Get the money out!!!

[StevenC]

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

Apoligize for what? These were bipartisan plans not democrat plans and the best plan was killed by both parties.
None of these bans would have blocked all contributions. They were all gimicks. they would have blocked soft money only.

 

[Truthmatters]

they were crushed by republicans.

You are refusing facts here.

You sure you want to stick by your claims?

On last chance to save your reputation

 

[BDBoop]

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.

Leveled the playing field? Seriously - the price is too high.

 

[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.

Here is your claim.

 

[Truthmatters]

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

Apoligize for what? These were bipartisan plans not democrat plans and the best plan was killed by both parties.
None of these bans would have blocked all contributions. They were all gimicks. they would have blocked soft money only.

Dems got some support by republicans but the republican party killed them with fillibusters.

I have PROVEN beyond a showdow of a doubt the democrats were working to get the money out for decades, proving you wrong.

You sure you want to go on record as a liar or do you want to apologise?

 

[Truthmatters]

OK he wants the label of liar.

Steven C you are a liar who refuses fact.

this will be duly noted and remembered.

Why is it so many of you cons LIE about things?

 

[Synthaholic]

ITS EVERYONE!

why cant you figure that out?

Because most people on political forums are fucking idiots who know nothing about politics, and cannot even comprehend what they have just read.

 

[Truthmatters]

Like steven C who lied right in the face of cold hard facts?

 

[Truthmatters]

If you agree that big money has too much influence on politics, check out the petition at the url given and sign it.

Dylan Ratigan: Get Money Out: Join 100,000 Americans

It blows me away that the conservatives on here dont like this idea too.

 

[Lovebears65]

OK he wants the label of liar.

Steven C you are a liar who refuses fact.

this will be duly noted and remembered.

Why is it so many of you cons LIE about things?

Oh so the democrats done lie. HAHAHAHA . Everyone lies you dimwit

 

[BDBoop]

If you agree that big money has too much influence on politics, check out the petition at the url given and sign it.

Dylan Ratigan: Get Money Out: Join 100,000 Americans

It blows me away that the conservatives on here dont like this idea too.

<cough-cough> Koch Brothers </cough-cough>

 

[eflatminor]

If you agree that big money has too much influence on politics, check out the petition at the url given and sign it.

Dylan Ratigan: Get Money Out: Join 100,000 Americans

It blows me away that the conservatives on here dont like this idea too.

<cough-cough> Koch Brothers </cough-cough>

According to FEC, Koch Industries donated $565,350 for the upcoming election cycle, 97% of which went to Republicans.

To the Democrats? Dreamworks Animation donated $2,139,650, 98% to Dems. SEIU donated $1,143,215, 100% to Democrats.

Cough, cough indeed.

 

[Synthaholic]

Dylan Ratigan

 

[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.

It still says the same thing

 

[Immanuel]

Crap facts sacred then out of the thread.

Sorry OP

You don't have facts, you have Wikifacts.

And you should know about people who run from a thread when they are presented with facts since you do so in almost every thread you post in.

Immie

 

[Synthaholic]

Sign the petition! 65,000 in two days!

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."
​

Get Money Out




.

 

[editec]

We cannot get the money out of politics.

Not even publically funded campaigns will really do that.

The only way to get the money out of politics is to completely reinvent the election process.

Make ALL CAMPAIGN ADS illegal and that is possible.

Of course that would ALSO violate the first Amendment, too, wouldn't it?

 

[Seawytch]

If you agree that big money has too much influence on politics, check out the petition at the url given and sign it.

Dylan Ratigan: Get Money Out: Join 100,000 Americans

Just when you think an idea would have bipartisan support...

 

[Truthmatters]

Free airtime

With free airtime you can give them their free speach and take the money out

 

[Truthmatters]

If you agree that big money has too much influence on politics, check out the petition at the url given and sign it.

Dylan Ratigan: Get Money Out: Join 100,000 Americans

Just when you think an idea would have bipartisan support...

Hard to believe any American would be against this huh?