Gop Members Of Senate Vote Down Attempts To Limits Money In Politics

[SmedlyButler]

Has the OP read the Constitutional Amendment?

It doesn't limit money at all.

I have to keep reminding "conservatives" that even tea-partiers are out-raged over the destructive influence of wealth on government and democracy itself. And they've got history behind them;

"To say that the founding fathers supported corporations is very absurd. Its quite the opposite in fact. Corporations like the East India Trading Company were despised by the founding fathers and they were just one reason why they chose to revolt against England. Corporations represented the moneyed interests much like they do today and they often wielded political power, sometimes to the point of governing a colony all by themselves like the Massachusetts Bay Company did."

"But there is more evidence that the Revolutionary generation despised corporations. The East India Company was the largest corporation of its day and its dominance of trade angered the colonists so much, that they dumped the tea products it had on a ship into Boston Harbor which today is universally known as the Boston Tea Party. At the time, in Britain, large corporations funded elections generously and its stock was owned by nearly everyone in parliament. The founding fathers did not think much of these corporations that had great wealth and great influence in government. And that is precisely why they put restrictions upon them after the government was organized under the Constitution."

"After the nation’s founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense."

Read more here. Also I think the FF's assumed future generations would have common sense, they couldn't spell it all out for you.

 

[SmedlyButler]

and corporations are people....

Can you cite the specific ruling that said corporations are people?

1886(County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad):Now that corporations were legally citizens, corporate attorneys worked to expand their rights. When California officials levied a special tax on the Southern Pacific Railroad, the railroad sued, arguing that singling out the company violated its rights to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, which was intended to protect freed slaves. In a strange twist, the court reporter—a former railroad man—wrote in the published notes on the case that the 14th Amendment did, in fact, apply to the company. Even though this notion appeared nowhere in the high court's actual ruling, 11 years later the court declared it was "well settled" that "corporations are persons within the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment," citing Santa Clara.

Note that it was a Railroad man who wrote the "syllabus" on the Southern Pacific Railroad case which had such a profound effect on future SCOTUS opinions.

 

[bripat9643]

and corporations are people....

Can you cite the specific ruling that said corporations are people?

1886(County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad):Now that corporations were legally citizens, corporate attorneys worked to expand their rights. When California officials levied a special tax on the Southern Pacific Railroad, the railroad sued, arguing that singling out the company violated its rights to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, which was intended to protect freed slaves. In a strange twist, the court reporter—a former railroad man—wrote in the published notes on the case that the 14th Amendment did, in fact, apply to the company. Even though this notion appeared nowhere in the high court's actual ruling, 11 years later the court declared it was "well settled" that "corporations are persons within the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment," citing Santa Clara.

Note that it was a Railroad man who wrote the "syllabus" on the Southern Pacific Railroad case which had such a profound effect on future SCOTUS opinions.

So you think the government should be able to persecute particular corporations and tax them into bankruptcy if it wants? Is that really what you're saying?

 

[The Rabbi]

Smedly has proven that there is over 100 years' worth of jurisprudence showing corporations have rights under the 14th Amendment.
Thanks!

 

[The Rabbi]

The Democrats are attemtping to amend the Bill of Rights to take away freedom of speech. Why would anyone of any persuasion be in favor of that?

Everything in the proposed amendment is already law and has been for years, at both the federal and states levels. How would it "take away freedom of speech"?

Look who just had her ass handed to her.

 

[LiberalMedia]

what a joke and you're a tool
the unions own the Democrat party. Obama doesn't go to fund raise in the ghetto, he goes to millionaire houses in Hollywood, Soros, Buffett, and the BIG MONEY is OK for Democrats I guess

What absolute bullshit. You've clearly never even read the Democratic Party's finance reports.

John Abowd, an Economist at Cornell University, gave the DNC $10 on July 27. Sharon Adams, a self-employed rancher, gave them $300 on July 7. Else Adjali, a worker at a United Methodist Church location in New York, donated $100 on July 29. Susan Alexander, a homemaker from Tennessee, put in $25 on July 28.

