goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: CNS on April 02, 2014, 09:50:45 AM
-
Justices strike down political donor limits
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/politics/scotus-political-donor-limits/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/politics/scotus-political-donor-limits/index.html)
(CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down current limits on the total amount individual donors can make to political campaigns.
At issue is whether those regulations in the Federal Election Campaign Act violate the First Amendment rights of contributors.
The 5-4 ruling could have an immediate impact on November's congressional midterm elections, and add another layer of high-stakes spending in the crowded political arena
Pretty bad deal for most Americans. This is going to eliminate all interest in serving the majority of the actual ppl.
-
maybe not a terrible deal. there currently are plenty of ways to hide campaign donations. it could be better to know that a certain politician receives 50% of his funding from koch/soros/anotherboogeyman.
-
maybe not a terrible deal. there currently are plenty of ways to hide campaign donations. it could be better to know that a certain politician receives 50% of his funding from koch/soros/anotherboogeyman.
What percentage of the voting population do you think will ever bother to look something like that up?
-
what really needs to happen is 72 hour reporting of all campaign funds received, including where the money came from. it's my understanding that the current process is months long.
-
maybe not a terrible deal. there currently are plenty of ways to hide campaign donations. it could be better to know that a certain politician receives 50% of his funding from koch/soros/anotherboogeyman.
What percentage of the voting population do you think will ever bother to look something like that up?
right now they can look it up and then read the names of seven PACs and then they have to go look up info on the PACs.
-
Knowing who the donors are won't matter at all. The politicians will still take the money from the sources offering it unapologetically. Then they will govern as needed to keep the cash flowing.
-
Oh, and
campain
:D
-
Pretty bad deal for most Americans. This is going to eliminate all interest in serving the majority of the actual ppl.
Agree, although I feel like this is already the case. Now it can really get out of control
-
1. go to this site http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteTransaction.do (http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteTransaction.do)
2. pick a politician and go to their page
3. click on Itemized Individual Contributions
4. sort by receipt date
5. realize that they're 90 days behind on this stuff
90 days is substantial portion of time in non-presidential elections. also, that site is crap to navigate.
a few things would help.
1. a non-shitty site
2. immediate reporting
3. a percentage column to show how much that goldman-sachs money is affecting decisions
-
I would assume that this effects state and municipal politicians too? I mean, a state can't impose a law that is federally unconstitutional.
This sucks on all levels, but I have always heard that if you truly want to make a diff in politics, one should start at the local level because that is where one individual voter/donor/volunteer/etc. has the ability to have a larger effect on the outcome. Many small municipalities would be pretty easy to end up having their politician(s) by one small group of business owners.
Basically, if this doesn't get overturned and you don't have cash in pocket or some favor to offer, you have no voice.
-
I would assume that this effects state and municipal politicians too? I mean, a state can't impose a law that is federally unconstitutional.
This sucks on all levels, but I have always heard that if you truly want to make a diff in politics, one should start at the local level because that is where one individual voter/donor/volunteer/etc. has the ability to have a larger effect on the outcome. Many small municipalities would be pretty easy to end up having their politician(s) by one small group of business owners.
Basically, if this doesn't get overturned and you don't have cash in pocket or some favor to offer, you have no voice.
correct Re: batshit crazy school boards and state reps.
-
this coupled with "corporations are people" (except when that's bad for the corporation, then they aren't held responsible like people), is very disappointing news
-
Democracy is a tricky beast. So is the First Amendment.
-
1. go to this site http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteTransaction.do (http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteTransaction.do)
2. pick a politician and go to their page
3. click on Itemized Individual Contributions
4. sort by receipt date
5. realize that they're 90 days behind on this stuff
90 days is substantial portion of time in non-presidential elections. also, that site is crap to navigate.
a few things would help.
1. a non-shitty site
2. immediate reporting
3. a percentage column to show how much that goldman-sachs money is affecting decisions
Good point Bubbles.
I think their goal is to control the world.
