You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: [EP152] - NRA is a nonprofit organisation...?
Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit, literally kills people, and is political. The point of this is that there is always more to the story. Somehow, they have the legal means to do what they do. A little more digging would demonstrate that it’s not as clear cut as you suggest.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Looks like you're right about the political nature of Planned Parenthood. I didn't realise that they spent so much on contributions to candidates and political parties.... in which case they too should be stripped of their non-profit status as well.
It's distracting to bring Planned Parenthood into a discussion about the NRA though. An abortion can improve the quality of life for people, but who gets a quality of life increase from the sale of assault weapons?
I don't think any non-profit or not-for-profit organisation should be contributing to political parties or candidates... to be honest, I really don't like the system where individual politicians receive contributions from anyone. All monies donated should go to the overall party.
I don’t think PP does. Off the top of my head, I am guessing a PAC (Political Action Committee) is doing the actual donations and campaigning, not the NRA or PP. They may direct the PAC, but don’t do politics directly. I don’t know for certain, but this is a way to do it.
As for giving to the party, the issue is like what happened last election where Clinton colluded with the party to deny Bernie Sanders the victory. The party itself worked against one of their candidates, the more popular one.
Posted using Partiko iOS
It looks like the PP PAC and the NRA spent $8M and $9M last year on political contributions and lobbying.
The contributions to the party system isn't perfect at all... and I'd prefer the various parties to pick their leaders before the political campaigning starts. It seems like such a waste of everyone's time and money to have multiple people from the same party campaigning. That money could be so much better spent on the things the Government is actually supposed to provide... and it means that individual lobby groups can't just target individual politicians... and prevents politicians from getting crazy, crazy rich in the process.
One minor point. The money candidates raise is not government money. It’s all donations, thus made up of what people can afford. In effect, private money. Those who lose a race, either primary election or general election, keep the money as a war chest for any other political purposes. Often, the candidates end up in debt. Those who have money left over often donate to other campaigns, or hang on to it for another election.
I worked for a state legislator for six years, so my experience is limited to Texas. Our legislators only get paid $700/month. So, their campaign money often gets spent on travel expenses between the capital and the district office. It’s not uncommon for legislators who do not have wealth to declare bankruptcy. If the parties control the money, it only ensures that the wealthy ever run for office. The candidate would have nothing to help supplement the cost of public life.
Forgive me. I saw first hand what public life can do to people. It takes serious commitment to sustain the lifestyle. And lots of money.
Posted using Partiko iOS
That's very fair... and I'm not really surprised that so many people get financially destroyed by the process.
It shouldn't take lots of personal money to be a public servant though, the US government pays so many people, why would legislators be paid so much less than say, any other government worker. It's kind of crazy that people who impact the most people in the country don't get paid for their efforts.
If you win your seat, everyone should be paid a proper wage by the Government, and if you lose, then your party covers your costs.
I don't think the parties would not spend the money that got donated to the party instead of individual candidates... they still need to spend that money to get their people elected... but removes the risk of candidates 'owing' a group or corporation anything.
It also means that smaller parties could throw all their donated money behind one or two key seats (depending on their available finances) and help break up the destructive duopoly of the Dems and Repubs.