CDZ Should Corporations and Big Donors Be Limited in Donations to Politics?

[Billy_Kinetta]

there are no right according to the constitution for groups of people that are formed to make money.

Neither is there any restriction should groups of people armed with 1st Amendment rights decide to express them collectively.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You clearly do not understand what I mean here.
I am not surprised.

yet the people


get it, the people versus the states? The federal constitution was vetted and ratified by conventions of the people in each state, not by state governments.

The state congresses that ratified the Constitution and its first ten amendments are not the state governments in your view?

roflmao

Not in my view, in reality. Special Ed has a twin?

For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect.

Observing Constitution Day
​

The state legislatures did not ratify the proposed constitution, because the principle was that a government should not be voting on the type of the government which was being proposed. The people, the first time Americans acted as 'the people' on a national level in individual states, responded to the state calls for state conventions, not state congresses as you ignorantly state. Ignorant because of the distinctions between what constitutes a congress and what constitutes a convention. .

Yawn.
None of this is any way negates the soundness of what I said.

ok, you're only trolling
thanx

You wish.
The states have the absolute power to dissolve the federal government; the federal government has no legal way to stop them.
All they need do is pass an amendment.
Was that tried in the civil war? No.
And so, I stand correct, both in my initial assertion and my characterization of your responses.

 

[2aguy]

Billionaires bankrolling 2016 campaign to unprecedented degree Fox News

"Billionaires are bankrolling the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign to an unprecedented degree, with at least 40 of the wealthiest Americans plowing $60 million into super PACs aligned with the top tier of candidates.

The torrent of super PAC money is revolutionizing presidential politics in the wake of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals into these outside groups.

Super PACs backing 17 presidential candidates raised more than $250 million in the first six months of this year, roughly doubling the $125 million raised by the candidates for their campaigns, disclosure reports filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission show."


This is stupid. Corporations and the wealthy elites are trying to buy our elections.

No....you know who is paying for what...so vote accordingly. Problem solved.

No, the problem isn't solved since the voters are being brain washed by incessant advertising and are thus confused and misled.

Just as education is a positive good that enhances and really enables democratic processes in our Republic, so too overwhelming sources of funding for advertisement counters the effect of good education and reason. Most people have an IQ below that of an average 7-11 store manager and that is not exactly an elite position. Such people only take issues seriously when they enter a crisis mode of behaving and then they do much better, usually.

But during peaceful times of relative plenty, these people become dull and unimaginative and easily misled by complete horse shit.

That Republicans were misled into believing that Gingrich, a bedrock conservative, was in fact some kind of liberal when the primaries got to Floriduh in 2012, that is the classic case. Whether you like it or not or think it ideal or not, we have to keep corporations from buying elections like Romney bought Floriduh with about $11 million in advertising.

Yeah...and how did his money work for him...did he become President? Gingrich had more problems than lack of funding and that is why he lost...his affair hurt him with conservatives and his playing footsie with Hilary also hurt him....money wasn't the issue.

 

[2aguy]

Corporations are composed of people exercising free speech rights.

Yes, that is true and there is a HUGE difference between nonprofit corporations on one hand and for profit corporations on the other.

We cannot let the for profit corporations buy the system and they are, bit by bit.

Not saying it's ideal, but rights are not lost due to employment unless included in the employment contract.

No, the individual has not lost any rights, but there are no right according to the constitution for groups of people that are formed to make money.

the non profits...like planned parenthood...wonder where their money goes.

 

[2aguy]

"Should Corporations and Big Donors Be Limited in Donations to Politics?"

Given Citizens United, the question isn't 'should' but how – the people are at liberty to enact campaign finance reform to address the problem of the unwarranted influence money has in the political process – provided the solution comports with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Unwarranted influence...give me a break......anyone should be able to donate as much as they want since the government shouldn't block free speech. We all have a right to petition government and if we are individuals or groups of individuals who cares...the politicians, they all get money, and if you don't like who gives them money, don't vote for them. When you limit what can be given you are just giving power to the guy already in office...who already has a huge advantage against any challenger.

*People* should have the right of free speech, not corporations that are set up to make profit. Corporations set up as an advocacy group should have the aggregate right of free speech that people would have as individuals, but a for profit corporation is a danger to the political system worse than banks.


