How do we get the money out of politics?

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
1,627
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
get rid of citizen's united.

lol ... good luck.
That did NOT stop anyone from donating to politics. It only stopped certain groups from speaking out on their own. You really should understand the law and ruling before commenting on it.

Either that or you are simply intentionally misrepresenting the issue.
Not sure I understand your position, but I am totally against the Citizen's United SCOTUS ruling.
By allowing companies to conglomerate political contributions and no longer track the individual source, this allowed foreign money to pour into our political campaigns.
Foreign nationals can invest in and own part or all of a company with US branches. And Citizen's United ruling resulted in there being no way to track or stop foreign manipulation of our elections.
The name of the ruling should be changed.
Instead of "Citizen's United", it would be more accurately called, "Foreigners Anonymous", because that is what it does. It makes campaign funding by foreign nationals, anonymous and impossible to stop.
The law was enacted to stop things like the "Swiftboaters" and the guy who was going to release a movie on Hillary.

Whether or not you recall Kerry was so pissed that a group of outsiders could have such an influence on the elections. He cried to Bush to make them stop. They weren't even "pro-Bush", they were "anti-Kerry".

They had every right to expend money and have their say as anyone. Any money expended by corporations also have to be accounted for.

There was no "Russia, Russia, Russia" nor was there any "China, China, China".

All countries do try and mess with the elections of other countries in ways and no law is going to stop that. Remember, Obama sent a ton of money in an attempt to influence elections in Israel.
But the Swiftboaters were lying, and the movie on Hillary likely would also be lying.
So the law, (although I have not read it). likely was good.
And the SCOTUS ruling seems to have been totally wrong.
The point is not as much Russia or China, but transparency.
When that much money is spent, like the Swiftboat campaign or a movie, then all the contributors
should be tracked.

Yes, the US is one of the worst offenders in meddling in foreign elections, and we should stop.
It is extremely undemocratic.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
26,799
Reaction score
6,364
Points
215
get rid of citizen's united.

lol ... good luck.
That did NOT stop anyone from donating to politics. It only stopped certain groups from speaking out on their own. You really should understand the law and ruling before commenting on it.

Either that or you are simply intentionally misrepresenting the issue.
Not sure I understand your position, but I am totally against the Citizen's United SCOTUS ruling.
By allowing companies to conglomerate political contributions and no longer track the individual source, this allowed foreign money to pour into our political campaigns.
Foreign nationals can invest in and own part or all of a company with US branches. And Citizen's United ruling resulted in there being no way to track or stop foreign manipulation of our elections.
The name of the ruling should be changed.
Instead of "Citizen's United", it would be more accurately called, "Foreigners Anonymous", because that is what it does. It makes campaign funding by foreign nationals, anonymous and impossible to stop.
The law was enacted to stop things like the "Swiftboaters" and the guy who was going to release a movie on Hillary.

Whether or not you recall Kerry was so pissed that a group of outsiders could have such an influence on the elections. He cried to Bush to make them stop. They weren't even "pro-Bush", they were "anti-Kerry".

They had every right to expend money and have their say as anyone. Any money expended by corporations also have to be accounted for.

There was no "Russia, Russia, Russia" nor was there any "China, China, China".

All countries do try and mess with the elections of other countries in ways and no law is going to stop that. Remember, Obama sent a ton of money in an attempt to influence elections in Israel.
But the Swiftboaters were lying, and the movie on Hillary likely would also be lying.
So the law, (although I have not read it). likely was good.
And the SCOTUS ruling seems to have been totally wrong.
The point is not as much Russia or China, but transparency.
When that much money is spent, like the Swiftboat campaign or a movie, then all the contributors
should be tracked.

Yes, the US is one of the worst offenders in meddling in foreign elections, and we should stop.
It is extremely undemocratic.
It's really none of your business how I spend my money.
 

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
44,486
Reaction score
10,779
Points
2,040
How do we get the money out of politics?
Step #1 reverse citizens united.
You can't just "reverse" a Supreme Court decision. Politicians could enact a law that restricts them but they will never do that.
I didn't say it would be easy, I said it needed to be done. And a properly motivated court could do it.
"Properly motivated"? LOL, you plan on an attack on the Supreme Court now?
Don't join the whack-jobs, kid. You've seemed pretty sane up till now.

Of course I'm not talking about attacking anyone. I'm no bloody GOP terrorist.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
1,627
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Campaigns may not solicit or accept contributions from foreign nationals. Federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local.

Who can and can't contribute - FEC.gov.
But the whole point of Citizen's United is that US corporations can now legally conglomerate donations and no longer track individual contributors, so now there no way to prove if the donations are foreign or not.
The point is now prosecution of illegal foreign campaign contributions is impossible to enforce.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
26,799
Reaction score
6,364
Points
215
How do we get the money out of politics?
Step #1 reverse citizens united.
You can't just "reverse" a Supreme Court decision. Politicians could enact a law that restricts them but they will never do that.
I didn't say it would be easy, I said it needed to be done. And a properly motivated court could do it.
"Properly motivated"? LOL, you plan on an attack on the Supreme Court now?
Don't join the whack-jobs, kid. You've seemed pretty sane up till now.

