I believe in campagin finance reform, do you?

[saveliberty]

I support campaign finance reform.
Specifically I support repealing the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill. I support unlimited contributions by anyone to any candidate, with the caveat that it must all be made public in a very limited amount of time (anybody's seen the list of BHO contributors btw? Just asking). Limiting contributions has been a disaster. It has made it harder to attract good candidates and has given incumbents a decided edge.

Why is it than any bill the rightwing disagrees with is called unconstitutional, yet I don't see them trying to challenge them in court? No balls? or just no case?

I can't just take a Constitutional question to the Supreme Court. There has to be a case that is lost, appealed, ACCEPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT for reviewed and then a ruling. Most people do not have the financial resources to take a case that far.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I support campaign finance reform.
Specifically I support repealing the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill. I support unlimited contributions by anyone to any candidate, with the caveat that it must all be made public in a very limited amount of time (anybody's seen the list of BHO contributors btw? Just asking). Limiting contributions has been a disaster. It has made it harder to attract good candidates and has given incumbents a decided edge.

Why is it than any bill the rightwing disagrees with is called unconstitutional, yet I don't see them trying to challenge them in court? No balls? or just no case?

I can't just take a Constitutional question to the Supreme Court. There has to be a case that is lost, appealed, ACCEPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT for reviewed and then a ruling. Most people do not have the financial resources to take a case that far.

Really? The SC has issued a Writ of Certiorari after receiving cert petitions written in pencil by prisoners, not represented by council. I ask again, what might be the consequences of a lassie faire policy on campaign / political contributions?
It is a serous question, not one to be dismissed by with a wink and a snear by someone I consider to be a fool.

 

[saveliberty]

Why is it than any bill the rightwing disagrees with is called unconstitutional, yet I don't see them trying to challenge them in court? No balls? or just no case?

I can't just take a Constitutional question to the Supreme Court. There has to be a case that is lost, appealed, ACCEPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT for reviewed and then a ruling. Most people do not have the financial resources to take a case that far.

Really? The SC has issued a Writ of Certiorari after receiving cert petitions written in pencil by prisoners, not represented by council. I ask again, what might be the consequences of a lassie faire policy on campaign / political contributions?
It is a serous question, not one to be dismissed by with a wink and a snear by someone I consider to be a fool.

Gee, I think you should know enough what was wrong with your statement. Your the fool who confused bribes with campaign reform. You also are the dolt who can't see your example was of someone convicted of a crime. You know, the whole you have to lose your case and then lose the appeal in order to get to the Supreme Court? Confused your terms, gave bad examples and then insulted as your last line of defense.

Dispite not meriting my consideration, here's an idea. The Constitution does protect an individual's right to contribute to a political campaign. I think you could make a case that a corporation does not have the same standing. Eliminate corporate giving.

 

[Oddball]

Really? The SC has issued a Writ of Certiorari after receiving cert petitions written in pencil by prisoners, not represented by council. I ask again, what might be the consequences of a lassie faire policy on campaign / political contributions?
It is a serous question, not one to be dismissed by with a wink and a snear by someone I consider to be a fool.

That's "laissez-faire", pisswillie.

For an asshelmet who looks down his nose at the syntax of others, your spelling skills (let alone your horridly inept invocations of strawmen) leave quite a bit to be desired.

Speaking of fools.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I can't just take a Constitutional question to the Supreme Court. There has to be a case that is lost, appealed, ACCEPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT for reviewed and then a ruling. Most people do not have the financial resources to take a case that far.

Really? The SC has issued a Writ of Certiorari after receiving cert petitions written in pencil by prisoners, not represented by council. I ask again, what might be the consequences of a lassie faire policy on campaign / political contributions?
It is a serous question, not one to be dismissed by with a wink and a snear by someone I consider to be a fool.

Gee, I think you should know enough what was wrong with your statement. Your the fool who confused bribes with campaign reform. You also are the dolt who can't see your example was of someone convicted of a crime. You know, the whole you have to lose your case and then lose the appeal in order to get to the Supreme Court? Confused your terms, gave bad examples and then insulted as your last line of defense.

