Supreme Court ends Montana ban on corporate political spending

[Straw Man]

Yeah, that's it. Citizens United. Got it. Except for the fact that the guy was actually fundraising before that even came out.

And how do you assign a number to the free advertising the left gets from the clearly biased MSM (of which Gallup says 50% of Americans think is too liberal)?

I thought the accepted meme is that Fox beats everyone in ratings and that left wing radio is a complete failure and right wing radio rules the air waves

seems like its the right that has the advantage when it comes to free advocacy from sympathetic media outlets

[howardroark]

what do you think about a strict dollar limit

both side can raise "X" any way they see fit

same $'s to spend = level playing field and one side can still out hustle the other side with boots on the ground type stuff with volunteers

if both have the same $'s then one rich person or super pac can influence an election by simply outspending and opponent and neither one would be as beholden to their donors

What's wrong with outspending the other side? If you're such a big believer in democracy, then shouldn't you believe that more television and radio ads, more canvassers, etc. is a good thing since it serves to better inform the voting public?

[Fury]

What's wrong with outspending the other side? If you're such a big believer in democracy, then shouldn't you believe that more television and radio ads, more canvassers, etc. is a good thing since it serves to better inform the voting public?

No, no, it's only OK when the groups approved by him (unions) are the ones doing the outspending. It's democracy*.

[howardroark]

Question: Should the Democratic Party be limited to spending the same amount of money on a campaign as the American Nazi Party?

[Straw Man]

What's wrong with outspending the other side? If you're such a big believer in democracy, then shouldn't you believe that more television and radio ads, more canvassers, etc. is a good thing since it serves to better inform the voting public?

Nothing as long as you don't mind one person buying an election

I'm not aware that any definition of democracy includes anything about financing campaigns

the whole public financing system set up after Watergate required basically that each side similar amounts of  money (in effect -because they set a limit on matched funds and limits on personal funds that could be used in a campaign) and set a cap on the total amount of money that could be spent in the general election

From 1976 through 2004, every major party presidential nominee relied exclusively on public money for the financing of the general election campaign


http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC=%7B91FCB139-CC82-4DDD-AE4E-3A81E6427C7F%7D&DE=%7BFA70E030-8B39-4ADC-A5A9-66725E29932C%7D

[howardroark]

Nothing as long as you don't mind one person buying an election

Huh? I was fairly certain that bribing people to vote has always been illegal, always will be, and is not even up to debate.

Now, returning to the actual debate we're having, what's wrong with unlimited contributions to and unlimited expenditures by political organizations? Do you have something against informing the voting public regarding the issues and the candidates?

I'm not aware that any definition of democracy includes anything about financing campaigns

Can you have true democracy without freedom of speech?

the whole public financing system set up after Watergate required basically that each side similar amounts of  money (in effect -because they set a limit on matched funds and limits on personal funds that could be used in a campaign) and set a cap on the total amount of money that could be spent in the general election

First of all, that stat is bullshit. Basically any 501(c) organization always has been able to engage in political advocacy without dealing with the FEC as long as that advocacy is not tied directly to a candidate.

Secondly, who determines who is on what side? What about a libertarian or conservative organization which practices confrontational politics against Republican politicians (e.g. Americans for Tax Reform with their Taxpayer Protection Pledge)?

And again, why is this even remotely desirable?

From 1976 through 2004, every major party presidential nominee relied exclusively on public money for the financing of the general election campaign

That's incredibly stupid. Why should my taxes pay for someone who I completely disagree with to run for political office?

[Straw Man]

I never said anything about buying votes

the info I listed is sourced so if you think it's not correct feel free to show me some info

you should also well know that you are able to CHOOSE whether you tax dollars go to finance elections

have you ever filed a tax return before

How old are you?

[howardroark]

I never said anything about buying votes

I know. I was feigning ignorance in order to point out how stupid your comment was.  Nobody can "buy" an election. They can buy ads, they can pay for staff and field operatives, but they cannot "buy" an election. That is illegal and not even under discussion. What is under discussion is the right of individuals to engage in political expression via advertisements, canvassing, and voter mobilization. And ultimately, your stance leads to a less informed voting public and worse voter participation.

the info I listed is sourced so if you think it's not correct feel free to show me some info

It's called the law. 501(c) organizations have always been able to engage in under-the-radar political advocacy. And no, there would be no stats for it since 501(c) orgs do not report to the FEC regarding their political advocacy. The best example of 501(c) orgs which routinely engage in political advocacy outside of the FEC's control are labor unions.

you should also well know that you are able to CHOOSE whether you tax dollars go to finance elections

So the government steals your money and then gives you a limited range of choices on how to spend it? Ohhh, how nice. But I'd much rather keep my money and decide how to spend it on my own.

have you ever filed a tax return before

Yeah. It's called turbotax. I guess they're not as good as they claim to be.

[tonymctones]

so you don't think states should have the right to make rules regarding financing of their own elections ?

Im not arguing whether or not they should or shouldnt brainchild only that it wouldnt work even if they DID!!!

