Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bottom line...the only real fix will be public financing of elections, period. No private donations from ANY organizations or special interests AT ALL. Time to end the days of the Boehner (or anyone else for that matter) handing out lobbyist checks on the House fucking floor!
I'm with you with only one caveat, I would allow donations by free associations of private citizens. If you and I want to join freely and work for a cause we should be able to do that. But there should be no money spent by corporations, unions, or anyone else who's not a free citizen or a free association of free citizens.
Bottom line...the only real fix will be public financing of elections, period. No private donations from ANY organizations or special interests AT ALL. Time to end the days of the Boehner (or anyone else for that matter) handing out lobbyist checks on the House fucking floor!
Good idea, but good luck getting cons and the con Supreme Court to bite. It's different for them, you know. Union contributions = bad. Unlimited, unchecked corporate donations = good.
Bottom line...the only real fix will be public financing of elections, period. No private donations from ANY organizations or special interests AT ALL. Time to end the days of the Boehner (or anyone else for that matter) handing out lobbyist checks on the House fucking floor!
I don't like public financing. It biases those entrenched in power.
Bottom line...the only real fix will be public financing of elections, period. No private donations from ANY organizations or special interests AT ALL. Time to end the days of the Boehner (or anyone else for that matter) handing out lobbyist checks on the House fucking floor!
I don't like public financing. It biases those entrenched in power.
How's that when the biggest contributor to entenched power is the ability of incumbents to corral the largest amount of money? Public financing should level that out, allowing other voices to be heard.
I don't like public financing. It biases those entrenched in power.
How's that when the biggest contributor to entenched power is the ability of incumbents to corral the largest amount of money? Public financing should level that out, allowing other voices to be heard.
If you recall Obama was for that before he was against it.
He chose not to go that route because it limited his ability to collect.
I don't like public financing. It biases those entrenched in power.
How's that when the biggest contributor to entenched power is the ability of incumbents to corral the largest amount of money? Public financing should level that out, allowing other voices to be heard.
If you recall Obama was for that before he was against it.
He chose not to go that route because it limited his ability to collect.
So I was reading this thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161862-florida-leads-the-way.html
And I was reading this passage in the link in the OP
Republicans say the intent of the bill is to empower union members by giving them more say in how their dues are spent, and to allow them to continue participating in a union even if they dont agree with the unions political activity.
OK
So why not give shareholders the same rights as union members? A lot of shareholders do not approve of their money being used for political purposes yet they have no say in how their money is spent. Why not pass a law which requires corporations to ask permission from shareholders to use their funds to promote political causes and political lobbying? Why not give shareholders more say in how their money is spent, and allow people to continue acting as a shareholder even if they don't agree with the company's political activities?
Why would Republicans be opposed to this? I mean, if they are so worried about individual's monies be used in a manner in which the individual disagrees, why would they not apply consistent standards between businesses and unions? Or is this all just a thinly-veiled political attack on an opponent?
Bottom line...the only real fix will be public financing of elections, period. No private donations from ANY organizations or special interests AT ALL. Time to end the days of the Boehner (or anyone else for that matter) handing out lobbyist checks on the House fucking floor!
I'm with you with only one caveat, I would allow donations by free associations of private citizens. If you and I want to join freely and work for a cause we should be able to do that. But there should be no money spent by corporations, unions, or anyone else who's not a free citizen or a free association of free citizens.
That would just lead to all sorts of shenanigans. It'll just be unions and corporations under another flag. If there's an election going on, it's the candidate's responsibility to get his/her message out. What do these "free associations" have to do with it, if they're not running or aren't part of the candidate's staff? They should have NO PART in the election process.
so the OP point is moot.direct contributions from corporations and labor unions are prohibited.
On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that had previously prohibited corporations and unions from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads.