-
1. go to this site http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteTransaction.do (http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteTransaction.do)
2. pick a politician and go to their page
3. click on Itemized Individual Contributions
4. sort by receipt date
5. realize that they're 90 days behind on this stuff
90 days is substantial portion of time in non-presidential elections. also, that site is crap to navigate.
a few things would help.
1. a non-shitty site
2. immediate reporting
3. a percentage column to show how much that goldman-sachs money is affecting decisions
Good point Bubbles.
I think their goal is to control the world.
i think the GS goal is to make a ton of money, i just used them as an example.
-
Spending money to help advertise for a particular cause would seem to epitomize free speech, right?
Not sure why this is so controversial. The unions have basically been able to funnel as much of their members' dues to political campaigns for decades. I don't recall Dems crying foul over that.
-
Spending money to help advertise for a particular cause would seem to epitomize free speech, right?
How so? That kind of seems like a stretch to me.
-
Spending money to help advertise for a particular cause would seem to epitomize free speech, right?
Not sure why this is so controversial. The unions have basically been able to funnel as much of their members' dues to political campaigns for decades. I don't recall Dems crying foul over that.
Sure, spend money. exercise your voice. no one is saying you can't. All that ppl are saying is that your voice shouldn't drown out others due to the size of your wallet.
This isn't a voice vs no voice issue. Donate your $5k and let the process work itself out.
-
Spending money to help advertise for a particular cause would seem to epitomize free speech, right?
Not sure why this is so controversial. The unions have basically been able to funnel as much of their members' dues to political campaigns for decades. I don't recall Dems crying foul over that.
Sure, spend money. exercise your voice. no one is saying you can't. All that ppl are saying is that your voice shouldn't drown out others due to the size of your wallet.
This isn't a voice vs no voice issue. Donate your $5k and let the process work itself out.
I would prefer a cap of $1k or maybe even $500. That way, I wouldn't be subjected to so many ads.
-
Spending money to help advertise for a particular cause would seem to epitomize free speech, right?
Not sure why this is so controversial. The unions have basically been able to funnel as much of their members' dues to political campaigns for decades. I don't recall Dems crying foul over that.
Sure, spend money. exercise your voice. no one is saying you can't. All that ppl are saying is that your voice shouldn't drown out others due to the size of your wallet.
This isn't a voice vs no voice issue. Donate your $5k and let the process work itself out.
I would prefer a cap of $1k or maybe even $500. That way, I wouldn't be subjected to so many ads.
Good points, good points. Should probably apply to unions too, right?
You know what else I hate? All these rich politicians who spend their own personal fortunes running ads to get elected. We totally need some laws to limit how much money you can spend on that too. It's not fair that they've got bigger wallets. I just hate all this inequality!!! If only we had more laws to even things out.
-
Spending money to help advertise for a particular cause would seem to epitomize free speech, right?
Not sure why this is so controversial. The unions have basically been able to funnel as much of their members' dues to political campaigns for decades. I don't recall Dems crying foul over that.
Sure, spend money. exercise your voice. no one is saying you can't. All that ppl are saying is that your voice shouldn't drown out others due to the size of your wallet.
This isn't a voice vs no voice issue. Donate your $5k and let the process work itself out.
I would prefer a cap of $1k or maybe even $500. That way, I wouldn't be subjected to so many ads.
Good points, good points. Should probably apply to unions too, right?
You know what else I hate? All these rich politicians who spend their own personal fortunes running ads to get elected. We totally need some laws to limit how much money you can spend on that too. It's not fair that they've got bigger wallets. I just hate all this inequality!!! If only we had more laws to even things out.
I would be perfectly fine with limiting unions, corporations, and other entities that aren't really people to $0.
-
If the unions are donating as a single organization, yes, limit that. If they are a group of like minded individuals all individually donating, eff that, it's not even in the same universe as one individual throwing huge cash.
As for the individual politician, that person is running for a job. It isn't a free speech issue.
You are going out of your way to shill for something that is going to negatively effect you as much any anyone else here unless you are independently wealthy in a big way. It's not surprising, but it's ridiculous. Your team loves it, though, so you do, right?
Also, Corporations should never have gotten status as a legal individual, but since they do, they should be held to the same contribution laws as any other legal individual.
