Addiitonally----I dont think (and I could be wrong) Unions or the money donating "Democrat" sources were not included in JDHs statement, or anyone elses. It was a blanket iea of fairness for all...not just the left. And if you look historically.....yes money has a lot to deal with elections and the bigger spender usually wins. While a commercial may not have changed your mind, there are millions who watch TV and a 30second blurb is what sways them to their decision.
First to answer the question-----should such an act be on a ballot I would indeed vote for it as I think Repubs and Dems alike coudl rally behind this. HOWEVER, money and power on both sides would try to kill it and wil be the reason we never see it to begin with
Macro, your view is skewed by your own personal opinions and feelings----which is fine, but I hope you realize that. You are lumping indivduals into groups "libs/consrvs" when it is more basic than that. I think its simply a desire for fairness and equality for all people. Not eqality of wealth or power, but true equality in the pursuit and drive toward obtaining it.
I realize it's just my opinion; and I realize that opinions are like assholes, everyone''s got one. That said, I think the difference between liberals and conservatives IS that big - it's a fundamental difference in view of the Gov't and philosophy of living. Do you believe that the Gov't, if it's installed with the right people, can write laws that will get rid of vice and evil? Or do you believe that no law can ever govern such things and they can only be constrained? It's a fundamental view of how malleable human nature is, and whether or not man can be changed through the right set of laws, or whether it's an impossible task and mans dark nature cannot be changed, only constrained.
Vulchor:
Addiitonally----I dont think (and I could be wrong) Unions or the money donating "Democrat" sources were not included in JDHs statement, or anyone elses. It was a blanket iea of fairness for all...not just the left. And if you look historically.....yes money has a lot to deal with elections and the bigger spender usually wins. While a commercial may not have changed your mind, there are millions who watch TV and a 30second blurb is what sways them to their decision.
Unions weren't included in JDH's post because he wasn't thinking of them; he was thinking of evil corporations spending untold millions. What's left unsaid is that corporate donations usually split 50/50 between democrats and republicans (it's closer to 54-Repub, 46 Dem), while Union spending is typically 94% for Dems, 6% for Repubs.
And you're right, money always has a huge effect on elections, but the simple fact is, you remove money, and you take away peoples speech, you take away their ability to convey their message across the nation. LIke I said before, Ron Paul and Barack Obama would never have been elected if it were not for big donors; the party establishments would have picked the candidates instead of the people
Finally, you're right - there are incredibly stupid people (ie - swing voters) who don't pay attention to the news, who don't know anything about our politics, who can't even tell you who's running for election. The answer for these people isn't to limit the people who pick up a newspaper and know what's happening or take away their speech, it's to educate the idiots who can't tell you the difference between Obama and Ron Paul, who think Newt Gingrich is still Speaker of the House, or who think Hillary Clinton is running for president.
Warren Buffet ... Warren if you want to change something , why dont YOU run for office !!!
He doesn't have to run for office. Thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision "Citizens United", wealthy individuals, corporations, or even foreign governments can just buy the candidate of their choice, without having to go through the process of being elected.
How's the Kool-aid taste?
The only thing Citizens United did was recognize that corporations and unions were entities with free speech rights, allowing them to donate to elections. Take a look at all the "outrage" from the Left; it's always against corporations being allowed to donate, never against unions. I wonder why that is?
No organization or business should ever considered the equal or equivelant of an individual with regard to representative government and the elections of governmental representatives. Corporations are businesses, not People. Money is currency, not speech. If left unchecked, Citizens United will destroy our Democratic form of government, and replace it with an Oligarchy. Teddy Roosevelt warned us of this over 100 years ago.
Seriously, where do you life this stuff from? Your entire paragraph sounds like it was copied from the Daily Kos or MediaMatters.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander! Sorry public union guys.
Corporations and Unions (funny how you never once mentioned unions in your soapbox) aren't people, but they are entities - entities with rights. They aren't the equivalent of a "person" but they do have a similar set of rights, such as the right to sue and be sued, the right to protect their interests, etc. Your interpretation, that corporations aren't anything, would leave them unable to protect their interests.
Secondly, money is speech. If you don't have money, you can't get your message out; you can't buy airtime, you can't schedule lectures, you can't buy radio or tv spots - money enables a person to get their message heard, so it IS speech.
I will be more than happy to discuss this topic with you. However, I am not going to engage in an exchange of insults. I don't have time for that.
A union is an organization, so they were mentioned. I never said that corporations "aren't anytrhing". I said that they are businesses, not people, which is exactly what they are.
The Supreme Court can declare that money is speech, or that a Black Man is not a human being, or that the sale of Alcohol should be illegal, or that abortion sdhould be legal, but that does not make it so. The Court has made an error.
Money is not speech, it is currency. Speech is the expression of an idea or thought by a human being. Currency is used by human beings to purchase material goods and services.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Sorry public union guys.
