$90,000 in credit card fees

[evoorhees]

The problem is not that people or corporations (which are just groups of people) can donate unlimited amounts to politicians.

The problem is that politicians can hand out favors, and that ability grows in direct proportion with the size and scope of government.

Shrink the government, and the number of favors to be dolled out is necessarily reduced. In the "money buying power" problem, it is not the money, but the power.

[1715054050]

1715054050

[1715054050]

1715054050

[P4man]

The problem is not that people or corporations (which are just groups of people) can donate unlimited amounts to politicians.

The problem is that politicians can hand out favors, and that ability grows in direct proportion with the size and scope of government.

Shrink the government, and the number of favors to be dolled out is necessarily reduced. In the "money buying power" problem, it is not the money, but the power.

No offense, but thats just plain idiotic. No matter how much you shrink government, they will always have considerable power over things like taxes, infrastructure, etc. Even if they dont, they always have the power to take more power since they can create legislation.  The problem *is* legalized bribery, and the solution is simple enough.

[gnar1ta$]

The problem is not that people or corporations (which are just groups of people) can donate unlimited amounts to politicians.

The problem is that politicians can hand out favors, and that ability grows in direct proportion with the size and scope of government.

Shrink the government, and the number of favors to be dolled out is necessarily reduced. In the "money buying power" problem, it is not the money, but the power.

+1  Well said, as usual. But good luck convincing the masses...as you see.

[evoorhees]

No matter how much you shrink government, they will always have considerable power over things like taxes, infrastructure, etc.

Would you like to rethink that a bit? 

[JohnOliver]

In the case of super PACs, unlimited donations only require the identity of the donor.

Ostensibly, yes. But for all intents and purposes it's anonymous, since it's trivial to form and dissolve super PACs, and there's no requirement to maintain the donor list when the super PAC is dissolved.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/taking_secret_donations_to_far031304.php

[ineededausername]

The problem is not that people or corporations (which are just groups of people) can donate unlimited amounts to politicians.

The problem is that politicians can hand out favors, and that ability grows in direct proportion with the size and scope of government.

Shrink the government, and the number of favors to be dolled out is necessarily reduced. In the "money buying power" problem, it is not the money, but the power.

Now the problem is shrinking the government.  How do we overcome entrenched special interests who obviously don't want to shrink the government?  The current revolving-door system is largely static and I see no real change on the horizon, unfortunately.

[P4man]

Would you like to rethink that a bit?  

No, not really. Show me one prosperous country in world's history that functioned without government. You will always need government on some level, and legally allowing that government, no matter how small, to be bought is dead stupid. You dont allow corruption and bribes in a company executive either, or do you? You dont advocate shrinking the company or every executives' power as solution, or do you? Allowing bribes in government is fascism or feudalism instead of democracy.

I understand people's hate of government, particularly those that live in the states, but wanting to abolish all forms of government as 'solution' for a corrupt system that is clearly not working in the people's interest is throwing away the baby with the bath water.

[notme]

Show me one country in the world where you can't bribe a government official for a favor.  Oh wait, there is no baby in that tub of shit.

[P4man]

Show me one country in the world where you can't bribe a government official for a favor.  Oh wait, there is no baby in that tub of shit.

You can never eradicate corruption completely, or any other form of crime for that matter, that doesnt mean its a good idea to legalize either.  You will have corruption in the private sector too, that doesnt mean abolishing it is the solution.
That said, good luck bribing an official in a Scandinavian country.

edit: on that note, its worth looking at this list:
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results

The US is ranked #22. Worse than Chile. I dont see a correlation with government size though. Government is huge in Denmark, #1 on that list. Its non existant in Somalia which is ranked last. I guess Somalia is your shining example?

