Campaign donations.

[CultureCitizen]

Specifically, what relaxed rules are you referring too?

In this case , any rules that openly promote corruption and make it untraceable.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So , you seem to be comfortably at ease with the fact that banks can once again " roll the dice in the derivatives gambling with taxpayer guaranteed deposits."

of course thats idiotic since bank deposits were never used for gambling in derivatives and now it is even less likely that they would be with the Volker Rule. Sorry!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Specifically, what relaxed rules are you referring too?

In this case , any rules that openly promote corruption and make it untraceable.

in short, he cant name any!! He's a liberal.

 

[Boss]

Back when campaign finance reform was being debated in Congress, Dick Armey proposed banning ALL campaign contributions. Of course, his idea was rejected. I agree with Armey, if you're going to ban any contributions you should ban them all to be fair. Anything less is a violation of the 1st Amendment right to free speech for someone.

CultureCitizen, since you are all up on your statistics, tell us this... When have we ever made anything less important by restricting it?

Now, seems to me we passed CFR back in 2001, but what was the result? We saw the emergence of powerful 527 groups like the Swift Boat Vets and MoveOn.org. It did not change corrupt political influence one iota. CFR actually made it easier for politicians to isolate themselves from controversy. Now these 527s are free to go out there and lie, distort, propagandize, in the name of their candidate and the candidate can maintain plausible deniability. Better or worse?

Citizens United was a case brought as a direct result of CFR. The ruling was not, as the left describes, "making corporations people." Corporations are already people-- Is there any corporation not comprised of people? The ruling upholds the freedom of speech provisions in the 1st Amendment as well as provisions of the 13th and 14th. We simply are not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of what "group" they belong to... a "corporation" is such a group and does deserve Constitutional protection as such. SCOTUS was right, CFR was wrong.

My main beef with your argument and the argument of the left is, you aren't addressing the problem which is the integrity and character of the people we elect.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Citizens United was a case brought as a direct result of CFR. The ruling was not, as the left describes, "making corporations people." Corporations are already people-- Is there any corporation not comprised of people? The ruling upholds the freedom of speech provisions in the 1st Amendment as well as provisions of the 13th and 14th. We simply are not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of what "group" they belong to... a "corporation" is such a group and does deserve Constitutional protection as such. SCOTUS was right, CFR was wrong.

Hi Boss,
Yes , of course , most people belong to an organization ( union , corporation , ngo ) . But these groups are not citizens.

I have no problem with individual donations from citizens, and such donations must have a very low ceiling. ( I've been toying with the daily minimum wage ).
Groups, groups are abstract. A person can pertain to more than one group which complicates matters more.
And I see foreign owned corporations as a risk for the whole system ( imagine China goes company shopping with its huge reserves)
I can accept $100 donation per year by individual citizens or no donations at all. Corporate and union donations are unacceptable for me ( its even worse for corps because of the revolving door).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't have a list, but Goldman Sachs would be part of it.

Well, Goldman Sachs wasn't a bank before the crisis and they weren't going to fail because of derivatives. So you're 0 for 2.

So , they made a pack of subprime ( knowing it would default ) , disclosed that information to a customer , and let him bet against it, and told other investors none of it. WTF?

Made a pack of subprime? What does that mean? How could they know it would default?
If they did know, why give the winner to a client, they could have kept it all themselves.
Yes, they created synthetic derivatives. You know there are 2 sides to a derivative, right?

Of course , they turned into a bank exactly at the begining of the crisis. Quite conveninent wasn't it ?

How could they know ? Don't be naive, because they knew what was inside them of course.
Oh, and they also made profits from it :

"The e-mails, Levin said, "show that, in fact, Goldman made a lot of money by betting against the mortgage market" and contradict the firm's claim that it was merely buying and selling securities for clients."

"A third exhibit released by the panel describes the impact of a wipeout of a Long Beach Mortgage Securities Corp. security by saying the "bad news" of the loss costs the firm $2.5 million, but the "good news" is that "we own protection" against the loss. "We make $5mm," meaning $5 million, the e-mail said."

Goldman knew it profited from mortgage crisis - Apr. 24 2010

How could they know ? Don't be naive, because they knew what was inside them of course.

The clients, on both sides of the trade, also knew what was in them. So what?

Oh, and they also made profits from it :

If they knew that particular deal was going bust, why'd they hold onto some of it?
Maybe you should stop digging?

