Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

[Flaylo]

Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Sounds prejudicial and probably Unconstitutional. This will have to be studied and debated much more. Sometimes ideas that are popular are also Unconstitutional. They'll have to go slow on this one.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

Interesting idea. I am unsure if I'd support it in practice, but....

Sounds prejudicial and probably Unconstitutional. This will have to be studied and debated much more. Sometimes ideas that are popular are also Unconstitutional. They'll have to go slow on this one.

...you get nutjobs like the above small-minded poster who have a poor understanding of constitutional principles and prerogatives.

Any constitutional amendment that restricted corporate monies and not individual monies would most likely pass any litmus test.

The only thing that says corporations are equal to individuals is conservative rulings. The founders, the framers, and the people who ratified the US Constitution understood corporations. They never dreamed of giving corporations an equal footing to individuals.

Any amendment should be constitution just on the face of it, but supporting an amendment should always involve careful and deliberate considerations of all options.

 

[Flaylo]

Sounds prejudicial and probably Unconstitutional. This will have to be studied and debated much more. Sometimes ideas that are popular are also Unconstitutional. They'll have to go slow on this one.

Where do these rightwing trollbots come from? I thought the shat that Rush Limbaugh squeezes out into the toilet gets flushed, not making posts on USMB.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sounds prejudicial and probably Unconstitutional. This will have to be studied and debated much more. Sometimes ideas that are popular are also Unconstitutional. They'll have to go slow on this one.

Where do these rightwing trollbots come from? I thought the shat that Rush Limbaugh squeezes out into the toilet gets flushed, not making posts on USMB.

lib-caca is a house idiot.

pay no attention to the drooling idiot

 

[kyzr]

You mean "scat" like Soros?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You mean "scat" like Soros?

the right wing noise machine's latest boogy man.

 

[Revere]

Corporate donations to candidates are already capped.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the saddest thing is watching shills like http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/kyzr.html attempt to defend the indefensible with poor critical thinking skills.

The poor thing is kyzr attacked Soros as an individual, and only because it is a right wing world talking point, and not because kyzr has any principle to defend.

Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

Interesting idea. I am unsure if I'd support it in practice, but....

Sounds prejudicial and probably Unconstitutional. This will have to be studied and debated much more. Sometimes ideas that are popular are also Unconstitutional. They'll have to go slow on this one.

...you get nutjobs like the above small-minded poster who have a poor understanding of constitutional principles and prerogatives.

Any constitutional amendment that restricted corporate monies and not individual monies would most likely pass any litmus test.

The only thing that says corporations are equal to individuals is conservative rulings. The founders, the framers, and the people who ratified the US Constitution understood corporations. They never dreamed of giving corporations an equal footing to individuals.

Any amendment should be constitution just on the face of it, but supporting an amendment should always involve careful and deliberate considerations of all options.

You mean "scat" like Soros?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Corporate donations to candidates are already capped.

An amendment to ...

WASHINGTON - By a double-digit margin, voters want Congress to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United that allows unlimited corporate spending on elections, a new poll paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee has found. Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

-----------

try keeping up with the conversation.

 

[Revere]

Why should government be able to tell you how much advertising you can buy?

 

[mdn2000]

Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

What a lazy thread, no quote from the article, I guess you dont have time when its more important to start endless threads according to the Marxist/Liberal agenda.

I dont follow the link unless the person who links quotes the article.

After all, the article is irrelevant, its all about the topic title being seen in the forum index.

 

[The Infidel]

Sounds prejudicial and probably Unconstitutional. This will have to be studied and debated much more. Sometimes ideas that are popular are also Unconstitutional. They'll have to go slow on this one.

Where do these rightwing trollbots come from? I thought the shat that Rush Limbaugh squeezes out into the toilet gets flushed, not making posts on USMB.

lib-caca is a house idiot.

pay no attention to the drooling idiot

Neither one of you two dickheads have the intelect to debate Libo, so you just ridicule him.


Way to go

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why should government be able to tell you how much advertising you can buy?

If the US Constitution restricts corporations it will not affect me or you as individuals.

thanks for playing

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

What a lazy thread, no quote from the article, I guess you dont have time when its more important to start endless threads according to the Marxist/Liberal agenda.

I dont follow the link unless the person who links quotes the article.

After all, the article is irrelevant, its all about the topic title being seen in the forum index.

lazy?

The context is there. Look around at other threads that have a premise you may agree with. Stop feigning outrage.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Corporate donations to candidates are already capped.

An amendment to ...

WASHINGTON - By a double-digit margin, voters want Congress to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United that allows unlimited corporate spending on elections, a new poll paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee has found. Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

-----------

try keeping up with the conversation.

the saddest thing is watching shills like http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/kyzr.html attempt to defend the indefensible with poor critical thinking skills.

The poor thing is kyzr attacked Soros as an individual, and only because it is a right wing world talking point, and not because kyzr has any principle to defend.

Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

Interesting idea. I am unsure if I'd support it in practice, but....

Sounds prejudicial and probably Unconstitutional. This will have to be studied and debated much more. Sometimes ideas that are popular are also Unconstitutional. They'll have to go slow on this one.

...you get nutjobs like the above small-minded poster who have a poor understanding of constitutional principles and prerogatives.

Any constitutional amendment that restricted corporate monies and not individual monies would most likely pass any litmus test.

The only thing that says corporations are equal to individuals is conservative rulings. The founders, the framers, and the people who ratified the US Constitution understood corporations. They never dreamed of giving corporations an equal footing to individuals.

Any amendment should be constitution just on the face of it, but supporting an amendment should always involve careful and deliberate considerations of all options.

You mean "scat" like Soros?

where is the feigned outrage of the right when 'we the people' need it?

 

[Revere]

Why should I have less free speech depending on who I affiliate with, and if government doesn't like who i affiliate with?

 

[mdn2000]

Why should government be able to tell you how much advertising you can buy?

If the US Constitution restricts corporations it will not affect me or you as individuals.

thanks for playing

A corporation is made up of ordinary people, so we will ban speech, violating the constitution, destroying the rights of people who get defined by the media as a corporation.

No people who are a part of a corporation will be allowed to speak freely.

Would not be better to just restrict what they can say, as long as corporations speak positively would that not be better.

Lets say a candidate is a criminal and the corporation has information that indicates this, it is better that the individual citizens are allowed to speak, just restrict the speech to speaking positively of criminals, I mean candidates.

 

[kiwiman127]

I'd like to see all Big Money out of the election process, that includes unions too.
Of course as this thread is a fantasy, so I think I'll add even more.
I'd really love to see something where truth in advertising is applied, it was really bad this year. Particularly the attack ads. Half-truths or complete BS. I'm proposing this because America minds are such easy targets. Besides, what's wrong with honesty?
Finally, how about public financing only? That way whoever wins, doesn't owe favors to Big Money, they would only owe those who elected them, which is the orginal idea in the first place. And not only that, but we wouldn't have to see ad after ad after ad that are basically bullshit anyway!
Do I hear a "hell ya"?

 

[The Rabbi]

Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

Are you just a flack for the Huffpo? Most voters don't have a fucking clue what the Supreme Court held and what the ruling was all about. It is highly suspicious that they didn't show the actual poll because I'd love to see how it was worded. I'll bet "Do you support a constitutional amendment to prevent the Chinese and Iranians from buying U.S. elections?"