|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
Just saw this on the web. Here's the link to the Faux News article. On one hand this seems like pretty big news. On the other hand, it's hard for me to imagine this will amount to anything more than making it easier for all special interest groups to do what they've already been doing since these "restrictions" were put in place. ::shrug:: Hey, maybe we should make congressmen and senators wear big logos of the top 10 organizations who've contributed to their campaigns so we can all clearly see to whom they've peddled their influence. 
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
-- Mark Twain [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
I favor free speech but this ruling doesn't give me any warm fuzzy. Given the logic that corporations don't pay taxes then it also follows that they won't be footing the bill for the money they'll be tossing for any political ads.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
First of all, they can't donate directly to the candidate, second, the party has to disclose who donates.
All this does is even the playing field with guys like Soros, who own the democratic party along with the unions.
But you using the term "faux news" shows your bias. I guess it is alright for Hollywood and Billionaires like Soros to control the government, but the very corporations who are effected by the policies made by government should have no say.........typical left wing garbage.
The McCain Fiengold legislation was unconstitutional and now the court has finally said it.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
Quote:
maybe we should make congressmen and senators wear big logos of the top 10 organizations who've contributed to their campaigns so we can all clearly see to whom they've peddled their influence.
Clinton would have had to wear a Communist China flag, and Obama would have to wear about a dozen foriegn flags for all the money he recieved from out of the country.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
But you using the term "faux news" shows your bias.
Regardless of one's political opinion, I never really understood those who feel the network shouldn't be mocked.
Take it's political leanings out of the equation, and take it's alternatives/competition out of the equation...it touts itself - ad nauseum - as 'fair and balanced', when it is quite obviously anything but. It's slogan - it's pledge and promise - is an obvious, blatant misrepresentation.
I find that when people defend Fox News, they're more than anything defending their political beliefs in a roundabout way...because defending the network itself is just silly.
Quote:
I guess it is alright for Hollywood and Billionaires like Soros to control the government, but the very corporations who are effected by the policies made by government should have no say
Most corporations affected by policy -- if they've got enough dough and influence -- do not only have a say ... generally call the shots. Or at least hold a lot of sway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 294
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 294 |
Fox "news" itsself does seem to be fair. I believe it's the programs that might lean a little right. Hannity, O'riely, Beck and Gret...Oh, wait not her.
msnbc "news' itsself does seem to be fair. I believe it's the programs that might lean a little left. Matthews, Maddow, Obermann and Joe Scar...Oh, wait not him.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
Quote:
First of all, they can't donate directly to the candidate,
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that now. With this ruling there really isn't anything in place to stop corporations OR labor from contributing directly to political campaigns.
Quote:
second, the party has to disclose who donates.
I'm not sure that is still in affect after today's ruling, but I hope it is.
Quote:
All this does is even the playing field with guys like Soros, who own the democratic party along with the unions.
Please... it's no different that the corporate PACs that own the Republican party. Let's face it. Neither of the major parties really represent their human constituency any more. They are all beholden to the special interests that get them elected.
Quote:
But you using the term "faux news" shows your bias.
Now you're making ASSumptions. None of the major news networks are reliable sources of unbiased information. The Faux News article was the first one I read. It could have just as easily been the Clinton News Network.
My "bias" is against the strangle-hold the current two-party system has on American politics. Neither party has America's best interests in mind. Neither party has any new, constructive ideas on how to solve our most pressing issues. Neither party has an ounce of common sense where governing is concerned. Neither party has demonstrated that it deserves to govern this country. Both parties are an embarassment as far as I'm concerned.
For what it is worth, Ron Paul was the guy I supported this last election cycle.
Quote:
I guess it is alright for Hollywood and Billionaires like Soros to control the government, but the very corporations who are effected by the policies made by government should have no say
Typical right-wing bilge. 
Quote:
The McCain Fiengold legislation was unconstitutional and now the court has finally said it.
I'm pretty sure I never said I thought that the ruling was incorrect. I only noted that it will make it easier for special interests (whether they are corporate, labor, social, etc.) to pour money into election campaigns. If people thought the last election cycle was a zoo, they haven't seen anything yet.