Still waiting for your list of banks that went bust because of derivatives.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Citizens United was a case brought as a direct result of CFR. The ruling was not, as the left describes, "making corporations people." Corporations are already people-- Is there any corporation not comprised of people? The ruling upholds the freedom of speech provisions in the 1st Amendment as well as provisions of the 13th and 14th. We simply are not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of what "group" they belong to... a "corporation" is such a group and does deserve Constitutional protection as such. SCOTUS was right, CFR was wrong.

Hi Boss,
Yes , of course , most people belong to an organization ( union , corporation , ngo ) . But these groups are not citizens.

I have no problem with individual donations from citizens, and such donations must have a very low ceiling. ( I've been toying with the daily minimum wage ).
Groups, groups are abstract. A person can pertain to more than one group which complicates matters more.
And I see foreign owned corporations as a risk for the whole system ( imagine China goes company shopping with its huge reserves)
I can accept $100 donation per year by individual citizens or no donations at all. Corporate and union donations are unacceptable for me ( its even worse for corps because of the revolving door).

I have no problem with individual donations from citizens, and such donations must have a very low ceiling.

Excellent idea, if you want to guarantee no incumbent ever gets defeated.

And I see foreign owned corporations as a risk for the whole system ( imagine China goes company shopping with its huge reserves)

Foreign contributions are already illegal.
Didn't stop Clinton from getting Chinese funds in 1996, or Obama more recently.

 

[dblack]

It really all comes down to the desire to resort to force to control your neighbors.

 

[SAYIT]

Should campaign donations have a low ceiling ( e.g. the minimum wage of a day per election) ?

My position follows :
A) Greed is the engine that makes capitalism move.
B) Most of the elements in the system are fueled by greed.

Share your thoughts.

I understand your concern, Citizen, but I believe the court's concern is in limiting the right of donors to use their wealth as they deem fit.

"The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind..." - Gordon Gekko (Wall Street)

 

[Boss]

Citizens United was a case brought as a direct result of CFR. The ruling was not, as the left describes, "making corporations people." Corporations are already people-- Is there any corporation not comprised of people? The ruling upholds the freedom of speech provisions in the 1st Amendment as well as provisions of the 13th and 14th. We simply are not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of what "group" they belong to... a "corporation" is such a group and does deserve Constitutional protection as such. SCOTUS was right, CFR was wrong.

Hi Boss,
Yes , of course , most people belong to an organization ( union , corporation , ngo ) . But these groups are not citizens.

I have no problem with individual donations from citizens, and such donations must have a very low ceiling. ( I've been toying with the daily minimum wage ).
Groups, groups are abstract. A person can pertain to more than one group which complicates matters more.
And I see foreign owned corporations as a risk for the whole system ( imagine China goes company shopping with its huge reserves)
I can accept $100 donation per year by individual citizens or no donations at all. Corporate and union donations are unacceptable for me ( its even worse for corps because of the revolving door).

You didn't answer my question... When have we ever made something less important by restricting it?

Again, the Constitution says (and SCOTUS agrees) that we can't restrict free speech on the basis of what type of group you belong to. A corporation is a type of group. To restrict what the corporation can do in terms of free speech is restricting the rights of all members of that group.

 

[CultureCitizen]

You didn't answer my question... When have we ever made something less important by restricting it?

I don't quite get what you mean by "making something less important".

Regardless, some ammendments were made on the constitution, which arguably restricted free trade.
Slavery and human traffic was forbiden .

So a set of persons had to give up their rights so that a bigger group could aspire to equal rights.

To restrict what the corporation can do in terms of free speech is restricting the rights of all members of that group.
I can't agree with you in this statement. What a group does doesn't actually reflect the sum of what their members wish to achieve. This is specially true in a company where the power comes from the top of the organization.

And I see foreign owned corporations as a risk for the whole system ( imagine China goes company shopping with its huge reserves)

Foreign contributions are already illegal.
Didn't stop Clinton from getting Chinese funds in 1996, or Obama more recently.

¿? So you are supporting my argument or not ?

Yes , of course , the company is foreign owned, but what about the CEO and the members of the board ?
Even if the company can't donate they'll find a way to do it through a ngo or through the company's executives.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You didn't answer my question... When have we ever made something less important by restricting it?

I don't quite get what you mean by "making something less important".

Regardless, some ammendments were made on the constitution, which arguably restricted free trade.
Slavery and human traffic was forbiden .