Dispite not meriting my consideration, here's an idea. The Constitution does protect an individual's right to contribute to a political campaign. I think you could make a case that a corporation does not have the same standing. Eliminate corporate giving.

I bite my tongue and respond. Everything you have posted is wrong; I cannot be more polite.

 

[Oddball]

Gee, I think you should know enough what was wrong with your statement. Your the fool who confused bribes with campaign reform. You also are the dolt who can't see your example was of someone convicted of a crime. You know, the whole you have to lose your case and then lose the appeal in order to get to the Supreme Court? Confused your terms, gave bad examples and then insulted as your last line of defense.

Dispite not meriting my consideration, here's an idea. The Constitution does protect an individual's right to contribute to a political campaign. I think you could make a case that a corporation does not have the same standing. Eliminate corporate giving.

Unfortunately, another really bad SCOTUS ruling and application of the 14th Amendment, in Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific, does give corporations the same standing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Really? The SC has issued a Writ of Certiorari after receiving cert petitions written in pencil by prisoners, not represented by council. I ask again, what might be the consequences of a lassie faire policy on campaign / political contributions?
It is a serous question, not one to be dismissed by with a wink and a snear by someone I consider to be a fool.

That's "laissez-faire", pisswillie.

For an asshelmet who looks down his nose at the syntax of others, your spelling skills (let alone your horridly inept invocations of strawmen) leave quite a bit to be desired.

Speaking of fools.

Nice job 'dude', you got me. I left off the 'Z', you must be real proud. I suppose I should seek (hypno) therapy, I sooooo upset. Oooops, I left of the 'm
Do you ever wonder why I believe you're (not 'your') a brick or two short of a load?

 

[Polk]

Specifically I support repealing the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill. I support unlimited contributions by anyone to any candidate, with the caveat that it must all be made public in a very limited amount of time (anybody's seen the list of BHO contributors btw? Just asking). Limiting contributions has been a disaster. It has made it harder to attract good candidates and has given incumbents a decided edge.

So you support the best democracy money can buy, eh?

Also, if you haven't seen a list, it's because you haven't taken the time to go to the FEC homepage.

CANDIDATE (P80003338) SUMMARY REPORTS - 2007-2008 CYCLE

 

[Polk]

Rarely. It's usually an assault on the First Amendment.

I really hope your post was sarcastic.

I take the First Amendment very seriously. You obviously do not. However, you're a troll so I guess it's all fun and games to you. Carry on.

Money isn't speech.

 

[Oddball]

Nice job 'dude', you got me. I left off the 'Z', you must be real proud. I suppose I should seek (hypno) therapy, I sooooo upset. Oooops, I left of the 'm
Do you ever wonder why I believe you're (not 'your') a brick or two short of a load?

You spelled it almost completely wrong, pisswillie....As equally flawed and wrong as your pedantic thread premise.

You are now free to continue cravenly claiming victory for yourself, psycho.

 

[Polk]

You spelled it almost completely wrong, pisswillie.

You are now free to continue cravenly claiming victory for yourself, psycho.

Sniping at the guy over a typo? Really?

 

[Oddball]

He wants to sipe at others for their syntax, he can take a little return fire.

 

[Polk]

You spelled it almost completely wrong, pisswillie.

You are now free to continue cravenly claiming victory for yourself, psycho.

Sniping at the guy over a typo? Really?

He wants to sipe at others for their syntax, he can take a little return fire.

Well, if he's been doing it, then fair enough. Just seems a little petty to me.

 

[Oddball]

It is petty...That's pretty much the point.

But the OP is nothing if not petty as hell.

 

[The Rabbi]

Specifically I support repealing the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill. I support unlimited contributions by anyone to any candidate, with the caveat that it must all be made public in a very limited amount of time (anybody's seen the list of BHO contributors btw? Just asking). Limiting contributions has been a disaster. It has made it harder to attract good candidates and has given incumbents a decided edge.

So you support the best democracy money can buy, eh?

Also, if you haven't seen a list, it's because you haven't taken the time to go to the FEC homepage.

