Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on June 26, 2012, 01:27:45 PM
-
Bummer
Voting 5 to 4, the justices found, in a two-paragraph opinion, that the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling applied to a 100-year-old Montana anticorruption law barring corporate money in elections.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-montana-20120626,0,1924829.story
-
Boohoo, whatever will do without the unions able to dominate election spending like they have for the last 25 years? ::)
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
-
I agree it's wrong to limit corporations but let unions contribute unlimited amounts in the same state. that seems unfair.
-
If Corporations are "people" then Unions must be "people" in the exact same way
both should have equal requirements
If one is more restrictive then then the other then it's not a level playing field
Currently it is not level playing field because the rule of the money machine are tilted toward Corporate Persons and Wealthy Individuals
If a handful of people can literally outspend the entire voting public then that is not fair
One simple solution would be to cap total dollars spent and let each side raise it any way that want
This way you have no restrictions on any person (corporate or real) and you have a level playing field
Also, campaigns would have to be judicious on how they spent the money since each side would have a strict dollar limit that they could not exceed
-
If Corporations are "people" then Unions must be "people" in the exact same way
both should have equal requirements
If one is more restrictive then then the other then it's not a level playing field
Currently it is not level playing field because the rule of the money machine are tilted toward Corporate Persons and Wealthy Individuals
If a handful of people can literally outspend the entire voting public then that is not fair
One simple solution would be to cap total dollars spent and let each side raise it any way that want
This way you have no restrictions on any person (corporate or real) and you have a level playing field
Also, campaigns would have to be judicious on how they spent the money since each side would have a strict dollar limit that they could not exceed
I don't think corporations are people so fuck them. And with unions, each individual member is free to donate money to whoever they want. seems kind of wrong to take a person's money and donate it to a candidate.
-
I don't think corporations are people so fuck them. And with unions, each individual member is free to donate money to whoever they want. seems kind of wrong to take a person's money and donate it to a candidate.
I am in 100% agreement that corporations are not people but if our legal system is going to call them that and states are writing laws that restrict unions in ways that corporations are not restricted then we have an inbalance
I think states should also be able to write laws restricting money from outside their state from being spent in their elections
I know right wingers will have a problem with this but they will scream "states rights" as soon as it's something they are in favor of
-
Nobody will agree to what the cap should be and allegations of fraud would be rampant, IMO.
I wouldn't mind seeing money not be an issue...but I've got no better solution, so...
-
I think states should also be able to write laws restricting money from outside their state from being spent in their elections
totally agree with this. It's dumb as hell this is allowed to go on like it does.
-
I am in 100% agreement that corporations are not people but if our legal system is going to call them that and states are writing laws that restrict unions in ways that corporations are not restricted then we have an inbalance
I think states should also be able to write laws restricting money from outside their state from being spent in their elections
I know right wingers will have a problem with this but they will scream "states rights" as soon as it's something they are in favor of
will never happen corporations, unions, individuals will just donate to in state organizations sympathetic to their cause and they will funnel that money to the candidates.
-
will never happen corporations, unions, individuals will just donate to in state organizations sympathetic to their cause and they will funnel that money to the candidates.
That's the way it's SUPPOSED to be... I give my money to who i want knowing they will spend it in a certain way.
Unions spend it however THEY want to without member input.
-
That's the way it's SUPPOSED to be... I give my money to who i want knowing they will spend it in a certain way.
Unions spend it however THEY want to without member input.
I agree, with you on that...
my comment was to straws idea to cut off states from outside funding................. ............
-
Meh. Big deal. Money has already corrupted the system. This isn't going to change anything.
-
Meh. Big deal. Money has already corrupted the system. This isn't going to change anything.
This is true
we might as well cut out the middle man and give corporations the right to vote and also to run for office
-
I agree, with you on that...
my comment was to straws idea to cut off states from outside funding................. ............
my idea was not to "cut off" states but to let states have the ability to pass their own laws that regulate financing in their own state elections
-
my idea was not to "cut off" states but to let states have the ability to pass their own laws that regulate financing in their own state elections
that results in cutting off states from outside funding....LMFAO
it wont happen, donations will just go to middle men who will then donate that money to candidates...
are you going to say that corps,union,ppl outside of states cant give money to the like in other states?
-
that results in cutting off states from outside funding....LMFAO
it wont happen, donations will just go to middle men who will then donate that money to candidates...
are you going to say that corps,union,ppl outside of states cant give money to the like in other states?
so you don't think states should have the right to make rules regarding financing of their own elections ?
-
Meh. Big deal. Money has already corrupted the system. This isn't going to change anything.