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
-- Mark Twain [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301 |
McCain Feingold never limited the contributions of unions to political campaigns. The liberals would have never allowed their mandated (union dues), never ending supply of campaign contributions and manpower dry up. However, they never had any trouble with limiting the amount corporations could voluntarily donate or utilize to voice their opinions. One voice allowed and another silenced. Doesn't sound very fair to me, let alone Constitutional.
Let freedom ring! What a great week for the United States of America and freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
"Even the playing field" ????
Give me a break.
All I see is that "Corporate America" has more say so, then the people. They need to put limits on campaign funding and prohibit special interest payoffs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,630
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,630 |
I don't care about your political stripes. This will benefit Republicans over Democrats in the short term. But in the long term it benefits only one group... lobbyists. This "levels the playing field" for no one. It tilts a steeply in corporate America's/lobbyist's favor. With one ruling lobbyists have gone from the invisible hand that steers the ship to the iron-clad captain of the whole boat. In the short run, one side is jumping for joy, the other side is not. In the end, I think most will agree what a grave, grave error this was. Like so many complex rulings that get passed down or un-sexy laws that get passed with little notice by the wider culture, this one is huge and it'll be just about entirely out of the news cycle by Monday.
I understand many of you are died-in-the-wool conservatives and you believe in deregulation and small government as a fundamental principle, and I respect that as a valid ideology. But do you really believe in the near total financial deregulation of the democratic process? Yes, it's likely going to net you the Senate, House and maybe the presidency in 3 years but is winning at all costs in the short term really worth the long term price? Are there no valid reasons for any regulation of corporate money in politics? And saying that they have to declare all donations and that they still have to maintain basic shell fronts inorder to back candidates directly means little more than they still have to put their pants on before going to work in the morning.
"Team Chemistry No Match for Team Biology" (Onion Sports Headline)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
McCain Feingold never limited the contributions of unions to political campaigns. The liberals would have never allowed their mandated (union dues), never ending supply of campaign contributions and manpower dry up. However, they never had any trouble with limiting the amount corporations could voluntarily donate or utilize to voice their opinions. One voice allowed and another silenced. Doesn't sound very fair to me, let alone Constitutional.
These days, unions run much like corporations do.
That's why I baffled when Democrats back them and Republicans chide them.
Quote:
Let freedom ring! What a great week for the United States of America and freedom.
Wow.
Is your tongue ripping a hole through your cheek or do you honestly believe that statement?
Did you honestly look at the MA election and think 'Let freedom ring! What a great week for the United States of America and freedom.'?
Seriously?
Because if so, I want you to take a look at all of the wide-eyed yokels who thought Obama was bringing 'change' to Washington...can you see them in that mirror? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317 |
I'm more conservative than liberal and I think Fox News being called Faux News is quite a generous nickname. Anyone who uses that thing in their heads and makes it do that thing where we take facts and make opinions would agree, no matter their political beliefs.
I personally think Fox News only exists to rile up the ignorant and scare them into voting R. Not that any other network is any good, but Fox is setting the bar day in and day out.
"All I know is, as long as I led the Southeastern Conference in scoring, my grades would be fine." - Charles Barkley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275 |
Quote:
I personally think Fox News only exists to rile up the ignorant and scare them into voting R. Not that any other network is any good, but Fox is setting the bar day in and day out.
I personally think anyone who has such a dislike for Fox News simply refuses to see both sides of the story as they are stuck in their own comfort zone and refuse to open their eyes to what is news and what is opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275 |
Quote:
Given the logic that corporations don't pay taxes...
That right there confirms that you have no idea what you are talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
I personally think Fox News only exists to rile up the ignorant and scare them into voting R. Not that any other network is any good, but Fox is setting the bar day in and day out.
I personally think anyone who has such a dislike for Fox News simply refuses to see both sides of the story as they are stuck in their own comfort zone and refuse to open their eyes to what is news and what is opinion.
