Campaign donations.

[ABikerSailor]

If we're saying that it's wrong for economically powerful people to use their money to influence elections and that such spending should be limited, should we also limit those who weild other forms of influence? Should famous celebrities be prevented from endorsing candidates or promoting their campaigns?

Or even their agendas and ideas! It's not fair that liberal directors can churn out movies glorifying liberal issues which influence voters. Harper Lee should co-write her new book with Ayn Rand if we're going to be politically fair.... right?

I guess you forgot about movies like Zero Dark Thirty and American Sniper.

Both of those push a conservative agenda.

 

[Boss]

So........is it fair that the Koch brothers can donate 900 MILLION DOLLARS (that's almost a billion) like they have threatened to do in 2016, while the rest of us, who have neither the money, nor own a super PAC, can only manage around 2,500?

That's not free speech, that's buying an election and a politician.

Wow... So all these fundraisers Obama has been doing while the world goes up in flames, only managed to produce $2,500? George Soros isn't contributing anything at all to the DNC, is he?

Poor Democrats!

 

[dblack]

So........is it fair that the Koch brothers can donate 900 MILLION DOLLARS (that's almost a billion) like they have threatened to do in 2016, while the rest of us, who have neither the money, nor own a super PAC, can only manage around 2,500?

That's not free speech, that's buying an election and a politician.

What do you suppose they'd be getting for their money?

What would they be getting for their money? Political influence to push the agenda of this country in the direction they prefer. Sorry, but 900 MILLION DOLLARS will get a lot of influence over a politician. Shit............in some cases it only takes a donation of around 500,000 to score an ambassador ship (meaning a paid government job to live overseas).

But what could a politician do that would be worth that much money to them? And more importantly, should the politician be allowed to do that?

 

[dblack]

If we're saying that it's wrong for economically powerful people to use their money to influence elections and that such spending should be limited, should we also limit those who weild other forms of influence? Should famous celebrities be prevented from endorsing candidates or promoting their campaigns?

Or even their agendas and ideas! It's not fair that liberal directors can churn out movies glorifying liberal issues which influence voters. Harper Lee should co-write her new book with Ayn Rand if we're going to be politically fair.... right?

I guess you forgot about movies like Zero Dark Thirty and American Sniper.

Both of those push a conservative agenda.

Exactly! Should those types of propaganda be limited by law?

 

[ABikerSailor]

If we're saying that it's wrong for economically powerful people to use their money to influence elections and that such spending should be limited, should we also limit those who weild other forms of influence? Should famous celebrities be prevented from endorsing candidates or promoting their campaigns?

Not really, because saying that you like a certain politician is expressing your views. And...........not all famous people can get that kind of support behind a politician.

Anything Ted Nugent or Kanye West thinks is a good idea, I usually think the opposite is better.

Same thing with Karl Rove or Sarah Palin.

I feel likewise about anyone the Koch brothers throw cash at. How is it different?

Because a verbal endorsement doesn't usually leave the politician owing you something when they get into office. Cash does.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If we're saying that it's wrong for economically powerful people to use their money to influence elections and that such spending should be limited, should we also limit those who weild other forms of influence? Should famous celebrities be prevented from endorsing candidates or promoting their campaigns?

Or even their agendas and ideas! It's not fair that liberal directors can churn out movies glorifying liberal issues which influence voters. Harper Lee should co-write her new book with Ayn Rand if we're going to be politically fair.... right?

I guess you forgot about movies like Zero Dark Thirty and American Sniper.

Both of those push a conservative agenda.

Exactly! Should those types of propaganda be limited by law?

No, because most people don't use movies as news sources or a political party to follow.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So........is it fair that the Koch brothers can donate 900 MILLION DOLLARS (that's almost a billion) like they have threatened to do in 2016, while the rest of us, who have neither the money, nor own a super PAC, can only manage around 2,500?

That's not free speech, that's buying an election and a politician.

What do you suppose they'd be getting for their money?

What would they be getting for their money? Political influence to push the agenda of this country in the direction they prefer. Sorry, but 900 MILLION DOLLARS will get a lot of influence over a politician. Shit............in some cases it only takes a donation of around 500,000 to score an ambassador ship (meaning a paid government job to live overseas).

But what could a politician do that would be worth that much money to them? And more importantly, should the politician be allowed to do that?

900 MILLION will buy a lot of influence with a lot of people. Shit...........we only have 435 people in the House and 100 people in the Senate, which is just over a million for each politician, and yeah...........if you foot the bill for a majority of a candidate's campaign, you can get them to help you with legislation, say...........like getting EPA restrictions loosened if you own an oil company (like the Kochs).

As far as should a politician be allowed to do that? Nope, that's why a lot of them get caught with their hands in the till and are prosecuted. But, because of Citizen's United, that's the system we now have.

