Campaign Finance Reform

[tobetrained]

35 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

This is how the government can and should encourage entrepreneurs to expand the existing base of that particular service/product supply

and this comment is way off thread topic, but I've always thought of either a "distance" tax (applied to physical distance of parts and finished goods/services) as a way to maintain physical communities...which is directly applied to a community redevelopment fund.

But also a some kind of bigger-ain't-better progressive corporate tax system. I'm generally pro-business and pro-competition (in every sense), but I hate massive 1000s-of-employees type companies. They are, almost by definition, anti-competition. In my made-up world, we need a progressive tax system on corporate taxes like personal income. The first $10 million of annual revenue is $0%.

The two items above are about building small and individual businesses.

[hntnhole]

Thanks for your response.  

You may have noticed that often the original topic of BZ's "threads" wanders off into a different, even unrelated subject matter? That's one of the more interesting facets of Breeding Zone, in that it's the contributors and readers that have the freedom to add, subtract, multiply aspects of a thread, all within the confines of what we might call genteel discourse.  

That fact may not be ideal for pedants, but it is nevertheless the case.  

12 minutes ago, tobetrained said:

The two items above are about building small and individual businesses.

Which I did for years, in two different industries, publishing "trade" books, periodicals, business publications.  The actual costs of producing, marketing, selling ads for, all the various aspects were common to each, despite the fact that the actual product of each industry could not be more different.  One result of a "greater good" issue was not resolved by the government, it was resolved by business owners within x industry agreeing to work together to impact certain governmental issues.  

I don't particularly care for "Big Business" either, but then I have not been asked to solve those issues and I rather doubt I will be.  Big Bro business is, by definition, interested in self-preservation first, customer satisfaction second, and skirting the legal requirements as tightly as possible.  That said, Big Business simply is, and the rest of us have to figure out ways to nibble around the edges.  

Again, thanks for your incisive thoughts.  

[tallslenderguy]

1 hour ago, hntnhole said:

I think that's entirely laudable. 

If/when an individual comes up with a new, innovative idea for whatever activity (assuming legality), there's no reason that entity shouldn't receive benefits that other businesses (in the same general area of transacting business) receive.  This is how the government can and should encourage entrepreneurs to expand the existing base of that particular service/product supply, and I see that result as one of the excuses for governments to exist.  In the end, it's not only the general population that may benefit, it's the government to, via taxation, duties, etc.  

It was a franchise company. The owner ("Master Franchise Owner") had the rights to a couple of territories to sell franchises. He was a former bank president, a really good numbers guy, and he hired me for my business management background.  He was close to bankruptcy after the first year, following the parent companies model didn't really work for him. i gave him a few suggestions and he asked me  if i'd run the company and he could do the books, so i became the companies VP.  

He gave me complete freedom to run things, so i used a type of consensus model  where everyone got a say, and i got voted against more than a few times lol. But it worked, it was a 15m a year business when i left. After 20 years, he came to me one day and told me he'd sold the company, back to the parent company.  He also told me it was transferring the next day.  They had stipulated in the purchase agreement that he was to keep the purchase underwraps while he worked out the details for 8 months.  He really was a decent fellow, but myself and those who built the business felt betrayed.  The business was essentially us, the people. 

The new company gave me a very large signing bonus if i'd stay at least a year, which i did no wanting to make a snap judgement. The new owner was an international company with over 200 offices worldwide.  I doubted they'd allow me to use the same  consensus management methods i'd used to build the business, but gave it a shot.  i'd pushed back against the Master Company  because i thought their franchise fees were too high, and that ended up building trust with the franchise owners, and everyone ended up more  successful.   The parent company dismantled the system over the next year, and i watched as each of the people who  worked with me to build the business, left, as  did i after my year was up. 

There's a lot more to the  story, but when i left, i tried to do the same method with a different company.  They didn't like it either and i left after two years, went back to school and earned a BSN, and have been a critical care nurse since then. 

[Rillion]

On 2/5/2026 at 6:23 AM, tobetrained said:

@Rillion so then we agree, "Corporations -- any size -- must register with governments for regulatory and tax purposes...obtaining legal status in doing so." Which is what I wrote and you quoted.

What is not clear: if AitBnB spends $100 million on advertising during a campaign talking to home owners about the financial benefits of their service, it's brand advertising and not political -- as the campaign, candidates, election are not referenced. Nothing to do with Citizens' United.

However, if a candidates makes (apt rental) affordability an election issue, then that candidate has to financially compete with the messaging from AirBnB above. And on it goes through product categories.

I don't have an issue if AirBNB spends a $100 million advertising it's business models to homeowners or customers. I do have a problem with it giving $100 million to a super PAC that then runs ads against that candidate and in favor of his opponent. I do think there is a substantive difference between the two even if it would be gaining some potential political benefit from its direct and campaign promoting its service. 

[Rillion]

If there is no government there are no corporations since there are no rights anymore including property rights. A corporation would be nothing more than an agreement by the people involved to follow their own set of rules that they would have to self enforce as would any other group of individuals. Honestly it's limited liability rules would be moot since those are purely something enforced by courts when adjudicating creditor claims. 

Sure everything can still exist without government, but the reality is that without government there wouldn't need to be corporations since they are legal entities that can only really exist in an environment where there is the rule of law with an entity that has the power to recognize and enforce the corporations existence. 