Of course I'm not talking about attacking anyone. I'm no bloody GOP terrorist.
I asked a question. Remarks with no idea how they are supposed to be carried out are not a real response.

I'm 59.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
64,590
Reaction score
12,753
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
We indeed could turn the money off.
When the federal government controls such a huge piece of the economy, of course people will
have an incentive to spend money to get a piece of the action or input into the process.

And they're allowed to by the Constitution.

So no, you can't.
We most certainly could turn off the money the Federal Reserve is pumping into the markets.
OK. What does that have to do with the First Amendment?

1611329268168.png
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
26,799
Reaction score
6,364
Points
215
Campaigns may not solicit or accept contributions from foreign nationals. Federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local.

Who can and can't contribute - FEC.gov.
But the whole point of Citizen's United is that US corporations can now legally conglomerate donations and no longer track individual contributors, so now there no way to prove if the donations are foreign or not.
The point is now prosecution of illegal foreign campaign contributions is impossible to enforce.
Why should corporations be restricted in influencing elections but not the parties? McCain/Feingold restricted when anyone outside of the media or the parties could expend money on the elections.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
1,627
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
get rid of citizen's united.

lol ... good luck.
That did NOT stop anyone from donating to politics. It only stopped certain groups from speaking out on their own. You really should understand the law and ruling before commenting on it.

Either that or you are simply intentionally misrepresenting the issue.
Not sure I understand your position, but I am totally against the Citizen's United SCOTUS ruling.
By allowing companies to conglomerate political contributions and no longer track the individual source, this allowed foreign money to pour into our political campaigns.
Foreign nationals can invest in and own part or all of a company with US branches. And Citizen's United ruling resulted in there being no way to track or stop foreign manipulation of our elections.
The name of the ruling should be changed.
Instead of "Citizen's United", it would be more accurately called, "Foreigners Anonymous", because that is what it does. It makes campaign funding by foreign nationals, anonymous and impossible to stop.
The law was enacted to stop things like the "Swiftboaters" and the guy who was going to release a movie on Hillary.

Whether or not you recall Kerry was so pissed that a group of outsiders could have such an influence on the elections. He cried to Bush to make them stop. They weren't even "pro-Bush", they were "anti-Kerry".

They had every right to expend money and have their say as anyone. Any money expended by corporations also have to be accounted for.

There was no "Russia, Russia, Russia" nor was there any "China, China, China".

All countries do try and mess with the elections of other countries in ways and no law is going to stop that. Remember, Obama sent a ton of money in an attempt to influence elections in Israel.
But the Swiftboaters were lying, and the movie on Hillary likely would also be lying.
So the law, (although I have not read it). likely was good.
And the SCOTUS ruling seems to have been totally wrong.
The point is not as much Russia or China, but transparency.
When that much money is spent, like the Swiftboat campaign or a movie, then all the contributors
should be tracked.

Yes, the US is one of the worst offenders in meddling in foreign elections, and we should stop.
It is extremely undemocratic.
It's really none of your business how I spend my money.
Yes it is if you are spending money to illegally subvert democracies, laws, fairness, etc.
The only way to prevent crimes like subverting democracies, violating laws, libel and slander, etc., is for the people who support these crimes to be revealed to the public.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
64,590
Reaction score
12,753
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
get rid of citizen's united.

lol ... good luck.
get rid of citizen's united.

Why?
Because by allowing companies with plants in the US to conglomerate anonymous contributions, then noncitizens can also invest in US political campaigns, without there being any means of tracking or preventing.
The only point of Citizen's United is to hide illegal foreign campaign contributions.
Because by allowing companies with plants in the US to conglomerate anonymous contributions,

Contributions to what?
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
26,799
Reaction score
6,364
Points
215
We indeed could turn the money off.
When the federal government controls such a huge piece of the economy, of course people will
have an incentive to spend money to get a piece of the action or input into the process.

And they're allowed to by the Constitution.

So no, you can't.
We most certainly could turn off the money the Federal Reserve is pumping into the markets.
OK. What does that have to do with the First Amendment?

View attachment 446946
I have no idea what that has to do with what I replied to or what I replied to.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
64,590
Reaction score
12,753
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
For example, we could limit all campaign spending to a fixed amount provided by the government.
That would equalize all candidates.
You can't equalize all candidates. Just as you can't equalize all outcomes anywhere.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
26,799
Reaction score
6,364
Points
215
get rid of citizen's united.

lol ... good luck.
That did NOT stop anyone from donating to politics. It only stopped certain groups from speaking out on their own. You really should understand the law and ruling before commenting on it.

