2024 undecided voters.
- Thread starter Supposn
- Start date
-
- Tags
- election political republican trump
John Edgar Slow Horses
Diamond Member
- Apr 11, 2023
- 53,995
- 25,133
- 2,488
- Banned
- #63
kyzr gaslights Democrats, insisting they are like him and the party of grievance. You are going to lose again, kyzr.
- Thread starter
- #64
There is no limit to how much a candidate can contribute to his own campaign, its called "free speech".
Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Toddssterpatriot and Kyzr, this is one of those unusual occasions where Toddssterpatriot and I agree with each other. I expect our conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court would also agree with you both.
However, until 52USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS (house.gov) is tested in the courts, it is as it stands to be current U.S. federal law.
Not even U.S. Constitution's simply drafted first amendment is absolute in regard to freedom of speech issues. I hope some future USSC or U.S. Congress will revisit and remedy the Citizens United v. FEC decision.
Refer to Freedom of Speech: Historical Background | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
“...But, in Schenck v. United States,16 the first of the post-World War I cases to reach the Court, Justice Holmes, in his opinion for the Court upholding convictions for violating the Espionage Act …
… The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic …
...The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent....”.
Also refer to a a great Don Ameche movie entitled “Things Change”. Respectfully, Supposn
Missourian
Diamond Member
Fake news. Trump can give as much as he wants to his own campaign. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I dug up a link for you to educate yourself...
I don't blame you... the Legacy Media lies to you, and you trust them.
That's your mistake.
Probably exactly why you don't support President Trump.
SELF-FUNDED CAMPAIGNS AND THE CURRENT (LACK OF?) LIMITS ON CANDIDATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES - Columbia Law Review
Introduction Federal campaign finance law currently prohibits individuals from donating more than $35,500 per year to national political party committees. Yet, in March 2020, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave $18 million to the DNC. How was he able to do this? The answer is...
columbialawreview.org
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #66
I'm a proponent for Increasing the effective prices of broadcasting commercial time.
Many of us are concerned about the huge and growing expenditures for seeking elected offices. I suppose purchasing electronic broadcasting time or space on internet screens is the most expensive single items for national and state-wide campaigns, because that's the most advantageous use of campaign dollars.
Political influence is being auctioned and the powers' gravitating to the wealthiest bidders.
A message may not mention the names of political candidates, parties, drafts of laws or regulations proposed or passed by our governments' legislators, but still be an effective political message. Government cannot and should not attempt determining messages' extents of political purposes.
I doubt if legal and effective federal regulation of political financing could be drafted, but if we succeeded to enact such effective USA laws, they'd surly also lead to our transformation from democracy to fascism.
Purchase of electronic broadcasting services should not be allowed for tax reduction purposes. If the political commercials cannot be effectively regulated, we should not enable those expenses to be commingled with commercial expenses and in effect be government subsidized.
[Tax deductions currently allowed for creation broadcasting content, (e.g. scripts, art, performances, etc.) would continue to be allowed. There's legal precedent for requiring that a category of expense, (such as purchase of broadcasting services), be legally identified and isolated from all other billing expenses.]
Increasing the effective prices paid for broadcasting commercial times to better retain our democracy and prevent fascism, is a good bargain. Respectfully, Supposn
Many of us are concerned about the huge and growing expenditures for seeking elected offices. I suppose purchasing electronic broadcasting time or space on internet screens is the most expensive single items for national and state-wide campaigns, because that's the most advantageous use of campaign dollars.
Political influence is being auctioned and the powers' gravitating to the wealthiest bidders.
A message may not mention the names of political candidates, parties, drafts of laws or regulations proposed or passed by our governments' legislators, but still be an effective political message. Government cannot and should not attempt determining messages' extents of political purposes.
I doubt if legal and effective federal regulation of political financing could be drafted, but if we succeeded to enact such effective USA laws, they'd surly also lead to our transformation from democracy to fascism.
Purchase of electronic broadcasting services should not be allowed for tax reduction purposes. If the political commercials cannot be effectively regulated, we should not enable those expenses to be commingled with commercial expenses and in effect be government subsidized.
[Tax deductions currently allowed for creation broadcasting content, (e.g. scripts, art, performances, etc.) would continue to be allowed. There's legal precedent for requiring that a category of expense, (such as purchase of broadcasting services), be legally identified and isolated from all other billing expenses.]
Increasing the effective prices paid for broadcasting commercial times to better retain our democracy and prevent fascism, is a good bargain. Respectfully, Supposn
If it came from corporate funds, it’s not self-financing.Fake news. Trump can give as much as he wants to his own campaign. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I dug up a link...
