I believe in campagin finance reform, do you?

[Wry Catcher]

Members of Congress accept bribes. Does anyone doubt this premise? Any member of Congress who accepts as much as a cup of coffee from anyone with any interest in, or anyone in the employ of another person or industry with an interest in legislation is guilty of a felony, and ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I support a national referendum here on the internet, wherein all who agree voice their support for the enforement of laws on the books for bribery, and on every thread related to the political process express their outrage.

 

[WillowTree]

You never answer questions.

 

[Avatar4321]

Are you willing to extend that to all the people Congressmen bribe for votes? Your entire party would be in jail then.

 

[oreo]

Members of Congress accept bribes. Does anyone doubt this premise? Any member of Congress who accepts as much as a cup of coffee from anyone with any interest in, or anyone in the employ of another person or industry with an interest in legislation is guilty of a felony, and ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I support a national referendum here on the internet, wherein all who agree voice their support for the enforement of laws on the books for bribery, and on every thread related to the political process express their outrage.

While I agree with you--politicians have already found a way around it.

That is why Criss Dodd--senate banking chairman received the most donations from Fannie/Freddie. It certainly came from individuals working for Fannie/Freddie--but he still got it--

 

[xsited1]

I believe in campagin finance reform, do you?

Rarely. It's usually an assault on the First Amendment.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Are you willing to extend that to all the people Congressmen bribe for votes? Your entire party would be in jail then.

Cunnigham (R) is, so is Jefferon (D); it is a systemic problem, though some are greedy and more dishonest than others. All however must solicit and accept 'bribes'. Few will admit the obvious, that money does influence votes - money, as well as future promises, jobs, jobs for wives or husbands, kids, golf vacations, tickets, etc. etc.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Members of Congress accept bribes. Does anyone doubt this premise? Any member of Congress who accepts as much as a cup of coffee from anyone with any interest in, or anyone in the employ of another person or industry with an interest in legislation is guilty of a felony, and ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I support a national referendum here on the internet, wherein all who agree voice their support for the enforement of laws on the books for bribery, and on every thread related to the political process express their outrage.

While I agree with you--politicians have already found a way around it.

That is why Criss Dodd--senate banking chairman received the most donations from Fannie/Freddie. It certainly came from individuals working for Fannie/Freddie--but he still got it--

Dodd, as I understand it, received 'special considerations' on home loans. It's wrong, and it should be illegal, as should any 'camplaign donation' from any entity which might be effected by legislation (and that means everyone).

 

[saveliberty]

When are you going to make a case for campaign finance reform? A bribe is something entirely different. Bribes are already illegal. Where campaigns are troublesome is so called soft money. Clean that up first. I also have a basic problem with anyone who spends huge sums of money to get elected to Congress. It makes them not very fiscally conservative. Also, it makes you wonder how they expect to make the job pay for all their investment.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I believe in campagin finance reform, do you?

Rarely. It's usually an assault on the First Amendment.

I really hope your post was sarcastic.

 

[Oddball]

You never answer questions.

All pisswillie does is prop up strawmen and knock them over with the sweeping generalization.

It's the established pattern.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I believe in campagin finance reform, do you?

Rarely. It's usually an assault on the First Amendment.

I really hope your post was sarcastic.

It was not. The Government has no legal right to interfere with individuals wishing to support a candidate for office. Yet we have laws on the books that do JUST that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Rarely. It's usually an assault on the First Amendment.

I really hope your post was sarcastic.

It was not. The Government has no legal right to interfere with individuals wishing to support a candidate for office. Yet we have laws on the books that do JUST that.

Wow. Rarely am I caught speechless. Have you considered the consequences of such a lassie faire policy?

 

[Oddball]

Who knew Lassie was an economic model?

 

[The Rabbi]

I support campaign finance reform.
Specifically I support repealing the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill. I support unlimited contributions by anyone to any candidate, with the caveat that it must all be made public in a very limited amount of time (anybody's seen the list of BHO contributors btw? Just asking). Limiting contributions has been a disaster. It has made it harder to attract good candidates and has given incumbents a decided edge.

 

[Thinman]

I'm in favor of campaign finance reform and abolishing pork (if it's that important, lower taxes and let the states handle it), and tax reform, and eliminating lobbists, but how can we make these things happen?

 

[rightwinger]

I support campaign finance reform.
Specifically I support repealing the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill. I support unlimited contributions by anyone to any candidate, with the caveat that it must all be made public in a very limited amount of time (anybody's seen the list of BHO contributors btw? Just asking). Limiting contributions has been a disaster. It has made it harder to attract good candidates and has given incumbents a decided edge.

Why is it than any bill the rightwing disagrees with is called unconstitutional, yet I don't see them trying to challenge them in court? No balls? or just no case?

 

[xsited1]

I believe in campagin finance reform, do you?

Rarely. It's usually an assault on the First Amendment.

I really hope your post was sarcastic.

I take the First Amendment very seriously. You obviously do not. However, you're a troll so I guess it's all fun and games to you. Carry on.

 

[The Rabbi]

I support campaign finance reform.
Specifically I support repealing the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill. I support unlimited contributions by anyone to any candidate, with the caveat that it must all be made public in a very limited amount of time (anybody's seen the list of BHO contributors btw? Just asking). Limiting contributions has been a disaster. It has made it harder to attract good candidates and has given incumbents a decided edge.

Why is it than any bill the rightwing disagrees with is called unconstitutional, yet I don't see them trying to challenge them in court? No balls? or just no case?

Ignorant much?
High Court Hears McCain-Feingold Challenge - HUMAN EVENTS
Supreme Court sharply questions ban on corporate spending - TheHill.com

Rightwinger again blasted out of the debate.

 

[rightwinger]

I support campaign finance reform.
Specifically I support repealing the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill. I support unlimited contributions by anyone to any candidate, with the caveat that it must all be made public in a very limited amount of time (anybody's seen the list of BHO contributors btw? Just asking). Limiting contributions has been a disaster. It has made it harder to attract good candidates and has given incumbents a decided edge.

Why is it than any bill the rightwing disagrees with is called unconstitutional, yet I don't see them trying to challenge them in court? No balls? or just no case?

Ignorant much?
High Court Hears McCain-Feingold Challenge - HUMAN EVENTS
Supreme Court sharply questions ban on corporate spending - TheHill.com

Rightwinger again blasted out of the debate.

I concede the point

 

[Avatar4321]

Why is it than any bill the rightwing disagrees with is called unconstitutional, yet I don't see them trying to challenge them in court? No balls? or just no case?

likely because the left refuses to actually follow the Constitution in anything they attempt to do with the federal government.