When does the highly financed campaign to silence Tom Steyer begin?

[sonofdaxjones]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/26/tom-steyer-green-climate-change-millions-midterms-koch

When do the attack ads about Tom Steyer hit the airwaves, magazines and billboards?

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think the campaign to get the Koch's money out of politics would probably get this guy's money out as well.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

You realize how both unconstitutional and infeasible it would be to "get the money out of politics" right?

[Rage Against the McKee]

You realize how both unconstitutional and infeasible it would be to "get the money out of politics" right?

Yeah, it can only be fixed with a constitutional amendment at this point. It really needs to happen, though. Campaigns should be limited to the amount they can spend, and the limit should be low.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Campaigns should be limited to the amount they can spend, and the limit should be low.

And what about everyone else? If I'm not affiliated with a campaign, but I want to buy some airtime to advocate for certain policies or even particular candidates, isn't that my constitutional right to do so? And if I want to pool my resources with other like-minded individuals to pay for expensive airtime, isn't that our right to do so?

To restrict such speech cuts to the very core of the First Amendment. You may find most political speech repugnant - but the freedom of political speech is essential to a free republic.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Campaigns should be limited to the amount they can spend, and the limit should be low.

And what about everyone else? If I'm not affiliated with a campaign, but I want to buy some airtime to advocate for certain policies or even particular candidates, isn't that my constitutional right to do so? And if I want to pool my resources with other like-minded individuals to pay for expensive airtime, isn't that our right to do so?

To restrict such speech cuts to the very core of the First Amendment. You may find most political speech repugnant - but the freedom of political speech is essential to a free republic.

Policies, sure. Not candidates, though. You should have to keep their names out of your mouth. And yes, it is your constitutional right to do so. I was arguing that congress should amend the first amendment to limit campaign contributions, which would effectively change the constitution and make it so that you no longer have that right.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Campaigns should be limited to the amount they can spend, and the limit should be low.

And what about everyone else? If I'm not affiliated with a campaign, but I want to buy some airtime to advocate for certain policies or even particular candidates, isn't that my constitutional right to do so? And if I want to pool my resources with other like-minded individuals to pay for expensive airtime, isn't that our right to do so?

To restrict such speech cuts to the very core of the First Amendment. You may find most political speech repugnant - but the freedom of political speech is essential to a free republic.

Policies, sure. Not candidates, though. You should have to keep their names out of your mouth. And yes, it is your constitutional right to do so. I was arguing that congress should amend the first amendment to limit campaign contributions, which would effectively change the constitution and make it so that you no longer have that right.

Such restrictions - you can advocate for positions but not particular candidates - are both silly and meaningless, and only encourage creative marketing companies to make slight adjustments to get the very same message across. You can't really believe there is a difference, can you? Such asinine distinctions are what used to cause all those ads asking people to "Call Governor so and so and ask him why he doesn't support such and such." Nobody expected anyone to call - the point was to attack the candidate.

And again, limiting campaign contributions is meaningless if people can just spend their own money running ads that aren't affiliated with campaigns (and it wouldn't stop behind the scenes coordination with campaigns anyway).

These ideas are double-stupid: they (1) shred our First Amendment that has served us well for over 200 years, and (2) accomplish nothing.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Campaigns should be limited to the amount they can spend, and the limit should be low.

And what about everyone else? If I'm not affiliated with a campaign, but I want to buy some airtime to advocate for certain policies or even particular candidates, isn't that my constitutional right to do so? And if I want to pool my resources with other like-minded individuals to pay for expensive airtime, isn't that our right to do so?

To restrict such speech cuts to the very core of the First Amendment. You may find most political speech repugnant - but the freedom of political speech is essential to a free republic.

Policies, sure. Not candidates, though. You should have to keep their names out of your mouth. And yes, it is your constitutional right to do so. I was arguing that congress should amend the first amendment to limit campaign contributions, which would effectively change the constitution and make it so that you no longer have that right.

Such restrictions - you can advocate for positions but not particular candidates - are both silly and meaningless, and only encourage creative marketing companies to make slight adjustments to get the very same message across. You can't really believe there is a difference, can you? Such asinine distinctions are what used to cause all those ads asking people to "Call Governor so and so and ask him why he doesn't support such and such." Nobody expected anyone to call - the point was to attack the candidate.

And again, limiting campaign contributions is meaningless if people can just spend their own money running ads that aren't affiliated with campaigns (and it wouldn't stop behind the scenes coordination with campaigns anyway).

These ideas are double-stupid: they (1) shred our First Amendment that has served us well for over 200 years, and (2) accomplish nothing.

I think they would accomplish a lot. Limiting an advertisement's ability to call out a politician by name would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the ad. You would see less of them for that reason. You wouldn't be able to say "call governor so and so". You wouldn't get reminded 10 times per hour that Pat Roberts missed 70% of his committee meetings and didn't bother voting unless it was to give himself a pay raise, either.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Campaigns should be limited to the amount they can spend, and the limit should be low.

And what about everyone else? If I'm not affiliated with a campaign, but I want to buy some airtime to advocate for certain policies or even particular candidates, isn't that my constitutional right to do so? And if I want to pool my resources with other like-minded individuals to pay for expensive airtime, isn't that our right to do so?

