Flaylo
Handsome Devil
Senate Democrats propose to amend the Constitution to keep corporate money out of campaigns - Yahoo! News
Why not? I think its a great idea.
Why not? I think its a great idea.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Senate Democrats propose to amend the Constitution to keep corporate money out
- Thread starter Flaylo
- Start date
It would be a great idea to keep special interest money out of campaigns (ALL interest money - corporate and "non-profit")
But that amendment doesn't do that, and I don't know how to do it either.
That amendment allows Congress to regulate themselves. And we all know how well that works.
But that amendment doesn't do that, and I don't know how to do it either.
That amendment allows Congress to regulate themselves. And we all know how well that works.
BOBO
The Magnificent!
...bridge in North Korea to sell ya! Like the senate, lower house & oval office is owned by the corps!!!
Senate Democrats propose to amend the Constitution to keep corporate money out of campaigns - Yahoo! News
Why not? I think its a great idea.
This is the thorniest problem facing our nation.
Getting money out of campaigns is something that we can do, but we cannot get money out of the POLITCAL process entirely.
ASsume that we limit the amount that candidates can spend. That is, doable.
But can we also limit the amount of money spent on propaganda that does not specifically support any candidate?
No we cannot. In that case I have to agree with the SCOTUS that money = FREE SPEECH.
Which means that we would have candidates who do not spend a lot on advertising, but their supporters who are not directly associated with the campaigns COULD.
See the problem?
Most of the candidates expenses would be outsourced to "citizens groups" who would simply advance that candidate arguments without specifically mentioning that candidate. (we already see quite a bit of that, now)
And That would still be perfectly legal.
Getting money out of campaigns is something that we can do, but we cannot get money out of the POLITCAL process entirely.
ASsume that we limit the amount that candidates can spend. That is, doable.
But can we also limit the amount of money spent on propaganda that does not specifically support any candidate?
No we cannot. In that case I have to agree with the SCOTUS that money = FREE SPEECH.
Which means that we would have candidates who do not spend a lot on advertising, but their supporters who are not directly associated with the campaigns COULD.
See the problem?
Most of the candidates expenses would be outsourced to "citizens groups" who would simply advance that candidate arguments without specifically mentioning that candidate. (we already see quite a bit of that, now)
And That would still be perfectly legal.
Flaylo
Handsome Devil
- Thread starter
- #5
I agree with you but I would like to see that that money doesn't influence poilitical decisions that could hurt the American people. By directly funding campaigns this way corporate influence is running America, those with no money are unfairly left out from influencing anything.
I'm not saying that putting K street out of business wouldn't help.
What I am saying is that it won't completely solve the problem.
It's a good start.
I agree but there has to be a next step, nothing will change my view that politicians are bought off cows.
Well of course they are, so we cannot debate that issue.
But getting money out of politics isn't, I suspect, really entirely possible.
I'd be satisfied if we got it out of campaigning, really.
Because the need for massive campaaign finance for the elction itself is what makes our system so damned corrupt.
teapartysamurai
Gold Member
- Mar 27, 2010
- 20,056
- 2,562
- 290
This is stupid.
You can't get money out of politics. Politics runs on money.
The best thing you can do is get rid of all the regulation, as it's just regulation against free speech, and PUBLISH the lists of all the donors.
THAT NO POLITICIAN WANTS TO DO.
You want real accountability, make that the law!
You can't get money out of politics. Politics runs on money.
The best thing you can do is get rid of all the regulation, as it's just regulation against free speech, and PUBLISH the lists of all the donors.
THAT NO POLITICIAN WANTS TO DO.
You want real accountability, make that the law!
- Apr 1, 2011
- 169,942
- 47,187
- 2,180
Senate Democrats propose to amend the Constitution to keep corporate money out of campaigns - Yahoo! News
Why not? I think its a great idea.
Congress can already regulate political donations. What they can't do is regulate political speech, and that's what the Democrats want to do. This bill is pure fascism.
teapartysamurai
Gold Member
- Mar 27, 2010
- 20,056
- 2,562
- 290
Senate Democrats propose to amend the Constitution to keep corporate money out of campaigns - Yahoo! News
Why not? I think its a great idea.
Congress can already regulate political donations. What they can't do is regulate political speech, and that's what the Democrats want to do. This bill is pure fascism.
Of course it is.
What they want to do is keep people from donating to Republicans.
Pretty darn obvious.