As far as I'm concerned, monetary contributions to political campaigns should be limited to individuals (individual human beings) who actually reside in the voting district of the candidate, and those contributions should have limits as to the amounts allowed.
If money is speech, speech cannot be free, because those with more money will always be allowed more speech than those with less money. That does not describe the American Democratic Republic that I have lived in, nor does it describe a country in which I would choose to live in, either.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this one - this is what what divides liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe they can create a utopia; by banning money, they can make better elections.
The fact is, money is endemic in every election in every country. So when you say, "That does not describe the American Democratic Republic that I have lived in, nor does it describe a country in which I would choose to live in, either.", you really are describing "utopia", a word which translates to "nowhere"
Again, this is the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives - liberals believe they can legislate utopia - "if we can word the laws just right, we can legislate bad things away".
Conservatives realize this is a pipe dream - you can never legislate mans darkside away - there will ALWAYS be people with money and people without money who want to sway elections, and the best way to keep the worst excesses in line is to allow EVERYONE to participate, instead of a select few.
Your idea, that only individuals can participate and only in limited contributions, would result in candidates not being able to get their message out, to reach voters. Ron Paul would NEVER have been as big as he is if not for wealthy donors who believes in his message and gave him the money to get his platform out and make people aware of it; on the liberal side, Barack Obama would NEVER have been able to challenge Hillary Clinton's name brand recognition and warchest if not for wealthy donors who believed in him.
When libs like you whine about campaign finance, you only think of "those evil Republican" - you never think of the money that elects YOUR candidate, or how the guy YOU like would never have been able to tell you about his platform if not for his money
Lastly, keep in mind that just because someone has money, doesn't mean they're going to win - when was the last time a commercial changed your mind about anythign? When was the last time a stump speech make you change your vote? I'm gonna bet never - money is speech, it allows a candidate to tell people across the country what their platform is, so that people like Ron Paul and Barack Obama, newcomers, don't get crowded out by the old timers, by the people who've been around for decades.
conservatives accept mans dark side and try to constrain it within reason
We will have to agree to disagree. I have watched, in my lifetime, the increasing influence of money on our electoral process, and I am convinced that if it is not checked, the United States will become an Oligarchy in 30 to 50 years. When I cast my first vote, there were no Political Action Committees (PACS), today, billionaires can keep one candidate in an election, and we are in the infantcy of the implications of Citizens United. Additionally, you have no clue as to what I believe, yet you are perfectly willing to attribute a whole set of pre-determined views and beliefs to me because you have decided that I am a "liberal". You really don't want to analize or discuss this problem, you just want to engage in a talk-show rant and tell everyone what you think I believe.
First to answer the question-----should such an act be on a ballot I would indeed vote for it as I think Repubs and Dems alike coudl rally behind this. HOWEVER, money and power on both sides would try to kill it and wil be the reason we never see it to begin with
Macro, your view is skewed by your own personal opinions and feelings----which is fine, but I hope you realize that. You are lumping indivduals into groups "libs/consrvs" when it is more basic than that. I think its simply a desire for fairness and equality for all people. Not eqality of wealth or power, but true equality in the pursuit and drive toward obtaining it.
I realize it's just my opinion; and I realize that opinions are like assholes, everyone''s got one. That said, I think the difference between liberals and conservatives IS that big - it's a fundamental difference in view of the Gov't and philosophy of living. Do you believe that the Gov't, if it's installed with the right people, can write laws that will get rid of vice and evil? Or do you believe that no law can ever govern such things and they can only be constrained? It's a fundamental view of how malleable human nature is, and whether or not man can be changed through the right set of laws, or whether it's an impossible task and mans dark nature cannot be changed, only constrained.
Vulchor:
Addiitonally----I dont think (and I could be wrong) Unions or the money donating "Democrat" sources were not included in JDHs statement, or anyone elses. It was a blanket iea of fairness for all...not just the left. And if you look historically.....yes money has a lot to deal with elections and the bigger spender usually wins. While a commercial may not have changed your mind, there are millions who watch TV and a 30second blurb is what sways them to their decision.
Unions weren't included in JDH's post because he wasn't thinking of them; he was thinking of evil corporations spending untold millions. What's left unsaid is that corporate donations usually split 50/50 between democrats and republicans (it's closer to 54-Repub, 46 Dem), while Union spending is typically 94% for Dems, 6% for Repubs.
And you're right, money always has a huge effect on elections, but the simple fact is, you remove money, and you take away peoples speech, you take away their ability to convey their message across the nation. LIke I said before, Ron Paul and Barack Obama would never have been elected if it were not for big donors; the party establishments would have picked the candidates instead of the people
Finally, you're right - there are incredibly stupid people (ie - swing voters) who don't pay attention to the news, who don't know anything about our politics, who can't even tell you who's running for election. The answer for these people isn't to limit the people who pick up a newspaper and know what's happening or take away their speech, it's to educate the idiots who can't tell you the difference between Obama and Ron Paul, who think Newt Gingrich is still Speaker of the House, or who think Hillary Clinton is running for president.
