2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders Lobs A Crippling Blow At The Kochs With Bill To Publicly Fund Elections
BOOM! That's my candidate for POTUS, knocking it out of the park yet again. 
Bernie Sanders Lobs A Crippling Blow At The Kochs With Bill To Publicly Fund Elections
By Jason Easleymore from Jason Easley * Sunday, August, 2nd, 2015 * Politicus
During a campaign event in New Hampshire today, Sen. Bernie Sanders announced that he will be filing a bill that would effectively cripple the Kochs and right-wing billionaires by providing public funding for elections.
According to the Sanders campaign:
Decrying the influence of big money in American politics, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday said he will introduce legislation to provide public funding of elections. “We’re going to introduce legislation which will allow people to run for office without having to beg money from the wealthy and the powerful,” Sanders said.
He called the current campaign finance system a “sad state of affairs.” Public funding, he added, would level the political playing field and make elections more competitive. It also would let candidates spend more time meeting voters and discussing issues and less time raising campaign funds. “That’s called democracy and I am going to do everything I can to bring that about,” Sanders said.
Public funding of campaigns would counteract the disastrous Supreme Court ruling in a case known as Citizens United. That 2010 case and others which followed in its wake have gutted decades-old limits on campaign funding and paved the way for millionaires and billionaires to spend unlimited sums to influence election outcomes. “We must overturn that decision before it’s too late,” Sanders told the crowd here. “We are increasingly living in an oligarchy where big money is buying politicians,” Sanders added.
A law that would provide for public funding of elections would even the playing field and neutralize the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling. Because the potential legislation would not mandate public funding or limit donations, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court would be powerless to stop the law.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/02/bernie-sanders-lobs-crippling-blow-kochs-bill-publicly-finance-election.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)
Thank you for that one.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)is elect the man who's fighting for this, while others are silently raking-in
the big buck$ from corporate tycoons.
If you really did care about this, you'd vote for the man.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Republicans control the House.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)by staying the course?
nikto
(3,284 posts)If we become almost the same as the Republicans, we can beat them for sure.
Its the unbeatable, tried-and-true Clinton-Koch-DLC formula.
All we have to do is give up all our silly Progressive policy demands.
Then we can win.
Never forget stuff like this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4528864
http://www.43rdstateblues.com/?q=why_koch_bros_fund_dlc
brooklynite
(94,591 posts)
delrem
(9,688 posts)You cannot pretend there's no connection.
Not if you care for the candidate that you support to be considered trustworthy.
If honesty and trust is the measure, then every candidate has to own their past.
None can paste platitudes over their past and pretend that their actual action either never existed or didn't matter if it existed, and win a campaign.
That applies to *all* political candidates in democratic elections in all democratic countries, in all circumstances. It's a general truth that governs political discourse.
Well, maybe *this* election, with the absolute totality of $$$ control over the air space now final, things will be different. Maybe such a candidate can win - but at a cost, a terrible cost.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)electing someone who too chicken shit greedy to even try or care.
procon
(15,805 posts)The president doesn't control the Senate and House and even if elected, Sanders would still need to convince both chambers of Congress to take up his proposed bill and get it passed. While it possible the Dems might take bake the Senate, the House is likely to remain in the hands of the GOP for years so how do you overcome that impediment?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)We the People should just give-up on even trying to restore true democracy
because the billionaires have already won.
Got it.
procon
(15,805 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)You are apparently backing the wrong candidate i.e. one who
has already given up ... because .. after all ...
"how do you overcome that impediment?"
procon
(15,805 posts)I will remain unaligned until next June when my state's primary is held, so until then I'll try to be a well informed, and realistic, voter by doing my due diligence in learning everything I can about all our candidates. Its important to me to know as much as I can, including their individual strengths and their weaknesses, but I can get that here so I have to go elsewhere to get that information.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)"I can get that here so I have to go elsewhere to get that information. " ..
or that you can't'?
You said the former, but I suspect you may have meant the latter. :shut:
ladjf
(17,320 posts)They've either got another agenda or they are simply cowards.
Gothmog
(145,293 posts)That involves a Democrat winning in 2016. Clinton, O'Malley and Sanders have each announced that they will impose a litimus test for SCOTUS nominations with respect to Citizens United and so the only real difference is which candidate is more likely to win.
I have yet to see a good explanation as to how Sanders can win a general election contest where the Kochs spend $887 million and the GOP candidate spends another billiion dollars. For this reason, I am supporting Hillary Clinton in that she is the most likely to be able to win a general election contest against the Kochs and Walker or Jeb
Sanders proposal has zero change of passing even if he is POTUS and is not realistic. I perfer to support a solution that has a chance of working
brooklynite
(94,591 posts)...first, because he'll have to and second out of principle. That'll make the gap even worse.
Gothmog
(145,293 posts)I do not see how one run a viable national campaign being outspent 15 to 1
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)Granted, the CU decision did strike a severe blow to our Publicly Funded state level races here in Maine by removing the 'matching funds' portion of the law.
That part of the law allowed for a publicly funded candidate to receive additional money if their privately funded opponent (public funding is voluntary) received more money than the maximum allowed amount for a publicly funded candidate. Prior to the CU decision, the publicly funded candidate would receive enough additional money to match what the privately funded candidate received. They can no longer receive these matching funds due to the decision.
Not surprisingly, the fear of being outspent has driven public funding participation rate for Maine state offices down from numbers that ran as high as 80% in some years. In 2014, only 51% of Maine legislative candidates opted for public funding.
My bottom line point is that while weakened, the public funding of campaigns are not totally wiped out by the decision.
Bernie knows that he will not have the votes in the Senate for this to pass on the federal level. But he is using the much greater visibility he now has to raise citizen awareness of the Public Funding option. That, in and of itself, is a very good thing in my opinion.
Gothmog
(145,293 posts)It will be easier to change the SCOTUS than to try to get the GOP to pass a bill on campaign finance
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)I am well aware of the fact that he does not expect this bill to pass. He is filing it in order to raise citizen awareness of the public funding option which, with his increased visibility will reach a lot more people. An important early first step.
That itself is a very good thing.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)Speechifying won't change the gerrymandered districts that allowed the Republicans to claim the House Majority, they're locked in until the next census, so until then the Republicans will continue to block everything. To use the bully pulpit requires the participation of the broadcast media to deliver his message to all citizens, but no broadcaster is going to give away free primetime space to help promote a partisan agenda that would likely alienate a good portion of their viewers and revenue generating advertisers, there's no getting around the money factor. Even if all the dominoes miraculously fell into place, such a bill would face a guaranteed delay in a series of red state lawsuits followed by a long slog to the Supreme Court, a court that has already squashed one proposal to mandate public financing.
So, from a realistic standpoint, how does Sanders overcome these predictable obstacles, the same ones that thwarted Obama's major goals mind you, to get this mystical progressive congress in 2018... a midterm election year that is significantly notable for a traditionally low Democratic voter turnout?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)What about:
"...and I am going to do everything I can to bring that about,”
do you not understand?
Beats business as usual.
procon
(15,805 posts)Many people have asked the same thing, but it seems there isn't any information available, and it's OK if Sanders followers don't know the answers yet. I don't see too much on his website either, but it's still early and Sanders is probably still working on his policies.
However, at some point the lofty rhetoric has to produce something more tangible, otherwise 'the business as usual' will prevail because there was never a plan to succeed, and I hope that's not the case. As I remain unaligned, the details of each candidate's policies are important in my final decision making process. How did you decide on Sanders so early in the campaign and without knowing his platform or how he plans to actually accomplish all that he says in his speechifying?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Maybe we'll know more when the actual primary is in sight.
So.... how does Hillary expect her Supreme Court choices to get confirmed?
procon
(15,805 posts)The odds are looking good for getting more Democrats elected to the Senate. More senators are up for re-election in blue states in 2016, and with the changing demographics, and the increased turnout during a presidential election that always favors Democrats,I expect to see them regain the Senate.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)and be able to pass whatever he wanted. Look how hard it was for president Obama to get Obamacare through.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)not me. not any Bernie supporter I know of .. and certainly not
Bernie himself.