 

[dblack]

If we're saying that it's wrong for economically powerful people to use their money to influence elections and that such spending should be limited, should we also limit those who weild other forms of influence? Should famous celebrities be prevented from endorsing candidates or promoting their campaigns?

Not really, because saying that you like a certain politician is expressing your views. And...........not all famous people can get that kind of support behind a politician.

Anything Ted Nugent or Kanye West thinks is a good idea, I usually think the opposite is better.

Same thing with Karl Rove or Sarah Palin.

I feel likewise about anyone the Koch brothers throw cash at. How is it different?

Because a verbal endorsement doesn't usually leave the politician owing you something when they get into office. Cash does.

Seriously?? You really believe that?

Regardless of whether it is paid for or not, what matters is the ability to influence voters. Anyone who can do that effectively will be able to "sell" their services to unscrupulous candidates.

 

[Boss]

I guess you forgot about movies like Zero Dark Thirty and American Sniper.

Both of those push a conservative agenda.

I didn't forget, I just disagree they push an agenda. But even if they did, I am not the one who wants to make political speech "fair" by limiting it. I don't have a problem with political influence in movies and books, I think that is an important aspect of our free culture and a good thing in many ways.

 

[dblack]

If we're saying that it's wrong for economically powerful people to use their money to influence elections and that such spending should be limited, should we also limit those who weild other forms of influence? Should famous celebrities be prevented from endorsing candidates or promoting their campaigns?

Or even their agendas and ideas! It's not fair that liberal directors can churn out movies glorifying liberal issues which influence voters. Harper Lee should co-write her new book with Ayn Rand if we're going to be politically fair.... right?

I guess you forgot about movies like Zero Dark Thirty and American Sniper.

Both of those push a conservative agenda.

Exactly! Should those types of propaganda be limited by law?

No, because most people don't use movies as news sources or a political party to follow.

But many do. And most of our elections are decided by a relatively small percentage of "swing" voters.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A) Greed is the engine that makes capitalism move.
.

truly illiterate liberal and stupid. If one guy goes into business out of greed and a competitor out of concern for his customers which one will go bankrupt.

The beauty of capitalism is that it encourages people to be caring and civilized!

A liberal is a liberal because he lacks the IQ to understand capitalism. A liberal is really a communist in the closet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So........is it fair that the Koch brothers can donate 900 MILLION DOLLARS (that's almost a billion) like they have threatened to do in 2016, while the rest of us, who have neither the money, nor own a super PAC, can only manage around 2,500?

That's not free speech, that's buying an election and a politician.

What do you suppose they'd be getting for their money?

What would they be getting for their money? Political influence to push the agenda of this country in the direction they prefer. Sorry, but 900 MILLION DOLLARS will get a lot of influence over a politician. Shit............in some cases it only takes a donation of around 500,000 to score an ambassador ship (meaning a paid government job to live overseas).

But what could a politician do that would be worth that much money to them? And more importantly, should the politician be allowed to do that?

900 MILLION will buy a lot of influence with a lot of people. Shit...........we only have 435 people in the House and 100 people in the Senate, which is just over a million for each politician, and yeah...........if you foot the bill for a majority of a candidate's campaign, you can get them to help you with legislation, say...........like getting EPA restrictions loosened if you own an oil company (like the Kochs).

As far as should a politician be allowed to do that? Nope, that's why a lot of them get caught with their hands in the till and are prosecuted. But, because of Citizen's United, that's the system we now have.

But, because of Citizen's United, that's the system we now have.

We didn't have the same issues before Citizen's United?

 

[dblack]

So........is it fair that the Koch brothers can donate 900 MILLION DOLLARS (that's almost a billion) like they have threatened to do in 2016, while the rest of us, who have neither the money, nor own a super PAC, can only manage around 2,500?

That's not free speech, that's buying an election and a politician.

What do you suppose they'd be getting for their money?

What would they be getting for their money? Political influence to push the agenda of this country in the direction they prefer. Sorry, but 900 MILLION DOLLARS will get a lot of influence over a politician. Shit............in some cases it only takes a donation of around 500,000 to score an ambassador ship (meaning a paid government job to live overseas).

But what could a politician do that would be worth that much money to them? And more importantly, should the politician be allowed to do that?

900 MILLION will buy a lot of influence with a lot of people. Shit...........we only have 435 people in the House and 100 people in the Senate, which is just over a million for each politician, and yeah...........if you foot the bill for a majority of a candidate's campaign, you can get them to help you with legislation, say...........like getting EPA restrictions loosened if you own an oil company (like the Kochs).

As far as should a politician be allowed to do that? Nope, that's why a lot of them get caught with their hands in the till and are prosecuted. But, because of Citizen's United, that's the system we now have.