[phelix]

The politicans of power are not sponsored by ordinary people and credit cards. They are directed by shadowy organizations, you might call them zionists, illuminati, freemasons. The Obama is only a puppet in theyr hands.

fun fact: this guy is a nazi (and I'm entirely serious!)
who knew that Bitcoin would attract such people

Confused! Who you referring to as a Nazi? The writer of the post you quoted, or Obama? Personally, I care less, but am curious, hence the question.

~Bruno~

I'm nazi. National Socialist, to be exact.

Bitcoin attracts me because it is technological brilliant idea and it gives freedom from jewish bank systems and impending new world order. Bitcoin gives freedom. I'm also a computer hacker (in both terms of this word) and the Bitcoin is a thing that has never been seen before and the change it might bring to society is hard to imagine. It will change world more than printing press and steam engine have done.

It's actually funny that someone read my posts here and remember them

Now that that's cleared up. Personally, I don't have any qualms with you. In fact, if your were near-by, I would buy you lunch--seriously. We would possible discuss hacking together a couple 'pepper bellies', if you get my drift.

Later, MysteryMiner.

~Bruno~

and once more this place gets even weirder... 

[PrintCoins]

and once more this place gets even weirder... 

Yeah... I think bitcoin attracts the fringe elements of society in all directions. If you have something to rebel against, bitcoin is for you.

I think it is even weirder when I see socialists/communists posting to this board in support of bitcoin. It is like they didn't get the memo.

---
Staying on target:

If I were to send >100K to a person for their campaign, I would probably send a check and not use a credit card.

The thing is, many of Ron Paul's donations are probably <$100 and so the percentage comes out of all of those combined as well.

If bitcoin did become a commonly accepted currency, it would become really easy to bribe politicians with it. It is the equivalent of sending an unmarked envelope full of cash, but much easier to hide the actual transaction. You wouldn't even need to do a song and dance about campaign financing and job offers to politicians after their political careers are over. Just an encrypted email with a private key to an address, some money stashed in it, and a suggestion that they should do xyz.

[fornit]

thats why bitcoin needs multi-signature transactions. you can give the politician the first key to the money and when he delivers you give him the second. 

[Phinnaeus Gage]

thats why bitcoin needs multi-signature transactions. you can give the politician the first key to the money and when he delivers you give him the second. 

That, alone, brings payola to whole new level.

~.~~~~~~~~

1. Send this information to every politician in the world.
2. Wait.
3. 
4. Profit!

[nybble41]

thats why bitcoin needs multi-signature transactions. you can give the politician the first key to the money and when he delivers you give him the second. 

How is that any different from using a single key, and withholding it until he delivers? Half a key won't help him very much if you decide to back out.

It may be possible to combine an assurance contract (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_3:_Assurance_contracts) with an M-of-N key scheme such that the payment is made when a majority of representatives agrees that the politician has delivered. That would be safer from the politician's point-of-view, while still leaving his supporters a measure of control.

[phillipsjk]

Yeah... I think bitcoin attracts the fringe elements of society in all directions. If you have something to rebel against, bitcoin is for you.

I think it is even weirder when I see socialists/communists posting to this board in support of bitcoin. It is like they didn't get the memo.

As a socialist I can give you a little bit of insight. I assume by "memo", you mean the fall of the Soviet Union. It is entirely possible that Capitalism is just as unstable, but the USSR just collapsed first.

Actual communists go even further. They see the central planning employed by the Soviet Union as "state capitalism," mirroring the central planning often seen in large corporations. In that light, the fall of the Soviet Union can be seen as a failure of the corporate structure endemic to capitalism. An actual communist society would rely on local democratic decison making. When central decisions are needed, representatives would be selected. Much like Holliday was advocating actually

On the topic, for small transactions, bitcoin is still expensive (due to the banking system you must use).  It is kind of a "chicken&egg" problem.

[PrintCoins]

Yeah... I think bitcoin attracts the fringe elements of society in all directions. If you have something to rebel against, bitcoin is for you.

I think it is even weirder when I see socialists/communists posting to this board in support of bitcoin. It is like they didn't get the memo.