Where are you getting that from? Who's claiming it will be easy?
mythology
(9,527 posts)Oh wait, that was you.
There is a 0 percent chance this gets passed the current Congress and unless there is an unexpected wave election, the House is highly unlikely to change before the next census and Congressional redistricting.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)who is laying the necessary legislative groundwork for his "First 100 Days",
so he -- or for Clinton for that matter, IF she wins and IF the Democratic coat-tails are long
enough and IF she would actually choose to use the Presidency to push it through.
Bills don't get researched, vetted and crafted into an actual bill over-night you know.
So having them at-the-ready to re-introduce in Jan '17 will be important, provided
other pieces also fall into place.
One reason I'm a devoted Bernie supporter is that on this issue, and in general, Hillary
has too many "IF"s on too many important issues that are vitally important to salvage
our Democracy from the jaws of our emerging Oligarchy <-- you know, the one that
Sanders actually talks about, as well as Jimmy fucking Carter and the Princeston University.
The cat is out of the bag on the Oligarchy thing and Bernie is ONE BIG REASON its increasingly
on people's lips as a serious concern of late.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You do realize the GOP calls Obama a dictator, right?
And Bernie Sanders wouldn't "get himself elected", the voters would elect him POTUS and he would have earned it - just like Obama did.
You sound just like the pundits at FoxNews.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)cowards we are. nt
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Unless you have a vested interest in our current system?
ladjf
(17,320 posts)forget about it and continue to drink the "koolaid"? nt
Gothmog
(145,293 posts)This proposal will have zero effect on the election
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)It also effectively calls out Clinton. She can't continue to "listen" and evade the ultimate chasm in the Democratic Party...which is the Middle Class vs. Goldman Sachs.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)unless he can get it passed.
Which he can't.
Response to okasha (Reply #7)
Name removed Message auto-removed
okasha
(11,573 posts)Hillary has a train like a peacock.
Bernie's the guy who couldn't get any of his bills passed except a coulple to name post offices. No way is someone that ineffective going to persuade the country to give him a Dem Senate and House, much less put him in a position of trust to deal with the likes of Putin and Ahmadinajad. His lack of accomplishments speaks for itself.
senz
(11,945 posts)post offices?
Well I don't have time to investigate the outcome of all the bills he has proposed, but here are a couple for you:
The Senate Passes Bernie Sanders’ Plan to Create 400,000 New Jobs --
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/06/27/senate-passes-bernie-sanders-plan-create-400000-jobs.html
Bernie Sanders Delivers Big For Vets As Senate Passes Veterans’ Healthcare Bill
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/11/bernie-sanders-delivers-big-vets-senate-passes-veterans-healthcare-bill.html
Now please stop telling these fibs, will you? It makes ya look bad.
MADem
(135,425 posts)that was tucked into an existing bill. It's easy to do that kind of thing--particularly if the bill is self-funded so no money need be appropriated for the measure. The actual title of the measure was the Sanders-Stabenow-Murray-Gillibrand-Cardin-Whitehouse Youth Jobs Amendment.
It takes a village to get legislation included in a bill, after all.
Here are the details from the actual source--the Senate: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FactSheet.pdf
As for the Veteran's Bill, Sanders was the pusher in the Senate and Rep Miller (R) was the sponsor in the House--you don't do anything alone in Congress. It's teamwork that makes things happen.
See: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/veterans-act-2014-conference-report?inline=file
I give Sanders credit for leading on these two pieces of legislation, but it's important to understand that this kind of thing doesn't happen in a vacuum. You need conferees to agree to get it out of committee, and you often need co-sponsors to make anything happen (especially if you don't have a big staff).
senz
(11,945 posts)Here are a few recent ones:
S. 1832: Pay Workers a Living Wage Act
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: Jul 22, 2015
Referred to Committee: Jul 22, 2015
S. 1713: Low-Income Solar Act
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: Jul 7, 2015
Referred to Committee: Jul 7, 2015
S. 1677: Responsible Estate Tax Act
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: Jun 25, 2015
Referred to Committee: Jun 25, 2015
S. 1631: Keep Our Pension Promises Act
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: Jun 18, 2015
Referred to Committee: Jun 18, 2015
S. 1564: Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: Jun 11, 2015
Referred to Committee: Jun 11, 2015
S. 1506: Employ Young Americans Now Act
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: Jun 4, 2015
Referred to Committee: Jun 4, 2015
S. 1373: College for All Act
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: May 19, 2015
Referred to Committee: May 19, 2015
S. 1371: Inclusive Prosperity Act of 2015
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: May 19, 2015
Referred to Committee: May 19, 2015
S. 1364: Medicaid Generic Drug Price Fairness Act of 2015
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: May 18, 2015
Referred to Committee: May 18, 2015
S. 1366: A bill to amend the charter of the Gold Star Wives of America to remove the restriction on the federally chartered corporation, and directors and officers of the corporation, attempting to influence legislation.
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: May 18, 2015
Referred to Committee: May 18, 2015
S. 1206: Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: May 6, 2015
Referred to Committee: May 6, 2015
S. 1041: End Polluter Welfare Act of 2015
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: Apr 22, 2015
Referred to Committee: Apr 22, 2015
S. 964: Nuclear Plant Decommissioning Act of 2015
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: Apr 15, 2015
Referred to Committee: Apr 15, 2015
S. 922: Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: Apr 14, 2015
Referred to Committee: Apr 14, 2015
S. 878: A bill to establish a State residential building energy efficiency upgrades loan pilot program.
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: Mar 26, 2015
Referred to Committee: Mar 26, 2015
...and, of course, there are many more. He's a busy Senator -- as well as a total good guy.
To check the source and see more of his bills:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=400357
MADem
(135,425 posts)Bills that have any hope of passing have co-sponsors. The co-sponsors trade favors with other legislators in order to get a bill that they can wave in front of their constitutents to show them that they are earning their keep. Bills that are less likely to pass languish after being "referred to committee." They die -- never to see the light of day again. Sadly that has been the fate of most of Sen. Sanders' efforts. He's not alone -- most bills do not pass without a great deal of tweaking, and most bills do not pass--if one bill out of twenty proposed passes, that's a good average.
The President of the US has signed three bills with Sanders' name as SPONSOR on them--here they are:
S. 893 (113th): Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: May 8, 2013
Enacted — Signed by the President: Nov 21, 2013
S. 885 (113th): A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 35 Park Street in Danville, Vermont, as the “Thaddeus Stevens Post Office”.
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: May 7, 2013
Enacted — Signed by the President: Nov 26, 2014
H.R. 5245 (109th): To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, Vermont, as the “Matthew Lyon Post Office Building”.
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: Apr 27, 2006
Enacted — Signed by the President: Aug 2, 2006
He's also written up the "Toys for Tots" Senate resolution, co-sponsored with Sen. Burr (R-NC), (allowing there to be a Christmas charity drive of clothing, toys, etc. for the military and other charitable agencies within the halls of the Senate at Christmastime) for the last two years, that doesn't require a Presidential signature--it's housekeeping legislation, in essence.
Also, it is a STRENGTH, not a weakness, to have co-sponsors from across the aisle. If all the co-sponsors come from a single wing of a caucus, then you're unlikely to see any traction, because it's a vanity draft. However, if a piece of legislation has liberal and conservative, Republican and Democratic sponsors, then it has a fair chance of becoming law.
DU often thinks that compromise and realpolitik are dirty words, but they aren't -- they are how the ball gets inched down the field.
senz
(11,945 posts)it's not too surprising that liberal/progressive legislation doesn't get through. But I have heard that Bernie Sanders is widely respected and well-liked in both houses. He's on several committees, and he works well with others.
Don't hold his goodness against him.
And do your best to know what (not who) you believe in -- and what direction you want America to take in coming years. We are at a crossroads, and the future of democracy is at stake.
Also -- your wilingness to work hard and be very thorough is exceptional, from what I have seen around here. If you are young enough to be employed (I'm old and retired), I would imagine your employers adore you. You probably do three times the work of your peers. It's a great quality.