FOX lineup --
6 a.m. Fox & Friends (biased opinion)
9 a.m. America's Newsroom (biased opinion)
11 a.m. Happening Now (debatable)
1 p.m. The Live Desk (debatable)
3 p.m. Studio B (debatable)
4 p.m. Your World (biased opinion)
5 p.m. Glenn Beck (biased opinion)
6 p.m. Special Report (biased opinion)
7 p.m. Fox Report (debatable)
8 p.m. O'Reilly (biased opinion)
9 p.m. Hannity (biased opinion)
10 p.m. Greta Van Susteren (biased opinion)
3 a.m. Red Eye (woefully unfunny comedy)
So, a 24 hour news network that bills itself as 'fair and balanced' ... and it only contains roughly 5 hours a day of content that could be construed as actual news (but is often a biased opinion as well).
Like I said earlier ... those who defend Fox are in a roundabout way defending their political beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301 |
Quote:
Quote:
McCain Feingold never limited the contributions of unions to political campaigns. The liberals would have never allowed their mandated (union dues), never ending supply of campaign contributions and manpower dry up. However, they never had any trouble with limiting the amount corporations could voluntarily donate or utilize to voice their opinions. One voice allowed and another silenced. Doesn't sound very fair to me, let alone Constitutional.
These days, unions run much like corporations do.
That's why I baffled when Democrats back them and Republicans chide them.
Quote:
Let freedom ring! What a great week for the United States of America and freedom.
Wow.
Is your tongue ripping a hole through your cheek or do you honestly believe that statement?
Did you honestly look at the MA election and think 'Let freedom ring! What a great week for the United States of America and freedom.'?
Seriously?
Because if so, I want you to take a look at all of the wide-eyed yokels who thought Obama was bringing 'change' to Washington...can you see them in that mirror?
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. You cannot limit freedom of speech with regards to who has more money to get their point-of-view out to the public by utilizing their wealth. You can't on one hand say it's okay for unions (because they confiscate dues and support my democrat campaigns), and then say it's not okay for business.
Man - I can't stand the two party system. Republican suck too, but they suck less than Democrats. Howard Dean said it best the other night. Republicans are very compfortable being an opposition party and getting their points accross from that platform. However, they suck when they actually get into power and don't know how to govern.
BTW- I'm done for the day, I have to get to work before I get fired.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
those who defend Fox are in a roundabout way defending their political beliefs.
You are absolutely correct Phil. I defend Fox because it is the one place on television where my beliefs even come close to being represented and given any attention in something other than the condescending, demeaning way that every other network portrays my views.
People can bash Fox all they want, they can bash conservative talk radio all they want. The simple fact is that both were born and flourished for one simple reason, they were necessary. Had the mainstream media, the cable news shows, almost every major newspaper, and virtually all "entertainment" shows not gone so far left, there would have been no market for strong right leaning "news"... but a large portion of the population realized that in the media, there was nobody representing them...
So if you want to blast "Fair and Balanced" have at it... but you should also blast the "World Wide Leader in Opinion" that is CNN...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,630
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,630 |
Quote:
I don't care about your political stripes. This will benefit Republicans over Democrats in the short term. But in the long term it benefits only one group... lobbyists. This "levels the playing field" for no one. It tilts a steeply in corporate America's/lobbyist's favor. With one ruling lobbyists have gone from the invisible hand that steers the ship to the iron-clad captain of the whole boat. In the short run, one side is jumping for joy, the other side is not. In the end, I think most will agree what a grave, grave error this was. Like so many complex rulings that get passed down or un-sexy laws that get passed with little notice by the wider culture, this one is huge and it'll be just about entirely out of the news cycle by Monday.
I understand many of you are died-in-the-wool conservatives and you believe in deregulation and small government as a fundamental principle, and I respect that as a valid ideology. But do you really believe in the near total financial deregulation of the democratic process? Yes, it's likely going to net you the Senate, House and maybe the presidency in 3 years but is winning at all costs in the short term really worth the long term price? Are there no valid reasons for any regulation of corporate money in politics? And saying that they have to declare all donations and that they still have to maintain basic shell fronts inorder to back candidates directly means little more than they still have to put their pants on before going to work in the morning.
And I can barely find much more than a blip on the FoxNews site way back under the politics tab. Just about every other news site, front page and center. But the abortion doc murder, the latest teabagger news, and a story about the "pants on the ground" guy are crowding it out I guess. Fox is just so awesome.
