Quote Originally Posted by Ragoczy View Post
... that and Satan has me on retainer.
You mean he pays you? I may need to renegotiate my contract!

"The same group" sounds suspiciously like taxpayers.
Not specifically. As I said in an earlier post, I would finance all campaigns from a pool of funds donated voluntarily by any entity that cares to. That would include church groups, corporations and individuals. No tax revenues, although the funds could be collected similarly to the Presedential Election Campaign Fund donation from your tax form.
But the funds would be parcelled out equally among the candidates, with no one campaign getting more than any other. That allows the voters to elect the person they feel is most qualified, rather than the one with the most money for ads. This same fund could pay for the TV time for public access. Naturally, some non-partisan group would have to handle this. One of those bumps I mentioned.

the nation itself, airwaves included, is a free speech zone.
True in theory, but if it were true in fact there would be no censorship of the networks. In fact, there are always some good and valid reasons to abridge free speech. Try shouting FIRE in a crowded theater and see how far you get with a free speech defense.


Would you agree that part of the influence corporations have is through lobbyists whose fundamental objective is to use campaign contributions to influence the byzantine tax structure? If so, what do you think of the Fair Tax, which would eliminate that?
I agree that their objective includes the tax structure, as well as the propagation of laws which will benefit the corporations over the individuals. This is the very kind of action which needs to be curtailed.
As for the Fair Tax, I don't know that much about it. Hopefully within the next five years, long before any significant tax reform could hope to take hold, I'll be retired and not nearly so worried about the taxes as I am now. But anything which eliminates fabricated breaks for greedy people and businesses is a step up in my book.

Religion has its place in the political process. Individuals form their views from their religion (primarily) and that's always going to influence their political decisions.
True, people live their lives based upon their religious training, among other things. That includes candidates. The religion of anyone in this country should not have anything to do with their ability to hold office. Theoretically. In practice, though....
But what I'm concerned with is those ministers/priests/rabbis/whatever who use the pulpit to put forth a political position. To my mind, doing that negates the right of the church to claim tax-free status. And when the churches become actively involved in a campaign, including through the donation of money to their candidates, that violates the constitution. If a priest/minister/whatever wants to make speeches as an individual, that's fine. Let him do it on the street corner soap box like any other person, without his religious trappings.