Economists, church employees, ranchers, and housewives--what union are they all a part of? Who is this shadowy Housewives Union that controls the Democratic Party from behind the scenes?

whatever you say

So we're in agreement, then--the Democratic Party is not run by unions, big banks, billionaires, or anything else that keeps the Wrongpublican Party afloat; but rather, the DNC is financially sustained by small contributions from We the Pyyple, because the Democratic Party is the pyyple's party.

Another conservatard converted to lybyrylysm. Truly the effect I'm having here is immeasurable.

you can't be for real. my gawd everyone knows the UNIONS donate millions to the Democrat party, Bill Maher donated a MILLION dollars. etc etc
now knock it off you aren't this dense

If "everyone" knows this, then show me the documentation you have to back it up. The financial reports of every Democratic Party entity (federal, state, and local) are freely available online. Find one showing unions donating millions to any level of the Democratic Party, and find the one where Bill Maher "donated a MILLION dollars" to them as well. Link to them here so everyone can see it.

Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors 1989-2014 OpenSecrets

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014

Rank	Organization	Total '89-'14	Dem %	Repub %
1	ActBlue	$119,805,859	99%	0%
2	American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees	$63,562,815	79%	1%
3	National Education Assn	$59,991,508	57%	4%
4	AT&T Inc	$57,977,064	41%	58%
5	National Assn of Realtors	$57,197,540	41%	43%
6	Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers	$47,074,114	90%	2%
7	Goldman Sachs	$47,054,435	52%	44%
8	Carpenters & Joiners Union	$43,628,423	68%	9%
9	United Auto Workers	$42,462,975	71%	0%
10	Service Employees International Union	$41,307,878	80%	2%
11	Laborers Union	$39,686,889	83%	7%
12	American Federation of Teachers	$38,179,895	89%	0%
13	Teamsters Union	$36,977,417	88%	5%
14	Communications Workers of America	$36,800,816	87%	0%
15	JPMorgan Chase & Co	$35,815,427	47%	51%
16	United Food & Commercial Workers Union	$35,451,971	85%	0%
17	AFL-CIO	$35,393,501	54%	2%
18	United Parcel Service	$33,444,162	35%	64%
19	Citigroup Inc	$33,438,657	48%	50%
20	EMILY's List	$32,778,804	98%	0%
21	National Auto Dealers Assn	$32,767,410	31%	68%
22	American Bankers Assn	$32,571,652	35%	63%
23	Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union	$32,028,697	98%	1%

[THEAD] [/THEAD]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

That's a really nice list and everything, but it doesn't address my request at all. Instead of just educating my fellow systyr in fymynysm, it looks like you'll get a lesson here as well. I will restate my request.

The financial reports of every Democratic Party entity (federal, state, and local) are freely available online. Find one showing unions donating millions to any level of the Democratic Party, and find the one where Bill Maher "donated a MILLION dollars" to them as well. Link to them here so everyone can see it.

I want the reports. Not second- or third-hand sources that say "hurr durr dey b donatin yo," but rather primary resource documents since they're already freely available to the public. I'll give you instructions on how to find said reports, if need be.

 

[LiberalMedia]

The Democrats are attemtping to amend the Bill of Rights to take away freedom of speech. Why would anyone of any persuasion be in favor of that?

Everything in the proposed amendment is already law and has been for years, at both the federal and states levels. How would it "take away freedom of speech"?

Look who just had her ass handed to her.

Certainly not me, given that neither you nor anyone else has addressed my post. Instead of engaging in civil, on-topic discussion, you cowardly ran away, then come back two pages later to declare "HA, YOU LOSE!" without cause.

Cut the childish bullshit and back up your ridiculous claims.

 

[The Rabbi]

[


That's a really nice list and everything, but it doesn't address my request at all. Instead of just educating my fellow systyr in fymynysm, it looks like you'll get a lesson here as well. I will restate my request.

The financial reports of every Democratic Party entity (federal, state, and local) are freely available online. Find one showing unions donating millions to any level of the Democratic Party, and find the one where Bill Maher "donated a MILLION dollars" to them as well. Link to them here so everyone can see it.