"Team Chemistry No Match for Team Biology" (Onion Sports Headline)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
And I can barely find much more than a blip on the FoxNews site way back under the politics tab. Just about every other news site, front page and center. But the abortion doc murder, the latest teabagger news, and a story about the "pants on the ground" guy are crowding it out I guess. Fox is just so awesome.
CNN doesn't have anything about it on their front page, they have 243 stories about Haiti and one story about Air France giving fat passenges a free seat.
MSNBC does have a lead story about it..
However, Fox has lead stories about Haiti, Obamas defense of Bernanke, and his trip to Ohio to talk abou jobs.. the Pants on the Ground guy is mentioned near the bottom in the Faces section.. and they are "Tea Partiers".. "Tea Baggers" has a much different connotation where I come from. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246 |
I think you should only be allowed to raise money in the district you are campaigning in. From individuals and organizations within that district. Someone running for Senator of Ohio should not be getting money from anyone outside the state.
I think it incredibly wrong to take money from outside the U.S.
I don't care about the "constitutionality" of reversing this decision. Our elected representatives should wear jackets with the logos of every corporate or foreign entity that contributed to their campaigns like NASCAR.
Bunch of whores . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,275 |
Phil,
Did you read this part?
I personally think anyone who has such a dislike for Fox News simply refuses to see both sides of the story as they are stuck in their own comfort zone and refuse to open their eyes to what is news and what is opinion.
I think you proved that point for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
Quote:
I personally think anyone who has such a dislike for Fox News simply refuses to see both sides of the story as they are stuck in their own comfort zone and refuse to open their eyes to what is news and what is opinion.
Bingo.............you never hear about the bias on CNN, but then again that wouldn't fit the agenda
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
I think you should only be allowed to raise money in the district you are campaigning in. From individuals and organizations within that district. Someone running for Senator of Ohio should not be getting money from anyone outside the state.
I agree....... Why should people from outside the state who can't vote in the state be allowed to donate?
And I don't care about the constituationality of campaign finance reform or limiting how much people can give.
The fact is, I hate special interest groups, unions, and lobbyists that try to decide everything in Washington.
This is not a republican or democrat issue to me. It's a question of right and wrong. We have to find ways to limit the influence that these people have in Washington.
I mean we have senators married to lobbyists. It's just awful. These people don't pay attention to my interests they just go whereever the money leads them.
Constitutionality or not, this is just stupid. Money should not be such a big factor in elections. Barak Obama raised tons of money this time around from these groups, George Bush did it last time around.
I'm not sure how to do it, but I'd like to see the playing field level and these groups left out of Washington. Whether it's the NRA or the Sierra Club, they shouldn't be buying candidates votes.
And here's a question for the board, say a guy like Chris Dodd who would run for president lately but never stand a chance of winning. After getting a bunch of campaign donations from banks, he drops out, where does the money go?
I don't want it to be a democrat republican thing, I just hate Chris Dodd (I'm from CT) and he's the only example I can think of. Name a republican who drops out early after getting a bunch of donations but has no chance, where does that money go for him?
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
After getting a bunch of campaign donations from banks, he drops out, where does the money go?
I think in most cases any extra is used for the candidates Legal Defense Fund.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
Quote:
After getting a bunch of campaign donations from banks, he drops out, where does the money go?
I think in most cases any extra is used for the candidates Legal Defense Fund.
Seriously though, do they get to just keep it? I mean, Chris Dodd knows he has no chance of winning the primary. He gets a bunch of donations from the banks (he is on the head of the banking committee) and then drops out of the race. Does he keep that money? Because I swear that is what that jerk does.
He and his bs countrywide mortgage (AKA bribery), and then our president supports him as a good senator. The guy is EVIL. How am I supposed to support our President if he backs Chris Freakin Dodd? I hope he goes down in the history books as a crook, and then he can burn in hell after that (Chris Dodd that is). I have no sympathy for any of the "health issues/family problems" he has which is making him not seek re-election. I bet the DUMP DODD signs all over CT are what really gave him the hint. Crooked piece of garbage (PG-13). I would love to have someone put a phonebook to his head and let me just swing a bat at it.
BTW: We need term limits in Congress foks!
But really, what happens with the money left over from campaign donations.
