Campain finance - just got f'ed

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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?

[CNS]

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.   

[star seed 7]

UNIONS!!! tho

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Wow. We need some more damned laws to even this out! 

[Rage Against the McKee]

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Wow. We need some more damned laws to even this out! 

Yeah. A $500 maximum donation, not allowing any donation from a non-person would fix just about everything.

[star seed 7]

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Wow. We need some more damned laws to even this out! 

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)

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

[ChiComCat]

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?

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

[CNS]

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.

[Headinjun]

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!!!

[Headinjun]

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.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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.

[DQ12]

There's still limits on funding particular candidates.  It's not the wild west in that regard.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

[star seed 7]

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

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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.

[LickNeckey]

 

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!!!!!

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

[DQ12]

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

[LickNeckey]

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

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Need more feigned outrage from the libtards

[DQ12]

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.