ETA: Your post office example is a really bad example since the creation of the post office is embedded in the Constitution and it is solely a creation of the government. It continued to exist and function while the government was temporarily shut down because it's funding and operation is not entirely dependent on Congress having a spending bill in place at that time.

 

Edited Saturday at 12:56 AM by Rillion

[tobetrained]

1 hour ago, Rillion said:

If there is no government there are no corporations since there are no rights anymore including property rights. A corporation would be nothing more than an agreement by the people involved to follow their own set of rules that they would have to self enforce as would any other group of individuals.

Exactly. 

A business, a corporation, a merchant...names of same meaning: people who are selling or trading goods and services. These people are not dependent on government and less dependent on others, esp. farmers.

I'm not implying, as some do, to get rid of government. It has a role. I'm just saying they are not gov't entities.

re: USPS, um, I don't know why we're having a tit-for-tat on this. If the US Federal gov't "goes away" as in my example, and now to your point above, re: Constitution, it's a null document -- the government it defines no longer in exists. But, as it has an income stream independent of taxation, the USPS can continue...if people want to mail stuff and send boxes and lease data files, etc.

[tallslenderguy]

Trying to simplify the complex (and i'm not sure that can be accomplished).  To me it seems basic, money can buy influence in so many different ways. i think it's rational to say that people, SIG's, etc., give money to support and/ or influence a particular cause that they perceive will benefit them, on all sides of the political fence. 

"Musk was the biggest individual donor to political committees during the 2024 election cycle, spending roughly $290 million, mostly through his own super PAC, America PAC, in support of Trump."

[think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/31/elon-musk-2026-election-donations-00758992

my problem with this is i want the election system watered down to individuals, without one voice or group having a greater say or influence.  As part of reform, i envision (simplistically) all donations for campaign use going into a central source that gets equally divided between those running.  i know, this may have lots of holes in it, it's just a basic idea that i am juxtaposing against the current system.  

i've given money to a couple of political candidates, and the result is i get click bated constantly with what, to me, are deceptive "polls" that always end with "how much will you donate."  At which point, i always leave, and i wonder how many feel the same way.  It feels like selling vs selecting, and the highest bidder wins. 

[tobetrained]

3 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

To me it seems basic, money can buy influence in so many different ways. i think it's rational to say that people, SIG's, etc., give money to support and/ or influence a particular cause that they perceive will benefit them, on all sides of the political fence. 

But this is an assumption. What cannot be proven: 

• would the candidate have done it anyway*, in your terms what a donor would, "perceive will benefit them"
• did the candidate seek out like-minded donors

For instance, deregulation of the financial markets has been mainstay of the Republican platform for decades. So, is any donor to Republicans just cravenly greedy? Do they not have the right to believe deregulation is better? And, as always, voters get to have the final say:

3 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

my problem with this is i want the election system watered down to individuals, without one voice or group having a greater say or influence.

Isn't that the vote -- one person, one vote -- where this comes into play, exactly.

In the last two elections, Dems have outspent Reps yet lost, the reverse has been true too. And sometimes the greater spender wins. Money doesn't guarantee electoral wins.

So buying influence is a crap shoot and if it wasn't -- let's say a candidate or party is likely to win -- then they wouldn't need the money and be burdened by the influence you imply.

My issue:

3 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

As part of reform, i envision (simplistically) all donations for campaign use going into a central source that gets equally divided between those running.  i know, this may have lots of holes in it, it's just a basic idea that i am juxtaposing against the current system.

Quick functional issues around this: aren't you instilling a two-party system? What about independents? etc. But I don't want to detract from your intent -- which I do have an issue with:

Free speech is being able to support whomever you want. It becomes a very slippery slope when an authority -- via regulation like this -- determines how you can give support and when.

And, play this forward: People will stop giving or lower their campaign donations as they don't want to equally support the opposition.

But as I've tried to get across, voter influence during an election is driven by issues that are not limited to influence by campaigns. In your version, influence and money will flow outside of campaigns as people want to support their own thing.

This flow can be more and more to "advocacy" groups -- which is separate from political regulations as they may not mention candidates or elections. I posted the article on a separate topic, influence is gained and hammered down by more than money, in the Political Extremes and Parties topic.

Beyond advocacy there are other areas, e.g., corporate messaging, marketing and advertising.

So, put this together, with campaigns raising less and/or with some type of equal dispersion -- they then become more dependent on special interest groups to facilitate basic campaign functions -- like GOTV and direct comms -- as the campaign have relatively little money. Again, this get to the referenced separate topic above, Political Extremes and Parties.

Edited 6 hours ago by tobetrained
minor edits

[tobetrained]

@tallslenderguy you previously asked for thoughts, articles, and books:

Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy
Donald Kagan

The reforms Pericles, instituted as part of Athenian Radical Democracy principles, was to pay politicians, jurists, and other government servants (incl. military).

A fundamental reason was as Athens had not been doing so -- not paying government servants, and I'm tying into modern campaign finance here too -- the MORE corrupt and dependent those servants are to others OR the more wealthy they must be.

Take Oregon, for instance, when I lived down there people talked happily about not paying their state politicians. I don't know the extent or if that still continues. Yet, this creates a class structure where only those of certain wealth can participate and/or are subject to backroom deals. Basically, if you work at McDonald's, you can't afford to be a state representative. And if you're not getting paid, you are more likely to be corrupted by money or influence.