Shills like KSU have been touting how screwed up our country is going to be from 8yrs of Obama. This move has more potential to screw it up than anything Obama has done or not done.
-
If the unions are donating as a single organization, yes, limit that.
If? :lol: This is fun.
As for the individual politician, that person is running for a job. It isn't a free speech issue.
Oh, that's the difference! Breaking news everyone, advertisements and other political speech are not "free speech" issues! This is too easy.
Again, if only we had more laws to cut everyone down to same level if influence! That's just the ticket.
-
Are you actually trying to make fun of me for stating that everyone should have the same rights in our country?
If so, you are disgusting.
-
Tricky issue. I don't think a majority of the ads benefit the public anymore. Most are bullshit using doomsday scenarios based on whatever right-wing/left-wing think tank will print the most ridiculous crap. I would probably be for limits on campaign finance and some rule where if you donate more than 5% of the operating $$ to a PAC, your name has to be on the ad. People get freedom of speech but if the free market wants to hold their businesses accountable, they are entitled to.
-
Are you actually trying to make fun of me for stating that everyone should have the same rights in our country?
If so, you are disgusting.
You're not saying that at all - you're just to stupid to realize it. I'm the one who thinks everyone should have the same rights - the right to spend however much they damned well please.
But seriously, you know what else I hate? I hate it how all these rich guys, unions, and evil corporations can spend as much as they want advocating for certain causes as long as they don't specifically advocate for a particular political candidate. We need some more laws clamping down on that, too.
-
Tricky issue. I don't think a majority of the ads benefit the public anymore.
Since when does free speech need to benefit the public?
-
Are you actually trying to make fun of me for stating that everyone should have the same rights in our country?
If so, you are disgusting.
You're not saying that at all - you're just to stupid to realize it. I'm the one who thinks everyone should have the same rights - the right to spend however much they damned well please.
But seriously, you know what else I hate? I hate it how all these rich guys, unions, and evil corporations can spend as much as they want advocating for certain causes as long as they don't specifically advocate for a particular political candidate. We need some more laws clamping down on that, too.
At no point in time will every citizen have an equal voice if ppl are allowed to spend all they want on campaigns. Statistically won't work. There is always a high and a low, thus an ability and an inability. You are addressing the right to spend. I am addressing the right to be heard at the same magnitude as any other citizen. If you want to limit organization's and corporation's ability to donate, I am all for that as well.
-
UNIONS!!! tho
-
Are you actually trying to make fun of me for stating that everyone should have the same rights in our country?
If so, you are disgusting.
You're not saying that at all - you're just to stupid to realize it. I'm the one who thinks everyone should have the same rights - the right to spend however much they damned well please.
But seriously, you know what else I hate? I hate it how all these rich guys, unions, and evil corporations can spend as much as they want advocating for certain causes as long as they don't specifically advocate for a particular political candidate. We need some more laws clamping down on that, too.
At no point in time will every citizen have an equal voice if ppl are allowed to spend all they want on campaigns. Statistically won't work. There is always a high and a low, thus an ability and an inability. You are addressing the right to spend. I am addressing the right to be heard at the same magnitude as any other citizen. If you want to limit organization's and corporation's ability to donate, I am all for that as well.
You're absolutely right. It's not fair that a person who has succeeded and amassed more wealth, or a collection of people who take it upon themselves to pool their resources, should be able to afford to broadcast their message farther than a poorer individual. It's just not fair. Like I've always said, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Right? We just need more laws to get rid of all that unfairness.
While we're at it, we really need to pass some laws breaking up the major news networks. It's just not fair that they have a louder voice than folks like CNS.
-
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php)
Wow. We need some more damned laws to even this out! :shakesfist:
-
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php)
Wow. We need some more damned laws to even this out! :shakesfist:
Yeah. A $500 maximum donation, not allowing any donation from a non-person would fix just about everything.
