Get the money out!!!

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?

What facts?
You brought up BS legislation, bipartisan at that, to supposedly prove that democrats have been against caimpaign spending before the SCOTUS ruling on corporations. Even after the ruling the democrats, especially your leaders like Oberman and Schultz only gripe about the donations from corps and ignore the donations from unions.
 
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?

You would think...but the wealthy corporations are paying Fox personalities a lot of money to convince people differently.
 
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?

What facts?
You brought up BS legislation, bipartisan at that, to supposedly prove that democrats have been against caimpaign spending before the SCOTUS ruling on corporations. Even after the ruling the democrats, especially your leaders like Oberman and Schultz only gripe about the donations from corps and ignore the donations from unions.

Do you understand what bipartisan means?

It means democrats were involved with writing this legislation.

Now which party went on party lines to distroy all these bills?

The Republicans.

Dude you lied . I gave you chances to redeem yourself and you didnt.

You desided you could just lie.

Stop spaming this thread with your lie.

If you want to discuss this like an adult then go to the thread about YOUR lies.

I wont respond to you about this in this thread again.

You are trying to sideline this thread and I will report you if you keep it up.
 
Anyone who cares about democracy being about the people and not about the money should sign this
 
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?

What facts?
You brought up BS legislation, bipartisan at that, to supposedly prove that democrats have been against caimpaign spending before the SCOTUS ruling on corporations. Even after the ruling the democrats, especially your leaders like Oberman and Schultz only gripe about the donations from corps and ignore the donations from unions.

Do you understand what bipartisan means?

It means democrats were involved with writing this legislation.

Now which party went on party lines to distroy all these bills?

The Republicans.

Dude you lied . I gave you chances to redeem yourself and you didnt.

You desided you could just lie.

Stop spaming this thread with your lie.

If you want to discuss this like an adult then go to the thread about YOUR lies.

I wont respond to you about this in this thread again.

You are trying to sideline this thread and I will report you if you keep it up.

You are cherry picking your so called facts. First and foremost these bill did not ban all caimpaign spending. Second both parties blocked the initial legislation.

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]

Third, how many of these bill were sponsored by Dems? What 1?

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]

None of these banned all money. So it was all a joke and a way to play to some groups. Nothing more than gimmicks to make it look like they actually cared.

And last, if the dems were so concerned about caimpaign spending why didn't they try to do something about it when the controlled the house and senate in Obamas first year?
 
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?

What facts?
You brought up BS legislation, bipartisan at that, to supposedly prove that democrats have been against caimpaign spending before the SCOTUS ruling on corporations. Even after the ruling the democrats, especially your leaders like Oberman and Schultz only gripe about the donations from corps and ignore the donations from unions.

Do you understand what bipartisan means?

It means democrats were involved with writing this legislation.

Now which party went on party lines to distroy all these bills?

The Republicans.

Dude you lied . I gave you chances to redeem yourself and you didnt.

You desided you could just lie.

Stop spaming this thread with your lie.

If you want to discuss this like an adult then go to the thread about YOUR lies.

I wont respond to you about this in this thread again.

You are trying to sideline this thread and I will report you if you keep it up.

Also go ahead and report me. You try and insult me than you tell me I can not defend myself.
 
Free airtime

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

Its NOT free is you're taking airtime away from the owners of it and giving it to offically approved candidates.

And FWIW, the whole process to become an offically recognized candidate generally take a fair amount of money, too.

Maine HAS this system of publically funding campaigns, ya know?

In odder to be eligible one needs to get enough signers in support of one's campaign.

That process ALSO demands cash.

Not as much as the campaign itself, obviously, but more than the average Joe Bagadoughts is going to have.
 
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?!?! :eusa_hand:

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

I know no such thing. I guess you're saying the USSC is corrupt. You sound like the hardline Gorites in '00!!! :eek:
 
Free airtime

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

Its NOT free is you're taking airtime away from the owners of it and giving it to offically approved candidates.

And FWIW, the whole process to become an offically recognized candidate generally take a fair amount of money, too.

Maine HAS this system of publically funding campaigns, ya know?

In odder to be eligible one needs to get enough signers in support of one's campaign.

That process ALSO demands cash.

Not as much as the campaign itself, obviously, but more than the average Joe Bagadoughts is going to have.

The airwaves belong to the people.


I guess you dont care about facts huh?
 
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?

What facts?
You brought up BS legislation, bipartisan at that, to supposedly prove that democrats have been against caimpaign spending before the SCOTUS ruling on corporations. Even after the ruling the democrats, especially your leaders like Oberman and Schultz only gripe about the donations from corps and ignore the donations from unions.

All you've proven with this post is that you're a partisan jackass. This is a non-partisan issue. Deciding who out "leaders" are, isn't for you to decide.
 
