Congresswomen's Voicemail: Where's My Bribe?

You know that member whose posts you just never seem to agree with? I'm sure we all have one or two people around here that are like that to us, right? Hell, I've got a whole long list of them.

And in this thread, I've seen a couple members I seem to disagree with often. But surprisingly (or not?) we seem to be in agreement on this issue. In fact, it seems like everyone is more or less in agreement on this issue. We all seem to recognize this as a problem. Regardless of whether we lean to the "left" or to the "right".... regardless of whether we might be called "liberal" or "conservative."

We all seem to recognize that this practice needs to end.


Which, I guess, is a good start. Now how to change it?


I don't really know the answer to that question. However, this website was mentioned at the end of the video in the OP, and it certainly seems related:


www.wolf-pac.com...

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
We need some serious campaign finance reform in this country. Now, I don't think we need to ban companies from contributing, but we should seriously limit them amount. Companies have interests in what the government does, so their voice should be heard -- it just shouldn't run the show.

Perhaps only a certain percentage of a politician's campaign can be funded by private companies and corporations? The rest would have to come from their own wealth, and their political party.

I don't know ... just throwing ideas out there to see if anyone else has some too?

Companies of course have interests of growing profits for stakeholders. But it should be up to those stakeholders to make wise decisions with their votes, not to throw money at the problem until it goes away.

The problem with companies having interests is that you are allowing them some sembalance of humanity, as if they have a well-being. The company its self is of no matter, but the people who are gambling behind it are. So essentially a company has no interest in politics, and therefore should not be making campaign contributions. Can companies vote? Individuals working at companies can, and if they want to support a campaign they should show up to the rallies, or voice their support in other ways.

Campaign contributions will create establishments, they're just legal bribes.

Originally posted by Montana
This should trigger a recall from her constituents tomorrow. In my opinion there should be NO professional lobbyists, and NO corporate political "donations" allowed to the members of what is supposed to be the CITIZEN's government. Hang your head in shame, congresswoman. You ARE the problem!

She's just part of the problem. A rotten cog in a rotten system. We could remove her from office and the band would simply keep playing along with no change in tempo. Much (maybe most) of the problems we experience today are a product of our three-letter-agencies, out-of-control corporations and the Federal Reserve private banking system.

How can you reform a system where the key players corrupt everything they touch? How can you reform a system that uses an 8 year-old child to plant a drone homing beacon on yet another murder victim? Simple answer: You can't. It's gone to far and they have torn the legs out from under this nation.

Next step: Crash and burn.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Isn't that what lobbyists are for in the first place? To make deals with people in office and in return they get hooked up...this is how the system works...nothing to see here

Originally posted by chrismarco
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Isn't that what lobbyists are for in the first place? To make deals with people in office and in return they get hooked up...this is how the system works...nothing to see here

You are all racist I tell ya. You are all profiling. You cannot profile here - get it. Racist everyone of you. She is just doing her do diligence LOL.

Good lord - you could make this kind of stuff up. And this is just what we know for now, can you imagine how bad it is for real?

You are exactly right. And something else that is going on right now that the news media doesn't seem to want to talk about is the fact that despite a horrendous tax code in the US, all but a handful of politicians have agreed that they cannot be seen altering a tax code that will affect the large corporations and other groups, because those groups are the ones who basically control these politicians. Call it "campaign contributions" if you will, but like the OP pointed out, politics is intertwined with big business in a roundabout way, but it is still control.

We have politicians who openly admit they will not do what is right, and going as far as to vote against the Constitution in some instances, simply to ensure they don't tick off their contributors and the lobbyists. Did you know that 50% of all Congressmen go on to become lobbyists for major corporations after they leave office? That is HALF of Congress. No wonder they don't want to upset these corporations and groups, right? Why is this not illegal? This is a HUGE part of what is wrong with our political system.

A joke perhaps.

Maybe she has a sense of humor.

You're supposed to throw eggs at politicians like this at every public speaking event or town hall meeting.

Being a congress member is one step closer to be elite , to be rich.

And one of the ways to be rich is to take bribes.

Is that a new thing ?

Bribe!? I'm not defending her, they should ALL be thrown out, but a bribe? Sounds like she's asking for a donation. We all know that's how our system runs. It's Pay to Play but I don't see where the donation would be going into her personal account. I fail to see where she broke any laws. Maybe I'm missing something.

Originally posted by wrkn4livn
Bribe!? I'm not defending her, they should ALL be thrown out, but a bribe? Sounds like she's asking for a donation. We all know that's how our system runs. It's Pay to Play but I don't see where the donation would be going into her personal account. I fail to see where she broke any laws. Maybe I'm missing something.

The point you are missing is what you see in this thread, the disgust that this sort of system is the core of running the American and British Governments. The fact you fail to see that she isn't asking for a donation, she called it a contribution ie you give me money and I do more for you because of my place in the ranks.

That is simply a full on request for a bribe.