And Thomas Jefferson was right about banks, as was Andrew Jackson.

sorry, freedom of speech is fairly obvious in what it means....freedom of speech...they didn't set up categories of speech..or are you going to say they didn't have large businesses at the time of the founding...?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Billionaires bankrolling 2016 campaign to unprecedented degree Fox News

"Billionaires are bankrolling the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign to an unprecedented degree, with at least 40 of the wealthiest Americans plowing $60 million into super PACs aligned with the top tier of candidates.

The torrent of super PAC money is revolutionizing presidential politics in the wake of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals into these outside groups.

Super PACs backing 17 presidential candidates raised more than $250 million in the first six months of this year, roughly doubling the $125 million raised by the candidates for their campaigns, disclosure reports filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission show."


This is stupid. Corporations and the wealthy elites are trying to buy our elections.

No....you know who is paying for what...so vote accordingly. Problem solved.

No, the problem isn't solved since the voters are being brain washed by incessant advertising and are thus confused and misled.

Just as education is a positive good that enhances and really enables democratic processes in our Republic, so too overwhelming sources of funding for advertisement counters the effect of good education and reason. Most people have an IQ below that of an average 7-11 store manager and that is not exactly an elite position. Such people only take issues seriously when they enter a crisis mode of behaving and then they do much better, usually.

But during peaceful times of relative plenty, these people become dull and unimaginative and easily misled by complete horse shit.

That Republicans were misled into believing that Gingrich, a bedrock conservative, was in fact some kind of liberal when the primaries got to Floriduh in 2012, that is the classic case. Whether you like it or not or think it ideal or not, we have to keep corporations from buying elections like Romney bought Floriduh with about $11 million in advertising.

Yeah...and how did his money work for him...did he become President? Gingrich had more problems than lack of funding and that is why he lost...his affair hurt him with conservatives and his playing footsie with Hilary also hurt him....money wasn't the issue.

When Romney got into the general election, his Big Money contributors on Wall Street largely deserted him. Their boy, Obama, was still dishing out the QE so they were going to stay with the man that brought them to the party instead of jumping ship.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"Should Corporations and Big Donors Be Limited in Donations to Politics?"

Given Citizens United, the question isn't 'should' but how – the people are at liberty to enact campaign finance reform to address the problem of the unwarranted influence money has in the political process – provided the solution comports with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Unwarranted influence...give me a break......anyone should be able to donate as much as they want since the government shouldn't block free speech. We all have a right to petition government and if we are individuals or groups of individuals who cares...the politicians, they all get money, and if you don't like who gives them money, don't vote for them. When you limit what can be given you are just giving power to the guy already in office...who already has a huge advantage against any challenger.

*People* should have the right of free speech, not corporations that are set up to make profit. Corporations set up as an advocacy group should have the aggregate right of free speech that people would have as individuals, but a for profit corporation is a danger to the political system worse than banks.


And Thomas Jefferson was right about banks, as was Andrew Jackson.

sorry, freedom of speech is fairly obvious in what it means....freedom of speech...they didn't set up categories of speech..or are you going to say they didn't have large businesses at the time of the founding...?

\Sure they had business at the founding, but none of them were considered to have freedom of speech like a for-profit corporation does now.

 

[JimBowie1958]

there are no right according to the constitution for groups of people that are formed to make money.

Neither is there any restriction should groups of people armed with 1st Amendment rights decide to express them collectively.

Nor is there anything to prevent the government from regulating and restraining the expression of for-profit corporations. You have to go to recent case law for that.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

there are no right according to the constitution for groups of people that are formed to make money.

Neither is there any restriction should groups of people armed with 1st Amendment rights decide to express them collectively.

Nor is there anything to prevent the government from regulating and restraining the expression of for-profit corporations. You have to go to recent case law for that.

Recent case law does NOT amend the Constitution, nor would it legally restrain the free expression of enumerated rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is one surefire way to deal with corporate influence via contributions and it can be implemented without restricting anybody's liberties or violating anybody's rights.

Just make a constitutional amendment that the federal government at any level can make no law or allocate any of the people's resources that benefits any person, entity, organization, or demographic that does not equally benefit all without respect for race, ethnicity, or any other criteria.

Then it won't matter how much any corporation gives to any candidate. It cannot buy any special advantage for itself but will focus on those candidates they believe will do the best job for everybody.

 

[Ernie S.]

"Should Corporations and Big Donors Be Limited in Donations to Politics?"

