Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

[Procrustes Stretched]

Axelrod already illegally obtained Citgo's tax returns and Obama would have sent his pimp Holder after Citgo if he found anything.

illegal

somebody please report this troll as a conspiracy nut????

 

[bag]

while the dillhole republican minions support the rich because, hmmm...tryin' to figgger that out

 

[Revere]

Axelrod already illegally obtained Citgo's tax returns and Obama would have sent his pimp Holder after Citgo if he found anything.

illegal

somebody please report this troll as a conspiracy nut????

If Citgo did anything wrong in the last election, Obama would tell you.

 

[Revere]

Just like Obama got caught revealing private tax information about Koch Industries.

 

[The Rabbi]

while the dillhole republican minions support the rich because, hmmm...tryin' to figgger that out

Actually the Dems got much more money from Wall St and "the rich" than the GOP does.
It is an issue of fairness. Republicans want everybody to be rich. Democrats want everyone who isn't already rich to be poor.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Rabbi?

gawd, what a douchebag

 

[Revere]

while the dillhole republican minions support the rich because, hmmm...tryin' to figgger that out

Actually the Dems got much more money from Wall St and "the rich" than the GOP does.
It is an issue of fairness. Republicans want everybody to be rich. Democrats want everyone who isn't already rich to be poor.

Yeah, nobody was bellyaching about this until Democrats started stabbing their Wall Street donors in the back and the contributions went the other way.

 

[glew]

Curious if the libs think unions should be included in a donation ban? If this was already asked, then pay no mind

 

[Revere]

Curious if the libs think unions should be included in a donation ban? If this was already asked, then pay no mind

Hell no. They're carved out of this.

 

[mdn2000]

delusional thinking is another sign of Right World Lunacy taking over a fragile mind.

Go back and pick up were you...

snore...
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

go back and bash a dead man because in your deluded state you imagine it what --- upsets Dante? great way to debate.

Nice response, still afraid to support a post of yours. Wimp

 

[shintao]

Why should government tell anyone who can and can't buy advertising?

I agree with that. And for the priveledge of taking away people's freedom, we pay close to $64 Million for 1-2 election days out of the year.

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, $63,618,000 of which not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for reception and representation expenses.


http://www.fec.gov/pages/budget/fy2009/CJ_final_1_31_08.pdf

 

[antagon]

Why should government be able to tell you how much advertising you can buy?

the government regulates speech. there are extensive limitations to the freedom of speech, especially on tv and radio.

what country do you live in?

You know that's misleading. You can't get on air and say, "fuck you fuck you fuck you".

But you can get on air and say, "Our president pals around with terrorists".

Surely, you can see the difference. It shouldn't have to be explained.

i'm pointing out the absurdity of arguing that the government can't or shouldn't regulate media, when clearly it does.

 

[antagon]

Wow, high-end debates here. I haven't heard this kind of name calling since the 3rd grade...

What matters is what the USSC said is free speech. Period. Besides, it would be unenforceable, unless you outlaw brown bags and money in freezers.
Does anyone else remember what the Chinese referred to as "money bag politics" during the Clinton admin??

its not rocket science. political ads would just require registration of their cost or something.

the real question revolves around whether it is prudent to curtail the expression of corporations and groups of individuals at the behest of unorganized groups. do the right to free speech and the right to assemble compound to support annoying adds funded by corps? i think they do.

the constitution would have to be changed with an amendment that creates exceptions with specific regard to election adds or something if they aim to have such a block imposed.

IMHO we should not tinker with the Constitution. The Supremes said that Obama was flat wrong about his take on their decision. So I'm not sure what the Left is whining about. The Left was very happy when they had the big money in 2008, now they're whining.

I still have not seen the absolute correlation between money and winning elections, just ask Whitman the un-governor of CA. Voters generally see thru bullshit ads put up by Corporations or bullshit pols like Rangel, or Reid, or McMahon (against the VN liar)...maybe with better candidates it wouldn't matter.

this is my take on the matter. i dont see the real efficacy of these ads, but they do make the difference between an unknown candidate and a well-known one.

this goes to the root of the issue of campaign finance. if it is right that there should be limits on campaign finance such that elections could not just be bought, or that politicians dont feel that they need to act on the behalf of special interests if they are elected, then the money spent on ads does pose a problem for democracy. whether it worked well or not so well, if i put $18,000,000 behind you, you better extend my farm subsidy for the next decade. something like that. that is a type of corruption.

personally, i would circumvent the constitution issue and heavily excise the shit so that the FEC's budget is flush or black. *takes bow* i'm one of those who feels the government should capitalize on ways like this where it could earn its own living, rather than begging from us every april alone. otherwise, there is a lacuna in the constitution with regard to the rights of corporations, where they are ambiguously assembled individuals, assuming those rights, but circumventing the cap on individual expenditure. some might seek to close that with some language that defines corps' rights. 'tinkering' in such a way is a serious endeavor, but if there's support for it, the constitution provides for such through the amendment process.

i say pass a law to get 40% of that crooked money.

 

[Intense]

It shouldn't have needed amending. Corporations aren't people for purposes of the first amendment... well, they weren't..

but where are all those "originalist" pretend constitutionalists complaining about it?

It's not a complaint, it's voice. Just like the Union's and PAC's have voice. There is also my Constitutional Right to hear, and decide for myself. Truth is Truth, no matter the source, and we each have a right to hear relevant information in determining what our positions are. It is not for you to censor, what I want or need to hear. Nor is it for me to control what information reaches you.

But corporations have already petitioned the courts for the legal right to LIE!

Kasky v. Nike (Nike v. Kasky at the U.S. Supreme Court) involved the Nike Corporation's appeal of an April 2002 California Supreme Court ruling. The California court rejected claims by Nike's lawyers that the First Amendment immunized the company from being sued for an allegedly deceptive public relations campaign. A trial on the merits was precluded by the parties' settlement following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to send the case back to a lower court.

Nike v. Kasky - Corporate Right to Lie? -Reclaim Democracy.org

What is stopping you from telling a lie?????

 

[Intense]

I still have not seen the absolute correlation between money and winning election...

Corrupting the system. Who is arguing about winning?

note: A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue

Let me know when you are ready to concede to Picture ID when Voting. Until then, your corruption argument needs work.

 

[Intense]

The Thread Title is itself corrupt.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Go back and pick up were you...

snore...
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

go back and bash a dead man because in your deluded state you imagine it what --- upsets Dante? great way to debate.

Nice response, still afraid to support a post of yours. Wimp

sticks and stones...


delusional thinking is another sign of Right World Lunacy taking over a fragile mind.

 

[teapartysamurai]

If voters are so for a Democrat policy to restrict the freedom of speech, explain the election of 2010??????????

Seems pretty much like voters DO NOT side with the Democrats on ANYTHING!

Keep lying about it though liberals. It's funny to watch.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If voters are so for a Democrat policy to restrict the freedom of speech, explain the election of 2010??????????

Seems pretty much like voters DO NOT side with the Democrats on ANYTHING!

Keep lying about it though liberals. It's funny to watch.

 

[teapartysamurai]

If voters are so for a Democrat policy to restrict the freedom of speech, explain the election of 2010??????????

Seems pretty much like voters DO NOT side with the Democrats on ANYTHING!

Keep lying about it though liberals. It's funny to watch.

Yeah, well you liberals tried that about conservatives and the Tea Party for two years prior to the election.

Didn't work did it?

But you keep on claiming that the electorate really agrees with you, and anyone that bursts the bubble of that delusion must be crazy.

I expect you libs to get more delusional and more delusional as we roll into 2011 and the new Congress is seated.