Either that or you are simply intentionally misrepresenting the issue.
Not sure I understand your position, but I am totally against the Citizen's United SCOTUS ruling.
By allowing companies to conglomerate political contributions and no longer track the individual source, this allowed foreign money to pour into our political campaigns.
Foreign nationals can invest in and own part or all of a company with US branches. And Citizen's United ruling resulted in there being no way to track or stop foreign manipulation of our elections.
The name of the ruling should be changed.
Instead of "Citizen's United", it would be more accurately called, "Foreigners Anonymous", because that is what it does. It makes campaign funding by foreign nationals, anonymous and impossible to stop.
The law was enacted to stop things like the "Swiftboaters" and the guy who was going to release a movie on Hillary.

Whether or not you recall Kerry was so pissed that a group of outsiders could have such an influence on the elections. He cried to Bush to make them stop. They weren't even "pro-Bush", they were "anti-Kerry".

They had every right to expend money and have their say as anyone. Any money expended by corporations also have to be accounted for.

There was no "Russia, Russia, Russia" nor was there any "China, China, China".

All countries do try and mess with the elections of other countries in ways and no law is going to stop that. Remember, Obama sent a ton of money in an attempt to influence elections in Israel.
But the Swiftboaters were lying, and the movie on Hillary likely would also be lying.
So the law, (although I have not read it). likely was good.
And the SCOTUS ruling seems to have been totally wrong.
The point is not as much Russia or China, but transparency.
When that much money is spent, like the Swiftboat campaign or a movie, then all the contributors
should be tracked.

Yes, the US is one of the worst offenders in meddling in foreign elections, and we should stop.
It is extremely undemocratic.
It's really none of your business how I spend my money.
Yes it is if you are spending money to illegally subvert democracies, laws, fairness, etc.
The only way to prevent crimes like subverting democracies, violating laws, libel and slander, etc., is for the people who support these crimes to be revealed to the public.
Having an opinion is not "subverting" anything. Well, except to the blind partisans.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
64,590
Reaction score
12,753
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
We indeed could turn the money off.
When the federal government controls such a huge piece of the economy, of course people will
have an incentive to spend money to get a piece of the action or input into the process.

And they're allowed to by the Constitution.

So no, you can't.
We most certainly could turn off the money the Federal Reserve is pumping into the markets.
OK. What does that have to do with the First Amendment?

View attachment 446946
I have no idea what that has to do with what I replied to or what I replied to.
I said, " And they're allowed to by the Constitution" about spending money to influence elections.

WTF did my comment have to do with the Federal Reserve?
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
1,627
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
We indeed could turn the money off.
When the federal government controls such a huge piece of the economy, of course people will
have an incentive to spend money to get a piece of the action or input into the process.

And they're allowed to by the Constitution.

So no, you can't.
We most certainly could turn off the money the Federal Reserve is pumping into the markets.
OK. What does that have to do with the First Amendment?

View attachment 446946
Government spending that improves some market investments, allows for a quid pro quo.
It essentially can be buying votes.
It allows candidates to effectively be able to say, "contribute to my campaign, and I will ensure your profits double after I am elected".
The Federal Reserve pumping can be used to selectively benefit a few.
 

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
44,486
Reaction score
10,779
Points
2,040
How do we get the money out of politics?
Step #1 reverse citizens united.
You can't just "reverse" a Supreme Court decision. Politicians could enact a law that restricts them but they will never do that.
I didn't say it would be easy, I said it needed to be done. And a properly motivated court could do it.
"Properly motivated"? LOL, you plan on an attack on the Supreme Court now?
Don't join the whack-jobs, kid. You've seemed pretty sane up till now.

Of course I'm not talking about attacking anyone. I'm no bloody GOP terrorist.
I asked a question. Remarks with no idea how they are supposed to be carried out are not a real response.

I'm 59.
A properly.motivated court would of course require several things. First an ideological shift in the membership, whether from a change in said members or a maturation of certain members viewpoints.

Second is a shift in the public opinion of the ruling sufficient to bring about some well supported challenges to it.

Third is strong political support from at least one party.

Fourth, I don't care how old you are physically if you act like one of these spoiled kids you're gonna get called one.

Happy now?

Next time ask before you automatically jump to the stupidest conclusion.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
26,799
Reaction score
6,364
Points
215
We indeed could turn the money off.
When the federal government controls such a huge piece of the economy, of course people will
have an incentive to spend money to get a piece of the action or input into the process.

And they're allowed to by the Constitution.

So no, you can't.
We most certainly could turn off the money the Federal Reserve is pumping into the markets.
OK. What does that have to do with the First Amendment?

View attachment 446946
I have no idea what that has to do with what I replied to or what I replied to.
I said, " And they're allowed to by the Constitution" about spending money to influence elections.

WTF did my comment have to do with the Federal Reserve?
I said to turn off the money. You said "they are allowed to by the Constitution". I said that we most certainly can turn off the billions the Fed is pumping.

Has nothing to do with first amendment.

Whether something is allowed or not has nothing to do with what we actually do. There is NO requirement that we keep on pumping billions.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top