Constitutional Oligarchy?

[Sallow]

Oligarchy, a political system that is controlled by a small group of individuals, who govern in their own interests.
Does Citizens United v. FEC portend our nations future?

I support campaign finance reform, limits on contributions and the total transparency of the donors.

Do you?

Well yes of course.

What we sort of had was a Plutocracy..a monied class of people running the show.

But with this..we will be taking the "sort of" out of that sentence.

 

[Revere]

This government has more money than anyone. 53% of PAC money is raised for Democrats.

But they're going down in three weeks.

How does that work?

 

[Flopper]

Oligarchy, a political system that is controlled by a small group of individuals, who govern in their own interests.
Does Citizens United v. FEC portend our nations future?

I support campaign finance reform, limits on contributions and the total transparency of the donors.

Do you?

Absolutely, but with a different twist. I would like see a limit on campaign spending, not contributions. I would like see a limit of $100,000 place on candidates for the House, $200,000 for the Senate, and a million for the presidency. Second, I would like to see televised debates sponsor for all candidates as well as town hall meetings. This is how we should learn about the candidates not TV ads.

Lastly, I would ban all political advertising. Call it a health hazard like smoking are whatever it takes to make it constitutional. What's going on now is pure insanity.

 

[Revere]

Oligarchy, a political system that is controlled by a small group of individuals, who govern in their own interests.
Does Citizens United v. FEC portend our nations future?

I support campaign finance reform, limits on contributions and the total transparency of the donors.

Do you?

Absolutely, but with a different twist. I would like see a limit on campaign spending, not contributions. I would like see a limit of $100,000 place on candidates for the House, $200,000 for the Senate, and a million for the presidency. Second, I would like to see televised debates sponsor for all candidates as well as town hall meetings. This is how we should learn about the candidates not TV ads.

Lastly, I would ban all political advertising. Call it a health hazard like smoking are whatever it takes to make it constitutional. What's going on now is pure insanity.

Bullshit. The deck is stacked in favor of incumbents.

 

[Avatar4321]

People really dont like free speech here do they?

I never understood how people oppose free speech until recently. I just don't understand why anyone would want to restrict their rights.

 

[hortysir]

not this year

 

[Big Fitz]

Does Citizens United v. FEC portend our nations future?

So you're saying you prefer to keep the power to spend on political campaigns strictly to individuals like George Soros and the Unions?
<

Thank God, Mr. Soros isn't ashamed to reveal his name.

I'm sorry, I'm having pronoun trouble or something here. what the fuck are you trying to say?

Citizens United allows corporations to give like individuals, PACs and UNIONS to political campaigns.

You've a problem with making the process open to everyone?

Hell, the Chinese and the Unions bought a president, why shouldn't Viacom be allowed to get in on the game. Or Fox, or GE or Panasonic....

Personally I'd rather see it that there was NO hidden money and they must all be FOIA accessable on the interwebs donations name, and amount. You don't want to be known? Tough.

 

[Sallow]

People really dont like free speech here do they?

I never understood how people oppose free speech until recently. I just don't understand why anyone would want to restrict their rights.

Money..does not equal speech.

And should not equal "more access" to the political process.

That's part of the reason people left Europe for America.

 

[Flopper]

Oligarchy, a political system that is controlled by a small group of individuals, who govern in their own interests.
Does Citizens United v. FEC portend our nations future?

I support campaign finance reform, limits on contributions and the total transparency of the donors.

Do you?

Absolutely, but with a different twist. I would like see a limit on campaign spending, not contributions. I would like see a limit of $100,000 place on candidates for the House, $200,000 for the Senate, and a million for the presidency. Second, I would like to see televised debates sponsor for all candidates as well as town hall meetings. This is how we should learn about the candidates not TV ads.

Lastly, I would ban all political advertising. Call it a health hazard like smoking are whatever it takes to make it constitutional. What's going on now is pure insanity.