Thanks again.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He has an important role to play on the national scene. Many of us simply believe he's more effective in the Senate. I don't think he has the grasp of foreign policy that a POTUS requires, and I don't think he has a hope in hell of getting that grasp inside of a year's time.
The future of democracy is not at stake, IMO. We'll just keep muddling along with this same unholy mix of money and politics, until one of two things happens (or maybe both things, who knows?):
--These rich bastards who throw money at candidates will have to part with more, and more, and more--until the "Bang for the Buck" factor just gets to be too small, and they decide that it would be cheaper to just pay the extra taxes, provide the extra benefits, or what-have-you.
--The Senators and Representatives who already spend up to forty percent of their workday "money grubbing"--ass-kissing at fundraisers, listening to "industry leaders" drone on in hopes of getting a big payday from them--will just say "Fuck this--ENOUGH!!!" and decide to sponsor public election legislation that will enable them to go home to their families on occasion.
We're close to a tipping point already, I suspect. Despite all the anger and vitriol on DU, outside of this bubble, most people are NOT atttuned to this contest at all. They're on the beach, with sand in their bathing suits, wondering if they'll go for burgers or fried fish for supper, or thinking about having a backyard barbecue. This contest just isn't resonating in the larger world. It's part of the reason why Trump is polling so well--because people know who he is and think it would be funny if "You're FIRED" works its way into the debates. Half the people responding positively to any poll about him are goofing the pollsters, I suspect.
senz
(11,945 posts)It's refreshing. However, I don't share your sanguine outlook on where this country is going. I think the Republicans have an agenda that was outlined in the Powell memo and that they have been steadily implementing since the Reagan era. They work this stuff out in their "think tanks" and then get their bought-out henchmen in congress and the media to make it happen. They have tons of money, they're focused, and they're not stupid. They have been successful; America is a very different place from what it was 35 years ago. If you look at the thrust of their efforts, they are gradually eliminating government as an impediment to pure profit-making capitalism. This is the reason behind their efforts to a) "starve the beast," i.e., defund government, b) alienate the people from their elected representative government, and c) privatize as much of the commons as possible. This not what our founders wanted for us: this is a coup. We, the people, should fight it. You, with your very good mind, should ponder it.
Plus, the top scientists the world over have been telling us for decades that carbon emissions collected in the upper atmosphere are making this planet less habitable and are killing off life forms all around us. It's already happening, and if we don't slow it down and reverse it, millions of people (and animals, and plants) are going to be wiped out. Life will not be good for those who remain.
These things are WAY more important than "who you like" in politics. If this country matters, and if this beautiful planet matters, we must stop this degradation and destruction.
That's my short version; hope it was clear. I agree with you that people are goofing the pollsters on Trump. Part of this is a reaction to the clown car, but part of it is alienation from the government and their role, as citizens of a democracy, in running it. And much of their alienation and ignorance can be chalked up to the corporate media monopoly (a product of Reagan and later, the 1996 Telecom Act) that now controls what people see and hear and know about the nation and the world.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You starve the beast, and the beast and all his pals will storm the ramparts and take them down. They've got to play a little game, do a little dance. Go so far, but not too far.
I think they'll eventually come to the conclusion that their money isn't well spent--the question is, will that happen before a "better" Supreme Court decides that, NO, money is NOT "speech" because if it were speech, then the poor are muzzled. One (generic use of the word) man, one vote--not one dollar, one vote, two dollars, two votes...!
People are alienated, certainly, some are just stupid and don't follow politics or world affairs at all, and some are just on vacation--this is the "summer doldrums" after all--and the fact that the GOP would have their debates in the heart of them suggests that they don't want too many eyes on the TV screens! Can't blame them...but video is forever!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)WASHINGTON, June 11 – The Senate today voted 93-3 for a bill to expand hospitals and clinics run by the Department of Veterans Affairs and to hire more doctors and nurses to provide timely, quality care for veterans.
The bipartisan bill by Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) would let veterans facing long delays for doctor appointments at VA facilities go elsewhere. Their measure also would hold VA officials accountable for trying to conceal patient wait times.
“Our job is to make certain that every veteran in the country gets quality health care in a timely manner,” Sanders said. “At a time when 2 million more veterans have come into the VA in the last four years, we must ensure that there are enough doctors, nurses and other health care professionals to meet the needs of veterans in every facility in the country.”
The Sanders-McCain emergency funding bill would:
Authorize leases for 26 new medical facilities in 17 states and Puerto Rico.
Designate funds for hiring more VA doctors and nurses to provide quality care in a timely manner.
Expand existing VA authority to refer veterans for private care. Veterans experiencing long delays at the VA could seek care instead at community health centers, Indian health centers, Department of Defense medical facilities or private doctors. The two-year program also would offer those same options to veterans who live more than 40 miles from a VA hospital or clinic.
Give VA the authority to fire or demote senior leadership staff for poor performance but provide expedited appeals to the Merit
Systems Protection Board in order to prevent abuses of the new management powers for political or other inappropriate reasons.
Eliminate wait times as part of employee performance measures, which are used in determining bonuses for VA employees.
Make certain that all recently-separated veterans taking advantage of the Post 9/11 GI Bill get in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. For the first time, those same education benefits would be extended to surviving spouses of veterans who died in the line of duty.
Establish independent commissions on ways to improve the VA; one to look at how the VA can do a better job delivering health care and another to make recommendations on how VA can improve the management of construction projects.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-passes-sanders-mccain-veterans-bill
MADem
(135,425 posts)When the Senate passed that thing, it went back to the House (where it started in the first place--it did not start on either McCain's or Sanders' desk) to be polished up and conferenced out. Only then did it go to the Oval Office for signature.
As we know, all appropriations begin in the House (not the Senate), and that is where that bill started out--the language was sketched out by a GOP rep, Rogers of Kentucky, and was tossed into the pile of continuing resolutions from the previous session -- see details below.
What you have posted is what left the Senate, went back to the House, and then a very similar bill, shepherded through by Rep Kirkpatrick of AZ, went into conference and, voila!
Here is the process by which this effort--which involved cooperation and compromise--found its way to the President's desk for his signature:
Procedural history[edit]
The bill H.R. 3230 was introduced into the United States House of Representatives on October 2, 2013 by Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) as the "Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act".[6] The bill was referred to the United States House Committee on Appropriations. The bill was one of the October 2013 mini-continuing resolutions passed by the House during the United States federal government shutdown of 2013. On October 3, 2013 the House voted in Roll Call Vote 516 to pass the bill 265-160.[6] On June 11, 2014, the United States Senate changed the name of the bill to the "Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014" and voted to pass the bill 93-3 in Roll Call Vote 187.[6]
Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs Jeff Miller said that "many of the provisions included in today's Senate-passed bill are based on ideas that have already cleared the House, so I'm hopeful both chambers of Congress can soon agree on a final package to send to the president's desk."[1] Miller was referring to the Veteran Access to Care Act of 2014 (H.R. 4810; 113th Congress) which contained similar provisions and passed the House on June 10, 2014.[21]
The House and Senate established a conference committee to agree on amendments to the bill. The committee met on June 24, 2014. The House voted to agree to the conference report on July 30, 2014 with a vote of 420-5 in Roll Call Vote 467.[6] The Senate voted to agree to the conference report on July 31, 2014 with a vote of 91-3 in Roll Call Vote 254.[6] President Barack Obama signed the bill into law on August 7, 2014.[6]
Debate and discussion[edit]
Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) were the two main senators who negotiated the bill.[1] McCain said "is this a final solution to these problems? No, but it is a beginning."[1] McCain also called the situation an "emergency" and said "if it's not an emergency that we've neglected these brave men and women who have protected our country, then I don't know what is."[18]
Only three senators voted against the bill, Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Bob Corker (R-TN), and Ron Johnson (R-WI).[18]
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)You mean all vanity and just for show?
Oh... and only the males have those.
Juno's symbol is the peacock.... but alas Hillary is not a Roman deity. They don't exist.
okasha
(11,573 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I was just pointing out what a BAD simile it was.
Unless you want your candidate to appear vain and condescending.... which is what a peacock's train implies. Or didn't you know that?
Perhaps you should not be so condescending yourself since you don't seem to understand the implications of your lousy simile.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Duck's tail--short.
