that point and the hope would be that with term limits thry are not looking to become an entrenched member of the ruling elite.

While it wasn't my point and still isn't, term limits just limit the opportunity to sell their souls. They need to get to it faster and stronger.

If I take and assume that those being elected to office, at least at first have noble purposes in mind then I think the power dynamic is all with the entrenched influence brokers over the naive new office holders. And these new office holders are all just a term or two away from needing that private sector job to keep up the standard of living,

So, while I can see arguments for term limits I just don't think that this one that holds up. To me if you want to drive away the influence peddling just remove from Congress the ability to pick winners and losers to begin with. Replace our corporate welfare system with a UBI (I mean things like food stamps and section 8 housing). Get tax expenditures out of the tax code (whether you like them being called "expenditures" or not). Etc.

 

[Boston]

Nice replies and some big words above but will have to agree to disagree…it is not that difficult.