[tonymctones]

what do you think about a strict dollar limit

both side can raise "X" any way they see fit

same $'s to spend = level playing field and one side can still out hustle the other side with boots on the ground type stuff with volunteers

if both have the same $'s then one rich person or super pac can influence an election by simply outspending and opponent and neither one would be as beholden to their donors

I wouldnt really oppose that but you would still have super pacs b/c they arent affliated with the candidate. That is an organization seperate from the directions of a candidate.

You would still have individual organizations that raise money and buy advertising space for their candidate even if you limit the amount the individual candidate can spend.

[tonymctones]

What's wrong with outspending the other side? If you're such a big believer in democracy, then shouldn't you believe that more television and radio ads, more canvassers, etc. is a good thing since it serves to better inform the voting public?

I agree with this...if you want to limit the amount that politicians themselves can spend that I might be able to get on board with but limiting the amount a private citizen or organization can spend seems a tad censory to me

unamerican.

[Straw Man]

I know. I was feigning ignorance in order to point out how stupid your comment was.  Nobody can "buy" an election. They can buy ads, they can pay for staff and field operatives, but they cannot "buy" an election. That is illegal and not even under discussion. What is under discussion is the right of individuals to engage in political expression via advertisements, canvassing, and voter mobilization. And ultimately, your stance leads to a less informed voting public and worse voter participation.

It's called the law. 501(c) organizations have always been able to engage in under-the-radar political advocacy. And no, there would be no stats for it since 501(c) orgs do not report to the FEC regarding their political advocacy. The best example of 501(c) orgs which routinely engage in political advocacy outside of the FEC's control are labor unions.

So the government steals your money and then gives you a limited range of choices on how to spend it? Ohhh, how nice. But I'd much rather keep my money and decide how to spend it on my own.

Yeah. It's called turbotax. I guess they're not as good as they claim to be.

so you pretend my comment meant something other than I intended so that you can make a point that I didn't intend?
you should know full well that the candidate who spends the most often wins the election (not always of course,  look at Meg Whitman as a recent example). Why are you playing games.  I didn't think that was your usual "MO"

My comments were about financing for the "general election" and I showed you my source of data.   No doubt 503c existed but they didn't have anywhere near the power that they have now after the CU decision

I"m really baffled by your comments about public funds used for elections. If you really do your own taxes then you're incredibly careless and you should consider hiring a CPA.

The $3 contribution is totally your choice and it doesn't effect the taxes you pay or your refund

Something tells me you've never actually filed a tax return because I don't see how you could have overlooked or misunderstood that

[Straw Man]

I wouldnt really oppose that but you would still have super pacs b/c they arent affliated with the candidate. That is an organization seperate from the directions of a candidate.You would still have individual organizations that raise money and buy advertising space for their candidate even if you limit the amount the individual candidate can spend.

yes, CU probably makes publicly financed elections a moot point

of course the candidates aren't supposed to coordinate with the PAC but that's a complete and total joke too since they almost certainly do and it they were smart they could easily avoid laying down a paper trail that show coordinated effort

[Soul Crusher]

Funny how libs complain now about money when Obama destroyed McCain in 2008 using TJE same rules

[Straw Man]

Funny how libs complain now about money when Obama destroyed McCain in 2008 using TJE same rules

Obama rejected the use of public funds in 2008 so that he could avoid spending limits

He's no different then any other politician in that regard and you do what you have to do to win

I don't like the private and undislosed money on either side of the aisle

[tonymctones]

yes, CU probably makes publicly financed elections a moot point

of course the candidates aren't supposed to coordinate with the PAC but that's a complete and total joke too since they almost certainly do and it they were smart they could easily avoid laying down a paper trail that show coordinated effort

totally agree with you on that, the whole election process is a wreck including not having to show a valid id to cast a vote...

[Straw Man]

totally agree with you on that, the whole election process is a wreck including not having to show a valid id to cast a vote...

Every time I go to vote I have to show my drivers license

how about you?

[tonymctones]

Every time I go to vote I have to show my drivers license

how about you?

what you or I do individually doesnt matter.

I nor you have ever influenced an election by donating millions of dollars to a candidate but you think its absurd that its allowed to happen.

Just like it is absurd that an individual is allowed to cast a vote for the leader of the free world without showing legal ID...

[Straw Man]

what you or I do individually doesnt matter.

I nor you have ever influenced an election by donating millions of dollars to a candidate but you think its absurd that its allowed to happen.

Just like it is absurd that an individual is allowed to cast a vote for the leader of the free world without showing legal ID...

I have no problem at all with require proof of identity in order to vote

when have I said otherwise ?

I do have a problem with purging voters rolls or contructing voter ID laws in ways that will disenfranchise voters but I have no problem at all with making sure the person casting the vote is who they say they are

I"m not aware of any proof that this is a problem that has any actual impact on election results

If you have some info I'll be happy to look at it

[240 is Back]

corporations are people, my friend.

[Straw Man]

Question: Should the Democratic Party be limited to spending the same amount of money on a campaign as the American Nazi Party?

of course not

who suggested all parties be limited in spending based on what I assume you think would be a minority party

[OzmO]

Allowing corp unlimited funding will be seen someday as the beginning of the end.