Two Years After "Citizens United," Amending the Constitution is Essential

[Oddball]

I'm talking about something larger, public financing to take ALL private money out of the system.

What, so the politicians can run campaign finance like their own personal private political welfare program?

You liberoidals really are off your collective nuts.

 

[konradv]

I'm talking about something larger, public financing to take ALL private money out of the system.

What, so the politicians can run campaign finance like their own personal private political welfare program?

You liberoidals really are off your collective nuts.

I see, you PREFER a kleptocracy!!!

 

[konradv]

the only way to get money out of politics, is to take government out of business and put them back in their proper role of upholding the law. Once government can not sway the business sector or the market to special interest groups, the money that corps dump into government for favors would be useless and wouldnt happen.

No sway over business = Can not be bought by business

No sway over business? Now you're the one that wants to violate the Constitution!

 

[Oddball]

I'm talking about something larger, public financing to take ALL private money out of the system.

What, so the politicians can run campaign finance like their own personal private political welfare program?

You liberoidals really are off your collective nuts.

I see, you PREFER a kleptocracy!!!

False dichotomy.

You want politicians to not be bought, take away what they're selling.

 

[Oddball]

the only way to get money out of politics, is to take government out of business and put them back in their proper role of upholding the law. Once government can not sway the business sector or the market to special interest groups, the money that corps dump into government for favors would be useless and wouldnt happen.

No sway over business = Can not be bought by business

No sway over business? Now you're the one that wants to violate the Constitution!

The Constitution says noting about running defacto protection rackets like the FDA.

 

[konradv]

You could make a rule that for a certain period before an election or primary that only candidates using public funds can make media buys. I wouldn't make any rules about free media, except that you have to present all the candidates. I've got nothing against speech, it's the backroom money deals that bother me.

Sure, but my point is that you're just moving the back room deals to different rooms. Direct bribery is already illegal. So what they've been doing instead, is financing the candidates' campaigns. If they can no longer give them money to buy advertising directly, they'll simply buy the media and give them free advertising in the form of biased reporting and "opinion news" saturation, ala Fox News. If we make serious efforts to stop that, then we are getting into straight up infringement on the first amendment.

Not if there's a new amendment dealing with campaign finance. I've got nothing against the "opinion makers", though their bosses would have to make sure there's "equal time" for all the candidates to get their views out. It's the money, not the speech, that's tilting the system.

 

[konradv]

What, so the politicians can run campaign finance like their own personal private political welfare program?

You liberoidals really are off your collective nuts.

I see, you PREFER a kleptocracy!!!

False dichotomy.

You want politicians to not be bought, take away what they're selling.

They're selling their votes, so that comment doesn't make sense. How do you take that away and still allow them to do their jobs.

 

[konradv]

the only way to get money out of politics, is to take government out of business and put them back in their proper role of upholding the law. Once government can not sway the business sector or the market to special interest groups, the money that corps dump into government for favors would be useless and wouldnt happen.

No sway over business = Can not be bought by business

No sway over business? Now you're the one that wants to violate the Constitution!

The Constitution says noting about running defacto protection rackets like the FDA.

Do some research, it comes under interstate commerce.

 

[Oddball]

No sway over business? Now you're the one that wants to violate the Constitution!

The Constitution says noting about running defacto protection rackets like the FDA.

Do some research, it comes under interstate commerce.

Great Caesar's ghost....


What doesn't fall under interstate commerce and general welfare with you poorly closeted Bolsheviks?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The federal government has stuck all kinds of shit under interstate commerce. The original intent has been lost due to the usurps under interstate commerce by government.


Applying more rules will have just more unseen consequences. And it wont stop politicians from being bought.

Progressives love new rules though.

 

[Oddball]

I see, you PREFER a kleptocracy!!!

False dichotomy.

You want politicians to not be bought, take away what they're selling.

They're selling their votes, so that comment doesn't make sense. How do you take that away and still allow them to do their jobs.

Their job is to protect the rights of everyone, not take form one group of individuals in order the feather the nests of another group.

But as long as collectivist do-gooders like you insist upon running a gigantic welfare nanny state, you're going to have people wanting to buy some of that regulatory and redistributive power.

You're a victim of your own ham-handed and selfish view of what gubmint should and shouldn't be doing, tovarich.

 

[konradv]

The Constitution says noting about running defacto protection rackets like the FDA.

Do some research, it comes under interstate commerce.

Great Caesar's ghost....

What doesn't fall under interstate commerce and general welfare with you poorly closeted Bolsheviks?

So, why wouldn't the FDA come under it? If you don't think so, at least give a reason.

 

[konradv]

False dichotomy.

You want politicians to not be bought, take away what they're selling.

They're selling their votes, so that comment doesn't make sense. How do you take that away and still allow them to do their jobs.

Their job is to protect the rights of everyone, not take form one group of individuals in order the feather the nests of another group.

But as long as collectivist do-gooders like you insist upon running a gigantic welfare nanny state, you're going to have people wanting to buy some of that regulatory and redistributive power.

You're a victim of your own ham-handed and selfish view of what gubmint should and shouldn't be doing, tovarich.

Given public financing, what would be the reason for feathering someone's nest?