I want the reports. Not second- or third-hand sources that say "hurr durr dey b donatin yo," but rather primary resource documents since they're already freely available to the public. I'll give you instructions on how to find said reports, if need be.

See, the issue is you have no credibility here. Obama isn't hosting $30,000 a plate dinners to raise money for the GOP. Nor is he doing it among the hair dressers and secretaries of the world.
Face it, you're a fake and a sock and no one believes you're anything but a bored frat boy in Alabama trying to discredit left wing feminists.

The Democrats are attemtping to amend the Bill of Rights to take away freedom of speech. Why would anyone of any persuasion be in favor of that?

Everything in the proposed amendment is already law and has been for years, at both the federal and states levels. How would it "take away freedom of speech"?

Look who just had her ass handed to her.

Certainly not me, given that neither you nor anyone else has addressed my post. Instead of engaging in civil, on-topic discussion, you cowardly ran away, then come back two pages later to declare "HA, YOU LOSE!" without cause.

Cut the childish bullshit and back up your ridiculous claims.

The claims have been backed up for anyone with two functioning brain cells. Democrats are the party of the unions, the trial lawyers and Wall Street. This is obvious. Your claims are absurd on their face.

 

[Stephanie]

the people better wake up in this country and see what party is trying to take YOUR RIGHTS away

SNIP:
Democrats’ Push to Criminalize Dissent
Harry Reid wants to gut the only thing stopping federal authorities from suffocating free speech.
By Kevin D. Williamson

• About Author
• 
  
  

(Drew Angerer/Getty Images)


Comments
318

​

Kevin D. Williamson
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Dissent is the lowest form of crime. If you are a drone in the hive of the Left, it is possible — easy, in fact — to believe both of those things at the same time.

Free speech just won an important victory in a federal courtroom, though it is shameful that the case ever even had to go to court. Ohio had enacted a plainly unconstitutional law that empowered a government panel to determine whether criticisms offered in political advertisements were sufficiently true to be permitted in the public discourse.

Those who have followed the IRS scandal, the Travis County, Texas, prosecutorial scandals, or Harry Reid’s recent effort to repeal the First Amendment will not be surprised that this measure was used as a political weapon against a conservative group, in this case the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List.

SBA List criticized a Democratic House member for having voted for the so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA), noting that the law will implicate American taxpayers in the funding of abortions, an entanglement previously minimized through measures such as the Hyde Amendment. Despite the fact that the ACA regime would, among other things, permit federal subsidies for abortion-funding insurance plans, the Ohio Inquisition ruled the ad impermissible, and banned it.

So much for free speech.

Fortunately, an Obama appointee whose ability to read the letter of the law had not been utterly drummed out of him ruled that the Ohio Inquisition obviously violated longstanding free-speech protections, the First Amendment notable among them. Last week, a similar case in Minnesota came to a similar conclusion.
Which is why Harry Reid wants to repeal the First Amendment.

Democrats pushing the measure to repeal free speech pretend that it is a campaign-finance measure, but the only criteria it establishes for Congress to ban an advertisement — or a book, or a film, or a television show, or a magazine — is that money is expended in an attempt to influence a political outcome.

Under those rules, the Ohio Inquisition’s successful move to ban billboards critical of an embattled Democratic congressman would have been totally acceptable under the provisions of a gutted First Amendment.

ALL of it here:
Democrats Push to Criminalize Dissent National Review Online

 

[LiberalMedia]

That's a really nice list and everything, but it doesn't address my request at all. Instead of just educating my fellow systyr in fymynysm, it looks like you'll get a lesson here as well. I will restate my request.

The financial reports of every Democratic Party entity (federal, state, and local) are freely available online. Find one showing unions donating millions to any level of the Democratic Party, and find the one where Bill Maher "donated a MILLION dollars" to them as well. Link to them here so everyone can see it.

I want the reports. Not second- or third-hand sources that say "hurr durr dey b donatin yo," but rather primary resource documents since they're already freely available to the public. I'll give you instructions on how to find said reports, if need be.