Bullshit. The deck is stacked in favor of incumbents.

Of Course it is. Until we change the system where you don't have to have 5 or 10 millions to get elected, nothing will change. Independents and third parties candidates have almost no chance of being elected. The only way one can be elected today is sell your soul to special interest or be a multimillionaire. If you are an incumbent, you have your special interest contributions to draw on plus party contributions.

 

[Revere]

People really dont like free speech here do they?

I never understood how people oppose free speech until recently. I just don't understand why anyone would want to restrict their rights.

Money..does not equal speech.

And should not equal "more access" to the political process.

That's part of the reason people left Europe for America.

No, they left Europe because their system was designed to keep you poor.

 

[Revere]

Absolutely, but with a different twist. I would like see a limit on campaign spending, not contributions. I would like see a limit of $100,000 place on candidates for the House, $200,000 for the Senate, and a million for the presidency. Second, I would like to see televised debates sponsor for all candidates as well as town hall meetings. This is how we should learn about the candidates not TV ads.

Lastly, I would ban all political advertising. Call it a health hazard like smoking are whatever it takes to make it constitutional. What's going on now is pure insanity.

Bullshit. The deck is stacked in favor of incumbents.

Of Course it is. Until we change the system where you don't have to have 5 or 10 millions to get elected, nothing will change. Independents and third parties candidates have almost no chance of being elected. The only way one can be elected today is sell your soul to special interest or be a multimillionaire. If you are an incumbent, you have your special interest contributions to draw on plus party contributions.

Only works if you have the freedom to outspend an incumbent if you can.

 

[Charles_Main]

People really dont like free speech here do they?

I never understood how people oppose free speech until recently. I just don't understand why anyone would want to restrict their rights.

Money..does not equal speech.

And should not equal "more access" to the political process.

That's part of the reason people left Europe for America.

No, they left Europe because their system was designed to keep you poor.

Actually he is dead wrong. When it comes to Elections Money does equal speech.

 

[Revere]

Independents and third parties have unpopular ideas that collapse of their own weight.

They're not owed a quota system.

 

[Revere]

Money..does not equal speech.

And should not equal "more access" to the political process.

That's part of the reason people left Europe for America.

No, they left Europe because their system was designed to keep you poor.

Actually he is dead wrong. When it comes to Elections Money does equal speech.

Democrat PACs always outraise Republican pacs.

 

[Big Fitz]

Money..does not equal speech.

According to the Supreme Court it does. Take it up with them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting take by some who rather quickly made the OP into a partisan issue.

The question posed was: "I support campaign finance reform, limits on contributions and the total transparency of the donors. Do you?"

Those who argue 'Free Speech' is curtailed by limiting money have not thought through to the obvious conclusion: Lacking money limits the speech of those with legitimate counterpoints to Special Interests. Special Interests include Unions and oil companies and other organizations which control gobs of money. They are able to drown out other points of view.

Kudos to the person who suggested limiting the amount of money which may be spent by a candidate for specific offices. A damn fine idea.

 

[Revere]

No. Government telling you how much money you can spend is not freedom.

 

[Avatar4321]

So you think that telling me I can only support a candidate to a certain degree and no more doesn't violate my right to free speech?

or telling me we cant criticize a candidate 30 days prior to an election isnt a violation of free speech?

 

[loosecannon]

When are you going to accept that freedom of speech applies to all people, even if you don't like them?

corporations are not people. They deserve no constitutional rights whatsoever. That the SC defends their rights only proves the corruption of the court.

 

[loosecannon]

So you think that telling me I can only support a candidate to a certain degree and no more doesn't violate my right to free speech?

supporting a candidate with money is not free speech. Buy a dictionary.

And you can criticize anyone anytime. You just can't buy propaganda time before millions of people in the final weeks, or you couldn't but now can.

Buying propaganda advantage isn't free speech either.

You know better and should be ashamed of yourself.