The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting money from private industry or private sources is essentially a socialist argument.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
'Socialist' is the nastiest thing you can say about an American politician in some quarters.
Well private money can take risks in a way that government money often isn't willing to.
In fact, corporate and union moneys go overwhelmingly to incumbents, so limiting that money, as Congress did in the campaign finance law, may be the single most self-denying thing that Congress has ever done.
It's time to believe again in the potential of private enterprise set free from the shackles of over-bearing federal government.
Crony capitalism is essentially a condition in which... public officials are giving favours to people in the private sector in payment of political favours.
The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, their holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth.
And if we make the process political, if we start to make it personal, we're actually going to frustrate good public policy, in terms of managing this money.
It is clearly better that property should be private, but the use of it common; and the special business of the legislator is to create in men this benevolent disposition.
You can't take money from the taxpayers out of the treasury to give it to pay off your political donors. That's corruption to do that.
I don't think politicians should be allowed to take money for their campaigns from outside interests.