Last edited by PeteyDangerous; 01/22/10 02:14 PM.
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
And I don't care about the constituationality of campaign finance reform or limiting how much people can give.
The fact is, I hate special interest groups, unions, and lobbyists that try to decide everything in Washington.
I fully understand a persons frustration with the system. I fully understand a persons desire to keep money from being the overarching factor in who wins elections... but I would also caution against starting a point with, "I don't care about the constitutionality of.... "
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
j/c Here's an interesting "other side of the story" story. CEOs to Hill: Quit calling us for campaign cash http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_bi_ge/us_campaign_finance_ceosMaybe our system is more corrupt than we think. Could it be that congress members are making the calls to corporations and/or CEO's - saying, basically " support me, or I'll hurt your company"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
I would also caution against starting a point with, "I don't care about the constitutionality of.... "
That's fair, but it just seems to me that our system would be a lot better if our congressmen/presidents didn't spend as much time trying to raise money to get re-elected and spent more time working on (or reading) the legislation that they are trying to pass. So many phonecalls asking for support, so many fancy dinners and fundraisers.
And as I said, money is too much of a factor in who wins elections. And money is too big of a factor in people's decisions. The constitution is a great document, but it doesn't go into detail about financing political races in the 21st century or the impact of lobbyists in the 21st century.
This is not a decision for the supreme court. And all that they are doing is removing the limits on campaign donations from these interest groups. Buying polticians.........
I don't care about whether this issue is on Foxnews or MSNBC or CNN, and who is biased and who is not. This is a problem in our country that needs to be fixed. Otherwise our politicians are gonna be run by major corporations like MobilExxon, GE, Viacom, Fox, etc. and lobbyist groups and the unions like the AFL-CIO and all of these wonderful organizations.
And for those of us who say..........they're already run by these people. Well they're going to be even more influenced by them. Let's just stick to the point, money plays way too big of a factor in making decisions in politics
Last edited by PeteyDangerous; 01/22/10 04:25 PM.
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
but it just seems to me that our system would be a lot better if our congressmen/presidents didn't spend as much time trying to raise money to get re-elected and spent more time working on (or reading) the legislation that they are trying to pass. So many phonecalls asking for support, so many fancy dinners and fundraisers.
Our system would be a lot better if people actually read, researched, learned and understood what it is the politicians stand for and what they mean. If people stopped being influenced by snappy (usually negative) 30 second ads at the high dollar times on television, then they wouldn't need to raise as much money to run them. Money only buys elections because people don't take the time to do the research and form their own solid opinions. This is also the reason candidates don't lay out their entire plan during a campaign but prefer to speak in broad platitudes, because people get bored with the details of an actual plan and laying one out could cause knowledgable people to find holes in it.. therefore it is to their benefit to say they are going to fix healthcare but never really tell you how.. or they are going to promote freedom around the world but never really tell you how... etc.
Quote:
The constitution is a great document, but it doesn't go into detail about financing political races in the 21st century or the impact of lobbyists in the 21st century.
No it doesn't, nor should it. The constitution is a rather general document by design.. to allow legislators and jurists the ability to pass and interpret laws within that framework.
Quote:
This is not a decision for the supreme court.
The Supreme Court doesn't get to make the decision, they just get to decide if it falls within the guidelines of the constitution. If they decide to try to change the constitution, there is a process for that.
Quote:
And all that they are doing is removing the limits on campaign donations from these interest groups. Buying polticians.........
Even if you are in favor of limits, the problem with this legislation is that those limits were not distributed evenly across all sectors of the corporate world, the media world, the union world, etc and that the limits could be very broadly interpreted
As I understand it this whole case came before the SC because some guy made a negative documentary about Hillary during the primaries and was not allowed to release it because it would have to count as a campaign contribution for somebody... one of the justices in the case asked the question, "So what if a 600 page book was to be released shortly before an election and it contained a candidates name on the last page?" and the attorney said that congress should have the right to prohibit that book from being published at least until after the election.... is that the road we really want to travel down?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 520
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 520 |
Quote:
Our system would be a lot better if people actually read, researched, learned and understood what it is the politicians stand for and what they mean. If people stopped being influenced by snappy (usually negative) 30 second ads at the high dollar times on television, then they wouldn't need to raise as much money to run them. Money only buys elections because people don't take the time to do the research and form their own solid opinions. This is also the reason candidates don't lay out their entire plan during a campaign but prefer to speak in broad platitudes, because people get bored with the details of an actual plan and laying one out could cause knowledgable people to find holes in it.. therefore it is to their benefit to say they are going to fix healthcare but never really tell you how.. or they are going to promote freedom around the world but never really tell you how... etc.
