We need laws that criminalize the practice of Congress members accepting money

[Paulie]

actually, yes it would if the law prohibited those things.

personally, i'd prefer all money came out of politics. but you can't run a campaign without it. it either comes from corporations and all those little distasteful things that represent average people that you hate so much... or it gets paid for by government and we get rid of all money in politics.

i prefer the latter.

Then you're talking first amendment issues.

I'd rather see the graft and corruption of sitting politicians be addressed before I tell people their first amendment rights were null and void

i don't believe money is speech. and corporations were never intended to be considered people for purposes of the first amendment. they are a statutory creation and were considered as "reople" for the sole purpose of them having standing to be parties in law suits. clarence thomas and antonin scalia disagree. interestingly so does elliott spitzer.

which is why citizens united mitigates against our getting money out of politics unless the court reverses itself (which this court won't) or there's a constitutional amendment.

hence my initial comment about why money can't be taken out of politics. so the o/p can whine about it to his heart's content. it isn't going to happen

Money has to be considered in speech, because there are times when people need to have their say but can not do it for free.

We can't all just go to building rooftops and shout it to the world. Sometimes you need to spend money to have your voice heard.

 

[dblack]

Then you're talking first amendment issues.

I'd rather see the graft and corruption of sitting politicians be addressed before I tell people their first amendment rights were null and void

i don't believe money is speech. and corporations were never intended to be considered people for purposes of the first amendment. they are a statutory creation and were considered as "reople" for the sole purpose of them having standing to be parties in law suits. clarence thomas and antonin scalia disagree. interestingly so does elliott spitzer.

which is why citizens united mitigates against our getting money out of politics unless the court reverses itself (which this court won't) or there's a constitutional amendment.

hence my initial comment about why money can't be taken out of politics. so the o/p can whine about it to his heart's content. it isn't going to happen

Money has to be considered in speech, because there are times when people need to have their say but can not do it for free.

We can't all just go to building rooftops and shout it to the world. Sometimes you need to spend money to have your voice heard.

Economic freedom is fundamental. Without the liberty to spend our money the way we choose, all other freedoms are null and void. In a sense, I agree with those who say this isn't a first amendment issue. It's not really. It's a ninth amendment issue. Unless we're supporting an activity that is illegal, government has no business intervening.

Again, the problem here is not people supporting candidates, it's what candidates are doing to reward that support once elected. Even then, the real culprits aren't so much the politicians, but the courts for not holding the line. Unlimited government is what makes the quid pro quo so irresistible. Put a stop to that and the campaign finance argument falls moot.

 

[konradv]

No one said "null and void". It would require a new amendment. That's a given. What sort of speech are you talking about anyway? If it's an election campaign it's the candidates speaking, right? If they all have an equal platform, who's free speech is being taken away?

Those not invited to be on the "platform". Presumable you're not suggesting that every two-bit yahoo with delusions of grandeur be granted an equal share of this public funding, are you? Whatever procedure and policies formed around filtering out non-"viable" candidates will inevitably be heavily politicized. (Take a look at the process of gerrymandering if you want a preview.) Essentially you're suggesting government be put in charge of deciding who gets to run for office each election.

What time are you talking about? There would be times for everyone to have a platform, but they would be weeded down through sub-primaries and regular primaries. Between elections, town halls and debates would allow everyone to have a voice. During a designated time before an election, I'd say "No" to anyone but candidates making media buys. That this would require an amendment to settle Constitutional issues is a given.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No one said "null and void". It would require a new amendment. That's a given. What sort of speech are you talking about anyway? If it's an election campaign it's the candidates speaking, right? If they all have an equal platform, who's free speech is being taken away?

Those not invited to be on the "platform". Presumable you're not suggesting that every two-bit yahoo with delusions of grandeur be granted an equal share of this public funding, are you? Whatever procedure and policies formed around filtering out non-"viable" candidates will inevitably be heavily politicized. (Take a look at the process of gerrymandering if you want a preview.) Essentially you're suggesting government be put in charge of deciding who gets to run for office each election.

What time are you talking about? There would be times for everyone to have a platform, but they would be weeded down through sub-primaries and regular primaries. Between elections, town halls and debates would allow everyone to have a voice. During a designated time before an election, I'd say "No" to anyone but candidates making media buys. That this would require an amendment to settle Constitutional issues is a given.

You'll never get an amendment passed that denies citizens the right to free speech.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Remember when boehner used to hand out checks from the oil companies right on the floor of congress? Now that has gone underground. It still goes on = they just hide it now.

 

[dblack]

Remember when boehner used to hand out checks from the oil companies right on the floor of congress? Now that has gone underground. It still goes on = they just hide it now.

Yup. As long as they have something to sell, whores will hawk their wares. The only way to stop it is it limit the power and influence that they're peddling.

 

[dblack]

No one said "null and void". It would require a new amendment. That's a given. What sort of speech are you talking about anyway? If it's an election campaign it's the candidates speaking, right? If they all have an equal platform, who's free speech is being taken away?

Those not invited to be on the "platform". Presumable you're not suggesting that every two-bit yahoo with delusions of grandeur be granted an equal share of this public funding, are you? Whatever procedure and policies formed around filtering out non-"viable" candidates will inevitably be heavily politicized. (Take a look at the process of gerrymandering if you want a preview.) Essentially you're suggesting government be put in charge of deciding who gets to run for office each election.

What time are you talking about? There would be times for everyone to have a platform, but they would be weeded down through sub-primaries and regular primaries. Between elections, town halls and debates would allow everyone to have a voice. During a designated time before an election, I'd say "No" to anyone but candidates making media buys. That this would require an amendment to settle Constitutional issues is a given.