To restrict such speech cuts to the very core of the First Amendment. You may find most political speech repugnant - but the freedom of political speech is essential to a free republic.

Policies, sure. Not candidates, though. You should have to keep their names out of your mouth. And yes, it is your constitutional right to do so. I was arguing that congress should amend the first amendment to limit campaign contributions, which would effectively change the constitution and make it so that you no longer have that right.

Such restrictions - you can advocate for positions but not particular candidates - are both silly and meaningless, and only encourage creative marketing companies to make slight adjustments to get the very same message across. You can't really believe there is a difference, can you? Such asinine distinctions are what used to cause all those ads asking people to "Call Governor so and so and ask him why he doesn't support such and such." Nobody expected anyone to call - the point was to attack the candidate.

And again, limiting campaign contributions is meaningless if people can just spend their own money running ads that aren't affiliated with campaigns (and it wouldn't stop behind the scenes coordination with campaigns anyway).

These ideas are double-stupid: they (1) shred our First Amendment that has served us well for over 200 years, and (2) accomplish nothing.

I think they would accomplish a lot. Limiting an advertisement's ability to call out a politician by name would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the ad. You would see less of them for that reason. You wouldn't be able to say "call governor so and so". You wouldn't get reminded 10 times per hour that Pat Roberts missed 70% of his committee meetings and didn't bother voting unless it was to give himself a pay raise, either.

Ok, while we're at it, can we amend the First Amendment to ban celebrity tabloids and the Boomer Sooner fight song? These are examples of other things that annoy the crap out of the vast majority of Americans.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Campaigns should be limited to the amount they can spend, and the limit should be low.

And what about everyone else? If I'm not affiliated with a campaign, but I want to buy some airtime to advocate for certain policies or even particular candidates, isn't that my constitutional right to do so? And if I want to pool my resources with other like-minded individuals to pay for expensive airtime, isn't that our right to do so?

To restrict such speech cuts to the very core of the First Amendment. You may find most political speech repugnant - but the freedom of political speech is essential to a free republic.

Policies, sure. Not candidates, though. You should have to keep their names out of your mouth. And yes, it is your constitutional right to do so. I was arguing that congress should amend the first amendment to limit campaign contributions, which would effectively change the constitution and make it so that you no longer have that right.

Such restrictions - you can advocate for positions but not particular candidates - are both silly and meaningless, and only encourage creative marketing companies to make slight adjustments to get the very same message across. You can't really believe there is a difference, can you? Such asinine distinctions are what used to cause all those ads asking people to "Call Governor so and so and ask him why he doesn't support such and such." Nobody expected anyone to call - the point was to attack the candidate.

And again, limiting campaign contributions is meaningless if people can just spend their own money running ads that aren't affiliated with campaigns (and it wouldn't stop behind the scenes coordination with campaigns anyway).

These ideas are double-stupid: they (1) shred our First Amendment that has served us well for over 200 years, and (2) accomplish nothing.

I think they would accomplish a lot. Limiting an advertisement's ability to call out a politician by name would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the ad. You would see less of them for that reason. You wouldn't be able to say "call governor so and so". You wouldn't get reminded 10 times per hour that Pat Roberts missed 70% of his committee meetings and didn't bother voting unless it was to give himself a pay raise, either.

Ok, while we're at it, can we amend the First Amendment to ban celebrity tabloids and the Boomer Sooner fight song? These are examples of other things that annoy the crap out of the vast majority of Americans.

I think that should be protected by the first amendment.

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

I suspect the Steyer will get the Soros treatment in ProgLib land.   Which entails an entire series of deflection, obfuscation, laughing off and denial that Soros/Steyer are having any influence on the political process and/or it's okay if they are, because their altruistic measures are merely put in place to thwart evil conservatives.

I mean, this is exactly how the leftists think. They are sociopaths

[CNS]

The only change that is needed in politics is for individuals to stop voting completely uninformed other than fliers or tv ads. 

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

The only change that is needed in politics is for individuals to stop voting completely uninformed other than fliers or tv ads.

A poll tax would solve this, but some retards somewhere decided that was unconstitutional because $5.

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

Also, I think I speak for everyone here, allowing women to vote was a huge mistake.

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

Allowing people to vote more than once is inherently unfair.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Also, I think I speak for everyone here, allowing women to vote was a huge mistake.

Ann Coulter agrees with you. But I actually know plenty of bright conservative women - they're married. It's the young or not so young single ladies that are problematic. The Life of Julia types. But we don't need to disenfranchise them - we should just focus on getting them married.

When it comes to voting, let's stick to making it harder for the Dem machine to pool its zombie voters. That would be a good start.

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

In all seriousness,  the "rock the vote" thing is counterproductive. The last thing we need is more uninformed people voting.

Beyond that, what is the rationale behind allowing everyone over the age of 18 vote? What's wrong with limiting it to stakeholders?  It seems incredibly stupid to allow people with no skin in the game to have a say in the rules of the game. High schoolers and the indigent have the same say in our country as people who pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes. How perverse is that?

[star seed 7]

^republicans!