Get the money out!!!

[StevenC]

To put it more simply, wouldn't it be better if our representitives spent more time on OUR business, instead of running around selling their votes to the highest bidder?!?!

Yes it would! Of course, if the representatives restricted their efforts to the business they are allowed to meddle with, the enumerated powers in the Constitution, their would be no reason for companies or rich individuals to contribute. Why would a company donate if the politician had no power to influence their business? If your plan was to restrict donations from companies that provided arms and services to the military or from companies that serviced the Post Office...areas the feds must oversee...then I might be interested. Until then, the answer is not to try to restrict donations but to vote in politicians that don't engage in crony fascism in areas where they have no Constitutional authority.

Nice idea but we are dealing with the average american who cares more about american idol then who runs the country.

 

[Truthmatters]

I dont agree , unless you also concede that Unions have too much influence on politics and plan to sign a similar petition blocking the union money from hitting democrat coffers this year.
The only reason the left is in an uproar over this is because the GOP now has a way to get some cash flow going for themselves, where the left has always had union money coming to them. It's almost fair now, and you guys dont like it.

Where does it say unions would be exempt, ya dumb cluck?!?!

On paper it doesn't, but in reality you and I both know they will be.

No one means no one.

 

[eflatminor]

The question shouldn't be, "why can't I spend where I wish" but, "why should anyone be able to"

Why should anyone be able to? Because nowhere in the Constitution is there an enumerated power that gives the federal government the right to tell citizens to whom they may give their money. That's why. Now, if you think you can amend the Constitution with such a power, go for it. Good luck with that.

 

[StevenC]

Are unions and corporations not groups of people working towards a common goal? If free speech is sacrosanct, why is where I choose to spend my money not? One can express their opinion with a letter, a speech, or a vote...and voting with your dollar is perhaps the most powerful freedom of all. I'll pass on your petition.

When some can vote with millions through pacts and others can vote only through a single pull of the lever it gimicks the system.

You are free to contribute to the pacts that represent your views.

I don't have any extra money to contribute. I only have my 1 vote. Also the pacts are full of agendas I don't agree with. Plus the leaders of these groups are the ones with real power. Just like unions. It is the leadrs that call the shots not the members.

 

[eflatminor]

Nice idea but we are dealing with the average american who cares more about american idol then who runs the country.

They don't tend to vote. Fuck 'em.

 

[StevenC]

Nice idea but we are dealing with the average american who cares more about american idol then who runs the country.

They don't tend to vote. Fuck 'em.

Oh but they do. They vote the same way they vote on Idol. They vote for the good looking and good speaking ones. Not the ones that would actually do a good job.

 

[MiddleClass]

Republicans will never give up their cash cow from Big Business and the Wealthy.

 

[eflatminor]

I don't have any extra money to contribute.

Sure you do, you just choose to spend your money on other things, which is fine, but I bet you could contribute 10 or 20 dollars if you really wanted to. Maybe you really are dirt poor, but then I'd wonder how you got a computer...

Anyway, my point is that a candidate can get contributions from many, many small donors (Ron Paul) or from a few large ones (establishment Ds and Rs). Either tact can be successful in raising funds.

If you really want to limit crony fascism, vote for Paul because he's not going to meddle in any business or union that isn't specifically an enumerated power in the Constitution. There goes big money influence!

 

[MiddleClass]

The only difference here being that when a business donates money, that money is donated by the business owner. When a Union donates money, they are taking that money from members dues and giving it to whom they want to be elected, regardless of what the actual union members think or who they want elected.

Not at Bank of America - where they expect their employees to contribute to the GOP

 

[JWBooth]

Online petitions.
About as useful and signing your name on toilet paper prior to using it for what its designed for.
Sign up and feel all warm and snuggly inside because you've made a difference.
pffffffffffft

 

[BDBoop]

I think we broke it.

 

[eflatminor]

Republicans will never give up their cash cow from Big Business and the Wealthy.

And Democrats will?


