Pelosi agenda: Amend the First Amendment

[Ragnar]

Read it and weep.

Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment | CNSNews.com

“We have a clear agenda in this regard: [DISCLOSE], reform the system reducing the [role] of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.

“I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.”

Pelosi: We have a clear agenda to amend the First Amendment « Hot Air

Ms. Edwards misses a crucial point: The functions of government (what you might call the “rights” of government not in the original, inalienable sense, but in the sense of being the appropriate purview of government) are those that are granted by the people, with whom all power ultimately resides. If corporations as such don’t have natural rights (and I’d agree that they don’t, but the individuals that comprise them still do, including the right to pool their money for the purpose of political speech), then Congress certainly doesn’t have any rights of its own, either, including the right to regulate corporate political speech.

At least Pelosi is being an honest douchebag. No hidden agenda here. (always look on the bright side of life)

 

[konradv]

Read it and weep.

Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment | CNSNews.com

“We have a clear agenda in this regard: [DISCLOSE], reform the system reducing the [role] of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.

“I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.”

Pelosi: We have a clear agenda to amend the First Amendment « Hot Air

Ms. Edwards misses a crucial point: The functions of government (what you might call the “rights” of government not in the original, inalienable sense, but in the sense of being the appropriate purview of government) are those that are granted by the people, with whom all power ultimately resides. If corporations as such don’t have natural rights (and I’d agree that they don’t, but the individuals that comprise them still do, including the right to pool their money for the purpose of political speech), then Congress certainly doesn’t have any rights of its own, either, including the right to regulate corporate political speech.

At least Pelosi is being an honest douchebag. No hidden agenda here. (always look on the bright side of life)

If she's talking about public funding of elections, that's exactly what we need. She's right about special interests banding together and subverting the process. Why not all band together and take legal bribery out of the system by removing the need for our representitives to make expensive promises? Everybody cherishes their freedom of speech, but who should be doing the talking for the campaign, Romney or Nugent?

 

[Artevelde]

Read it and weep.

Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment | CNSNews.com

“We have a clear agenda in this regard: [DISCLOSE], reform the system reducing the [role] of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.

“I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.”

Pelosi: We have a clear agenda to amend the First Amendment « Hot Air

Ms. Edwards misses a crucial point: The functions of government (what you might call the “rights” of government not in the original, inalienable sense, but in the sense of being the appropriate purview of government) are those that are granted by the people, with whom all power ultimately resides. If corporations as such don’t have natural rights (and I’d agree that they don’t, but the individuals that comprise them still do, including the right to pool their money for the purpose of political speech), then Congress certainly doesn’t have any rights of its own, either, including the right to regulate corporate political speech.

At least Pelosi is being an honest douchebag. No hidden agenda here. (always look on the bright side of life)

If she's talking about public funding of elections, that's exactly what we need. She's right about special interests banding together and subverting the process. Why not all band together and take legal bribery out of the system by removing the need for our representitives to make expensive promises? Everybody cherishes their freedom of speech, but who should be doing the talking for the campaign, Romney or Nugent?

Trust me, public funding of election campaigns is a very bad thing.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Read it and weep.

Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment | CNSNews.com

“We have a clear agenda in this regard: [DISCLOSE], reform the system reducing the [role] of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.

“I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.”

Pelosi: We have a clear agenda to amend the First Amendment « Hot Air

Ms. Edwards misses a crucial point: The functions of government (what you might call the “rights” of government not in the original, inalienable sense, but in the sense of being the appropriate purview of government) are those that are granted by the people, with whom all power ultimately resides. If corporations as such don’t have natural rights (and I’d agree that they don’t, but the individuals that comprise them still do, including the right to pool their money for the purpose of political speech), then Congress certainly doesn’t have any rights of its own, either, including the right to regulate corporate political speech.

At least Pelosi is being an honest douchebag. No hidden agenda here. (always look on the bright side of life)

If she's talking about public funding of elections, that's exactly what we need. She's right about special interests banding together and subverting the process. Why not all band together and take legal bribery out of the system by removing the need for our representitives to make expensive promises? Everybody cherishes their freedom of speech, but who should be doing the talking for the campaign, Romney or Nugent?

Does it somehow not bother you that I showed you your public campaign financing is a farce? Are you suckling big bro's teet that much that you can't release?

 

[Intense]

Dear Nancy,
I think you can't handle the truth, and so construct the means to silence your opposition, rather than address it with reasoned response. With one hand you obstruct your competition in doing what you yourself do, with the other you money grab. If this is a lesson in anything, it's "Do as I Say, Not As I Do." Translation=Hypocrisy=Tyranny.