Peacock's tail--long.
If you prefer, Bernie has a tail like a bobcat's. Hillary has a snow or clouded leopard's.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)More like... lots of baggage. That's what Hillary has.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Ducks are tough little birds, ever see baby Wood Ducks jump out of their nest high in a tree?
druidity33
(6,446 posts)a ducks' tail feathers shedding water from a quick dip in a sunlit pool is one of the prettiest sights ever. Best part is that it is not for show... even the lowly mallard has really nice tail feathers. I'd be more inclined to liken Bernie to a blue heron though, maybe an egret... something about the subtlety and gradations of color, the fierce gaze, the ruffled tuff on the head. I get to see herons occasionally here in MA, so i'm sure there are a few in VT.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'm grew up in Vermont and there are plenty of Blue Herons and gruff speaking independent former New Yawkers there.
Bernie and my dad are the best ones, though imnsho.
okasha
(11,573 posts)and have the good fortune to live where I can see all the N. American species at one or another time of year.
Poor Bernie is long past the days of his nuptial plumage, though, so perhaps a stork might be a better metaphor.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)So is Hillary.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Really, Albert, that:s a remarkably silly response.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Can she go braless?
I wonder if she colors her hair....
Silly remarks deserve silly responses.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Reminds me of how some people dye poor little chicks for Easter.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Don't be fooled by those pretty blond plumes, her feathers turned grey a long time ago too.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)WASHINGTON, June 11 – The Senate today voted 93-3 for a bill to expand hospitals and clinics run by the Department of Veterans Affairs and to hire more doctors and nurses to provide timely, quality care for veterans.
The bipartisan bill by Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) would let veterans facing long delays for doctor appointments at VA facilities go elsewhere. Their measure also would hold VA officials accountable for trying to conceal patient wait times.
“Our job is to make certain that every veteran in the country gets quality health care in a timely manner,” Sanders said. “At a time when 2 million more veterans have come into the VA in the last four years, we must ensure that there are enough doctors, nurses and other health care professionals to meet the needs of veterans in every facility in the country.”
The Sanders-McCain emergency funding bill would:
Authorize leases for 26 new medical facilities in 17 states and Puerto Rico.
Designate funds for hiring more VA doctors and nurses to provide quality care in a timely manner.
Expand existing VA authority to refer veterans for private care. Veterans experiencing long delays at the VA could seek care instead at community health centers, Indian health centers, Department of Defense medical facilities or private doctors. The two-year program also would offer those same options to veterans who live more than 40 miles from a VA hospital or clinic.
Give VA the authority to fire or demote senior leadership staff for poor performance but provide expedited appeals to the Merit
Systems Protection Board in order to prevent abuses of the new management powers for political or other inappropriate reasons.
Eliminate wait times as part of employee performance measures, which are used in determining bonuses for VA employees.
Make certain that all recently-separated veterans taking advantage of the Post 9/11 GI Bill get in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. For the first time, those same education benefits would be extended to surviving spouses of veterans who died in the line of duty.
Establish independent commissions on ways to improve the VA; one to look at how the VA can do a better job delivering health care and another to make recommendations on how VA can improve the management of construction projects.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-passes-sanders-mccain-veterans-bill
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)She's been talking about this for quite a while.
Response to JaneyVee (Reply #32)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)There's even a video of the proposals. Or you can always check her website: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/the-four-fights/economy-of-tomorrow/
Is that really too hard?
Oh and it was her State Dept that recommended KXL denial: http://m.state.gov/md181473.htm
Response to JaneyVee (Reply #54)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Armstead
(47,803 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)It is up to people to make it happen. This is what Bernie means by a revolution. It is up to us. Your response is essentially… because since he can't do it on his own, there is no point in fighting for it at all.
This is the direct opposite of Bernie's message. He regularly admits that no one person can do it alone. It takes a people's revolution.
Your choice. Fight or snipe.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Someone like Bernie, who's all talk and no do, does not belong on the front lines.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)a horrific GOP and a Democratic Party that seems allergic to taking clear stands on anything.
okasha
(11,573 posts)If he can't wrestle legislation through even a Dem majority Congress, he sure as hell can't do it with a Republican one.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He could have written and co/sponsored a lot of innocuous "Apple Pie" bills with no substance, and chalked up a highwr score, if that was his intent.
His intent is to bring difficult issues, and straightforward potential solutions, into the stale fetid corrupt place that is called the Congress.
He can't be blamed for the failure to pass a bill that hasn't been written and signed off on by the KStreet lobbyists who own most of the Congress these days.
okasha
(11,573 posts)The only reason he's survived in Congress is that he brings the pork home to Vermont. That includes the criminally wasteful F-35, but he and Lockheed Martin are happily scratching each other's backs.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Talking to someone who's watched a lot of politics, knows how it's done, and has never seen a miracle get a bill passed. It takes a lot of persuasion, some horse trading and arm-twisting, and if necessary, indicating you know where the bodies are buried. For all his faults, Lyndon Johnson was superb at this.
Bernie...no.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And I suspect if he were around in Congress today , people like you would be shooting the slings at him. "Public Insurance for old people? What are you crazy? How naive and unrealistic."
Personally, I prefer not to shoot down a Senator who is trying to do the right thing in a principled manner, rather than a political hack or bought-off surrogate employee of the special interests.
Trying to do the right thing is difficult when most of your colleagues are beholden to corrupt and power ful special interests.
I suppose we should all just kick back and say fuck it all, and condone the Big Con that Washington has become.
okasha
(11,573 posts)And in fact, I totally supported his Great Society program and his civil rights legislation. Many years later, I was one of the lay readers at the (Episcopal) funeral Mass for the man who helped steal Box13 for him. That funeral was itself a lesson in raw politics, and one of the most hilarious. The art of the possible.
I once saw a New Yorker cartoon of a scientist working out an equation on a chalkboard. There was a long string of numerals and symbols at the beginning and another string at the end. In between was "Here a miracle happens."
That's what's at the core of your Bernie narrative, a miracle. I prefer to depend upon a President's proven competence and past success to predict future success. I will vote for the candidate who has those qualifications.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Part of the art of the possible is expanding the definition of the possible. LBJ started from that premise. Otherwisevhe would never have bothered with all that Great Society stuff. It didn't fix every problem,mbut it got a lot of good accomplished.
But I haven't seen that can do liberalusm for a long time in the Democratic Party. And we've paid the consequences.
And it is not all dependent on Sanders.
If Clinton gets in and jettisons the worst of her ties to Wall St and Big Corps, and manages to undo a meaningful amount of the damage influcted on the economy and democracy since the 1970s, then I'll cheer her on. And if she manages to get more Democrats behind that, it would be a good start.
But its all gotbto start somewhere. We can't keep batting down those who do want meaningful reform.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)And it depends on what you call progressives at the time.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He didn't have any trouble doing deals with segregationists, even though he had mixed feelings about their POV. He knew how to count votes. If he wanted a piece of legislation passed, either as a leadership operative in the House, or as the "Master of the Senate," he wouldn't hesistate to twist arms or deal with the devil. He was the ultimate pragmatist. He got stuff done.
senz
(11,945 posts)Made mistakes, but he was not a bad president at all.
okasha
(11,573 posts)came to hate LBJ for his escalation of the Viet Nam war and the lies that prompted the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.
It had nothing to do with his social justice programs.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Or is it what you surmised based on the available evidence? Because frankly this doesn't sound very plausible
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Just so we know that's all that was happening here.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But that's your opinion, snd you're welcome to it
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)His intent is to bring difficult issues, and straightforward potential solutions, into the stale fetid corrupt place that is called the Congress.
He can't be blamed for the failure to pass a bill that hasn't been written and signed off on by the KStreet lobbyists who own most of the Congress these days.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)You know damn well that legislators perform a variety of roles, and success can be measured in many ways depending on the legislator. The people of Vermont whom he represents have been satisfied enough with his performance to overwhelmingly elect him multiple times and promote him from Congressman to Senator. That indicates that they do not feel he is a bad ineffective legislator.
I know, I know: "But,but,but, Vermont isn't America sputter, sputter, bluster,bluster."