I agree... but at a certain point. It's impossible to get at what a person "stands for" when in reality they stand for nothing. They all talk out of you know what and just tell what you want to hear. I'm done voting for anybody who is mainstream. Our political machine has officially gone back to becoming the same as hollywood and the music industry. It's pumping out canidates like the music industry pumps out Britney Spears'. I'm not just pointing at guys like Obama... whom I voted for. W (who I voted for the first time) was a canidate that was part of the machine too. I'm just sick and tired of the machine. And I'm only 29. Time for some real change and some real new ideas... I'm running for president. jk.
I like someone like Ron Paul in the next election. I think he'll really connect this time with people after what we've gone through the past 10 years. I wanted to vote for him last time. But didn't get the opportunity. Ron Paul 2012!
"I'm a mog. Half man, half dog. I'm my own best friend."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
Quote:
Quote:
Given the logic that corporations don't pay taxes...
That right there confirms that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Well you're free to believe that corporations are big hearted and of course wouldn't even consider passing along these costs to consumers. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Thank you for your informative reply. It's definitely true that so many people unfortunately don't research the candidates the way that they really should. I'm not really sure if there is anything we can do about that unless you make a voting test or something. That would probably be unconstitutional. I also like your perspective on the constitution. The constitution is simply the guidelines that legislation needs to fall under. I was discussing this with my father and he has the same perspective as you about how if it doesn't work with the constitution, that's not the supreme court's fault. That's why the framers made it so that the constitution could be ammended. (although it is a very difficult process which requires ratification from the fed government as well as a majority fo the states, but rightfully so because once it's in it's very hard to get out) So I guess what i'm in favor for is ammending the constitution so that some sort of rules can be put in place as to how a candidate can be funded. I'm not really sure what I want to do to try to limit the influence of money in elections, but I definitely would like us to do something. I just get very frustrated with the way that things work in WashingtonDC. It seems like it would be a lot harder to force people to learn about candidates so that ads and such don't affect them that much, than finding a way to make the playing field level and leave finances out of the equation. I'm not sure what I want to do, but I do know I hate lobbyists, unions, and corporations influence on Washington. May be someone smarter than me can come up with an idea that is practical, and can be passed as an ammendment (so that it works with the constitution itself). Because I feel like things are only going to get worse when it comes to campaign financing and donating. And it's really going to drive me crazy 
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,651
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,651 |
I see nowhere in the Constitution that a corporation has the same rights as an individual. This is the underlying problem and is a fundemental challenge that the country faces.
When the consitiution was written, even the largest corporation was dwarfed by the potential of govenment influence. Today, it is the exact opposite. Corporations have more power to manipulate govenment leaving the individual virtually speachless in the direction that the country should go.
Simply stated, pick, your lesser ... do you trust corporations more than government? or do you trust government more than corporations.
Individuals are meaningless.
In the late 1800's corporations were granted "personhood" by the supreme court. This is a problem. A corporation is formed to limit the liability of its owners, thus the corporation should have limits on its activities.
Teddy Roosevelt had the ability and courage to bust corporations in the early 1900's as they became to represent a fundemental threat to american enterprise.
I think the decision was wrong. We should have the right to establish laws to restrict the activities of corporations when those activities are in conflict with the individual.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165 |
Quote:
I see nowhere in the Constitution that a corporation has the same rights as an individual.
No business is guaranteed anything at all in the Constitution. I deals ONLY in the rights of individuals.
Based upon that alone, I would say that the Supremes got this wrong and the overturn should be overturned.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Petey, I feel your pain brother. I don't like the money influence in politics either but if anybody tells you it didn't used to be like that, they are not really telling you the truth. Money has always played a huge role in our politics..