Citizen's United doesn't authorize Congress to grant favors to special interests. The prevailing interpretation of the Commerce and the General Welfare clauses is what does that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Furthermore, it may lead into a corrupt state which puts the interests of large donors before those that make small or no donations.

you see dear, you cant control how loud, often or persuasively people speak unless you are a lib Nazi. Also, if you want everyone to have a equal voice to that of stupid people with no voice money or concern where would that lead except to your lib Nazi state? Also, if you want an equal voice do you want to take on the MSM too?

isn't thinking fun?

 

[Boss]

900 MILLION will buy a lot of influence with a lot of people. Shit...........we only have 435 people in the House and 100 people in the Senate, which is just over a million for each politician, and yeah...........if you foot the bill for a majority of a candidate's campaign, you can get them to help you with legislation, say...........like getting EPA restrictions loosened if you own an oil company (like the Kochs).

As far as should a politician be allowed to do that? Nope, that's why a lot of them get caught with their hands in the till and are prosecuted. But, because of Citizen's United, that's the system we now have.

You're spewing a bunch of emotive rhetoric without thinking, let's take this slowly... shall we?

First, you say this:
900 MILLION will buy a lot of influence with a lot of people. Shit...........

Corrupt and unethical people... YES! But unfortunately for us, we have never figured out how to pass a law that everyone will always obey or never try to avoid. Unscrupulous people will nearly always find a way to be unscrupulous, that is their nature. No law will change this fact of life. The ONLY thing that works to mitigate it is harsher punishment for the corrupt.

....if you foot the bill for a majority of a candidate's campaign, you can get them to help you with legislation....

Is this the system or the kind of people you are electing? Is it better to know who your candidate is in the pocket of or not know... OR would it be better to have a candidate with impeccable integrity and ethics who can't be bought?

But, because of Citizen's United...

Citizens United was a case before SCOTUS where they upheld our Constitutional rights to freedom of association. It means I can't deny you freedom of speech because you belong to MoveOn.org or Gay Pride America. I can't deny your rights because you are black or female, because you're a Jew or Atheist... whatever "group" you belong to.... that can't be a basis of discrimination. A "corporation" is a "group" of people. The SCOTUS ruling is correct whether you want it to be or not. You'll need a constitutional amendment to change this.

 

[Boss]

No, because most people don't use movies as news sources or a political party to follow.

So... Grapes of Wrath had absolutely no influence regarding FDRs New Deal programs?

To Kill a Mockingbird had absolutely nothing to do with influencing Civil Rights?

Uncle Tom's Cabin... I mean, the list is endless. How can you support such an argument?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Now, let me hit on this "better message" part again... That's the primary problem as I see it, with the way we perceive politics in America today. We elect the candidate who gets up there and tells us how he/she is going to use the powers of government at their disposal, to make things happen that we think should happen. We don't care if they are good for everyone else, it's what is best for us. We don't care if the nation is bankrupt or borrowing from our enemies... doesn't matter... gimme mine! Gimme it, or you don't get my vote! And thus, is born the silver-tongue politician who is charismatic and charming, but also knows how to tell you what you want to hear.

Yes, this is a real problem . Demagogy and corporatocracy would be the two extremes of this tendency.
The general asumption of representative democracy is that group of persons holding office will improve the general conditions of the population , and if not they will be voted out of office.

The situation reminds me of a voting I had in elementary to choose representatives. Each party gave its speech, the treasurers promised many things : more recess, more parties , more sports classes. The last candidate simply said. I can't make you all the promises you've heard , the role of the treasurer is to ensure proper funding and the correct use the aforementioned funds. I voted for him. He didn't win , he only got five votes out of 200.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Should campaign donations have a low ceiling ( e.g. the minimum wage of a day per election) ?

My position follows :
A) Greed is the engine that makes capitalism move.
B) Most of the elements in the system are fueled by greed.
C) Politicians beneffit from large donations from persons and corporations
D) Politicians will want to keep the donations flowing as they recieve a beneffit from them.
E) From D, it follows large donnors and corporations will have a leverage on the policies dictated by the recipients of their donations.

... I somehow get the impression this line of though went unnoticed by the Supreme Court .

Share your thoughts.

Liberals only have a problem with egregious donations when they are not going to their side.

 

[Boss]

The general asumption of representative democracy is that group of persons holding office will improve the general conditions of the population , and if not they will be voted out of office.

Correct! Which coincides with the views of the founders who understood, just the very nature of government existence, it perpetually grows more powerful as freedoms of the individual decline. Government can't do anything else.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The general asumption of representative democracy is that group of persons holding office will improve the general conditions of the population , and if not they will be voted out of office.

of course if that was true we would not need a Constitution, we would merely trust the people to vote for the right guys.