Sometimes this crap feels like the familiar debate tactics one encounters when debating with wingnuts. It's such a predictable pattern:
The Sun rises in the morning.
Prove it.
Every day the sun appears in the east.
That's just your opinion. Site me a source with specific information.
Here are ten links.
Those are not credible sources. Show me a credible source....blah, blah,blah ad nauseum.
-----
Been there. Done that. Sorry, not playing.
senz
(11,945 posts)The Senate Passes Bernie Sanders’ Plan to Create 400,000 New Jobs
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/06/27/senate-passes-bernie-sanders-plan-create-400000-jobs.html
Bernie Sanders Delivers Big For Vets As Senate Passes Veterans’ Healthcare Bill
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/11/bernie-sanders-delivers-big-vets-senate-passes-veterans-healthcare-bill.html
And his legislative record is available here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357
I can't even begin to say how disgusted I am with okasha's false statements.
senz
(11,945 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)You presented a fantasy as fact. Learn the difference. This isn't Narnia.
Response to okasha (Reply #142)
Name removed Message auto-removed
senz
(11,945 posts)You don't have to apologize for being so uninformed and passing on untruths, but it would be good if you paused to think about it. Have a nice day!
okasha
(11,573 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)WASHINGTON, June 11 – The Senate today voted 93-3 for a bill to expand hospitals and clinics run by the Department of Veterans Affairs and to hire more doctors and nurses to provide timely, quality care for veterans.
The bipartisan bill by Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) would let veterans facing long delays for doctor appointments at VA facilities go elsewhere. Their measure also would hold VA officials accountable for trying to conceal patient wait times.
“Our job is to make certain that every veteran in the country gets quality health care in a timely manner,” Sanders said. “At a time when 2 million more veterans have come into the VA in the last four years, we must ensure that there are enough doctors, nurses and other health care professionals to meet the needs of veterans in every facility in the country.”
The Sanders-McCain emergency funding bill would:
Authorize leases for 26 new medical facilities in 17 states and Puerto Rico.
Designate funds for hiring more VA doctors and nurses to provide quality care in a timely manner.
Expand existing VA authority to refer veterans for private care. Veterans experiencing long delays at the VA could seek care instead at community health centers, Indian health centers, Department of Defense medical facilities or private doctors. The two-year program also would offer those same options to veterans who live more than 40 miles from a VA hospital or clinic.
Give VA the authority to fire or demote senior leadership staff for poor performance but provide expedited appeals to the Merit
Systems Protection Board in order to prevent abuses of the new management powers for political or other inappropriate reasons.
Eliminate wait times as part of employee performance measures, which are used in determining bonuses for VA employees.
Make certain that all recently-separated veterans taking advantage of the Post 9/11 GI Bill get in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. For the first time, those same education benefits would be extended to surviving spouses of veterans who died in the line of duty.
Establish independent commissions on ways to improve the VA; one to look at how the VA can do a better job delivering health care and another to make recommendations on how VA can improve the management of construction projects.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-passes-sanders-mccain-veterans-bill
MADem
(135,425 posts)This was an appropriations bill, and those MUST originate in the House. That's where Ways and Means is; the pursestrings of our nation.
I've sketched it out for you, downthread.
MADem
(135,425 posts)of taxpayer dollars is the House--that is where Ways and Means is. Senators can't really spend our money--the House controls that business. This bill started out as a continuing resolution written up by a Republican from KY during the continuing resolution that happened the previous year. It was taken up the following year and Sanders and McCain in the Senate and Ann Kirkpatrick of AZ in the House buffed the thing up, it went to conference, and it came out of the House (not the Senate) to be signed by POTUS.
Here's the President signing the bill (HR--not Senate--3230):
?itok=uNLxYITV
President Barack Obama signs H.R. 3230, the Veterans' Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, at Fort Belvoir, Va., Aug. 7, 2014. The bill provides the Department of Veterans Affairs the resources to improve access and quality of care for veterans. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Everybody around that table--as well as McCain who doesn't appear to be there--had a role in shoving that thing along. Sanders and McCain took lead in the Senate, and several actors did the same in the House. It's not a one-man (or woman) show. You have to work together to get laws passed.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Yeah.... they went into Iraq anyway... even tho' he didn't vote for that.
Someone else ran with the other lemmings.
procon
(15,805 posts)Sorry, but this might sound impressive at first blush to people who skipped US Govt 101, but it seems more like a PR opportunity rather than something that has even the slightest possibility of passing.
You don't bring things up that "have no chance of passing". Everyone knows that's the way to get things done.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)And when the people truly rise up and elect Bernie, they
will be l-o-o-o-n-g ones.
It's pretty simple really. Vote for the one who's actually standing
tall & strong for real democracy.
procon
(15,805 posts)but I do admire your guileless enthusiasm.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And that is largely because of our collective defeatism and apathy as a society.
Batting down anyone who attempts to change that is not the way towards any solutions.
procon
(15,805 posts)Change it if you can, but until then it is what it is and we all labor under the legitimacy of that law. Explain a reasonable alternative if you have one, but nothing is achieved by pretending the rule of government can be ignored at will simply as a weak homage to your preferred candidate.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The whole point of what Sanders and the movement he represents is to try to bring in some fresh air, so that it might possibly work in favor of the interests of the public instead of the wealthy and powerful.
There are plenty of "reasonable alternatuives" but you don't really care about that. Your condescending mocking of those who are attempting to work towards that indicates that you prefer to stick with the status quo of a broken and destructive system.
Fine. Your choice.
procon
(15,805 posts)quite as charmed this time around? Despite everything, I still wish every success to Sanders and hope he remains true to his creed and does not become mired down by the many unrealistic expectations set in his path. He is indeed a fresh voice and deserves to be better served.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But if you are referring to people who don't support Sanders, that's fine. We are all free to support whomever we choose.
My gripe is with the tone of so many of the put downs of efforts to change things, such as the Sander campaign. I've been hearing endless variations of that since the 1970's, anytime there is an effort to bring about progressive populist change. Or even keeping basic liberalism alive against the corporatist conservative tide in both parties,
And I've seen the result of clinging to a status quo that has grown ever more corrupt and oligarchic. And I am not alone. The country as a whole is fed up, though they may express it in different ways.
My own opinion is that people who are enthusiastic in a positive direction should be encouraged, not slapped down.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)So how could it "neutralize" Citizens vs. United, or limit the influence of people like the Koch brothers?
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Bernie is listed as an "original cosponsor", looks excellent to me, but this might not be the same bill, anyone know?
http://everyvoice.org/press-release/fair-elections-now-act-reintroduced-big-donors-play-outsized-role-ahead-2016
Here’s how the bill would work:
To encourage greater participation, everyday Americans could qualify for a $25 refundable My Voice tax credit for small donations to congressional campaigns.
Qualified candidates who prove their viability by raising a large number of small contributions from their home state would be eligible to receive a base grant to help fund their campaigns.
After qualifying, candidates who choose to participate must limit their contributions to $150 or less. Those donations would be matched, up to a limit, by six dollars for every dollar raised. For example, a $40 donation becomes $280.
Candidates who qualify for Fair Elections funding can receive additional funds to ensure they have the resources to compete against outside attacks.
Basically it uses public money as an end-runaround candidates feeling that they need to accept corporate money with strings attached to it in order to stay competitive. No SCOTUS issues, since it is voluntary. I like this approach, until we can get something much more strict that removes all non-public money from elections (that will take awhile if we are even ever able to accomplish it).
Again, I don't know if this is the same bill, but Bernie is a cosponsor.
senz
(11,945 posts)But it's worth it.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)other things accomplished.
Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Is it "has no chance of passing."
Hillary: the candidate of capitulation before even leaving the starting gate.
procon
(15,805 posts)Even if every single Democrat sponsored a bill, it still comes down to convincing the Republican majority that controls the House to allow a vote and pass a spending bill backed by their arch foes. What are the odds?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)To even bring this bill up now is nothing more than kabuki theater.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)We remember how the Obama haters swarmed when campaign promises were squelched by the Republican Congress. It was always Obamas fault.
