what does the right want now?

[Truthmatters]

So you are all for corporations spending whatever they want to buy candidates

 

[Ernie S.]

If a corporation is allowed to give umlimited money then how do you guarantee the money is not an attempt from some foreigner to effect our elections?

Think back to bill clinton. How much did clinton/gore get from the Chineese?

 

[Truthmatters]

Do you think the Founders would agree with you?

 

[Ernie S.]

So you are all for corporations spending whatever they want to buy candidates

I am all for anyone being free to state their position. Even a position as stupid as yours.

 

[Ernie S.]

Do you think the Founders would agree with you?

Yes, I do.

 

[g5000]

the republican party is asking for coporate donations to be able to be given directly to the party and or candidate.

they wnat to make that legal

TM Reading Comprehension Skill Level: Zero.

The RNC is filing a brief in support of Democrat Donors.

Go back, read the decisions and appeals related to the case, then read the RNC brief.

Then come back here and edit your posts as necessary if you learned anything. (which I doubt you will)

bull shit

You have been lecturing people about their inability to understand the document in the OP. And yet you have twice been told the defendents in the case are corporate donors who were indicted for donating to Hillary Clinton and yet you continue to be completely blind to this fact.

Look at the very first page of your fricking link. Look at the names of the Defendants-Appellees who are referred to throughout the document.

Then read this: Galen Capital Execs Charged with Campaign Improprieties - Mergers & Acquisitions

In a case that has been in the works for years, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Va. formally charged Galen Capital Group's William P. Danielczyk, Jr. and Eugene R. Biagi for skirting campaign finance laws in fundraising for former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The pair, according to allegations from the Justice Department, reimbursed $186,600 in campaign contributions -- a process known as 'bundling' around the Beltway.

Now you have been told THREE times.






.

 

[freedombecki]

So you are all for corporations spending whatever they want to buy candidates

So you are all for unions spending whatever they want to buy candidates

 

[Wry Catcher]

So you are all for corporations spending whatever they want to buy candidates

So you are all for unions spending whatever they want to buy candidates

Candidates should not be bought, however, the USSC under Chief Justice Roberts believes they can and should be bought.

 

[Ernie S.]

TM Would you like to carry on our visitor message discussion via private message or do you want to continue to allow everyone to see your epic fail?

 

[Truthmatters]

I dont PM so you cant lie

 

[Truthmatters]

So you are all for corporations spending whatever they want to buy candidates

So you are all for unions spending whatever they want to buy candidates

it is legal for unions to give.

That is the law.

It is NOT legal for Corporations to give.

That is the law.

This thread is about changing the laws so corporations can give.

Why do you have to try and change the subject?

 

[Ernie S.]

So you are all for corporations spending whatever they want to buy candidates

So you are all for unions spending whatever they want to buy candidates

Candidates should not be bought, however, the USSC under Chief Justice Roberts believes they can and should be bought.

Tell me! Will you be influenced by Conservative campaign ads paid for by corporations? Are you really that weak in your convictions that a 30 second TV spot could turn you into a right winger?

 

[Truthmatters]

Are you aware of trhe FACTS about money and election sucess?

 

[HUGGY]

what does the right want now?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4royOLtvmQ]CowBell - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Truthmatters]

no they want to had the running of the country over to the corporations

 

[Ernie S.]

Are you aware of trhe FACTS about money and election sucess?

Yes, I am. Consider the Iowa caucus.
Perry spent $480 per vote, Romney spent $156, Santorum $21, Paul $104, Gingrich $92, and Bachmann $4 per vote
How did that work out for Governor Perry? Explain how Romney spent 3 times the money Santorum did for 8 votes.
Or is it only Republican voters that are unable to make their own decisions?

 

[Truthmatters]

This clearly proves the motives of the Republican party today.


They dont like Democracy

 

[DiamondDave]

TM is bobbing like a hooker's head during a blowjob, and weaving like a seamstress on cocaine

 

[DiamondDave]

TM Reading Comprehension Skill Level: Zero.

The RNC is filing a brief in support of Democrat Donors.

Go back, read the decisions and appeals related to the case, then read the RNC brief.

Then come back here and edit your posts as necessary if you learned anything. (which I doubt you will)

bull shit

You have been lecturing people about their inability to understand the document in the OP. And yet you have twice been told the defendents in the case are corporate donors who were indicted for donating to Hillary Clinton and yet you continue to be completely blind to this fact.

Look at the very first page of your fricking link. Look at the names of the Defendants-Appellees who are referred to throughout the document.

Then read this: Galen Capital Execs Charged with Campaign Improprieties - Mergers & Acquisitions

In a case that has been in the works for years, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Va. formally charged Galen Capital Group's William P. Danielczyk, Jr. and Eugene R. Biagi for skirting campaign finance laws in fundraising for former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The pair, according to allegations from the Justice Department, reimbursed $186,600 in campaign contributions -- a process known as 'bundling' around the Beltway.

Now you have been told THREE times.






.

C'mon TM... you can do it... just admit your mistake... you don't have to admit your ignorant hyper-partisanship.. we already know that as fact

 

[Bern80]

Is corporation donations ok with you people?


How can you keep it American money that is involved?

I'll give Mitt some credit on this one as he actually gave a pretty sensibel answer to this one. Part of the last debate centered around false ads against opponents. In a nutshell Mitt said the add Newt's super PAC ran about Mitt was a lie and Newt said the ad Mitt's super PAC ad ran about Newt was a lie. They both agreed their own super PAC ad was a lie and agreed to encourage their respective super PAC's to stop running them. This is the nonsense McCain-Feingold gave us. Now the opponents themselves have even less responsibility over their ads and what they say. People and businesses can not give money over certain amounts directly to candidates or their campaigns. Instead, what basically amount to a dummy corp., a political action committee or PAC, has to be set up that collects the money for them. Further in the belief that the candidates must be separate from said fincial influence they are not allowed by law to be in contact with the PACs established on their behalf. This has the unintended consequence of the candidate not having to be accountable for what is said on their behalf by the PACs. Not only can Mitt not review what is said in his PAC ads for accuracy and honesty he can't contact them to have it pulled when and if an obviously inaccurate ad comes out. He can ask in a public forum I suppose, but he has no authority over the decisions of the PAC that was formed on his behalf.......So yes, being able to contribute directly to candidates so they control their own message and can be held accountable for what they say in their campaign ads is a better option.....

However...... as to your question should individuals and businesses be able to give directly to candidates and their campaigns? That one I'm honestly on the fence about. Part me says it is paramount that a candidate for public office be removed from any financial influence whatsoever such that NO ONE ought to be able to give to political campaigns. Instead, just as a thought, part of our taxes should go to funding campaigns. The government can say 'okay guys and gals, here's x amount of money for your company, this all you get, spend it wisely'.

On the other hand not be able to give money to a political candidate is obviously the removale of a freedom. Why should anyone not be allowed to give money to whomever they want to. You wouldn't argue that you shouldn't be allowed to give money to whomever you felt like giving money to I would bet. The worry where candidates are concerned of course is the bought politician question. Is this constributing individual giving money because they believe in the candidates message or because they are buying their favor to do what they want. And the bigger question should giving money to someone be considered free speech? I'm not so sure anymore. But I do feel as long as a candidates donors are made public that should be sufficient information for a voter to decide whether they are trusting of that individual or not.