How do we get the money out of politics?

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Yup, too much government meddling results in spending to influence that meddling.

And?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I said to turn off the money.

If you meant turn off contributions, I disagree.

Who's talking about the Fed in this thread....except you?

 

[Rigby5]

get rid of citizen's united.

lol ... good luck.

get rid of citizen's united.

Why?

If corporations are people, they should be limited to a few grand just like the other people.

The elections cost around a billion dollars each.

That is why election campaigns should only be funded with public money and no private money allowed.
There is no way that the wealthy should have any more political influence than the poor.
That is how we got into this whole mess with no public health care, since the poor have no political power.

 

[pknopp]

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.

The law was unconstitutional and it was ruled that way. When Bush signed the law he even noted that it was likely unconstitutional. That you are unable to understand that doesn't mean others of any age are not capable.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

The law was unconstitutional and it was ruled that way. When Bush signed the law he even noted that it was likely unconstitutional. That you are unable to understand that doesn't mean others of any age are not capable.

Didn't even read my post, did you.

 

[Rigby5]

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?

The pumping by the Federal reserve, allows someone who has won an election, to deliberately reward their contributors. Instead of a fair market, the federal reserve pumping can boost the whole economy, or part of it, causing particular stock to go up or down.

 

[pknopp]

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.

I said to turn off the money.

If you meant turn off contributions, I disagree.

Who's talking about the Fed in this thread....except you?

I replied to a remark about getting the government out of it. The government makes sure the money is there with the billions they pump into the markets.

The pump billions. Goldman Sachs makes millions. These millions go to politicians to make sure the billions keep on coming.

 

[pknopp]

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.

The law was unconstitutional and it was ruled that way. When Bush signed the law he even noted that it was likely unconstitutional. That you are unable to understand that doesn't mean others of any age are not capable.

Didn't even read my post, did you.
View attachment 446950

I replied to it. You are arguing the courts should refuse to rule an unconstitutional law unconstitutional.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The law was unconstitutional and it was ruled that way. When Bush signed the law he even noted that it was likely unconstitutional. That you are unable to understand that doesn't mean others of any age are not capable.

And what part of the law was unconstitutional?
I only know that the Citizen's United ruling now makes it impossible to prosecute foreign campaign contributions.
If it also did some good, then I don't know about that and would like to know?

 

[pknopp]

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?

The pumping by the Federal reserve, allows someone who has won an election, to deliberately reward their contributors. Instead of a fair market, the federal reserve pumping can boost the whole economy, or part of it, causing particular stock to go up or down.

Here is an excellent example. Now while I support electrics and Tesla overall the financials here are all screwed up. I read where Tesla is worth what it would take Tesla like 1400 years to actually make. There is something wrong with that.

Now look at all the money politicians got.

Donor Lookup

 

[Blues Man]

get rid of citizen's united.

lol ... good luck.

we could put limits on the tax deductibility of campaign donations.

Remove the incentive for big money donors to play both sides

 

[Rigby5]

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?

Political campaigns.

{...

January 21, 2020 will mark a decade since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial decision that reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections.

While wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups have long had an outsized influence in elections, that sway has dramatically expanded since the Citizens United decision, with negative repercussions for American democracy and the fight against political corruption.

What was Citizens United about?
A conservative nonprofit group called Citizens United challenged campaign finance rules after the FEC stopped it from promoting and airing a film criticizing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton too close to the presidential primaries.

A 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court sided with Citizens United, ruling that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections.

What was the rationale for the ruling?
In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The justices who voted with the majority assumed that independent spending cannot be corrupt and that the spending would be transparent, but both assumptions have proven to be incorrect.

With its decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that date back more than 100 years. Previously, the court had upheld certain spending restrictions, arguing that the government had a role in preventing corruption. But in Citizens United, a bare majority of the justices held that “independent political spending” did not present a substantive threat of corruption, provided it was not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.

As a result, corporations can now spend unlimited funds on campaign advertising if they are not formally “coordinating” with a candidate or political party.