We remember how much Obama has been since Election Day, vilified and hated on for policies that never ever saw the light of day. Many of the same people that rebuked Obama are now Bernie supporters and frankly I don't have much enthusiasm for this type of politicking.
Hillary has been talking about campaign finance laws for some time. Rather than tax payer funded elections, I would rather see Citizens United repealed. It helps the Republicans much more than any Dem.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)So we certainly can;t have any of that.
But God forbid anyone should try to overturn Citizens United. That would be too radical too. It is naive to think we can ever get rid of it. Foolish idealism to think we can make any change in election financing, or even restore what existed a few years ago.
Change. Blach. I hate it. Give me the status quo any day. It's working so well.
okasha
(11,573 posts)but Hillary has said that willingness to overturn CU will be her litmus test for any new SCOTUS justices. Why are you flailing at feow Democrats over this? We ALL want the damn thing gone.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)
How OH HOW is she gonna get them thru a Republican hearing????? It's impossible! She won't be a dictator! It'll be a disaster, like her health care plan was!
See how it sounds?... your defeatism?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)i took it to mean the use of tax payer money to fund candidacy? Public vs private money. I work in government and public vs private property mean govt owned ( street, parks etc) or privately owned (homes, malls etc)
I don't and never have advocated for a status quo with regards to campaign financing. Neither has any Dem candidate, so I don't understand your need to throw out sarcasm. It doesn't make sense......you're acting as if that is what is being touted.
My personal preference is to limit spending. screw the contribution side. Candidates may only spend $xxxxx. Once it's spent, they rely on debates and interviews for exposure....or they learn to budget and pace themselves.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)There are many possible ways campaign finance reform can take -- limiting spending, public funding, various other vehicles.
CU distorted the process. Hillary you, Bernie, me and millions of other people would agree that it's an abominiation that should be overturned.
But campaign financing was already awful before CU. How to fix the underlying problems can take many forms: spending limits, funding limits, restriction on supporter involvements, etc.
One of the possibilities is public funding. That too could take many forms, including voluntary check-offs on taxes as has been done, etc. There can be thresholds in place to prevent funding whacky candidates.
All that can be sorted out and discussed.
But the fact that Bernie has a general proposal for that, does not mean it's automatically bad. That auto rejection by many of anything he or his supporters bring up is what causes reflexive reactions.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I do understand trying to create a level playing field. But when we have over 500 candidates and many are in it for a by line on a future book, others are Republicans, and some like David Duke, I'd rather their donations come for the people who support them, and not from taxes. The concern is that government then will be dictating, limiting or describing free speech. How and where the money may be spent. It's never carte blanche. IMHO
Again, and as I'd indicated, maybe I have it all wrong, and willing to learn, but throwing out terms like "publically funded" is not giving us much of a definition. That is why I asked for it. A standard that we know would be applied in the case of Bernie's ideas.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Sounds like a reasonable idea to me...(But of course I'd think so)
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Obama admires Reagan.
Obama caved on the PO
Obama took 5 or 6 years to realize the GOP wasn't gonna work with him.
dsc
(52,162 posts)but they won't be able to ban or restrict private funding per citizens united, nor will they be able to use a trigger mechanism when people are facing well funded opponents per Arizona Free Enterprize fund vs Bennet. Thus the only thing he could do is have the government spend billions on candidates for all office. I don't see that flying.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)And interestingly enough we would see as much zdrmocratic opposition to that as Republican.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)A bill can't overturn Citizen's United.
okasha
(11,573 posts)For that, we need a candidate who can unquestionably beat any of the Republican horde. That candidate is not Sanders.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)A recent poll of three battleground state match ups has Hillary and Bernie running very close to each other against pitted opponents. That's with no more than 9% saying they haven't heard enough about Hillary to make a decision verses as much as 46% saying they haven't heard enough about Bernie.
dsc
(52,162 posts)I think, in point of fact, if we could guarantee it would pass, you would see more GOP politicians support it than say they would now. Politicians themselves are sick of all the fundraising they have to do and parties are not happy with the outside groups taking over. That said, this is one of those issues where success has to be pretty much guaranteed before politicians will dare take it on since money can be spend unlimittedly until it is.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)But since Sanders knows what he's doing with decades of experience getting
shit done in Congress, I suspect your "concerns" are addressed in the bill.
dsc
(52,162 posts)just like Cruz can't decide tomorrow that gays can't get married, Sanders can't decide tomorrow to ban or limit all campaign spending. So again, he can't use either a trigger nor can he limit outside spending. He can provide funding and ban those who take said funding from taking other funding. I would presume that will be in it. but unless we are willing to spend say 50 million on a mid sized Senate race, I don't see public funding as an answer.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)He's literally one of the least effective senators in terms of "getting shit done".
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Good grief. Why are you attacking a man who's actually being part of the solution?
Oh, that's right. It's because he's not in lock-step with the Clinton Coronation.
never mind.
Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #47)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)As a matter of fact, most of the bills that he has passed were co-written with Hillary Clinton. Sanders has a terrible record of simply not getting enough votes to pass even the most necessary of policies.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)--> that most bills Bernie's gotten passed were co-written by Hillary?? Really?
Got a link for that one? Or any shred of evidence for that statement?
I'm sincerely asking here.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Bernie rode along on Hillary's coat tails in the Senate. I call horseshit on that.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Been repeated by several posters here and elsewhere.
Is tomorrow's message that Bernie steals candy from babies?
Response to Armstead (Reply #55)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #65)
Ed Suspicious This message was self-deleted by its author.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)
janlyn
(735 posts)I shared this on Facebook. I live in Arkansas, and am really trying to get my friends to look at Bernie. I am hoping that once they see what he wants for the american people, that they will drop the Clinton loyalty, and jump on the Bernie bus!
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
msongs
(67,413 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)
are you talking about? He's in this thing because he still gives a rat's
ass about his country and he sees it going down the Citizens United toilet.
While other candidates are raking in the big bucks from billionaires, not
to name names.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)The man is just not ready for prime time. Such an elevated position as running for POTUS surely requires privately-donated Lear jets, lobster and caviar. Tsk Tsk.
brooklynite
(94,591 posts)And even if they did, it wouldn't pass SC scrutiny. This will require a Constitutional Amendment.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)who are serious about over-turning Citizens United. while none others have to my
knowledge.
Bernie is fighting tooth & nail on ALL fronts to restore some semblance of legitimacy
to our constitutional democracy, while other candidates rake in huge corporate
campaign contributions and are largely silent on the issue.
THIS ^ is my candidate, and I'm damned proud of him.
brooklynite
(94,591 posts)...and, as I reported about my PERSONAL question to her, she promised, as an alternative, to consider a Constitutional Amendment.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)there's no link in ^this post, nor in the other post you referenced.
I'm not saying it's not true necessarily, but would like to see the
source if it's not too much trouble.
brooklynite
(94,591 posts)This was the day before the personal remarks I reported on, in which she pledged to appoint SC Justices in favor of overturning CU:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/us/politics/another-clinton-now-vows-to-fix-political-finance-system.html
This was from two weeks later:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1094202
...and how nice that you're not saying it's not true "necessarily". I've been accused of many things here; being dishonest, particularly about the political events I participate in, isn't usually one of them.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I'm frankly both happy and relieved to hear this. I somehow missed it.
I don't know how she (or her supporters) square this with her taking oodles
of donations from big corporations, but hey .. when Hillary says something
that is spot-on, I won't shy away from applauding her for it.
Gothmog
(145,293 posts)You are wrong. Hillary Clinton proposed a litmus test for SCOTUS nominees a while back http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees-a-pledge-to-overturn-citizens-united/
Clinton's emphatic opposition to the ruling, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums on independent political activity, garnered the strongest applause of the afternoon from the more than 200 party financiers gathered in Brooklyn for a closed-door briefing from the Democratic candidate and her senior aides, according to some of those present.
This is old news
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Gothmog
(145,293 posts)The only practical way to get rid of Citizens United is to elect a democratic president who will get to select three to four SCOTUS nominees. I like Sanders and according to that online quiz, Sanders is closer to my views than Clinton by a few percentage points. Right now, I am supporting the candidate who I think can win in November 2016. I have repeatedly ask for someone to explain to me how Sanders could be viable against the Koch Brothers who will be spending $887 millon and the GOP nominee who will be spending another billion and I have yet to receive a good answer.
