Comments on: Hoboken: City for Sale (Part III)

By: jc5201

jc5201 — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:24:02 +0000

I just read an article that pertains to this very subject on a national level. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court might overturn a law banning corporate camapign contributions, and it offers an interesting historical persepctive. Insurance co’s have been involved in campaign controversey for 100 years.

Here’s the link

nytimes.com/2009/08/11/opinion/11tue4.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

By: jc5201

jc5201 — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:19:52 +0000

Great article. The problem with very constrictive pay-to-play laws is that it costs money to run a campaign and the people who really benefit is the ultra rich candidate like Mason, Corzine or Bloomberg.

It definitely rids us of bad contracts, but it also rids us of good people who cannot afford the cost a campaign on their own.

We should make sure we’re pushing strict pay-to-play laws, to avoid the situations mentioned above, but we also need to focus on fair elections.

By: camel2

camel2 — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:22:25 +0000

this is why it pays for politicians to read hoboken411. He would have educated himself about what to look out for!

By: Biffy B For Mayor

Biffy B For Mayor — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:47:49 +0000

In fact – its not only the politicians that are for sale, its the entire public that is for sale.

By: Biffy B For Mayor

Biffy B For Mayor — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:47:05 +0000

It’s really sad that all this money is needed to run for public office. Instead of citizens coming out and tracking down the candidates, campaigns need to spend dollars upon dollars to reach apathetic americans.

By: estevens

estevens — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:31:11 +0000

Doing the I-told-you-so bump (and grind).

By: estevens

estevens — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 02:22:52 +0000

Beejay – no they can’t, though they often use funds for “strategy sessions” at Frankie & Johnnie’s, donations to local charities and clubs (rather than using their own bucks), and as Anthony Russo did, hiring their wife to be “campaign manager” at $1000 a week.

By: Beejay

Beejay — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:18:19 +0000

aap wrote:

I would guess that the difference between the cases presented here is that those arrested got the money for themselves, but the other person gets contributions for a political campaign. In one case, one is a bribe because the person pockets the money, in the other case, it is kind of unethical, but the system seems unethical to begin with.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but, I don’t think politicians necessarily have to spend their political contributions. They can take the money with them if they decide to not run again. If you can keep the money it is basically the same as handing over an envelope filled with 100s.

By: kellyjoy

kellyjoy — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:49:30 +0000

Katie_Scarlett wrote:

ROFL . . .nice job Bri.

You mean nice job Ruben.

By: aap

aap — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:45:48 +0000

I would guess that the difference between the cases presented here is that those arrested got the money for themselves, but the other person gets contributions for a political campaign. In one case, one is a bribe because the person pockets the money, in the other case, it is kind of unethical, but the system seems unethical to begin with.