 

[Oddball]

That would be feathering the nest of the ruling class at the expense of the entire population.

Amazing how short sighted you are.

 

[konradv]

That would be feathering the nest of the ruling class at the expense of the entire population.

Amazing how short sighted you are.

That's what's happening now. With private finacing politicians listen to donors with the bigger donors(ruling class?) getting the most face time. With public finacing they'd have to listen to the entire population.

 

[dblack]

You could make a rule that for a certain period before an election or primary that only candidates using public funds can make media buys. I wouldn't make any rules about free media, except that you have to present all the candidates. I've got nothing against speech, it's the backroom money deals that bother me.

Sure, but my point is that you're just moving the back room deals to different rooms. Direct bribery is already illegal. So what they've been doing instead, is financing the candidates' campaigns. If they can no longer give them money to buy advertising directly, they'll simply buy the media and give them free advertising in the form of biased reporting and "opinion news" saturation, ala Fox News. If we make serious efforts to stop that, then we are getting into straight up infringement on the first amendment.

Not if there's a new amendment dealing with campaign finance. I've got nothing against the "opinion makers", though their bosses would have to make sure there's "equal time" for all the candidates to get their views out. It's the money, not the speech, that's tilting the system.

And how would you ensure that without violating the first amendment? And when you say all the candidates, uh... really? ALL of them?

 

[Poli_Sigh]

The only real cure is to make huge corporate funding the kiss of death for any candidate's chances. Every candidate from now on should have a published ratio of corporate/private donations. Maybe someone will make a website that does just that.

The Supreme Court over stepped its authority on this matter and should have rejected hearing it.

Gingrich whined that he was poor with only a measly $2 or $3 million. This he said to an audience in a country with double digit unemployment. Mitt Romney doesn't like poor folks, probably because he's never been one. He's barely getting by on $200 million - most of which was no doubt earned by his father, George Romney. McCain couldn't remember or didn't know how many homes he owned.

Take money out of politics! Fat chance of that in a country that some years ago chose Capitalism over Democracy. America's deities are reflected as pictures of dead presidents.

Besides, it would take a Revolution not an amendment to the Constitution to change the way in which Washington and politics in general do business. We should all know by now, that no matter how much politicians talk about campaign reform, it's never going to happen.

 

[konradv]

Sure, but my point is that you're just moving the back room deals to different rooms. Direct bribery is already illegal. So what they've been doing instead, is financing the candidates' campaigns. If they can no longer give them money to buy advertising directly, they'll simply buy the media and give them free advertising in the form of biased reporting and "opinion news" saturation, ala Fox News. If we make serious efforts to stop that, then we are getting into straight up infringement on the first amendment.

Not if there's a new amendment dealing with campaign finance. I've got nothing against the "opinion makers", though their bosses would have to make sure there's "equal time" for all the candidates to get their views out. It's the money, not the speech, that's tilting the system.

And how would you ensure that without violating the first amendment? And when you say all the candidates, uh... really? ALL of them?

If you go back and look I lay out my plan in an earlier post. Initially, there would be debates and a sub-primary, so NOT all candidates, just those that reach some pre-set level of support.

 

[konradv]

The only real cure is to make huge corporate funding the kiss of death for any candidate's chances. Every candidate from now on should have a published ratio of corporate/private donations. Maybe someone will make a website that does just that.

The Supreme Court over stepped its authority on this matter and should have rejected hearing it.

Gingrich whined that he was poor with only a measly $2 or $3 million. This he said to an audience in a country with double digit unemployment. Mitt Romney doesn't like poor folks, probably because he's never been one. He's barely getting by on $200 million - most of which was no doubt earned by his father, George Romney. McCain couldn't remember or didn't know how many homes he owned.

Take money out of politics! Fat chance of that in a country that some years ago chose Capitalism over Democracy. America's deities are reflected as pictures of dead presidents.

Besides, it would take a Revolution not an amendment to the Constitution to change the way in which Washington and politics in general do business. We should all know by now, that no matter how much politicians talk about campaign reform, it's never going to happen.

An amendment doesn't have to come from Congress. It could come from the states.

 

[Ernie S.]

It wouldn't be a repeal of the first amendment,

Yes it would.



Where does the First Amendment make an exception for political campaigns? In fact, if there is one thing the founders would have mentioned explicitly, it's political campaigns.

It's also not about "access", people would still be able to lobby, just not contribute to campaigns. As for who gets funds, I'd have regular debates at all levels, even during off years. When elections approach, have sub-primaries to determine who has significant support from the parties and any independents. From there money would be divided equally and the number of candidates cut down after the primaries. Not only would that keep people from selling their votes, they'd also have more time to do OUR business, instead of spending so much of it auctioning their vote to the highest bidder.

The decision has nothing to do with contributions to political campaigns. It refers to independent expenditures. Everyone opposed to the decision always talks about campaign donations. They have nothing to do with it.

I'm talking about something larger, public financing to take ALL private money out of the system.

Hmm yeah public financing of elections... Nikita Khrushchev would be so proud.
When you have government controlling campaign spending, those in power control who gets financing.
Government has a vested interest in protecting it's power. Private contributors have an interest in voicing their concerns.