 

[blastoff]

Wonder if that c-word thinks the Founders vision included voting to pass a two thousand page bill before anyone's allowed to read the damn thing?

 

[konradv]

Read it and weep.

Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment | CNSNews.com


Pelosi: We have a clear agenda to amend the First Amendment « Hot Air



At least Pelosi is being an honest douchebag. No hidden agenda here. (always look on the bright side of life)

If she's talking about public funding of elections, that's exactly what we need. She's right about special interests banding together and subverting the process. Why not all band together and take legal bribery out of the system by removing the need for our representitives to make expensive promises? Everybody cherishes their freedom of speech, but who should be doing the talking for the campaign, Romney or Nugent?

Trust me, public funding of election campaigns is a very bad thing.

Explain. I don't trust people who say "trust me". I need to know why.

 

[konradv]

Read it and weep.

Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment | CNSNews.com


Pelosi: We have a clear agenda to amend the First Amendment « Hot Air



At least Pelosi is being an honest douchebag. No hidden agenda here. (always look on the bright side of life)

If she's talking about public funding of elections, that's exactly what we need. She's right about special interests banding together and subverting the process. Why not all band together and take legal bribery out of the system by removing the need for our representitives to make expensive promises? Everybody cherishes their freedom of speech, but who should be doing the talking for the campaign, Romney or Nugent?

Does it somehow not bother you that I showed you your public campaign financing is a farce? Are you suckling big bro's teet that much that you can't release?

Your objections were are farce. That's all I can recall. You concocted wild scenarios that missed the point and never even considered the positive points. Try again.

 

[PredFan]

Read it and weep.

Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment | CNSNews.com

“We have a clear agenda in this regard: [DISCLOSE], reform the system reducing the [role] of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.

“I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.”

Pelosi: We have a clear agenda to amend the First Amendment « Hot Air

Ms. Edwards misses a crucial point: The functions of government (what you might call the “rights” of government not in the original, inalienable sense, but in the sense of being the appropriate purview of government) are those that are granted by the people, with whom all power ultimately resides. If corporations as such don’t have natural rights (and I’d agree that they don’t, but the individuals that comprise them still do, including the right to pool their money for the purpose of political speech), then Congress certainly doesn’t have any rights of its own, either, including the right to regulate corporate political speech.

At least Pelosi is being an honest douchebag. No hidden agenda here. (always look on the bright side of life)

Pelosi proves yet again that she is a collossal idiot. The founding fathers did not set up a Democracy, it was a Republic, and the voters did not vote for the President or Senators. How this empty headed moron is still in office is beyond me.

 

[konradv]

Wonder if that c-word thinks the Founders vision included voting to pass a two thousand page bill before anyone's allowed to read the damn thing?

Institute public financing and a side benefit would be that our representitives would have more time to read bills.

 

[Artevelde]

If she's talking about public funding of elections, that's exactly what we need. She's right about special interests banding together and subverting the process. Why not all band together and take legal bribery out of the system by removing the need for our representitives to make expensive promises? Everybody cherishes their freedom of speech, but who should be doing the talking for the campaign, Romney or Nugent?

Trust me, public funding of election campaigns is a very bad thing.

Explain. I don't trust people who say "trust me". I need to know why.

Public financing of election campaigns has several negative effects:

-) It tigthens control of the government over the election process, thereby making the government stronger versus the electorate.
-) It virtually always creates an unlevel playing field giving the advantage to established candidates over newer candidates.
-) It requires an enormous amount of bureaucracy and red tape.
-) It creates more corruption, not less.

 

[Artevelde]

Wonder if that c-word thinks the Founders vision included voting to pass a two thousand page bill before anyone's allowed to read the damn thing?

Institute public financing and a side benefit would be that our representitives would have more time to read bills.

Far less. They will be occupied full time making sure the public financing favours them.

 

[konradv]

Read it and weep.

Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment | CNSNews.com

“We have a clear agenda in this regard: [DISCLOSE], reform the system reducing the [role] of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.

“I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.”

Pelosi: We have a clear agenda to amend the First Amendment « Hot Air

Ms. Edwards misses a crucial point: The functions of government (what you might call the “rights” of government not in the original, inalienable sense, but in the sense of being the appropriate purview of government) are those that are granted by the people, with whom all power ultimately resides. If corporations as such don’t have natural rights (and I’d agree that they don’t, but the individuals that comprise them still do, including the right to pool their money for the purpose of political speech), then Congress certainly doesn’t have any rights of its own, either, including the right to regulate corporate political speech.