-
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php)
Wow. We need some more damned laws to even this out! :shakesfist:
Yeah. A $500 maximum donation, not allowing any donation from a non-person would fix just about everything.
would be a great step to fixing our political system. sad that ksu is so gung-ho for more corporate bought politicians just because he thinks it benefits his side (as though massive money isn't spent on democrats as well)
-
I would be fine with giving each candidate a free 1 hr advertisement to run on PBS each week. That should reduce the need to raise millions of dollars to make ads that everyone hates.
-
Tricky issue. I don't think a majority of the ads benefit the public anymore.
Since when does free speech need to benefit the public?
When did I say it had to?
-
Tricky issue. I don't think a majority of the ads benefit the public anymore.
Since when does free speech need to benefit the public?
Well, we did ban cigarette ads from television.
-
Are you actually trying to make fun of me for stating that everyone should have the same rights in our country?
If so, you are disgusting.
You're not saying that at all - you're just to stupid to realize it. I'm the one who thinks everyone should have the same rights - the right to spend however much they damned well please.
But seriously, you know what else I hate? I hate it how all these rich guys, unions, and evil corporations can spend as much as they want advocating for certain causes as long as they don't specifically advocate for a particular political candidate. We need some more laws clamping down on that, too.
At no point in time will every citizen have an equal voice if ppl are allowed to spend all they want on campaigns. Statistically won't work. There is always a high and a low, thus an ability and an inability. You are addressing the right to spend. I am addressing the right to be heard at the same magnitude as any other citizen. If you want to limit organization's and corporation's ability to donate, I am all for that as well.
You're absolutely right. It's not fair that a person who has succeeded and amassed more wealth, or a collection of people who take it upon themselves to pool their resources, should be able to afford to broadcast their message farther than a poorer individual. It's just not fair. Like I've always said, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Right? We just need more laws to get rid of all that unfairness.
While we're at it, we really need to pass some laws breaking up the major news networks. It's just not fair that they have a louder voice than folks like CNS.
When it comes to the govt, equal voice or not an equal citizen. Pretty simple. Twist it how you like.
-
I would be fine with giving each candidate a free 1 hr advertisement to run on PBS each week. That should reduce the need to raise millions of dollars to make ads that everyone hates.
Awesome!!!
-
Are you actually trying to make fun of me for stating that everyone should have the same rights in our country?
If so, you are disgusting.
You're not saying that at all - you're just to stupid to realize it. I'm the one who thinks everyone should have the same rights - the right to spend however much they damned well please.
But seriously, you know what else I hate? I hate it how all these rich guys, unions, and evil corporations can spend as much as they want advocating for certain causes as long as they don't specifically advocate for a particular political candidate. We need some more laws clamping down on that, too.
At no point in time will every citizen have an equal voice if ppl are allowed to spend all they want on campaigns. Statistically won't work. There is always a high and a low, thus an ability and an inability. You are addressing the right to spend. I am addressing the right to be heard at the same magnitude as any other citizen. If you want to limit organization's and corporation's ability to donate, I am all for that as well.
You're absolutely right. It's not fair that a person who has succeeded and amassed more wealth, or a collection of people who take it upon themselves to pool their resources, should be able to afford to broadcast their message farther than a poorer individual. It's just not fair. Like I've always said, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Right? We just need more laws to get rid of all that unfairness.
While we're at it, we really need to pass some laws breaking up the major news networks. It's just not fair that they have a louder voice than folks like CNS.
Conservatives applauding, mocking, and advocating for more inequality, what's new?
When it comes to how this society will be ran and operated then equal influence should be the standard.
-
Unsurprisingly, leftists want to curtail (limit) first amendment rights like freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. The question is why? Not clear what the motive is here.
All I know is this case changes exactly nothing in our political system.
-
There's still limits on funding particular candidates. It's not the wild west in that regard.
-
Unsurprisingly, leftists want to curtail (limit) first amendment rights like freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. The question is why? Not clear what the motive is here.
I think most of the libtards here are naive enough to believe that if you pass enough laws, you can somehow reduce or "equalize" the role of money in politics. That is the libtard way of thinking after all. My various sarcastic jibes above have been aimed at demonstrating a number of reasons why this isn't possible, but - well, they're libtards.
