2 votes

Should Liberty Candidates Like Derrick Grayson Use Rand Paul's Idea to Sway Democrats?

I recently listened to Derrick Grayson (TMOT) in a debate. I've included the audio from that debate below. It was a bipartisan debate, but you can tell that the audience was mostly full of Democrats. To be fair, our beloved TMOT went into the belly of the beast and I commend him for it. However, it wasn't his best performance either. I got the feeling that his presentation was geared more toward a typical conservative audience and hence fell on deaf ears. In the comment section of the youtube video I offered some constructive criticism and suggestion to Mr. Grayson. Now I would like to pose that same suggestion to all of you at the DailyPaul.

I can't find the specific interview of Rand Paul where he suggested this, but it struck me as a great idea. What if a bill was introduced stating that all government contracts had to include a special "contract rider". This rider would state that any person or corporation who enters into business with government, i.e. sells their goods/services or work on a government project, must affirm that they have not contributed money to any political campaign or PAC. If so, they can not enter into a business contract with them for pay or subsidies.

As a step to end cronyism from a liberty point of view, I would think such an idea would also be eaten up by the Dems who think corporations are the root of all evil. It's an unrefined idea, I know, but it struck me as possibly game changing.

Well I would love to hear whatever thoughts there are on this in the comment section below. Maybe it's a terrible idea and I just got swept up in it's potential. Tell me what you think. Thanks :)


http://youtu.be/hqfpgYi3z1U



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

They funnel money around to

They funnel money around to make money come from wherever they want it to, so that's not going to help anything. All it would do is keep small companies who don't have those funneling resources, and private contractors, from doing business, while all the large corps would find ways around it.

lol, did you just give

lol, did you just give justification for people and corporations to continue doing things as usual?

That Contractor Rider, wont

That Contractor Rider, wont apply to lobbyists. Therefore, It will just make lobbying more prevalent, due to lobbying being the only way to buy a politician.

Ok, point well made. Maybe

Ok, point well made. Maybe this is too simple of an answer, but how about we just add more specific text like: "any person or corporation who enters into business with government, i.e. sells their goods/services to government or receives subsidy therefrom, must affirm that they have not contributed money directly to any political campaign, PAC or indirectly to anyone attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government or members of regulatory agencies on their behalf" be included and that solve the issue?

I understand the powers that be will always find a way around even the most clear cut of laws, but I think such a proposal to be a tool more for liberty candidates to use when speaking to a liberal audience. It's something that is consistent to the principles of liberty and candy to the ears of Democrats.

Again, I may be totally off base and perhaps even naive toward the effectiveness of it, but after listening to Mr. Grayson talk to a Democrat audience my heart just sank. They don't want to hear about "big government", they see big business as the enemy and without tailoring the debates to the audience I see more people being turned off to the conversation. Just my opinion.

While you can incorporate

While you can incorporate what you've stated, and it would certainly do no harm in doing so, however, it will not change the fact that our politicians are bought and paid for. As long as politicians can be influenced -how could anybody prevent it- they will be influenced by those with the most money.

What you propose sounds nice, however, we both know that it wont change anything; so then, what's the point? It seems like a waste of energy to do something which one can admit wont actually change anything. It is nothing more than busy work; can possibly be considered manipulation, because you know it wont solve the problem and yet you would introduce it to convince people -who don't understand that it wont change anything- to vote for you or a politician.

I think the point you made

I think the point you made that it "sounds" nice is actually why I felt it should be implemented. While I do consider the proposition as something that could actually chip away at crony-capitalism, you and everyone else who has been nice enough to leave comments are correct in that it's true effectiveness would most likely be slim at best. However, that's not the goal I was shooting for.

The real achievement is that it's a talking point is in line with liberty candidate principles and is something Democrats can't really argue against (stopping government favors to big business).

Remember, this thread is in response to Mr. Grayson's conservative ideas to a progressive audience, and how I didn't think any minds were changed in the audience.

I'm not against trying to get

I'm not against trying to get money out of DC, nor, am I apposed to trying to court Democrats. I just don't see the rider as accomplishimg much.

If you or TMOT had Democratic evidence that Democrats actually like the idea, then I would say go for it. Maybe TMOT supporters should do some polling on the issue with Democrats.

Government Contractors are

Government Contractors are not really allowed to donate to federal campaigns. But I know the big special interests find ways to. I don't know enough about campaign finance laws to comment beyond that.

I understand the powers that

I understand the powers that be will always find a way around even the most clear cut of laws, but I think such a proposal to be a tool more for liberty candidates to use when speaking to a liberal audience. It's something that is consistent to the principles of liberty and candy to the ears of Democrats.

Again, I may be totally off base and perhaps even naive toward the effectiveness of it, but after listening to Mr. Grayson talk to a Democrat audience my heart just sank. They don't want to hear about "big government", they see big business as the enemy and without tailoring the debates to the audience I see more people being turned off to the conversation. Just my opinion.

lol, I guess it's such a bad

lol, I guess it's such a bad idea nobody wants to say anything. ;)

any thoughts?