As a socialist I can give you a little bit of insight. I assume by "memo", you mean the fall of the Soviet Union. It is entirely possible that Capitalism is just as unstable, but the USSR just collapsed first.

Actual communists go even further. They see the central planning employed by the Soviet Union as "state capitalism," mirroring the central planning often seen in large corporations. In that light, the fall of the Soviet Union can be seen as a failure of the corporate structure endemic to capitalism. An actual communist society would rely on local democratic decison making. When central decisions are needed, representatives would be selected. Much like Holliday was advocating actually

On the topic, for small transactions, bitcoin is still expensive (due to the banking system you must use).  It is kind of a "chicken&egg" problem.

Actually that was not the memo. The memo is that bitcoin is a solid capitalist tool that has no aspects of wealth redistribution built in.

I agree that the Soviet Union was not truly socialist, but I think socialism/communism is the unstable force as it requires a power structure to manage it, a power structure that eventually starts to just work for its own good.

Toss a hundred people on an island (gently) give them each some silver coins (doesn't have to be equal amounts) and even without any power structure, very quickly a fairly efficient economic system will develop and people will do things for each other.

Capitalism is not just stable, it is almost innate, and requires no central power (though it helps to have someone create a decent thing to act as money - otherwise cowry shells will do).

The nice thing about bitcoin, is it can separate the money system from the political system. The political system determines who is in power, what policies should be enacted (do we go to war, do we create homeless shelters, how much do we tax people...), and whatever. The money system is for individuals to do transactions. A monetary system and a political system can be two separate (but interacting) systems. Tying them together has been out of necessity all this time as you need central authority controlling the minting of money. With bitcoin, you can have a global monetary system that is not controlled by any authority other than the transaction rules laid out in the initial paper.

It will be nice when one day we neither have fait currencies or problematic precious metals.

[the founder]

Where do you get the idea corporations can donate unlimited funds to US politicians?  The per person/entity limit applies to corporations also.

Let's Assume that an entity can donate 5000 dollars max to an individual.

Exxon owns 1000's subsidiaries .  but let's make this simple and say 4.
Politicans have 1000's of channels,  but to make it simple we'll say 5

Exxon Inc
Exxon Exploration , LLC
Exxon Purchasing, LLC
Exxon XXX, LLC

Exxon Inc donates $5,000 each to the following

Person A
Person A's National Party
Person A's State level Party
Person A's Local level Party
Person A's PAC group


Exxon Exploration , LLC donates $5,000 each to the following

Person A
Person A's National Party
Person A's State level Party
Person A's Local level Party
Person A's PAC group

Exxon Purchasing, LLC donates $5000 each to the following

Person A
Person A's National Party
Person A's State level Party
Person A's Local level Party
Person A's PAC group

Exxon XXX, LLC Exxon Purchasing, LLC


Person A
Person A's National Party
Person A's State level Party
Person A's Local level Party
Person A's PAC group


This list goes on forever...  That $5,000 dollar donation turned to $100,000 dollar donation in this tiny example...  but in real life it theoretically and in actuality does turn into millions...

[asdf]

The problem is not that people or corporations (which are just groups of people) can donate unlimited amounts to politicians.

The problem is that politicians can hand out favors, and that ability grows in direct proportion with the size and scope of government.

Shrink the government, and the number of favors to be dolled out is necessarily reduced. In the "money buying power" problem, it is not the money, but the power.

No offense, but thats just plain idiotic. No matter how much you shrink government, they will always have considerable power over things like taxes, infrastructure, etc. Even if they don't, they always have the power to take more power since they can create legislation.  The problem *is* legalized bribery, and the solution is simple enough.

The point is to reduce the scope of government so that there is less influence for corrupt interests to bid for. Sure we need some government to protect property rights, but everything else can be eliminated.