CANDIDATE (P80003338) SUMMARY REPORTS - 2007-2008 CYCLE

As opposed to?
Look, money is always going to be a factor in elections. Whether the incumbent gets free coverage from the lame stream media or someone uses his personal fortune it is the same.
Wouldn't you rather have open accesss than have a bunch of plutocrats like Bloomberg and Kerry buying their way into office?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nice job 'dude', you got me. I left off the 'Z', you must be real proud. I suppose I should seek (hypno) therapy, I sooooo upset. Oooops, I left of the 'm
Do you ever wonder why I believe you're (not 'your') a brick or two short of a load?

You spelled it almost completely wrong, pisswillie....As equally flawed and wrong as your pedantic thread premise.

You are now free to continue cravenly claiming victory for yourself, psycho.

Thank you for allowing me such freedom.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Hey 'dude', I (uh, I'm) serious, did you get the money-backed guarantee?

Online Hypnotherapy Degrees | SPIKE

I wonder, is their any prerequisite to your training, beyond an eligibiltiy to take the GED?

 

[Polk]

Specifically I support repealing the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill. I support unlimited contributions by anyone to any candidate, with the caveat that it must all be made public in a very limited amount of time (anybody's seen the list of BHO contributors btw? Just asking). Limiting contributions has been a disaster. It has made it harder to attract good candidates and has given incumbents a decided edge.

So you support the best democracy money can buy, eh?

Also, if you haven't seen a list, it's because you haven't taken the time to go to the FEC homepage.

CANDIDATE (P80003338) SUMMARY REPORTS - 2007-2008 CYCLE

As opposed to?
Look, money is always going to be a factor in elections. Whether the incumbent gets free coverage from the lame stream media or someone uses his personal fortune it is the same.
Wouldn't you rather have open accesss than have a bunch of plutocrats like Bloomberg and Kerry buying their way into office?

One would think that, at least in principle, we should focus on electing the best candidates, not the candidates which can most effectively whore themselves out for campaign cash.

Also, want to talk about plutocrats? Add Darrell Issa and Vernon Buchanan to your list.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So you support the best democracy money can buy, eh?

Also, if you haven't seen a list, it's because you haven't taken the time to go to the FEC homepage.

CANDIDATE (P80003338) SUMMARY REPORTS - 2007-2008 CYCLE

As opposed to?
Look, money is always going to be a factor in elections. Whether the incumbent gets free coverage from the lame stream media or someone uses his personal fortune it is the same.
Wouldn't you rather have open accesss than have a bunch of plutocrats like Bloomberg and Kerry buying their way into office?

One would think that, at least in principle, we should focus on electing the best candidates, not the candidates which can most effectively whore themselves out for campaign cash.

Also, want to talk about plutocrats? Add Darrell Issa and Vernon Buchanan to your list.

This is a representative Republic. Taking steps to BLOCK the people from campaigning for the candidate of their choice defeats the very concept.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"This is a representative Republic. Taking steps to BLOCK the people from campaigning for the candidate of their choice defeats the very concept."

We are a democratic republic; "representative Republic" is redundant.
In the ideal the people will vote for the candidate who will best represent their intererests.
Voters today are bombarded by the marketing of a candidate, and money provides the vehicle for greater advantage.
Anyone may speak out and campaign for a candidate, but those who can do so by purchasing hours of 30-second commercials, mostly attacking their opponent, does not serve a democratic republic well.
But, the campaign donation issue is only one part of a greater evil, and that is the ability of wealth to lobby not with ideas, but with bribes. Jobs for the kids or wife/husband, future jobs for the pol down the road; low interest/closing costs on a nice 'summer' home, purchased at below market costs; a round of golf in Scotland, tickets to the World Series, etc. etc.
If I learned that someone in my agency had accepted anything from anyone related to an investigation they would have been put on the beach and the matter turned over for an internal investigation.
This thead has provided more evidence that those of the far right are not democrats or republican (small 'd' is significant) as they hold onto an ideology alien to our Constitution and the ideals embodied in its Preamble. Liberty and justice are simply words to them, unless their liberty is infringed or they are denied justice.