See, the issue is you have no credibility here. Obama isn't hosting $30,000 a plate dinners to raise money for the GOP. Nor is he doing it among the hair dressers and secretaries of the world.

Then you should be able to show where the money is coming from by doing some research. You should be able to tell me exactly who paid $30,000, on what date, where they live, and what their job title or employer's name is--because every single one of those things is required by law to be reported by the political committee receiving the money, and those reports are released to the public immediately upon their receipt by the relevant elections agency. You, thus far, have not posted any data from primary sources proving that unions are directly donating to the Democratic Party, whereas I have cited multiple donations from the DNC's latest financial report. You, Rabbi, are the one without credibility, because you are the one without any evidence at all to back up your claims--other than, of course, other "I refuse to do any research at all ever" idiots in the ignorant-by-choice circlejerk.

The Democrats are attemtping to amend the Bill of Rights to take away freedom of speech. Why would anyone of any persuasion be in favor of that?

Everything in the proposed amendment is already law and has been for years, at both the federal and states levels. How would it "take away freedom of speech"?

Look who just had her ass handed to her.

Certainly not me, given that neither you nor anyone else has addressed my post. Instead of engaging in civil, on-topic discussion, you cowardly ran away, then come back two pages later to declare "HA, YOU LOSE!" without cause.

Cut the childish bullshit and back up your ridiculous claims.

The claims have been backed up for anyone with two functioning brain cells. Democrats are the party of the unions, the trial lawyers and Wall Street. This is obvious. Your claims are absurd on their face.

Read, Rabbi. This is a different claim I'm asking you to back up. Because you're clearly too lazy or easily confused to look up a few lines, I'll repost your original claim:

The Democrats are attemtping to amend the Bill of Rights to take away freedom of speech.

Then I responded with:

Everything in the proposed amendment is already law and has been for years, at both the federal and states levels. How would it "take away freedom of speech"?

You have yet to offer any argument or explanation in defense of your completely unfounded claim that such an amendment would "take away freedom of speech." I suspect this is because you absolutely refuse to do your own research and have a complete lack of knowledge of law and politics, and you lifted this talking point from Ted Cruz who has charged that the proposed amendment is an attempt to "repeal the First Amendment." This claim is patently untrue, and anyone who knows literally anything about campaign finance law realizes this. I would really, really appreciate it if you could prove my suspicions wrong and demonstrate your ability and willingness to learn about topics you clearly don't know much, if anything, about.

So, again, how would the proposed amendment "take away freedom of speech," especially considering that everything in it is currently law and has been for years?

 

[LiberalMedia]

the people better wake up in this country and see what party is trying to take YOUR RIGHTS away

Read your stupid article, conservatard.

Ohio had enacted a ... law that empowered a government panel to determine whether criticisms offered in political advertisements wer

e sufficiently true to be permitted in the public discourse.

SBA List criticized a Democratic House member for having voted for the so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA), noting that the law will implicate American taxpayers in the funding of abortions...the Ohio Inquisition ruled the ad impermissible, and banned it.

The law in question was against lying in political ads. The law banned the act of lying to get someone elected to public office.

I'd think a conservatard would be in favor of banning blatantly untrue political ads--I mean, don't Christ-stains or whatever you are dislike lying?--but I guess loyalty to a name brand trumps any kind of morals and values that you claim to hold.

If this is not the case, I'd love to see you explain yourself here because you're coming across as a massive hypocrite, systyr.

 

[jasonnfree]

After all these posts, nothing changes. Republicans couldn't survive without money buying influence. They will never allow taxpayer only funded elections even if unions weren't allowed to donate. This would effectively negate Citizens United, God's gift to the republicans.

 

[LiberalMedia]

They will never allow taxpayer only funded elections

This is a novel idea. Expound upon it, if you would. How would a taxpayer-only election funding scheme work, exactly? What limitations and regulations would be in place?

 

[The Rabbi]

That's a really nice list and everything, but it doesn't address my request at all. Instead of just educating my fellow systyr in fymynysm, it looks like you'll get a lesson here as well. I will restate my request.