Given Citizens United, the question isn't 'should' but how – the people are at liberty to enact campaign finance reform to address the problem of the unwarranted influence money has in the political process – provided the solution comports with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Unwarranted influence...give me a break......anyone should be able to donate as much as they want since the government shouldn't block free speech. We all have a right to petition government and if we are individuals or groups of individuals who cares...the politicians, they all get money, and if you don't like who gives them money, don't vote for them. When you limit what can be given you are just giving power to the guy already in office...who already has a huge advantage against any challenger.

*People* should have the right of free speech, not corporations that are set up to make profit. Corporations set up as an advocacy group should have the aggregate right of free speech that people would have as individuals, but a for profit corporation is a danger to the political system worse than banks.


And Thomas Jefferson was right about banks, as was Andrew Jackson.

sorry, freedom of speech is fairly obvious in what it means....freedom of speech...they didn't set up categories of speech..or are you going to say they didn't have large businesses at the time of the founding...?

\Sure they had business at the founding, but none of them were considered to have freedom of speech like a for-profit corporation does now.

You don't think big money had influence back then? Were the founders human?

 

[Foxfyre]

"Should Corporations and Big Donors Be Limited in Donations to Politics?"

Given Citizens United, the question isn't 'should' but how – the people are at liberty to enact campaign finance reform to address the problem of the unwarranted influence money has in the political process – provided the solution comports with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Unwarranted influence...give me a break......anyone should be able to donate as much as they want since the government shouldn't block free speech. We all have a right to petition government and if we are individuals or groups of individuals who cares...the politicians, they all get money, and if you don't like who gives them money, don't vote for them. When you limit what can be given you are just giving power to the guy already in office...who already has a huge advantage against any challenger.

*People* should have the right of free speech, not corporations that are set up to make profit. Corporations set up as an advocacy group should have the aggregate right of free speech that people would have as individuals, but a for profit corporation is a danger to the political system worse than banks.


And Thomas Jefferson was right about banks, as was Andrew Jackson.

sorry, freedom of speech is fairly obvious in what it means....freedom of speech...they didn't set up categories of speech..or are you going to say they didn't have large businesses at the time of the founding...?

\Sure they had business at the founding, but none of them were considered to have freedom of speech like a for-profit corporation does now.

You don't think big money had influence back then? Were the founders human?

But the founders at least knew they could not use the people's money to advantage themselves nor did they have any power to benefit any particular corporation who gave them money.

 

[2aguy]

There is one surefire way to deal with corporate influence via contributions and it can be implemented without restricting anybody's liberties or violating anybody's rights.

Just make a constitutional amendment that the federal government at any level can make no law or allocate any of the people's resources that benefits any person, entity, organization, or demographic that does not equally benefit all without respect for race, ethnicity, or any other criteria.

Then it won't matter how much any corporation gives to any candidate. It cannot buy any special advantage for itself but will focus on those candidates they believe will do the best job for everybody.

Exactly...

 

[dblack]

Unwarranted influence...give me a break......anyone should be able to donate as much as they want since the government shouldn't block free speech. We all have a right to petition government and if we are individuals or groups of individuals who cares...the politicians, they all get money, and if you don't like who gives them money, don't vote for them. When you limit what can be given you are just giving power to the guy already in office...who already has a huge advantage against any challenger.

*People* should have the right of free speech, not corporations that are set up to make profit. Corporations set up as an advocacy group should have the aggregate right of free speech that people would have as individuals, but a for profit corporation is a danger to the political system worse than banks.


And Thomas Jefferson was right about banks, as was Andrew Jackson.

sorry, freedom of speech is fairly obvious in what it means....freedom of speech...they didn't set up categories of speech..or are you going to say they didn't have large businesses at the time of the founding...?

\Sure they had business at the founding, but none of them were considered to have freedom of speech like a for-profit corporation does now.

You don't think big money had influence back then? Were the founders human?

But the founders at least knew they could not use the people's money to advantage themselves nor did they have any power to benefit any particular corporation who gave them money.

+1

 

[JimBowie1958]

there are no right according to the constitution for groups of people that are formed to make money.

Neither is there any restriction should groups of people armed with 1st Amendment rights decide to express them collectively.

Nor is there anything to prevent the government from regulating and restraining the expression of for-profit corporations. You have to go to recent case law for that.

Recent case law does NOT amend the Constitution, nor would it legally restrain the free expression of enumerated rights.

Case law 'interprets' the Constititution and current law, in view of existing case law to create new case law. It can either impose new restrictions as has been the case with religious expression, or expand the reigning case law to expand those rights as it did with corporations.

Case law can be overcome by new law or Constitutional amendments that erase it.