The fact that this was in 2010 and she is still in government and not just coming out of prison and also the fact hardly any press was done on this tells us all that Wall Streets Gordon Gekko was correct ; Greed is good..

This woman isn't doing what is right, she is doing what pays the best, that completely negates her position.

As for the government, they just hate that you guys find out about this stuff, this is a nothing compared to the level of corruption in the big house.

Call them Senators or MP's, its the same, they are there to line their pockets to the highest level they can, we are simply maintained to keep lining their grubby little hands (or big hands), we as a people mean zero to them and never will...We work, they play..

Ha! You actually thimk this is going to change anything for this lady? I would be suprised if the DC residents ever even hear about this (not that it matters). If Marion Berry ran for mayor, he would win again.

What else is there to say?

I'm ashamed at all the people who can't think outside the box and instead continue to espouse that government simply needs some adjusting so these sort of things don't happen.

Wake up! The government itself is the problem! Taxation is theft. In a sane society, we wouldn't have any of our earnings forcibly taken from our paychecks in order to fund bs programs led by corrupt bastards like this Congresswoman...programs that of course never even address any of the fundamental problems in our society.

Without government, this bum Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes would have no way to spend other people's stolen money (ie taxes) and spend it on stupidity (ie. failed so called social and economic development programs).

Originally posted by Wookiep
A lot of these posts are correct, but only partially to really solve the problem.

#5 Pass strict laws that prohibit the media from ever being involved in politics again; ie, swaying votes, picking and choosing who to cover during debates etc. The media should ONLY report what is going on, nothing more, nothing less.


The above would be a good start IMO. Without those changes, we are just going to keep seeing more of the same..

edit on 19-8-2013 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

Those points sound good and well except #5, and here's why. The media are corporations, private businesses, they are not tax-payer owned. You can't force a private news station to report on or not report on something. We already know it's more fabricated entertainment than news. All you can do and should be able to have the freedom to do is either turn off the TV or switch to a different station.

If you want to create strict and fair coverage governed by fairness laws, you have to create a tax-payer funded media channel that is required to report things truthfully and equally, because they have the public to answer to. The private news stations would have to compete against such a channel. If their information doesn't match the public news channel, people will know that either they're full of crap and they'll stop watching them, or they can be used to keep the public channel honest via uncovering any possible inside corruption going on.

There's just no way to ensure 100% that the news coverage you get (no matter what laws are in place) will be equal and honest all the time.

Impose a limit on campaign contributions or better yet outlaw them all together and place the burden on the tax payers in the form of a vote tax. A vote tax makes more sense than carbon tax or sunlight tax.

Then shorten the campaign period, change the debate rules to include third parties with a substantial base, change the polling system, etc.

You cant eliminate all the problems, but we can improve the situation. BTW I am not in favor of term limits. A corrupt 4 year politician is just as bad as a corrupt 8 year politician. Corrupt politicians getting and staying in shows a problem with uninformed voters.

i am just repeating what has been said here over and over, we need to remove money from politics. until we do our government is bought and sold and represents those with the deepest pockets over everyone else, period. the citizens united ruling only made a bad situation worse. it should be illegal for any politician to take money form anyone - ever. there should be a set amount of money each candidate receives to run which should be dolled out anonymously regardless of its source. that we even have to have this conversation is really rather sickening.

reply to post by whyamIhere


This is a foolish statement. Term limits (or the lack thereof) are not the problem. The PEOPLE must wake up, or else term limits will force us to replace the old trash with new trash.

Things have been and will continue to be this way, unless we all stop it.

Not that I disagree that money should be kept away from politics, but to play devil's advocate; I have a hard time calling this a "bribe" per se. A bribe would be something like "Here is your money, now make this happen." Or, "If you make this happen, I'll pay you this." The congresswoman actually explicitly stated that she didn't ask for money beforehand. In fact, she seemed to only be interested in her "contribution" after the work had been done, and she noticed that other colleagues had received financial gains.

Again, please don't put words in my mouth or say that I'm splitting hairs. The point I'm trying to make is that a bribe serves as motivation, yet here she needed no motivation as the work was already done.

First post, go easy on me.

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

I wasn't real familiar with who this woman is, so I did some research and found out something interesting about her.....

Eleanor Holmes Norton (born June 13, 1937) is a Delegate to the United States Congress representing the District of Columbia. As a non-voting member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Norton may serve on committees, as well as speak on the House floor; however, she is not permitted to vote on the final passage of any legislation. As a member of the House, Norton is also known as Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Source

So let's see, she really isn't a Congressperson so to speak. She sits on committees (creates law) but she CANNOT vote in the house???????

So just what is she? A taxpayer paid lobbyist for the corporations? Sure she got voted in, but why? Her position just escalates the term lobbyist to an "insider insider".......

Anyhoo, I am glad she was stupid enough to leave that message! I hope she serves some time!

Representatives from DC do not get a vote. Next time you see a license plate from DC, look at the bottom. Most of them say "Taxation Without Representation", thought that was pretty cool.