They also fail to understand that by restricting expenditures of corporations and wealthy individuals, they're actually tipping the scales even further in favor of the libtards, which dominate nearly all forms of "free" political advocacy: the media, academia, and Hollywood. Should we pass some laws to equalize those mediums too?
The more sinister libtards are well aware of all of this, but again, I'm going with naïveté with this bunch.
-
Unsurprisingly, leftists want to curtail (limit) first amendment rights like freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. The question is why? Not clear what the motive is here.
I think most of the libtards here are naive enough to believe that if you pass enough laws, you can somehow reduce or "equalize" the role of money in politics. That is the libtard way of thinking after all. My various sarcastic jibes above have been aimed at demonstrating a number of reasons why this isn't possible, but - well, they're libtards.
They also fail to understand that by restricting expenditures of corporations and wealthy individuals, they're actually tipping the scales even further in favor of the libtards, which dominate nearly all forms of "free" political advocacy: the media, academia, and Hollywood. Should we pass some laws to equalize those mediums too?
The more sinister libtards are well aware of all of this, but again, I'm going with naïveté with this bunch.
it's sad that you don't even know how big of a rough ridin' dumbass you are. i'll pray for you my son
-
I've thought about it, and I think the motive is two-fold:
1) their desire to limit who is allowed to participate in the political process.
2) perpetuating their false rhetoric that they are somehow looking out for the disadvantaged, poor and other victims of our society.
-
:facepalm:
at this point this is a law that allows 646 or so people to contribute more money to political candidates.
regardless of what side of the aisle they are on some feel that this expanded contribution will lead to increased quid pro quo as a donor can spread his/her influence across the aisle and be firmly in the pocket of every potential candidate.
regardless of your political affiliation i fail to see how this is positive.
LET THE NAME CALLING BEGIN!!!!!
-
Unsurprisingly, leftists want to curtail (limit) first amendment rights like freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. The question is why? Not clear what the motive is here.
I think most of the libtards here are naive enough to believe that if you pass enough laws, you can somehow reduce or "equalize" the role of money in politics. That is the libtard way of thinking after all. My various sarcastic jibes above have been aimed at demonstrating a number of reasons why this isn't possible, but - well, they're libtards.
They also fail to understand that by restricting expenditures of corporations and wealthy individuals, they're actually tipping the scales even further in favor of the libtards, which dominate nearly all forms of "free" political advocacy: the media, academia, and Hollywood. Should we pass some laws to equalize those mediums too?
The more sinister libtards are well aware of all of this, but again, I'm going with naïveté with this bunch.
it's sad that you don't even know how big of a rough ridin' dumbass you are. i'll pray for you my son
"Shut Up," argued the libtard.
-
at this point this is a law that allows 646 or so people to contribute more the same amount of money to more political candidates.
FYP
-
at this point this is a law that allows 646 or so people to contribute more the maximum amount of money to more political candidates.
FYP
FYPx2
-
Need more feigned outrage from the libtards
-
at this point this is a law that allows 646 or so people to contribute more the maximum amount of money to more political candidates.
FYP
FYPx2
I'm good with this.
-
from federal politics all the way down to the mayoral candidates of large cities, one of, if not the first question each potential candidate is asked by their prospective party is: "can you raise money?".
unrestricted giving(i know, i know) allows a billionaire to say "i will give [$$$] to any person running in [... district] who supports my stance on [issue]." if the dollar amount is big enough(not a high bar in non-presi elections), that person will essentially have purchased both sides of the aisle, which means that the voter's choice in an issue has been headed off long before they ever had say. of course a lot of this goes on already, but it will get worse with this ruling. people aren't going to take the lack of having a choice in the matter forever. they'll grow apathetic until it's too much to bear and then they'll riot like it's 1968.
one of the phrases that gets a lot of use in 1st amendment cases is "... to foster the free market of ideas" yet here we are in 2014 staring down an election race that pits Bush vs Clinton. i don't see how you could be happy about this prospect and this ruling unless you're thrilled with america's current ability to attack and solve the big problems.
-
CNS and MacKey have made fools of themselves in this thread.
#takealap