For every government department that goes, so does 10000 lobbyists. Get rid of the FDA: no more pharmaceutical companies influencing policy to protect their patented, toxic drugs. Get rid of FINRA: no more brokerage firms writing laws that shut out small competitors. Get rid of the EPA: no more special interests shutting down "undesirable" business ventures with the excuse of some bogus environmental disaster scenario. In fact, get rid of any government influence in any form of economic activity whatsoever and establishment type corporations nothing to bribe politicians to do, because it's not in the scope of the government. Get it?

Yes, they will still have military, taxes etc. But isn't smaller still much better? That's why the constitution is there, so that they can't create any arbitrary legislation. The American public just has to re-learn their founding principals.

You can never stop bribery. There are thousands of ways to pay some one without "paying" them.

[P4man]

The point is to reduce the scope of government so that there is less influence for corrupt interests to bid for. Sure we need some government to protect property rights, but everything else can be eliminated.

For every government department that goes, so does 10000 lobbyists. Get rid of the FDA: no more pharmaceutical companies influencing policy to protect their patented, toxic drugs. Get rid of FINRA: no more brokerage firms writing laws that shut out small competitors. Get rid of the EPA: no more special interests shutting down "undesirable" business ventures with the excuse of some bogus environmental disaster scenario. In fact, get rid of any government influence in any form of economic activity whatsoever and establishment type corporations nothing to bribe politicians to do, because it's not in the scope of the government. Get it?

Yeah I get, I just dont agree - at all. I think we all agree that special interests paying for tailored legislation is a bad thing for society. So why would you not oppose it? Now I agree outlawing wont make it go away completely, but thats hardly a reason to support institutionalized bribery.

As for eliminating all those agencies; well, I have some sympathy for die hard libertarians, but I think you are very naive believing the world would be a better place with little to no laws.  Free markets are a great thing, but human nature has a focus on short term individual profits and not long term sustainable societies. Shrink the legal framework to next to nothing and you get more casino capitalism, not less. You get more uninsured drunk drivers, not less. You get more toxic plants polluting your drinking water, more airlines trying to saving a buck by saving on essential maintenance, not less. Free markets are ruling most of Africa, just go look how that works out. Ever flown on an african airline? You might get some appreciation for the FAA if you did.

[notme]

The point is to reduce the scope of government so that there is less influence for corrupt interests to bid for. Sure we need some government to protect property rights, but everything else can be eliminated.

For every government department that goes, so does 10000 lobbyists. Get rid of the FDA: no more pharmaceutical companies influencing policy to protect their patented, toxic drugs. Get rid of FINRA: no more brokerage firms writing laws that shut out small competitors. Get rid of the EPA: no more special interests shutting down "undesirable" business ventures with the excuse of some bogus environmental disaster scenario. In fact, get rid of any government influence in any form of economic activity whatsoever and establishment type corporations nothing to bribe politicians to do, because it's not in the scope of the government. Get it?

Yeah I get, I just dont agree - at all. I think we all agree that special interests paying for tailored legislation is a bad thing for society. So why would you not oppose it? Now I agree outlawing wont make it go away completely, but thats hardly a reason to support institutionalized bribery.

As for eliminating all those agencies; well, I have some sympathy for die hard libertarians, but I think you are very naive believing the world would be a better place with little to no laws.  Free markets are a great thing, but human nature has a focus on short term individual profits and not long term sustainable societies. Shrink the legal framework to next to nothing and you get more casino capitalism, not less. You get more uninsured drunk drivers, not less. You get more toxic plants polluting your drinking water, more airlines trying to saving a buck by saving on essential maintenance, not less. Free markets are ruling most of Africa, just go look how that works out. Ever flown on an african airline? You might get some appreciation for the FAA if you did.

Having it legal makes it easier to trace.  If it's going to happen anyway, might as well keep it open.  The only way to reduce it is to limit the government's authority.  I'm not sure we should throw out everything, but we could stand a good trim.