Free airtime

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

Its NOT free is you're taking airtime away from the owners of it and giving it to offically approved candidates.

And FWIW, the whole process to become an offically recognized candidate generally take a fair amount of money, too.

Maine HAS this system of publically funding campaigns, ya know?

In odder to be eligible one needs to get enough signers in support of one's campaign.

That process ALSO demands cash.

Not as much as the campaign itself, obviously, but more than the average Joe Bagadoughts is going to have.

The airwaves belong to the people.


I guess you dont care about facts huh?

I guess I've thought more deeply about this issue than you have, that's for sure.

Yes, the airways belong to the people.

But the stations that use them the PEOPLE do not own.

Now if the USA wants to take advantage of THE PEOPLE'S airways, then it would behoove the AMERICAN PEOPLE to create stations to do so.

THEN when the PEOPLE give the candidates airtime, they are not taking bread out of the mouths of those private companies that are licensed to use the PEOPLE'S airways.

ON a related note perhaps you should THINK before you attack people with childish statements like

I guess you dont care about facts huh?

That was entirely uncalled for.
 
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?

The point is that there would have to be an amendment. That's why the current finance laws only skirt the edges of the issue, they'd be unconstitutional, otherwise. I envision parties being able to fund their own primaries, but general election campaigns would include debates in which anyone with above some % supoport would be included. From 9/1 on only the candidate's team would be able to put on political ads with third party political messages strictly prohibited until after the election. After all, if the candidate themselves can't state their position, why should we expect a third party to be able to do so? They're not the ones running.
 
Its NOT free is you're taking airtime away from the owners of it and giving it to offically approved candidates.

And FWIW, the whole process to become an offically recognized candidate generally take a fair amount of money, too.

Maine HAS this system of publically funding campaigns, ya know?

In odder to be eligible one needs to get enough signers in support of one's campaign.

That process ALSO demands cash.

Not as much as the campaign itself, obviously, but more than the average Joe Bagadoughts is going to have.

The airwaves belong to the people.


I guess you dont care about facts huh?

I guess I've thought more deeply about this issue than you have, that's for sure.

Yes, the airways belong to the people.

But the stations that use them the PEOPLE do not own.

Now if the USA wants to take advantage of THE PEOPLE'S airways, then it would behoove the AMERICAN PEOPLE to create stations to do so.

THEN when the PEOPLE give the candidates airtime, they are not taking bread out of the mouths of those private companies that are licensed to use the PEOPLE'S airways.

ON a related note perhaps you should THINK before you attack people with childish statements like

I guess you dont care about facts huh?

That was entirely uncalled for.

Do the airwaves belong to the people?

If they do then we have EVERY right to insist the people who pay for the rights to use them use them under our terms.

It is NOT taking anything away from the people who use them at the peoples discression
 
What exactly is wrong with citizens and groups of citizens donating their hard earned money to politicians, parties, or political platforms they agree with? This is the United States of America, they should be free to do as they please when it comes to politics and supporting their thoughts and ideas. It's called freedom of speech.
 
We need an overhaul. Editec was right; we can't get the money out of politics. But we can look at the shit the Kochroaches are pulling, and use it to set new regulations on donating.

The fact that they are having weekend getaways, all expenses paid, for the R's is just 14 kinds of Bad and Wrong, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-bl...-koch-brothers-is-their-own-bottom-line/?cp=7
 
Last edited:
No difference unions giving millions why dont you protest them too???

"Get the money out" means "get the money out". Where do you see anything that exempts unions? This isn't about who gives what, necessarily, but to fight the notions that "Money=Free Speech" or "Corporations(or Unions)=People".

Than be specific because this is where all the bullshit starts! Lawyers and loopholes and wording
 
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?

What facts?
You brought up BS legislation, bipartisan at that, to supposedly prove that democrats have been against caimpaign spending before the SCOTUS ruling on corporations. Even after the ruling the democrats, especially your leaders like Oberman and Schultz only gripe about the donations from corps and ignore the donations from unions.

Do you understand what bipartisan means?

It means democrats were involved with writing this legislation.

Now which party went on party lines to distroy all these bills?

The Republicans.

Dude you lied . I gave you chances to redeem yourself and you didnt.

You desided you could just lie.

Stop spaming this thread with your lie.

If you want to discuss this like an adult then go to the thread about YOUR lies.

I wont respond to you about this in this thread again.

You are trying to sideline this thread and I will report you if you keep it up.

Not really, the word bipartisan when used by the media means that the media is trying to pull a fast one over our eyes and tell us that both parties are willing to support or at least compromise on an issue. When used by a politician, the word bipartisan means that this particular politician expects the opposing party to kowtow to his or her point of view.

Oh and you of all people have no right to request that people stop spamming anything at all, nor do you have the right to demand that people stop being deceitful since you are constantly guilty of both.

Immie
 

Forum List

Back
Top