How has Citizens United changed elections in the United States?
The ruling has ushered in massive increases in political spending from outside groups, dramatically expanding the already outsized political influence of wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups.

In the immediate aftermath of the Citizens United decision, analysts focused much of their attention on how the Supreme Court designated corporate spending on elections as free speech. But perhaps the most significant outcomes of Citizens United have been the creation of super PACs, which empower the wealthiest donors, and the expansion of dark money through shadowy nonprofits that don’t disclose their donors.

A Brennan Center report by Daniel I. Weiner pointed out that a very small group of Americans now wield “more power than at any time since Watergate, while many of the rest seem to be disengaging from politics.“

“This is perhaps the most troubling result of Citizens United: in a time of historic wealth inequality,” wrote Weiner, “the decision has helped reinforce the growing sense that our democracy primarily serves the interests of the wealthy few, and that democratic participation for the vast majority of citizens is of relatively little value.”
...}

Citizens United Explained

The 2010 Supreme Court decision further tilted political influence toward wealthy donors and corporations.

www.brennancenter.org

PACs, (Political Actions Committees), now are allowed to spend enormous amounts of campaign money simply by claiming they are independent of the actual campaign, and the money can come from a foreign national, without the PAC being required to reveal that.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

It actually allowed more big money donations and it opened the door for foreign corporations to give money to candidates.

One thing we should do is make sure all money donated to political campaigns or any US political party come only from US sources

 

[Blues Man]

Our entire political system has been corrupted by big money donors and the two major political parties.

And money is the primary problem. We allow a few big money donors to exert control over the parties that decide who will run for president and ultimately who will be elected. This corruption permeates the entire federal government right down to the lowliest congress person.

Foreign money should not be allowed at all but we see foreign interests giving huge dollar amounts to the RNC and DNC we even allow foreign money donations for candidates of Congress and the presidency.

WHat can we do to get rid of at least foreign contributions and limit the big money donors from exerting control over our political system?

That’s like asking how to get the water out of the oceans. Politics exist to take from the masses to enrich the few.

Which is why we need to find a better way to control the money flowing into the campaign war chests of politicians

 

[Rigby5]

If corporations are people, they should be limited to a few grand just like the other people.

Show me where they aren't limited.

PACs are limited in donating funds directly TO a campaign, but there is NO limit at all on how much they spend on their "educational" advertising, which can be incredibly slanted and biased FOR campaign purposes, as long as it is not coordinated with the actual campaign.

 

[Blues Man]

Foreign money should not be allowed at all but we see foreign interests giving huge dollar amounts to the RNC and DNC we even allow foreign money donations for candidates of Congress and the presidency.

That is a serious problem

but I dont thint the corrupt swamp rats in washington will put an end to it

Therein lies the rub.

The corrupt politician in DC will never vote against their own financial interests.

Congress and their staffers are basically able to trade stocks in insider info with no repercussions.

We should have all elected officials place their assets in a blind trust while they are in office

 

[Blues Man]

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 DNC and RNC can accept foreign money

 

[Blues Man]

You will never get money out of politics. Best to focus on making it transparent.

we could put stricter limits on donations and we should put a cap on how much is tax deductible

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Yup, too much government meddling results in spending to influence that meddling.

And?

I am not saying I have a solution necessarily, just observing that the stock market can be manipulated in order to selectively make people wealthy.
A possible solution is to change stock market laws.
Only allow equity investments.
Then the whole stock market would shrink and be much less corrupt.
The value of the stocks then would be real, not just speculative.

 

[Rigby5]

Foreign money should not be allowed at all but we see foreign interests giving huge dollar amounts to the RNC and DNC we even allow foreign money donations for candidates of Congress and the presidency.

That is a serious problem

but I dont thint the corrupt swamp rats in washington will put an end to it

Therein lies the rub.

The corrupt politician in DC will never vote against their own financial interests.

Congress and their staffers are basically able to trade stocks in insider info with no repercussions.

We should have all elected officials place their assets in a blind trust while they are in office

I think most do, but all should be forced to.
Trump did not.