Is it appropriate for candidates & office holders to sign special interest pledges?

[Dirtboy]

What’s your opinion on this new twist in American politics? Here’s mine:

The only appropriate “pledge” for any candidate or elected official is the oath of office. Any pledge that limits or restricts their ability to have full access to future solutions is counter productive to their job. That includes any and all pledges that suit my political ideology. I think this is a dangerous, destructive and down right un-american activity. Not only does it limit the potential effectiveness of the candidate/official, it puts control of our political process in the hands of un-elected people and groups.

This has nothing to do with right or left but everything to do the proper way to govern. Going into office while being ham-strung by pledges signed to gain election will limit that persons effectiveness. Do we really want a government run by people who don’t have a free hand to do what’s best in the future? Would you vote or re-elect for such a candidate?

DB

[PBzeer]

First, how many politicians don't say what they need to say to get elected? Second, how many keep their promises, once elected? Third, why wouldn't you want to know, explicitly, what they stand for? Fourth, why would you be bothered by them being "hamstrung" by a pledge that made more people vote for them, than for the other person?

If a person is elected to do or not do something, wouldn't you expect them to keep their word on it? (Not that many do) A pledge is only a promise in writing, it's no more binding than a spoken promise. Much ado about nothing.

[BentSailor]

Strange as it might seen, I agree with PBzeer on this. A pledge is simply a political promise written by a special interest group. I believe a politician needs to be clear on what they stand for and to remain true to those principles if elected. They are, after all, the platform they were voted for.

I also do not feel a pledge holds politicians any more strongly than any other promise they make. The only real difference these days (where their words are recorded and easily available for anyone to check) is that pledges are generally to lobby groups and promises to whoever is around at the time.

Our current opposition leader admitted on television that, when put on the spot, he will lie to get out of a tricky interview. He claimed you need to get his word only on prepared comments. Then he claimed you needed to get it in writing. And then when he made a written commitment as part of negotiating a minority government, he broke it as soon as it was no longer beneficial to him.

While he is an extreme example of how little politicians care about their commitments and as tempted as I am to believe it is typical only of conservatives - I've got over a decade of seeing it's typical of those seeking power - political, financial, or otherwise. As such, a pledge holds no more issue for me than any other lobbying-based promise. It lets me know who the politician feels beholden too, but I know they'll break the faith if they need to. It's just the way people who seek political control are wired.

[RAGNAR]

Sure it's OK. And what matters is what the pledge states, not who wrote it, not what motivated either its writing or signing.

[bwalker42]

DB, You are lookiing quite handsome today!!

[SailKing1]

It actually poses and interesting question. If one makes a verbal commitment to agree to provide certain services, products or similar for my money they are bound by law in many states to provide that service or product. When politicians make a promise or pact to do something for my vote, why would they not be entering into the same type of agreement.

Understanding that they may not be able to carry out that pledge due to their ability to get said pledge passed by others. But to actually not try or even change positions after being elected might constitute a break in a contractual agreement.

I know, I'm reaching but what the heck it's Friday and I'm bored.

[TropicCat]

First off, I agree with DB.

I'm reminded of the joke ...."How do you know a politician is lying? ..... His lips are moving"

Why should pledges be any different?

[Dirtboy]

I also do not feel a pledge holds politicians any more strongly than any other promise they make.

I hold my candidates to a higher standard. I can understand off-the-cuff statements, "gotcha" questions, etc. A pledge is much more serious than the spoken word. If you guys feel it's okay to break a pledge, what value are they? Except the obvious BS value. I guess my age is showing, I expect people to honor (to the best of their ability) what they've promissed. You young guys are showing me just how old fashion I've become. I'm so out of date I still value a persons signature (it did mean something at one time.)


DB

[TropicCat]

I think I might be older than you are and I do remember the 'good ole days'. However the way I remember them, things aren't so different right now.

The real problem is that politicians are well... politicians. Pledges aside, these guys flat out accept money for favors. It's their profession.

Campaign laws have changed so much that it's once again possible for a politician to personally outspend his competition and literally buy an election. For example, look what happened here in Florida. Rick Scott spent $70 million of his own money and bought the Governor's Mansion. The Koch Brothers bought the Wisconsin Governor's Mansion. It's more common than folks think and the way the Supreme court ruled last year, this trend will only get worse.

But, back to the issue. These days many of our legislators are wealthy attorneys who have little in common with the folks who voted for them. Only 6 percent of Americans are lawyers. Yet 45 percent of the members of Congress are lawyers. Oh, they campaign just fine, but when elected they take care of their own....... and as a rule, that's not us.

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by Dirtboy

I hold my candidates to a higher standard. I can understand off-the-cuff statements, "gotcha" questions, etc. A pledge is much more serious than the spoken word. If you guys feel it's okay to break a pledge, what value are they? Except the obvious BS value. I guess my age is showing, I expect people to honor (to the best of their ability) what they've promissed. You young guys are showing me just how old fashion I've become. I'm so out of date I still value a persons signature (it did mean something at one time.)

I don't think it is OK to break a pledge, but to me a promise is a promise. Be it written on paper or spoken aloud. The thing is that I've not met a politician above local council level that harbours guilt about breaking promises, pledge or otherwise. Perhaps it is the level of detachment between them and the voters (the more there are, the less the promises feel personal and the whole "It's not personal, it's just business" thought processes kick in)

There are varying degrees of how much effort will be applied in keeping them, which indicates to me a better or worse politicians, but when it comes down to the crunch, politicians lie when it suits them. Just as I wish I could trust every client and business partner I''ll ever work with, I wish politicians would hold to their promises; but in the real world you cannot trust everyone at face value. It's sad, but it's life.

As I mentioned before, there are politicians I respect due to the level of effort they'll go to to keep their promises. Malcolm Turnbull, our ex-conservative leader, lost his leadership over keeping such a promise and I don't vote for him. Great respect for the man though, as he honestly and fairly fought for what he believed in, was voted in for promising, and lost his position because of party moves to break that promise. However, in the end, he is now acting against that promise and toeing the party line. It happens to all of them in the end.