Green Room

When David Axelrod and I agree …

posted at 1:16 pm on February 20, 2013 by

… maybe it’s a little like this?

And yet, Twitchy reports that David Axelrod and I are sympatico on campaign finance reform:

As I wrote yesterday:

What is truly needed in such a system, and in campaign finance reform generally, is immediate transparency.  Thirty years ago, that wasn’t possible.  With the near-ubiquity of broadband Internet access, it’s almost cost-free now.  Instead of erecting artificial barriers to contributors that create opacity and unaccountability by design, we should be crafting systems that make candidates and their political parties fully responsible for their messaging and tactics, rather than allow them to hide behind organizations built by their big donors.

I’d check on Hell to see if it’s frozen over, but I live in Minnesota, almost as far away from it as you can get in this world.  Minnesota is definitely frozen over today, by the way.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Does Axelrod include having full security checks on credit card transactions (i.e., turn on the routine checks that their campaign disabled)?

WashJeff on February 20, 2013 at 1:20 PM

The way to stop from having too much money is politics is to severely curb regulation, subsidies and put in place a flat tax.

As long as corporations can buy regulation to benefit them on a competitive level, buy influence to garner them tax credits and subsidies, they’ll continue to spend a little less than what they think they’ll get in returns.

The crony capitalism in place allows for outrageous amounts being spent.

We can argue til the cows come home which one came first, but the bottom line is we need to cut the bureaucracies to watch the money in politics make a retreat.

ButterflyDragon on February 20, 2013 at 1:21 PM

ButterflyDragon on February 20, 2013 at 1:21 PM

While I agree with your statements about crony capitalism being a huge issue, a flat tax will not solve it. Only a consumption based tax will let the people choose if they wish to participate in letting the government have money.

Suspend withholding for one year and watch a revolution come.

LaughterJones on February 20, 2013 at 1:27 PM

I’d check on Hell to see if it’s frozen over, but I live in Minnesota, almost as far away from it as you can get in this world.

Hell (Michigan) Frozen Over

ITguy on February 20, 2013 at 1:35 PM

I’d check on Hell to see if it’s frozen over, but I live in Minnesota, almost as far away from it as you can get in this world. Minnesota is definitely frozen over today, by the way.

Given that it’s 22 here in Toledo, it’s a pretty sure bet that Hell, Michigan is frozen over today.

rbj on February 20, 2013 at 1:36 PM

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: in order to take the money out of politics, you have to take the politics out of money. Take away the government’s ability to influence the economy, and there’ll be no more incentive to donate to parties/candidates or hire lobbyists.

Mohonri on February 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM

I thought this was going to be an amnesty normalization of undocumented citizens post.

Regulating political free speech is against the most fundamental principle of our society (the First Amendment). We don’t need “transparency” in political free speech. Allowing anonymous commentary has a long tradition starting before 1776.

BTW, thanks for letting me comment anonymously on hotair :) I genuinely appreciate it. I don’t want my political comments to interfere with my business and enjoy the opacity it allows. With the encroaching liberty grabs by the left, it’s good to have this place.

sauldalinsky on February 20, 2013 at 1:58 PM

The big difference between you and ole Davey is that you mean what you say…and he doesn’t. I know, details, details!

NavyMustang on February 20, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Mohonri on February 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Bingo!

GWB on February 20, 2013 at 2:48 PM

ButterflyDragon on February 20, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Mohonri on February 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Thanks, you both saved me the time. That (in my belief) is the problem.

ConservativeinCO on February 20, 2013 at 3:01 PM

I’d check on Hell to see if it’s frozen over, but I live in Minnesota, almost as far away from it as you can get in this world.

I live in MN, too, Ed. It’s pretty close to Hell for a lot of us.

AScott on February 20, 2013 at 5:00 PM

EM, you agree only because Axelrod neglected to completely document his thought.
Using my super-secret detect-o spy glasses I see his 4th post:

To finally bring about public shaming directly to the front doors of every single person who dared to contribute to any campaign of the evil GOP.
His intent isn’t for some grandiose, larger than himself plan to finally make elections about ideas and whose plans are better. No, it’s so that the DNC can bus purple shirters and Obamaphoner directly to the front door of anyone who steps out of line.

smfic on February 20, 2013 at 5:28 PM

yikes. bad formatting by me.

smfic on February 20, 2013 at 5:28 PM

As I wrote yesterday:

And you’re still wrong. :-)

No one needs to know who I contribute to and in what amount. That is not the public’s business. I understand the desire to make candidates more transparent and accountable, but violating the privacy of everyone who donates to influence the political process is not the answer. Not by a long shot.

Shump on February 20, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Well, Ed, any such agreement means that you need help. Quickly. As in E.R. quickly.

And I know I’ve told you before not to disclose your political perversions in public.

platypus on February 20, 2013 at 7:21 PM

When David Axelrod and I agree …

then Axelrod is lying.

S. D. on February 20, 2013 at 8:37 PM

He’s failed, and knows there’s no reversal. He basically wants the info. What happens when they get info on individuals?

John Kettlewell on February 20, 2013 at 9:52 PM