SELF-FUNDED CAMPAIGNS AND THE CURRENT (LACK OF?) LIMITS ON CANDIDATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES - Columbia Law Review
Introduction Federal campaign finance law currently prohibits individuals from donating more than $35,500 per year to national political party committees. Yet, in March 2020, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave $18 million to the DNC. How was he able to do this? The answer is...
#FELONinCHIEF
Missourian
Diamond Member
Without context that isn’t proof. If it was, the jury would have exonerated him.
#FELONinCHIEF
Missourian
Diamond Member
They came directly from Michael Cohen AND he testified that this is the payment he received.
You have been lied to by Legacy Media.
Fact check more,. be proven wrong less.
Last edited:
Missourian
Diamond Member
Sorry, the media wouldn't load properly, so I had to add a screenshot to that post.Your point?!
#FELONinCHIEF
The point is... you have been deceived.
That's President Trump's personal bank account.
Not just me! What about the prosecutors, jurists, the judge and most of America? It would seem, you’re the one that’s being fooled.
#FELONinCHIEF
Missourian
Diamond Member
I just showed you the evidence.
Incontrovertible proof to the point you don't even attempt to deny it.
You throw up this pathetic Appeal to Authority, instead of thinking for yourself.
But I'm game.
The Judge and the Prosecutor are proven political enemies of President Trump AND the Republican Party. Bragg RAN HIS CAMPAIGN on prosecuting Trump.
Did Alvin Bragg campaign on a promise to prosecute Trump? What we know
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg resided over Trump's guilty verdict, but several high-profile Republicans have accused him of playing political games.
www.newsweek.com
Merchan donated money SPECIFICALLY EARMARKED to defeat President Trump... Even though he was violating NY Judicial Ethics to do so.
Trump trial judge rebuked for donations to Democrat-aligned groups in 2020
Ex-president’s legal team sure to make hay out of Juan Merchan’s $35 gift to Biden for President and anti-Republican groups
www.theguardian.com
As for the contribution... you believed it, and you had access to every outside source.
And I proved it was bullshit in thirty seconds.
But if you believed that bullshit, why wouldn't a jury of Democrats, led to it but a corrupt judge and a corrupt prosecutor with a political motive in the same way politically motivated Legacy Media led you to believe it?
The trial was a farce. The Sham-viction was a farce. And it blew up in your faces... Just like we told you it would.
Edited to add links.
Last edited:
Missourian
Diamond Member
Here's the Bloomsburg article that corroborates that President Trump paid Cohen out of his PERSONAL ACCOUNT.
Archived link due to paywall.
https://archive.is/j8UMs
Archived link due to paywall.
https://archive.is/j8UMs
You haven’t shown us anything that the jury hadn’t already seen. Why would anyone think that’s going to chang any minds?I just showed you the evidence.
Incontrovertible proof to the point you don't even attempt to deny it.
You throw up this pathetic Appeal to Authority, instead of thinking for yourself.
But I'm game.
The Judge and the Prosecutor are proven political enemies of President Trump AND the Republican Party. Bragg RAN HIS CAMPAIGN on prosecuting Trump.
Did Alvin Bragg campaign on a promise to prosecute Trump? What we know
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg resided over Trump's guilty verdict, but several high-profile Republicans have accused him of playing political games.
Merchan donated money SPECIFICALLY EARMARKED to defeat President Trump... Even though he was violating NY Judicial Ethics to do so.
Trump trial judge rebuked for donations to Democrat-aligned groups in 2020
Ex-president’s legal team sure to make hay out of Juan Merchan’s $35 gift to Biden for President and anti-Republican groups
As for the contribution... you believed it, and you had access to every outside source.
And I proved it was bullshit in thirty seconds.
But if you believed that bullshit, why wouldn't a jury of Democrats, led to it but a corrupt judge and a corrupt prosecutor with a political motive in the same way politically motivated Legacy Media led you to believe it?
The trial was a farce. The Sham-viction was a farce. And it blew up in your faces... Just like we told you it would.
Edited to add links.
#THEJURYHASSPOKEN
Missourian
Diamond Member
Because I'm a hopelessly optimistic that facts and critical thinking will prevail.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
If there was a difference? You're funny. And uninformed.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
There is no limit to how much a candidate can contribute to his own campaign, its called "free speech".
Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia
His picture is next to the word clueless in the dictionary.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Chaim Henry Tejman M. D. on Theoretical Physics?- Started by DennisPTate
- Replies: 0
-
-
Those who wish to help those in the ME survive and get away, check this- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 5
