A Decision That Could Be The Biggest Influence in American Election History

Discussion in 'Politics' started by IndependntLogic, Aug 16, 2011.

  1. IndependntLogic
    Offline

    IndependntLogic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,997
    Thanks Received:
    399
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +399
    In Maine and Rhode Island, PACs were just denied the right to keep their campaign contributions secret by the 1st Circuit. I don't care about the issue, I have long held that Corporations, Unions and PACs being able to secretly funnel gargantuan amounts of money to candidates who will legislate as per their bidding, is the single biggest contributor to the corruption of our government.
    Although the majority of Dems, Republicans and even Ron Paul support keeping this method of corruption behind closed doors and conducting "business as usual", I believe it has been the single largest source of government corruption in history (and it is relatively new!).
    I hope other states and eventually the USSC will follow suit. I would personally, like to know who is buying the candidates that run for office.
    I wish I could post a link but the American Lawyer charges $1300 a year for twelve issues and their software stops Cut & Pasting. I'm sure it will be verifiable soon.
    Bravo 1st Circuit!
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2011
  2. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    In essence the court ruled the laws have a rational basis and do not preempt First Amendment rights.

     
  3. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    Good ruling

    Money may equal free speech, but SECRET MONEY definitely equals GOVERNMENTS run by conspiracy.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,571
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,674
    I don't want to give them a chance to be bought at all. I think the only solution is public financing of elections. Even if the secrecy is broken, our representitives would still be spending too much of their time "selling" their votes to whomever can bundle the largest amount of contributions, instead of doing our business. If we want our representitives to listen to us, we're going to have to foot the bill, IMO. Anything else is just "business as usual".
     
  5. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    I think that might be PART of the solution, but in and of itself that's not enough reform, kon.

    And to be honest I do not know how to create a system that can keep MONEY out of politics without ALSO tragically limiting free speech, either.

    You see BIG CAPITAL is always going to have a serious advantage in reaching the public and swaying it to their POV.

    Even if we did entirely eliminate campaign contributions, and PAC money going to parties, the laws of the land (read FREE SPEECH) still gives big capital the right (and this is a civil right that I would have to support, too) to use the media to get their message out.
     
  6. WorldWatcher
    Offline

    WorldWatcher Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    6,971
    Thanks Received:
    1,275
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    VA
    Ratings:
    +1,905
    >

    NOM's pissed.

    >>>>
     
  7. signelect
    Offline

    signelect BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,863
    Thanks Received:
    216
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Ratings:
    +216
    This is way past due. Campaign money ought not to belong to the candidate either. I think a lot of them get rich off what they don't spend.
     
  8. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,571
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,674
    It would require a new amendment to the Constituion, but I have no problem with banning such messages for a period of time before the election, except for those produced by parties and candidates and limited by the amount of money statutorily set.
     
  9. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up your assertion that PACs are a massive source of corruption? Can you explain exactly how the corruption occurs behind closed doors when every candidate has to declare any and all donations or gifts received by these PACs?

    By the way, if you are talking about what I think you are, which is hard to tell since you supplied no links, you are essentially misrepresenting the decision. The law that the National Organization for Marriage challenged has nothing to do with campaign contributions, nor does it require them to disclose their donors. It is simply a reporting requirement that requires any PAC that spends money relating to an election to report how much money they are spending. There is nothing new about this, it is settled law, and has been for decades. It doesn't change anything, and will not, unless they appeal and SCOTUS decides to overturn precedent. I see no reason why they would do that.

    You really should do a little research before you go off on benders, you end up looking foolish a lot more if you don't.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2011
  10. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    In essence, they did no such thing.

    The issue here was that NOM did not want to be subject to the laws because they claimed they are not a PAC under the law. They are.

    Constitutional Law Prof Blog: First Circuit Rejects NOM's Challenges to Disclosure Laws
     

Share This Page