How do you fix it and stay within the constitution? I haven't a clue.
It's like healthcare... healthcare is a multi-faceted problem with insurance companies, lawyers, doctors, hospital administrations, paperwork, individuals too lazy to take care of themselves... who deserves what blame and where do you even start to fix it?
Politics is no different... you have lobbyists, big money donors, spineless career politicians, an uneducated population, a media that won't ask the tough questions and demand REAL answers from politicians, bus loads of consultants and campaign dollars devoted to "presenting the right image" rather than having the best platform, claims of voter fraud from both sides, negative campaign ads...... Where do you even start to fix it?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858 |
Quote:
I don't like the money influence in politics either but if anybody tells you it didn't used to be like that, they are not really telling you the truth. Money has always played a huge role in our politics..
I hear ya DC.. money has always played a part. But does that mean we should open up the flood gates and let anyone with a buck come in and lobby for self serving interests?
Does anyone else find it someone scary that a company or Special Interest group with a big lobbying budget and the willingness to spend it could set the agenda for the next number of years on a whole host of important issues.
An agenda I might add that would no doubt be pretty darn self serviing?
Does that bother anyone?
What if the pharmicutical industry decided that they wanted to lower FDA testing and approval standards,, they could spend whatever they wanted on lobbying efforts and maybe cause legislation to be written that would allow the next set of drugs coming out to be less scrutinized then they might have been in the past.
Is that a good thing? I question whether or not it is..
I keep thinking that if we keep doing things the way we've always done them, then we'll keep getting what we always got...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165 |
Quote:
Does anyone else find it someone scary that a company or Special Interest group with a big lobbying budget and the willingness to spend it could set the agenda for the next number of years on a whole host of important issues.
*cough* GE *cough*
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
But does that mean we should open up the flood gates and let anyone with a buck come in and lobby for self serving interests?
So are you saying that anyone with a buck didn't come in and lobby for self serving interests before?
The difference, as I see it, isn't that they are lobbying for interests, now they can just give the money to the politician of their choosing where as they could not before. they had to be much sneakier about how they paid off politicians in the past. Who knows, maybe this will be a good thing as politicians will be more transparent.. you got a million from the pharmaceuticals, now you are voting in their favor on everything... easy to spot.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858 |
Quote:
So are you saying that anyone with a buck didn't come in and lobby for self serving interests before?
No, I didn't say anything of the kind.. not even close..
But I did say that if we continue to do what we've always done, we'll contiinue to get what we've always gotten..
It may be what we've always done, but that doesn't make it right...
Quote:
The difference, as I see it, isn't that they are lobbying for interests, now they can just give the money to the politician of their choosing where as they could not before.
Yup,, that's right. are you saying that doesn't bother you?
Are you saying that that is acceptable to you?
Quote:
Who knows, maybe this will be a good thing as politicians will be more transparent.. you got a million from the pharmaceuticals, now you are voting in their favor on everything... easy to spot.
yeah, you are right, it's a good thing...now politicians will be able to say,, I took a million bucks to do some special interests bidding and there is nothing you can do about it cause it's legal,,,,
Perfect..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Yup,, that's right. are you saying that doesn't bother you?
Are you saying that that is acceptable to you?
Yes it bothers me. Is it acceptable?... I don't like it but somebody would have to show me how they plan to fix it in a way that is in alignment with the constitution.
Quote:
yeah, you are right, it's a good thing...now politicians will be able to say,, I took a million bucks to do some special interests bidding and there is nothing you can do about it cause it's legal,,,,
Perfect..
Daman, this is our fundamental disagreement on the issue I think... you want to pass laws, set rules, and create legislation to protect citizens from their own laziness and stupidity when it comes to electing politicians... if a politician can do what you said and then get re-elected, then who is at fault, the politician or us?
It's kind of ironic that for the longest time many have taken up the mantra "You can't legislate morality," but is that not exactly what you are trying to do? Corporations will be immoral and unethical, politicians will be immoral and unethical.. so let's enact legislation that forces them to be more moral and more ethical as it relates to elections because we just can't trust them to do the right thing...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Supreme Court Removes Limits on
Corporate, Labor Donations to
Campaigns
|
|