- Apr 1, 2011
- 169,942
- 47,187
- 2,180
I agree with you but I would like to see that that money doesn't influence poilitical decisions that could hurt the American people. By directly funding campaigns this way corporate influence is running America, those with no money are unfairly left out from influencing anything.
It's regulation of speech - fascism, in other words. Only a fascist would defend it.
- Apr 1, 2011
- 169,942
- 47,187
- 2,180
I agree but there has to be a next step, nothing will change my view that politicians are bought off cows.
Only the terminally gullible have ever doubted that notion. However, you're equally gullible if you think allowing government to regulate speech is a good idea.
How do we get good people in office who care more about all of America and not just their pocketbook or ideology is the hard problem. The swift boat campaign was one of the worst I can remember and you cannot stop it, or consider Willie Horton and Dukakis. Smear is sometimes the name of the game and money is required.
Anyone see this piece on the Daily Show? Funny but telling of corporate control in Congress. How a Bill Doesn't Become a Law - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 10/31/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
"Not only does there seem to be widespread social fragmentation and disillusionment with democracy in the United States, but the possibility of reversing this sense of alienation appears to many of us to be already lost. Any democratic president who wants to institute the desperately needed reforms in health, welfare and the environment faces one of two options. He can stick by his reform program and suffer a loss of public confidence through orchestrated campaigns to publicly portray him as 'too liberal' and ineffectual (the Carter image) or too indecisive or sexually indiscreet (the Clinton image). Alternatively, a reforming democratic president can move further to the Right, forget his promises and become part of the propaganda campaign. Given the history of democratic propaganda in the United States, some of us doubt that another Roosevelt or New Deal is possible. The political system is now so attuned to business interests that this kind of reformer could no longer institute the substantial health, welfare, education, environmental and employment reforms the country needs." Andrew Lohrey, Introduction, Alex Carey "Taking the Risk Out of Democracy"
Anyone see this piece on the Daily Show? Funny but telling of corporate control in Congress. How a Bill Doesn't Become a Law - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 10/31/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
"Not only does there seem to be widespread social fragmentation and disillusionment with democracy in the United States, but the possibility of reversing this sense of alienation appears to many of us to be already lost. Any democratic president who wants to institute the desperately needed reforms in health, welfare and the environment faces one of two options. He can stick by his reform program and suffer a loss of public confidence through orchestrated campaigns to publicly portray him as 'too liberal' and ineffectual (the Carter image) or too indecisive or sexually indiscreet (the Clinton image). Alternatively, a reforming democratic president can move further to the Right, forget his promises and become part of the propaganda campaign. Given the history of democratic propaganda in the United States, some of us doubt that another Roosevelt or New Deal is possible. The political system is now so attuned to business interests that this kind of reformer could no longer institute the substantial health, welfare, education, environmental and employment reforms the country needs." Andrew Lohrey, Introduction, Alex Carey "Taking the Risk Out of Democracy"
Two Thumbs
Platinum Member
Senate Democrats propose to amend the Constitution to keep corporate money out of campaigns - Yahoo! News
Why not? I think its a great idea.
Would you also consider it a great idea if it included the unions?
California Girl
Rookie
- Oct 8, 2009
- 50,337
- 10,058
- 0
- Banned
- #16
How the hell anyone can say it's a 'great idea' when they clearly haven't read the damned bill is beyond me. It might be an idea if people learned to investigate what they're supporting before they support it. The OP is a dumbass.
California Girl
Rookie
- Oct 8, 2009
- 50,337
- 10,058
- 0
- Banned
- #17
It would be a great idea to keep special interest money out of campaigns (ALL interest money - corporate and "non-profit")
But that amendment doesn't do that, and I don't know how to do it either.
That amendment allows Congress to regulate themselves. And we all know how well that works.
Good point. But that won't stop the partisan borg from thinking it's a 'great idea'. Most of them aren't capable of reading a bill - they prefer to get their 'opinion' from equally partisan media.
AmericanFirst
Gold Member
- Dec 17, 2009
- 12,204
- 1,062
- 175
I would go along with that if they also vote to keep socialists like soros money out.Senate Democrats propose to amend the Constitution to keep corporate money out of campaigns - Yahoo! News
Why not? I think its a great idea.
Senate Democrats propose to amend the Constitution to keep corporate money out of campaigns - Yahoo! News
Why not? I think its a great idea.
Would you also consider it a great idea if it included the unions?
Yes.
Big money should have no place in politics. No matter where it is coming from.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 185
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 227
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 251
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 199
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 46
- Replies
- 93
- Views
- 317
- Replies
- 78
- Views
- 506
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8018
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 466
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-