Citizens United is a major issue for me and so is the control of the SCOTUS. I will support the Democratic nominee but right now in the primary process I am leaning towards the candidate who has the best chance of winning in November of 2016
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Thanks for the synopsis of your views.
I'm supporting Sanders for many many reasons, but I'll just offer a few:
* He's not beholding to BIG money, not at all. <-- unlike Hillary
* In at least one poll, Bernie's running against GOP rivals as strong or stronger
than Hillary, and this thing is just getting started,
* Bernie's stepped out of the box of politics as usual, and is asking for a political revolution
that is unprecedented and so far, he's delivering on his promise and voters love him for it,
and not just Democrats either. <-- Hill decidedly is NOT doing this.
*I feel like, who am I to NOT support Bernie in his historic run for POTUS? It's exactly
what this nation so sorely needs, and this may be our last chance to turn around the
Oligarchy in its tracks and take back democracy in America.
If/when Bernie wins the Primary, will Hillary support him in the GE, with all of her million$
of funds she's received to beat the GOP? Will you vote for Sanders in GE and donate every
penny you can? <- if everyone who gives a damn about our nation does this, Bernie will
win without Koch money, hands down.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)It would only be a "crippling blow" if it actually were to pass. Which is doubtful, as Sanders must know: Vermont's own public elections law was struck down by the Supreme Court (however wrongly) on First Amendment grounds.
There have been many public elections bills attempted in the Senate in the past, even before Citizens' United, which really puts a crimp in the idea. Most notable was the 2009 Durbin-Spector Fair Elections Now Act, which eventually died in Congress.
This is not a new idea; and it's certainly not a crippling blow. If it should fail to pass this time will we call Bernie a sell-out, who didn't fight hard enough for it? That's the rules here at DU it seems, so it would only be fair to be hugely disappointed about a promise not kept. Goose, gander, and all that jazz.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)I think Bernie is doing this because that's what he has always done,
for decades ... Stand tall for democracy, for the people not the corporations,
Why should he change now, just because he's running for POTUS? Really?
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts).. you also think Bernie has "0% chance" of getting elected POTUS.
Did I get that right?
artislife
(9,497 posts)It is sort of the answer---it won't pass...or...the republican congress will block it...good luck with trying to find a coalition...
Can you see why that is troubling when the implication is that Hillary will get things through congress.
If none of the other components change, what is she able to get through?
It doesn't sound like it will be anything that a progressive will rally behind. We had a lot of compromises in the original Clinton presidency, and they really hurt the 99%
This may be why many who don't support H just brush these comments aside. We don't just want to pass anything to get a pass, we want to pass something important.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)I'm simply responding to the absurd suggestion that it is a "crushing blow". Ridiculous.
artislife
(9,497 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Really!
Seems so many that have replied have nothing good to say about this...they must LOVE, LOVE, LOVE them some Citizens United!
I can't think of anything else.
They bash and poo-poo Bernie for this...and then cheer on their BIG $$$$$$$ Candidate.
Wow...with that attitude, America and us little people are surely doomed.
I'm sticking with Bernie no matter.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)Apparently.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Or you would have countered SoupBox's post with something besides snark.
SoapBox's question still stands: i.e. why is it that "so many ... have nothing good to say
about" Bernie fighting Citizens United with everything he can, including this new bill?
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... that you know isn't going anywhere.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)or at least to try, however lamely.
on Edit: what has Hillary done not this, besides "promise" that she'll also
make sure her SCOTUS appointments will oppose CU?
Talk about "easy"
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... the obviousness of which seems to be over the heads of some people here.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Your "obvious", is my
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)Thank you for making my point.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts).. when it fits.
This time? Not so much.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)So how would the proposed law "neutralize" Citizens vs. United?
We already have public funding of Presidential elections, but we can't force candidates to accept it, and SCOTUS has ruled that groups like the Koch's brothers have a free speech right to spend as much money as they wish.
I appreciate Bernie's effort but this proposed law won't even touch the Koch's brothers, much less resulted in a crippling blow.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm all for public financing, but how does this keep nominally "independent" groups from spending money on political messages?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I haven't read the bill, but hope to soon.
For now I take your question as a good one. Neither of us
know, so let's ring out together, and come back to it.
NYCButterfinger
(755 posts)Their little confab in Dana Point, Calif. was a joke. Fiorina, Bush, Rubio all attended that joke.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)because one Senator has introduced a bill that has .00000001% chance of becoming law.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)it has 0% chance, and the best way to make sure it fails is
for enough nay-sayers to trash the man introducing it, thereby
insuring that the Koch Bros. sleep well at night, knowing their
beloved Citizens United legalized-bribery continues unabated.
senz
(11,945 posts)I'm still kinda new here, but you stand out as one of the good guys.
Thank you. 
MADem
(135,425 posts)Congress works? Anyone at all? Do people actually think that because one guy writes a bill, that everyone has to leap up and vote for it? Didn't anyone study this stuff in school...or at least watch that "Only a Bill" segment on Schoolhouse Rock?
Last time I checked, the GOP controlled both chambers. This thing will be tabled so fast your head will spin.
The guy who wrote that mess admits it at the end of the piece--talk about 'burying the lede!'
The Sanders bill won’t get sixty votes in the Senate, but the point of the legislation is to raise awareness of the issue while giving Americans a bill to rally around. Bernie Sanders is building an army to take down the Kochs, and his bill is a shot across the bow at the oligarchs.
And what's with this silly language? Crippling blow? Please. Who wrote that idiotic headline? Ahhhhh--someone named "Jason Easley" who has the journalistic chops of an angry toddler, apparently. Here are some of this other poor "journalist's" headlines:
http://www.politicususa.com/author/jasoneasley-2-2
Bernie Don’t Play That: Sanders Stonewalls Media Effort To Get Him To Attack Clinton
Scott Walker Goes Full Scumbag By Refusing To Admit That Obama Is A Christian
Hillary Clinton Promises To Defend President Obama Bold New Clean Power Plant Plan
Donald Trump Falls Apart When Called Out On His Racism Towards African-Americans
Bernie Sanders Says His Truth Bombs Are Forcing Hillary Clinton To Deal With Reality
President Obama Calls Out The Republican Lies About Medicare
This isn't journalism--it's opinion. This guy is throwing his BLOGGY headlines on scraps of news, and infusing his opinion into the mix heavily. It's just not worth reading. This kind of stuff gets people's hopes up, particularly when they don't understand how legislation is processed.
Now, before anyone chews my ass for injecting a little reality here, I would love serious campaign finance reform, and a truncated election season too. But this kind of symbolic-but-pointless effort isn't the way to make it happen. First thing one needs for a bill like this is a shitload of co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle, and leadership in the other chamber pushing on the other end--and I simply don't see that happening.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's not uncommon for legislators to intodue bills that they know are not going to be passed, to put an issue or position on the record, and give attention to them...or perhaps move towards some variation.
That's part of the process.
But I'm sure you know that. It's just that when Sanders does it, it's a horrible thing to do.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If you really want a bill passed, you find a vote wrangling co-sponsor. Or ten. Sanders found one in McCain on at least one occasion.
procon
(15,805 posts)The only thing Sanders announced was a somewhat vague press release that he was going to introduce legislation for public financing. He gave no other details, no timeline, no other named sponsors, and yet the writer was quick to inflate a few amorphous statements into a totally awesome headline that didn't exactly match the fizzy story.