The financial reports of every Democratic Party entity (federal, state, and local) are freely available online. Find one showing unions donating millions to any level of the Democratic Party, and find the one where Bill Maher "donated a MILLION dollars" to them as well. Link to them here so everyone can see it.

I want the reports. Not second- or third-hand sources that say "hurr durr dey b donatin yo," but rather primary resource documents since they're already freely available to the public. I'll give you instructions on how to find said reports, if need be.

See, the issue is you have no credibility here. Obama isn't hosting $30,000 a plate dinners to raise money for the GOP. Nor is he doing it among the hair dressers and secretaries of the world.

Then you should be able to show where the money is coming from by doing some research. You should be able to tell me exactly who paid $30,000, on what date, where they live, and what their job title or employer's name is--because every single one of those things is required by law to be reported by the political committee receiving the money, and those reports are released to the public immediately upon their receipt by the relevant elections agency. You, thus far, have not posted any data from primary sources proving that unions are directly donating to the Democratic Party, whereas I have cited multiple donations from the DNC's latest financial report. You, Rabbi, are the one without credibility, because you are the one without any evidence at all to back up your claims--other than, of course, other "I refuse to do any research at all ever" idiots in the ignorant-by-choice circlejerk.

I am sure you will be able to find this info if you search enough. Let us know what you find.
But dont you think it's odd that the press reports Obama attends $30k/plate dinners when he's really doing something else?
Again, your credibility is shredded. You have no right to ask fro proof of anything.

 

[LiberalMedia]

That's a really nice list and everything, but it doesn't address my request at all. Instead of just educating my fellow systyr in fymynysm, it looks like you'll get a lesson here as well. I will restate my request.

The financial reports of every Democratic Party entity (federal, state, and local) are freely available online. Find one showing unions donating millions to any level of the Democratic Party, and find the one where Bill Maher "donated a MILLION dollars" to them as well. Link to them here so everyone can see it.

I want the reports. Not second- or third-hand sources that say "hurr durr dey b donatin yo," but rather primary resource documents since they're already freely available to the public. I'll give you instructions on how to find said reports, if need be.

See, the issue is you have no credibility here. Obama isn't hosting $30,000 a plate dinners to raise money for the GOP. Nor is he doing it among the hair dressers and secretaries of the world.

Then you should be able to show where the money is coming from by doing some research. You should be able to tell me exactly who paid $30,000, on what date, where they live, and what their job title or employer's name is--because every single one of those things is required by law to be reported by the political committee receiving the money, and those reports are released to the public immediately upon their receipt by the relevant elections agency. You, thus far, have not posted any data from primary sources proving that unions are directly donating to the Democratic Party, whereas I have cited multiple donations from the DNC's latest financial report. You, Rabbi, are the one without credibility, because you are the one without any evidence at all to back up your claims--other than, of course, other "I refuse to do any research at all ever" idiots in the ignorant-by-choice circlejerk.

I am sure you will be able to find this info if you search enough. Let us know what you find.

I'm not doing your research for you. I can tell you where to look and how to look for this information, but I am not going to spoon-feed you by having both sides of this discussion. Grow up and do your own research to substantiate your own baseless claims, or I will be forced to accept your incessant whining and attempts at topic changing as an admission of your prolific lying about the finances of the Democratic Party.

But dont you think it's odd that the press reports Obama attends $30k/plate dinners when he's really doing something else?

What is he doing? I'll need citations for your answer.

Again, your credibility is shredded. You have no right to ask fro proof of anything.

The very same right-wing lunatic that was just complaining about how "dem ebil Democrats" were going to kill free speech is now doing exactly that. What a shocker.

 

[regent]

and corporations are people....

Can you cite the specific ruling that said corporations are people?

Of course corporations are people, do they not bleed when hurt, suffer with headaches, get abortions, and spend gobs of money to get their candidates elected? In fact, it was that gobs of money that helped the Courts decide corporations were people. Bless gobs of money, and Courts that recognize the importance of gobs of money.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's a really nice list and everything, but it doesn't address my request at all. Instead of just educating my fellow systyr in fymynysm, it looks like you'll get a lesson here as well. I will restate my request.

