I didn't down vote you, so I have no idea what you're talking abut there.

That said you have begun using fallacies in this last post. To wit: "On #3 then, you disagree in the principle of sovereignty then? "

I never said any such thing, nor implied it. I merely stated that your assertion of undue political influence by way of campaign donations has never been a problem and that the real "threat" is from candidates who are amenable or in accordance with ideologies supporting what outside interests may want. For you to then conflate that with a belief in non-sovereignty is completely asinine and fallacious. Indeed, you mention and then ignore the fact that some external interests may well be in accordance with American principles. You can't cut one without the other bleeding. The rest of that paragraph is just more panicked hyperbole unworthy of you and thus will be ignored in the remainder of this response.

"Ideology is the why. Money is the how. You act as if one is irrelevant when in fact they are completely interconnected. "

Your assertion is entirely false and lacking merit or substantiation. How, exactly, does capping the amount of terms you can serve to one portray money as irrelevant? I have never claimed it to be irrelevant, and unless you can directly quote thusly I'd ask you to refrain from such straw men. What I have said is the it is not the driver or the source of the threat to liberty. Money is a tool which can be used to any end and as such any attempt to lay the blame on money or funding source is shortsighted and doomed to failure. Further I specifically stated that money will find it's way regardless of the laws limiting it. I also specifically stated spending to be an expression. Tell me wherein those constitute considering it irrelevant. The situation is quite the opposite.

I'd also be interested in how exactly you think making the States proportionally and directly responsible for footing the bill of the federal government leads to congress critters becoming puppets of money.


"Money is the tool, I agree, but show me one politician who obtained office without it and you can substantiate your point. "

What point would this somehow substantiate? Having money is irrelevant to the question at hand.I fear this is a fool's errand due to the wiggle room in your assertion but nonetheless, George Washington didn't spend money on getting elected - though he did have some. It was spent by others who campaigned for him. The same occurred for most of the early presidents such as Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, and Jackson among others. Yet this is beside the points being discussed.

Perhaps to substantiate your assertion that candidates receiving money from people outside of the country has every directly caused the problem you proclaim to be preventing. My position is that in the over 200 years since the founding of the country money to candidates from sources outside of the country has never been shown to be effective let alone a problem to the country. I recall Gore getting money from a Bhuddist monastery and the resulting outcry over it. Yet no quid pro quo was ever established. While I was opposed to Gore winning I had no problem with him accepting money from them.

As to the country giving a rip about Hillary's email - I don't think they do. There isn't enough credible direct evidence to objectively conclude that the popularity of Sanders is due to her email or Benghazi problems. To further refine the point, what crimes has Hillary been convicted of which are causing her popularity to drop among the Progressives which constitute the Left's base? The Left doesn't think she did anything wrong, and she hasn't been convicted of a crime. Therefor you assertion that this is an example of a "crime changing opinion" fails.

I proffer an alternative cause. Hilary isn't as much of a Socialist as Sanders. There has been a groundswell of acceptance for Socialism among the progressive community building for about a decade. The current generations do not have the historical context to see the evils of Socialism, all they see is "free stuff" and "stick it to business". Sanders fits that card in the same way that Trump fits the Republican angst over politically rolling over.

What committed and convicted crimes are driving the reported Republican fervor for outsiders? None. What is driving them is indeed an annoyance with the establishment and it's trend of rolling over after winning. Hell I've said for years the problem with the Republicans is that when they win they give up the ground they won. It is loathing for the Left's relentless pursuit of political correctness, and probably most importantly a group of people tired of being blamed for everything perceived to be wrong with society.


"did such-and-such accept some kind of perks for special treatment toward someone else"

I am aware of the term, having used it in this discussion. Indeed in the portion of that reply you left out. Here for sake of proximity:

"Making unwitting "accomplices" of candidates by making the act of accepting money without a quid pro quo in effect isn't a valid solution."

In your proposal you make this terrible premise a reality. You throw away requiring evidence of an attempt at bribery and declare any giving of money to be one if it comes from someone you don't want involved. I can not agree with this principle.

"One can not win an election as an unknown" - a false assertion. A very visible example of this would be Jimmy Carter. Sure, we all know him now. But he was pretty well unknown to the country when he ran for and won POTUS. His name recognition was under 2% when he race started. He was also politically unknown in Georgia when he won his Senate seat. This is but one of many such stories. A quick Google search should reveal plenty more grist for that particular mill.

From whom money is acquired is irrelevant. What is relevant is what he character and ideology of the candidate is, and what they do, or would do, in office. Campaign finance regulation is a farce, serving as nothing more than a means to destroy or limit opponents who are not of the same ilk as those already in power. It is the political equivalent of government licensure for businesses. Having more money does not guarantee an electoral win. That can be proven empirically.

What does matter is how the person who gets the money uses it, and how they behave if they win. Not who gave them money. We see this same horse manure play out in refusal to accept scientific results. We see it labelled as "follow thee money" where the first thing someone who disagrees with or doesn't like the results does is to "poison the well" by pointing out where the funding came from. Not disputing the science, or the conclusions, or finding flaws in the methodology, but jump to "follow the money". This is a terrible logical fallacy and one we should certainly not enshrine in law.

I can say that were I ever to run for office again I'd accept money from anyone. I don't care why they want me to have the money or what they expect to get out of it. I'll do with it what I feel is necessary and have no compunction to owe the donor anything. That is by definition the point of a donation - that there is no form of quid pro quo. Frankly anyone focusing on who gave someone money is conceding their lack of ability to argue against the candidate's proposals, ideology, or reasons to run. IN short, they are being lazy and not participating in the process at all.

So in closing answer this one, and feel free to take time to consider it thoughtfully. A candidate is running for office. She espouses limited government or whatever else you want her to espouse. You support what she says she wants to do. Yet she receives a large campaign donation from a Canadian. Under your proposals she is now unqualified to participate. Indeed under your rules candidates will have to spend more time being financial investigators than putting their message out there. I fail to see how that is anything resembling a good time. How about we instead follow wise jurisprudence and place the burden of proof of wrongdoing on the accuser rather than the recipient?

You post a lot of unfounded and untenable assertions (mostly about me) in this last reply. Unless your next reply returns to reasonable discussion instead off hand-waving, straw men, and hyperbole I see no value in continuing this discussion.