Dreamworks Animation $2,139,650, 98% to Democrats
Bain Capital $1,680,100, 84% to Democrats
Paulson & Co $1,545,450, 100% to Democrats
Comcast Corp $1,151,580, 64% to Democrats
Service Employees International Union $1,143,215, 100% to Democrats
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $899,650, 97% to Democrats
PricewaterhouseCoopers $856,451, 70% to Democrats

 

[StevenC]

Republicans will never give up their cash cow from Big Business and the Wealthy.

Funny thing is is that you dems didn't worry about money until SCOTUS leveled the playing field and allowed corps to compete with unions.

 

[kiwiman127]

Can anyone deny that since Big Money has made it's mark in this country's elections, that "We the People" has lost it's power in Washington? A perfect example is the Military Industrial Complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned about, exists today. We throw hundreds of billions of dollars at the Military Industrial Complex yearly (more than the rest of the world combined*), while our country's infrastructure decays. (The US ranks 23rd in the world for the quality of infrastructure)**

* List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
** America's transport infrastructure: Life in the slow lane | The Economist

 

[Truthmatters]

Republicans will never give up their cash cow from Big Business and the Wealthy.

Funny thing is is that you dems didn't worry about money until SCOTUS leveled the playing field and allowed corps to compete with unions.

Can you prove that statement?

No you cant becasue it has been LONG a democratic postion.

 

[StevenC]

Republicans will never give up their cash cow from Big Business and the Wealthy.

Funny thing is is that you dems didn't worry about money until SCOTUS leveled the playing field and allowed corps to compete with unions.

Can you prove that statement?

No you cant becasue it has been LONG a democratic postion.

No it hasn't. Dems have courted unions for decades and in return they have given public sector unions sweetheart deals. It wasn't until the SCOTUS ruling that dems started complaining about money in politics. And even then most of you only complain about corporations giving money and not unions.

 

[G.T.]

signed

 

[Truthmatters]

Funny thing is is that you dems didn't worry about money until SCOTUS leveled the playing field and allowed corps to compete with unions.

Can you prove that statement?

No you cant becasue it has been LONG a democratic postion.

No it hasn't. Dems have courted unions for decades and in return they have given public sector unions sweetheart deals. It wasn't until the SCOTUS ruling that dems started complaining about money in politics. And even then most of you only complain about corporations giving money and not unions.

Campaign finance reform in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Reforms of the 1980s and 1990s

In 1986, several bills were killed in the U.S. Senate by bipartisan maneuvers which did not allow the bills to come up for a vote. The bill would impose strict controls for campaign fund raising. Later in 1988, legislative and legal setbacks on proposals designed to limiting overall campaign spending by candidates were shelved after a Republican filibuster. In addition, a constitutional amendment to override a Supreme Court decision failed to get off the ground. In 1994, Senate Democrats had more bills blocked by Republicans including a bill setting spending limits and authorizing partial public financing of congressional elections. In 1996, bipartisan legislation for voluntary spending limits which rewards those who bare soft money is killed by a Republican filibuster.[2]

In 1997, Senators McCain and Feingold sought to eliminate soft money and TV advertising expenditures but the legislation was defeated by a Republican filibuster. Several different proposals were made in 1999 by both parties. The Campaign Integrity Act (H.R. 1867) proposed by Asa Hutchinson (R - Arkansas) put a bans on soft money and raised hard money limits. The Citizen Legislature & Political ACT (H.R. 1922) sponsored by Rep. John Doolittle (R - CA) would repeal all federal freedom ACT election contribution limits and expedite and expand disclosure. H.R. 417 Campaign Reform Act Shays-Meehan Bill, sponsored by Christopher Shays (R - CT) and Martin Meehan (D - MA). Would ban soft money and limit types of campaign advertising.[2]




I await you apology

 

[Truthmatters]

This country needs the money out of our elections.

It should be about votes NOT money

 

[Truthmatters]

Crap facts sacred then out of the thread.

Sorry OP