The financial reports of every Democratic Party entity (federal, state, and local) are freely available online. Find one showing unions donating millions to any level of the Democratic Party, and find the one where Bill Maher "donated a MILLION dollars" to them as well. Link to them here so everyone can see it.

I want the reports. Not second- or third-hand sources that say "hurr durr dey b donatin yo," but rather primary resource documents since they're already freely available to the public. I'll give you instructions on how to find said reports, if need be.

See, the issue is you have no credibility here. Obama isn't hosting $30,000 a plate dinners to raise money for the GOP. Nor is he doing it among the hair dressers and secretaries of the world.

Then you should be able to show where the money is coming from by doing some research. You should be able to tell me exactly who paid $30,000, on what date, where they live, and what their job title or employer's name is--because every single one of those things is required by law to be reported by the political committee receiving the money, and those reports are released to the public immediately upon their receipt by the relevant elections agency. You, thus far, have not posted any data from primary sources proving that unions are directly donating to the Democratic Party, whereas I have cited multiple donations from the DNC's latest financial report. You, Rabbi, are the one without credibility, because you are the one without any evidence at all to back up your claims--other than, of course, other "I refuse to do any research at all ever" idiots in the ignorant-by-choice circlejerk.

I am sure you will be able to find this info if you search enough. Let us know what you find.

I'm not doing your research for you. I can tell you where to look and how to look for this information, but I am not going to spoon-feed you by having both sides of this discussion. Grow up and do your own research to substantiate your own baseless claims, or I will be forced to accept your incessant whining and attempts at topic changing as an admission of your prolific lying about the finances of the Democratic Party.

Since you are the one demanding this information you should be the one doing the research. Capeche?

 

[LiberalMedia]

That's a really nice list and everything, but it doesn't address my request at all. Instead of just educating my fellow systyr in fymynysm, it looks like you'll get a lesson here as well. I will restate my request.

The financial reports of every Democratic Party entity (federal, state, and local) are freely available online. Find one showing unions donating millions to any level of the Democratic Party, and find the one where Bill Maher "donated a MILLION dollars" to them as well. Link to them here so everyone can see it.

I want the reports. Not second- or third-hand sources that say "hurr durr dey b donatin yo," but rather primary resource documents since they're already freely available to the public. I'll give you instructions on how to find said reports, if need be.

See, the issue is you have no credibility here. Obama isn't hosting $30,000 a plate dinners to raise money for the GOP. Nor is he doing it among the hair dressers and secretaries of the world.

Then you should be able to show where the money is coming from by doing some research. You should be able to tell me exactly who paid $30,000, on what date, where they live, and what their job title or employer's name is--because every single one of those things is required by law to be reported by the political committee receiving the money, and those reports are released to the public immediately upon their receipt by the relevant elections agency. You, thus far, have not posted any data from primary sources proving that unions are directly donating to the Democratic Party, whereas I have cited multiple donations from the DNC's latest financial report. You, Rabbi, are the one without credibility, because you are the one without any evidence at all to back up your claims--other than, of course, other "I refuse to do any research at all ever" idiots in the ignorant-by-choice circlejerk.

I am sure you will be able to find this info if you search enough. Let us know what you find.

I'm not doing your research for you. I can tell you where to look and how to look for this information, but I am not going to spoon-feed you by having both sides of this discussion. Grow up and do your own research to substantiate your own baseless claims, or I will be forced to accept your incessant whining and attempts at topic changing as an admission of your prolific lying about the finances of the Democratic Party.

Since you are the one demanding this information you should be the one doing the research. Capeche?

You are the one making completely unfounded claims. I am asking you to substantiate them. You should be doing your own research, not me.

Further, by your prompt dropping of the "hurr Democrats gonna take away free speech" matter, I'm assuming that you are conceding that the proposed amendment would in fact NOT take away the freedom of speech. If this is incorrect, please correct me with the evidence you may have found to support your earlier position.

 

[HenryBHough]

Misleading threat title.

Should have simply said:

Democrats Fail
AGAIN​

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Remember to tell President Hillary Clinton that....