 

[jillian]

Why?

lol, do you libtards ever actually think for yourselves?

The government is going to spend close to $3.5 trillion this year.
You want to reduce money spent on elections, you have to reduce the incentive.
Cut government spending by a couple of trillion.

do you libtards ever actually think for yourselves?

Libtards don't, but I'm to the right of Attila the Hun.

amusing little exchange. i'll have to tell bill gates he doesn't know how to think for himself. apparently neither does warren buffet.

*shakes head and laughs at the wingerness of your statement*

Bill and Warren like to talk about raising tax rates on rich folks, while they work to make sure the government gets none of their billions after they die.

Yes. How terrible that they gave their money to charity.

Yeah, keeping it away from government.
While whining the government needs more.

i'm not a gubmint hating extremist. and i think anyone who wishes to participate in government should actually choose to govern

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The government is going to spend close to $3.5 trillion this year.
You want to reduce money spent on elections, you have to reduce the incentive.
Cut government spending by a couple of trillion.

do you libtards ever actually think for yourselves?

Libtards don't, but I'm to the right of Attila the Hun.

amusing little exchange. i'll have to tell bill gates he doesn't know how to think for himself. apparently neither does warren buffet.

*shakes head and laughs at the wingerness of your statement*

Bill and Warren like to talk about raising tax rates on rich folks, while they work to make sure the government gets none of their billions after they die.

Yes. How terrible that they gave their money to charity.

Yeah, keeping it away from government.
While whining the government needs more.

i'm not a gubmint hating extremist. and i think anyone who wishes to participate in government should actually choose to govern

i'm not a gubmint hating extremist.

Neither is Warren. He thinks the government needs more revenue. Especially from the rich.
While he structures his affairs to minimize government revenue.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Case law 'interprets' the Constititution and current law, in view of existing case law to create new case law. It can either impose new restrictions as has been the case with religious expression, or expand the reigning case law to expand those rights as it did with corporations.

It can because it is accepted by a complacent citizenry trained to accept it. Without amendment, no restrictions can be legally placed upon Constitutional rights by the Congress.

Case law can be overcome by new law or Constitutional amendments that erase it.

Or by being shown by an honest Court to be unconstitutional.

Have you read the Constitution? Do you honestly believe it requires interpretation? Ezra Klein, one of yours and formerly with the Washington Post, stated it was "hard to read because it was written a hundred years ago."

It could hardly be written more clearly. Often such "interpretation" is mere obfuscation and legal sleight-of-hand.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Case law 'interprets' the Constititution and current law, in view of existing case law to create new case law. It can either impose new restrictions as has been the case with religious expression, or expand the reigning case law to expand those rights as it did with corporations.

It can because it is accepted by a complacent citizenry trained to accept it. Without amendment, no restrictions can be legally placed upon Constitutional rights by the Congress.

In theory, but when you get arrested and prosecuted what you think the Constitution says isn't going to help you much.

Case law can be overcome by new law or Constitutional amendments that erase it.

Or by being shown by an honest Court to be unconstitutional.

A lower court cannot over rule the ruling of a higher court and the SCOTUS is not likely to over rule itself so quickly.

Have you read the Constitution?

lol, yes, I have.

Do you honestly believe it requires interpretation?

EVERYTHING anyone ever reads requires interpretation to some degree or other.

Ezra Klein, one of yours and formerly with the Washington Post, stated it was "hard to read because it was written a hundred years ago."

One of mine? No, Mr Klien isn't one of mine unless he is a Catholic or an American blend or an unemployed man who was kicked off disability.

It could hardly be written more clearly. Often such "interpretation" is mere obfuscation and legal sleight-of-hand.

Agreed, as the SCOTUS has written some gawd awful opinions over the last twenty years or so.

Still this is the legal system that is enforced and has sovereign power over us, appointed by God. Which makes me sometimes think that God likes a little whiskey too.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

In theory, but when you get arrested and prosecuted what you think the Constitution says isn't going to help you much.

My point precisely. Anything, Constitutional or not, can be enforced at the barrel of a gun.

A lower court cannot over rule the ruling of a higher court and the SCOTUS is not likely to over rule itself so quickly.

Check the caps, indicating SCOTUS.

EVERYTHING anyone ever reads requires interpretation to some degree or other.

No more than reading "The Cat in the Hat".

One of mine? No, Mr Klien isn't one of mine unless he is a Catholic or an American blend or an unemployed man who was kicked off disability.

Lucky you. I have no idea what he is, aside from thickheaded hack.