Brilliant!!!... Everyone should apply the BB "Meh, big deal, if it's already broke, don't fix it" philosophy to all of our problems lol...
-
Brilliant!!!... Everyone should apply the BB "Meh, big deal, if it's already broke, don't fix it" philosophy to all of our problems lol...
to a certain extent I agree with Bum
There is no will from politicians for this and since half the country doesn't even vote we can assume they don't give a shit about how campaigns are financed either
As it stands now our politicians spent a large part of EVERY DAY soliciting donations. It's literally something they have to do daily for many hours. It's insane when you find out how much time they spend raising money rather than actually working at their job
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office
-
to a certain extent I agree with Bum
There is no will from politicians for this and since half the country doesn't even vote we can assume they don't give a shit about how campaigns are financed either
As it stands now our politicians spent a large part of EVERY DAY soliciting donations. It's literally something they have to do daily for many hours. It's insane when you find out how much time they spend raising money rather than actually working at their job
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office
Good point. Your God-King, the Usurper himself, has blown away any previous president in terms of time spent fundraising. More than double Bush 2 at this point in his presidency.
-
If Corporations are "people" then Unions must be "people" in the exact same way
both should have equal requirements
If one is more restrictive then then the other then it's not a level playing field
Currently it is not level playing field because the rule of the money machine are tilted toward Corporate Persons and Wealthy Individuals
If a handful of people can literally outspend the entire voting public then that is not fair
One simple solution would be to cap total dollars spent and let each side raise it any way that want
This way you have no restrictions on any person (corporate or real) and you have a level playing field
Also, campaigns would have to be judicious on how they spent the money since each side would have a strict dollar limit that they could not exceed
You have a level playing field if people are able to use their money any way they see fit. All of the campaign finance restrictions are nothing more than another barrier to entry created by politicians seeking to protect themselves from the grassroots. Try navigating all of these ludicrous laws without a lawyer and an accountant if you don't believe what I'm saying.
-
Good point. Your God-King, the Usurper himself, has blown away any previous president in terms of time spent fundraising. More than double Bush 2 at this point in his presidency.
can you ever make a post without sounding like a jackass ?
and if you had any sense you'd realize that I'm not happy with the amount of time they have to spend raising money
regarding Obama, I'm sure it's beyond your limited comprehension to understand that the world has changed after Citizens United and now every politician has to compete with the virtually unlimited money of super PACS
OF course Obama has to spend more time that Bush
Bush didn't have to deal with competing agaisnt money from super PACS
-
You have a level playing field if people are able to use their money any way they see fit. All of the campaign finance restrictions are nothing more than another barrier to entry created by politicians seeking to protect themselves from the grassroots. Try navigating all of these ludicrous laws without a lawyer and an accountant if you don't believe what I'm saying.
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
-
can you ever make a post without sounding like a jackass ?
and if you had any sense you'd realize that I'm not happy with the amount of time they have to spend raising money
regarding Obama, I'm sure it's beyond your limited comprehension to understand that the world has changed after Citizens United and now every politician has to compete with the virtually unlimited money of super PACS
OF course Obama has to spend more time that Bush
Bush didn't have to deal with competing agaisnt money from super PACS
Yeah, that's it. Citizens United. Got it. Except for the fact that the guy was actually fundraising before that even came out.
can you ever make a post without sounding like a jackass ?
and if you had any sense you'd realize that I'm not happy with the amount of time they have to spend raising money
regarding Obama, I'm sure it's beyond your limited comprehension to understand that the world has changed after Citizens United and now every politician has to compete with the virtually unlimited money of super PACS
OF course Obama has to spend more time that Bush
Bush didn't have to deal with competing agaisnt money from super PACS
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)?
-
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)?
so what
do you expect any incumbant politician to do no fundraising?
you made a comparison to Bush 2 "at this point in his presidency"
Citiizens United decision was in January 2010 and I'd be suprised if Obama was doing much fundraising in 2009 compared to what he's done in the last 12 months
-
What it really looks like is leftists are crying that they can't crush the right in spending via gifts (taxpayer money) to unions which are then kicked back in campaign donations.
-
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
-
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?
-
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*.
-
Question: Should the Democratic Party be limited to spending the same amount of money on a campaign as the American Nazi Party?
-
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
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
Funny how libs complain now about money when Obama destroyed McCain in 2008 using TJE same rules
-
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
-
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...
-
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?
-
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...
-
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
-
corporations are people, my friend.
-
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
-
Allowing corp unlimited funding will be seen someday as the beginning of the end.