It worked, even though there was no substance to Sanders initial PR announcement, but I expected more integrity from a candidate who is running against politics-as-usual. Instead, he used the same sly tactics as any other politician to lure in potential voters and raise awareness of his brand. I'll be scrutinizing his methods more closely now, so that's a good thing, yeah?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Meaningless, went nowhere, but a lot of "Yeah, cool, man!!" enthusiasm for something that had no hope of passing. He actually got several dozen co-sponsors for that bill, but their association had more to do with expressing an opinion that Dubya sucked as a leader and they had no faith in the State Department that the actual necessity for such an entity. After all, to paraphrase Clausewitz accurately, war is nothing more than a continuation of policy with other means, and GWB's Department of State never had the brass to do anything, nevermind try for diplomacy over war. A good State Department, OTOH, is the Department of Peace, and First Chair in the cabinet as well.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)
Number23
(24,544 posts)and squawked "bully pulpit!! Squaaaawwk... bully pulpit!!" every 72 seconds now go on and on and on about how it's "not Bernie's fault" that the system is so corrupt and how "unfair" it is that he's not being given credit for even trying!11one 
I have said it before and I will say it again.
THESE PEOPLE SIMPLY CANNOT BE FOR REAL.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I know they "teach to the test" these days, but "How a bill becomes law" should surely be on the damn test, should it not?
We like to insist that we're smarter than the other guys, and I want to believe that too, but some of the views being touted here are giving me pause!
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Well, he IS president.
Sanders is not (yet)
You simply cannot be for real.
Number23
(24,544 posts)does fuck all without a cooperative Congress, then I can understand why you chose to respond with that incredibly special comment.
Sanders is not (yet)
Judging by the list of endorsements he's received, you could probably remove that "yet" and have just left it at 'Sanders is not'.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)No one seemed to want to watch it.
Also the existing campaign finance legislation has been overturned by SCOTUS. Why should this be any different?
When I first heard of his proposal I assumed it was for a constitutional amendment, and I was glad someone was talking about it. But You're right this is showboating and as such is a waste of public resources.
MADem
(135,425 posts)they'd have half a grasp of the process but I guess not. For my trouble I get snark and grief, along with cut/pastes that show me that the process is poorly understood...!
silenttigersong
(957 posts)I cannot wait for the debates.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Apparently doing something is worse than doing nothing at all.
I mean, fighting big money in politics is just so fucking easy, right?
That's why HC supporters are pissing on Senator Sanders for making an effort.
Because what they're doing on DU is important work and it's HARD.
Thanks, 99th_Monkey.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)This string was an informative ride in several ways,
one that you mention: who knew that crafting a piece
of legislation to fix CU & the Koch Bros. Oligarchy was
"easy"?
Another thing I actually did learn that I didn't
know, is that Hillary has come out saying she'll only
nominate peeps for SCOTUS who will help reverse CU.
I didn't know this, but brooklynite pointed it out, and
provided a link even, which I appreciated:http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees-a-pledge-to-overturn-citizens-united/
NYT pointed out it's just another Clinton "promise":
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/us/politics/another-clinton-now-vows-to-fix-political-finance-system.html?_r=0
What was interesting is most other Hill supporters didn't
seem to even know, but chose to berate Bernie instead.
Or maybe they didn't bother to point it out because it's obviously
"easier" to make a "promise" than it is to introduce an actual piece
of legislation onto the books that will be ready and waiting to get
pushed through Congress on Bernie's coat-tails once he's
elected.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If I had to guess I'd wager they care about the issue more than they care about scoring points against Bernie.
As for the others in this thread, nothing Bernie does will ever be good enough because this primary isn't about what's really important, it's all about tearing down the most progressive candidate.
Watching them continue to lie about his record even after they've been proven wrong...
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)It's the sum total of his career that defines him, all the big and small things combined. This might not look like much but consider, who else running could back this, with a straight face? When debating Senator Sanders, this topic will come up and the American people will see another reason to vote for Sanders. He'll be representing them, not the class of wealthy donors.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Thank you, Senator Sanders 
polichick
(37,152 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Christ on a crutch...
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)than Bernie look good.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)I guess if he introduced a bill to honor Motherhood, somehow that would be a bad thing to some people
2banon
(7,321 posts)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)From Vox:
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/30/9074413/bernie-sanders-citizens-united
Excerptt:
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is prepping a new proposal for campaign finance, he told Vox in a recent interview. And one big idea he's considering would give every US citizen some money to donate as he or she chooses.
"One way which I find intriguing is that you basically provide $100 for every citizen in the United States of America, and you say to that person, 'Here's your hundred bucks, you can make a contribution, you can get a $100 tax credit if you spend $100 on any candidate you want,'" Sanders said. "I think that would democratize very significantly the political process in America and take us a long way away from these Super PACs controlled by billionaires who are now buying elections."
Sanders suggested that details on his own plan would come later. But his shout-out gives a boost of attention to the tax credit idea, which has been floating around the campaign finance reform world in recent years as a potential way to counterbalance the influence of big money on the political process.
It's an attractive idea for campaign finance reformers — both because they think it's good policy, and because they think it could pass muster with the conservative Supreme Court. But it will be difficult to pass through Congress, where only one Republican has signed on. And some critics think that amplifying the power of small donations could lead our politics to become even more polarized.
Tax credits for small campaign donations actually existed just 30 years ago. As David Gans of the Constitutional Accountability Center explained in a useful briefing, a 1971 law created a tax credit for half the value of small political donations. At first, the credit's maximum amount was $12.50 (for any individual who gave at least $25 in contributions). Later it was increased to $50 for individuals and $100 for joint filers. But the 1986 tax reform law wiped it out, as it tried to raise revenue by repealing various credits and deductions.
Now, with the vast sums of money pouring into elections during the Citizens United era, some people want to bring it back. Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) has taken the lead in Congress with his Government by the People Act. His bill would give a tax credit for the value half of donations to US House candidates, up to a maximum value of $25 for individuals. Sanders is co-sponsoring a similar bill in the Senate, aimed at that chamber's elections.
...Sarbanes's bill provides a way for the power of small donations to be amplified. If candidates foreswear accepting contributions of more than $1,000 from any individual (the current maximum is $2,700 per election), smaller contributions of up to $150 each would be matched with six times that amount in public funds. So a donation of $100 would be matched with $600 in public money, making each one worth $700 overall.
The public funds would only be available to candidates who first demonstrate local grassroots support by raising $50,000 from at least 1,000 donors in their states — thus preventing the matching funds from going to complete fringe figures. The candidates who accept these matching funds could then get even more if tons of late outside money pours in against them.......
.
MORE AT LINK
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Gothmog
(145,293 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)(who cribs heavily) has a habit of putting his opinions under blatantly partisan headlines. There's really no need to gild the lily, but he does it anyway.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It is nice knowing they won't have as much influence in this election cycle. Great job Sanders.
FloridaBlues
(4,008 posts)It has zero chance of happening unfortunately .
Armstead
(47,803 posts)taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)because the Kochs can simply spend unlimited money outside of the campaign. The supreme court ruled on this one already, and it'd take a big change in the supreme court or a constitutional amendment to overturn it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)brooklynite
(94,591 posts)...or if they do, they only contribute the $2700 per person everyone else can contribute.
What they DO do is spend in support of a candidate, by spreading their message. That's a First Amendment right. Absent a Constitutional Amendment, or a re-hearing of Citizens United, nothing will change. If Bernie Sanders is proposing that ONLY the Government will provide the funds that a candidate uses to run, that's great, but it won't impact the Koch Brothers, or Sheldon Adelson, for a second.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Campaign finance is a big convoluted mess. But one step here, another step there might actually make a difference.
But maybe you'd prefer NOT to make a difference? Nor even try?
brooklynite
(94,591 posts)...but jumping for joy at a "crippling blow" is a little uncalled for.
okasha
(11,573 posts)that are pertinent here are the ones necessary to get a bill through Congress. Melodramatic headlines notwithstanding.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)but that's difficult with a campaign fonance system that rewards the corrupt, and corrupts or keeps out the good people.
It's all a big entangled mess, but my point was simply that we have to do what we can where we can, amd have to start somewhere -- which also means looking outside of the conventional molds that create the problems in the first place.
virgogal
(10,178 posts)only ones affected by Sanders' bill ?
Wouldn't all of the money crowd be affected.
A most confusing article.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)including border policy. It's gotten to be absurd. The problem is the influence of money--not any particular billionaire. He revs up anger by throwing their name out as red meat to his supporters, who he evidently believes is unable to grasp broader concepts of the systemic influence of money on our political system. I find it insulting to voters' intelligence, but it apparently plays with some.