At least Pelosi is being an honest douchebag. No hidden agenda here. (always look on the bright side of life)

Pelosi proves yet again that she is a collossal idiot. The founding fathers did not set up a Democracy, it was a Republic, and the voters did not vote for the President or Senators. How this empty headed moron is still in office is beyond me.

She was at a convention about amending the Constitution. How is that not as the FFs intended? They did provide a mechanism for amendment, didn't they?

 

[Artevelde]

Constitutions should be amended as little as possible

 

[konradv]

Wonder if that c-word thinks the Founders vision included voting to pass a two thousand page bill before anyone's allowed to read the damn thing?

Institute public financing and a side benefit would be that our representitives would have more time to read bills.

Far less. They will be occupied full time making sure the public financing favours them.

How so? How do you get favored, if all the major candidates get the same? Are you saying they'll spend their time rigging primaries and elections, instead? That's REAL CRIME and actionable, unlike the legal bribery system we have now.

 

[Artevelde]

Institute public financing and a side benefit would be that our representitives would have more time to read bills.

Far less. They will be occupied full time making sure the public financing favours them.

How so? How do you get favored, if all the major candidates get the same? Are you saying they'll spend their time rigging primaries and elections, instead? That's REAL CRIME and actionable, unlike the legal bribery system we have now.

And who determines who is a "major candidate"?

 

[PredFan]

Read it and weep.

Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment | CNSNews.com


Pelosi: We have a clear agenda to amend the First Amendment « Hot Air



At least Pelosi is being an honest douchebag. No hidden agenda here. (always look on the bright side of life)

Pelosi proves yet again that she is a collossal idiot. The founding fathers did not set up a Democracy, it was a Republic, and the voters did not vote for the President or Senators. How this empty headed moron is still in office is beyond me.

She was at a convention about amending the Constitution. How is that not as the FFs intended? They did provide a mechanism for amendment, didn't they?

Did you bother to read what I posted?

 

[konradv]

Trust me, public funding of election campaigns is a very bad thing.

Explain. I don't trust people who say "trust me". I need to know why.

Public financing of election campaigns has several negative effects:

-) It tigthens control of the government over the election process, thereby making the government stronger versus the electorate.
-) It virtually always creates an unlevel playing field giving the advantage to established candidates over newer candidates.
-) It requires an enormous amount of bureaucracy and red tape.
-) It creates more corruption, not less.

1. If we're paying, we're the government and the people our representitives have to listen to.

2. A system like that would require many open mikes and debates followed by sub-primaries to determine support. Rather than prevent new voices it would open it up to people currently swamped out by incumbent and party money.

3. The bureaucracy needed wouldn't have to be that great, if once one is qualified for funds, you're free to do what you please with it with reference to normal campaign expenditures. That bureaucracy would also pay for itself in fewer expensive promises made to donors.

4. Don't really see where the corruption comes from. Explain.

 

[konradv]

Far less. They will be occupied full time making sure the public financing favours them.

How so? How do you get favored, if all the major candidates get the same? Are you saying they'll spend their time rigging primaries and elections, instead? That's REAL CRIME and actionable, unlike the legal bribery system we have now.

And who determines who is a "major candidate"?

Sub-primaries to determine party and independent favorites and regular primaries to determine the party choices. Cut offs for support to be determined by law.

 

[Artevelde]

Explain. I don't trust people who say "trust me". I need to know why.

Public financing of election campaigns has several negative effects:

-) It tigthens control of the government over the election process, thereby making the government stronger versus the electorate.
-) It virtually always creates an unlevel playing field giving the advantage to established candidates over newer candidates.
-) It requires an enormous amount of bureaucracy and red tape.
-) It creates more corruption, not less.

1. If we're paying, we're the government and the people our representitives have to listen to.

2. A system like that would require many open mikes and debates followed by sub-primaries to determine support. Rather than prevent new voices it would open it up to people currently swamped out by incumbent and party money.

3. The bureaucracy needed wouldn't have to be that great, if once one is qualified for funds, you're free to do what you please with it with reference to normal campaign expenditures. That bureaucracy would also pay for itself in fewer expensive promises made to donors.

4. Don't really see where the corruption comes from. Explain.

1. Very naive. Once one becomes an incumbent one always tries to skew the system in one's favour. If what you write were true, there would be no gerrymandering.

2. That is not how the practice works. And Ive seen it work. It stifles debate.

3. The bureaucracy and paperwork is huge (with all the subsequent possibilities for abuse and fraud).

4. see above.

Finally, the most expensive promises candidates make they make to the voters, not to donors.