Here is a Reform Suggestion That Would Make the Playground Fair

[The Whiskey Priest]

When you or I give a campaign contribution it cannot be used as a tax deduction. When a Corporation spends for a K Street Lobbyist it is a cost of doing business and therefore a tax deduction. Why not prohibit using the cost of lobbying as a tax deduction?

[izzie]

1. Frankly I do not think what we think is important to them

I think free TV and radio should also be a thing. It is our air ways if Congress lets us have it back. I think their is also a law saying they will do such things on TV etc. They just are not made to do it.

[tll]

6. thank you!

A friend and I had a big drunken conversation about this as a solution.

I believe this is sort of how it goes: when granted their licenses, tv and radio stations are required to do a certain amount, give up airtime for the public good (this is why your cable co. has those so-called public information channels)...

What could be more for the public good than learning about the candidates who want to represent you? Joe Average American may not want to give up Survivor or Price is Right repeats but he can just suck it up as far as I'm concerned.

Though advertising's my thing, I say it has no place in politics. Everybody gets equal-time via debates, townhall meetings and roundtable discussions that broadcast networks are required to air in their entirety and at a decent hour. Nobody running for office is allowed to purchase spots on radio or tv. Similar goes for print. Newspapers run profiles, comparisons, allow the candidates a certain number of editorials. We could allow funds to be made available to established, non-partisan groups to run ads and send mailers comparing the candidates but that's it.

And I want a t-shirt: "First thing we do is kill all the focus groups"... I'd love to have focus groups taken out of the equation.

Some Rove-type will find ways around this, I'm sure but... well, like I said, my friend and I were pretty drunk when we hashed this out.

[zbdent]

8. Ran across this while looking at papers in 1996

and the big proponent of giving Pres. candidates free air time on TV was -


RUPERT MURDOCH

Funny, how he probably wouldn't want that these days, when the candidates would be going up against a Repuke . . .

I'll have to dig out the article later.

[trotsky]

2. I don't think that would stop the big guns.

Whatever they spend on lobbying they get back in spades from tax cuts, government spending, etc. They'll still come out ahead.

[The Whiskey Priest]

3. That is true

however there was such a paradox in the fact that they were stealing and taking tax deductions for their thievery at the same time.

[trotsky]

4. Paradox? Naw, that's just good business!

;-)

[htuttle]

5. The fact that it's considered a 'business expense'...

...points out the disingenuousness of the whole concept of 'lobbying' in the US.

If something is a business expense, one would assume that those expenditures are expected to return more money than is paid out. Otherwise, why would they contribute MILLIONS to a candidate if they didn't think they make more than that back?

Yet, we are expected to believe that these contributions are made with no expectations or quid pro quo. WHAT businessperson is going to lay out a million bucks because they 'think it's good for the country'? These are the same people fighting local school bond measures -- they're greedy cheapskates! They wouldn't pay that money unless they were getting something for it!

I assert that if campaign contributions can be considered business expenses, then they are inherently bribes.

[The Whiskey Priest]

7. It is the cost of hiring a lobbyist that is the deductible expense

plus meal and perks that they spread around....camapaign contributions are not tax deductible.....for us or the corporations...but that is not where the thievery comes in..it is the perks and the lobbyist in kind work for the politician.