What there would be is a constant political struggle among vested interests to control the election process. As much as it may bug you that rich people have more influence in our society, putting the process under government control would be worse.

 

[regent]

So who would write these laws regulating Congress?
Congress seems quite happy with the laws already on the books and the people seem quite happy with their Congessmen. Your Congressman is a big crook, but not theirs.

 

[Hossfly]

Congressmen should be required to wear uniforms like the NASCAR drivers. That way we would be able to see who their corporate sponsors are.

 

[Outback]

Congressmen should be required to wear uniforms like the NASCAR drivers. That way we would be able to see who their corporate sponsors are.

Yep.

 

[nitroz]

Corporations and businesses should have a legal limit to donate to a campaign. (And have a set amount of time before they can donate again)

The idea is to bring back genuine democracy and bring the power back to the people.





it's not a democracy when there is only bribery.

 

[konradv]

Corporations and businesses should have a legal limit to donate to a campaign. (And have a set amount of time before they can donate again)

The idea is to bring back genuine democracy and bring the power back to the people.

it's not a democracy when there is only bribery.

I think it's cheaper in the long run, if WE pay for it all. We keep hearing about the government running it, but isn't the whole point that the government should be US?

 

[dblack]

I think it's cheaper in the long run, if WE pay for it all. We keep hearing about the government running it, but isn't the whole point that the government should be US?

No. Even in the ideal case, the government represents the majority of US, which leaves the rest of US at their mercy. This is what democracy fans never get. Democracy doesn't protect minorities, it threatens them. What does protect the minority is constitutionally limited government, rules that prevent government (ie the majority) from bullying the rest of US.

 

[editec]

Private property rights and CIZENS rights are at loggerheads, kids.

Why?

Becuase you cannot really have both at the same time.

Either people have rights or property has rights.

Our nation has gone for the right of property to supercede citizens rights.

That's what CITIZENS United ruling really tells us.


And I do NOT think the SCOTUS misread the constitution, either.

That is what the consitutiuon really tells us.

That is the logical outcome of the constitution of the USA.


The 5th amendment conflicts with many of the other amendments because one cannot have property with rights and also citizens with rights and NOT end up with the kind of society we currently have.

The consitution of the United States of America supports property rights knowing full well that by doing so it basically negates citizens rights.

The floundering fathers understood what they were doing.

They were mostly some of this nations wealthiest citizens so naturally they had to protect the FRANCHIUSE that capital gives the wealthy.

The power to dominate society legally.

Congress, and the bribery that some of us see?

All perfectly legal and in absolute accord with the SPIRIT of the constitution of the USA.

 

[dblack]

Private property rights and CIZENS rights are at loggerheads, kids.

Why?

Becuase you cannot really have both at the same time.

Either people have rights or property has rights. ...

"Property" doesn't have rights. People have the right to own property. Property rights ARE citizen rights. I'm not really sure how you're seing them in conflict.

 

[editec]

Private property rights and CIZENS rights are at loggerheads, kids.

Why?

Becuase you cannot really have both at the same time.

Either people have rights or property has rights. ...

"Property" doesn't have rights. People have the right to own property. Property rights ARE citizen rights. I'm not really sure how you're seing them in conflict.

A corporation is NOT a person...it is property

A corporation has rights according to the SCOTUS.

Is that a good place to start this disussion?

 

[dblack]

Private property rights and CIZENS rights are at loggerheads, kids.

Why?

Becuase you cannot really have both at the same time.

Either people have rights or property has rights. ...

"Property" doesn't have rights. People have the right to own property. Property rights ARE citizen rights. I'm not really sure how you're seing them in conflict.

A corporation is NOT a person...it is property

A corporation has rights according to the SCOTUS.

Is that a good place to start this disussion?

Sure. And I suppose what I start with is that it's only nominally the rights of "corporations" at issue. What we are really talking about are the rights of owners of corporations.

I actually find legal personhood a questionable concept, but I don't think it enters the argument re Citizen's United. The question is whether people have a right to join forces and spend their money to influence politics. To say they don't has far-reaching consequences.

 

[konradv]

Those not invited to be on the "platform". Presumable you're not suggesting that every two-bit yahoo with delusions of grandeur be granted an equal share of this public funding, are you? Whatever procedure and policies formed around filtering out non-"viable" candidates will inevitably be heavily politicized. (Take a look at the process of gerrymandering if you want a preview.) Essentially you're suggesting government be put in charge of deciding who gets to run for office each election.

What time are you talking about? There would be times for everyone to have a platform, but they would be weeded down through sub-primaries and regular primaries. Between elections, town halls and debates would allow everyone to have a voice. During a designated time before an election, I'd say "No" to anyone but candidates making media buys. That this would require an amendment to settle Constitutional issues is a given.

What there would be is a constant political struggle among vested interests to control the election process. As much as it may bug you that rich people have more influence in our society, putting the process under government control would be worse.

Government control would mean under OUR control. This is about taking the government back. If it's all "them and us" to you, then you're part of the problem. What "bugs" me is that libertarians just don't seem to get it, giving us another reason not to trust them. Apparently the plutocrats win out over the people.

 

[dblack]

Government control would mean under OUR control.

No. Even in an ideal situation, government represents the majority, not all of us. That's the conceit of democracy.

 

[konradv]

Government control would mean under OUR control.

No. Even in an ideal situation, government represents the majority, not all of us. That's the conceit of democracy.

That's better than what we have now. Now a policy isn't valid unless everybody agrees? It's just another reason why libertarians can't be taken seriously. If you go step by step through discussions like this, you end up at anarchy. No policy is is going to be universally accepted. Making that a principle inevitably leads to government not being able to do anything at all.