So a set of persons had to give up their rights so that a bigger group could aspire to equal rights.

To restrict what the corporation can do in terms of free speech is restricting the rights of all members of that group.
I can't agree with you in this statement.

And I see foreign owned corporations as a risk for the whole system ( imagine China goes company shopping with its huge reserves)

Foreign contributions are already illegal.
Didn't stop Clinton from getting Chinese funds in 1996, or Obama more recently.

¿? So you are supporting my argument or not ?

Yes , of course , the company is foreign owned, but what about the CEO and the members of the board ?
Even if the company can't donate they'll find a way to do it through a ngo or through the company's executives.

Your argument to limit contributions to $100 is silly.
Clinton broke the campaign laws in 1996, why didn't he do time?
I mean besides being married to the drunk?

 

[Boss]

I don't quite get what you mean by "making something less important".

Well that's the issue here, isn't it? To make money less important of an influence on politicians. So when have we ever made anything less important by restricting it?

 

[Boss]

To restrict what the corporation can do in terms of free speech is restricting the rights of all members of that group.
I can't agree with you in this statement.

The SCOTUS and I can't agree with you.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Your argument to limit contributions to $100 is silly.
Clinton broke the campaign laws in 1996, why didn't he do time?
I mean besides being married to the drunk?

... don't know man. I am clueless about how he got impeached over a blowjob instead.
and explain yourself , why do you consider the limit silly.

 

[CultureCitizen]

To restrict what the corporation can do in terms of free speech is restricting the rights of all members of that group.
I can't agree with you in this statement.

The SCOTUS and I can't agree with you.

Sory , I posted before finishing my argument.
I can't agree with you in this statement. What a group does doesn't actually reflect the sum of what their members wish to achieve. This is specially true in a company where the power comes from the top of the organization.
This same thing happens at country level, specially in non democratic countries. Did Rusian peasants thought it was a good idea getting involved in WW I . Probably not. Companies are not democratic organizations but groups where power is exercised from the top. That is what the court fails to see.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your argument to limit contributions to $100 is silly.
Clinton broke the campaign laws in 1996, why didn't he do time?
I mean besides being married to the drunk?

... don't know man. I am clueless about how he got impeached over a blowjob instead.
and explain yourself , why do you consider the limit silly.

It takes a lot of money to beat an incumbent.
Your silliness would push their re-election rate close to 100%.

He was impeached for lying under oath.
Lost his law license as well.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Well that's the issue here, isn't it? To make money less important of an influence on politicians. So when have we ever made anything less important by restricting it?

Money and power are intertwined, an increase in the former can help you achieve an increase in the later and viceversa.

Power has been a topic of discussion historically. That's why there is a division of power. So the fact that there are three powers and not one does not make "power" less important, it simply acknowledges its importance and limits it.

In that sense , I don't really think the issue is making money less important of an influence on politicians , but rather recognizing it is a factor which tanslates into power and hence puting a limit on it.

 

[CultureCitizen]

He was impeached for lying under oath.
Lost his law license as well.

...about a blowjob...ah man , I wish he had just said. Yea, Monica, best bjob in my life... sory Hillary.

 

[Boss]

What a group does doesn't actually reflect the sum of what their members wish to achieve. This is specially true in a company where the power comes from the top of the organization.

But hold on... IF it is good for the power at the top and the corporation itself, it is also good for those who are part of the corporation. IF it's bad for the corporation, it's bad for the employees of the corporation. The reason those at the top are at the top is to make these informed decisions.

Let's say I own a corporation of 1,500 employees. We are the largest maker of widgets in the US. We're turning good profit on an American-made product at a reasonable price, but we could buy widgets from China cheaper if we lifted the Foreign Widget Purchasing Act of 1932. So we have two politicians running for senate in this scenario... You are Candidate A, you are opposed to lifting the act and your opponent, Candidate B, is all in favor of it. In fact, he wants to put the American widget industry out of business and import all our widgets from China.

Now under campaign laws for the past gazillion years, I can donate a set amount to you and so can my employees, we can all make individual contributions to your campaign. But my employees have asked me if we can do more? We have the corporate resources to produce videos and buy air time that individuals simply don't have. Why can't my group use the resources we have available to achieve what is in our vital interest? CFR restricted that, the SCOTUS said NO!

You cannot restrict my political right to free speech because I am part of a corporation.