"...Unions weren't included in JDH's post because he wasn't thinking of them; he was thinking of evil corporations spending untold millions. ..."
This is a blatant falsehood, and if it is repeated again, it will be a lie. I mentioned organizations, which include unions, PACS, think tanks, non-profits, and many others, as well as corporations.
you have no clue as to what I believe, yet you are perfectly willing to attribute a whole set of pre-determined views and beliefs to me because you have decided that I am a "liberal". You really don't want to analize or discuss this problem, you just want to engage in a talk-show rant and tell everyone what you think I believe.
Sorry. I have no time for that.
Where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah, it was me, at the end of most of my disagreements with Xmacro.
I did a quick search of the forum and saw that no one has posted this before. I love this. In an interview with CNBC last year, Warren Buffet said he could fix our national debt in 5 minutes if these following ideas were adopted as an ammendment to the constitution. It's not listed below, but he also stated an additional rule which states that "any time the deficit exceeds 3%, all sitting members of congress will be ineligible for re-election!" I really think this needs to happen for our country to be successful in the long run. Each side of the two party system constantly point at each other calling each other elitists. The fact of the matter is, they're both right! The real "Elite" in this country is Congress. Half our laws don't apply to them. They constantly abuse their powers and insider knowledge to pad their own pockets. They never have to worry about money or healthcare ever again! If this isn't the real definition of "Elite" then I don't know what is!
1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.
2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.
Congressmen/women made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
Whether all this originated with Buffett or not, I must say that most of it sounds pretty good to me, but then I'm one of those insane egalitarian Liberals that think that the country should truly belong to all of us.
This is a blatant falsehood, and if it is repeated again, it will be a lie. I mentioned organizations, which include unions, PACS, think tanks, non-profits, and many others, as well as corporations.
Corporations are also an organization, and could've been lumped in, yet you singled them out, while lumping unions in with nonprofits. You may not have consciously meant it, but your language suggests that you were indeed thinking of corporations when you were talking about the effect of money in elections.
Amos Umwhat:
JDH:
you have no clue as to what I believe, yet you are perfectly willing to attribute a whole set of pre-determined views and beliefs to me because you have decided that I am a "liberal". You really don't want to analize or discuss this problem, you just want to engage in a talk-show rant and tell everyone what you think I believe.
Sorry. I have no time for that.
Where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah, it was me, at the end of most of my disagreements with Xmacro.
If I know your sect, I can anticipate your argument. I've seen the positions you and JDH take on different issues; it follows if you believe X, you must believe Y. If you continually mention how corporate money is flooding into everything, another set of beliefs must necessarily accompany those. I don't know precisely your set of beliefs, but if, you continually make arguments that toe a certain ideological line, I can guess that the rest of your beliefs follow that platform
This is a blatant falsehood, and if it is repeated again, it will be a lie. I mentioned organizations, which include unions, PACS, think tanks, non-profits, and many others, as well as corporations.
Corporations are also an organization, and could've been lumped in, yet you singled them out, while lumping unions in with nonprofits. You may not have consciously meant it, but your language suggests that you were indeed thinking of corporations when you were talking about the effect of money in elections.
Amos Umwhat:
JDH:
you have no clue as to what I believe, yet you are perfectly willing to attribute a whole set of pre-determined views and beliefs to me because you have decided that I am a "liberal". You really don't want to analize or discuss this problem, you just want to engage in a talk-show rant and tell everyone what you think I believe.
Sorry. I have no time for that.
Where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah, it was me, at the end of most of my disagreements with Xmacro.
If I know your sect, I can anticipate your argument. I've seen the positions you and JDH take on different issues; it follows if you believe X, you must believe Y. If you continually mention how corporate money is flooding into everything, another set of beliefs must necessarily accompany those. I don't know precisely your set of beliefs, but if, you continually make arguments that toe a certain ideological line, I can guess that the rest of your beliefs follow that platform
You may have a point here, just remember, it's a two-way street. What JDH may not have figured out yet is that the threat of oligarchy and plutocracy that men like he and I fear, IS your goal, or at least it's the goal of those whom you constantly carry water.
This is a blatant falsehood, and if it is repeated again, it will be a lie. I mentioned organizations, which include unions, PACS, think tanks, non-profits, and many others, as well as corporations.
Corporations are also an organization, and could've been lumped in, yet you singled them out, while lumping unions in with nonprofits. You may not have consciously meant it, but your language suggests that you were indeed thinking of corporations when you were talking about the effect of money in elections.
Amos Umwhat:
JDH:
you have no clue as to what I believe, yet you are perfectly willing to attribute a whole set of pre-determined views and beliefs to me because you have decided that I am a "liberal". You really don't want to analize or discuss this problem, you just want to engage in a talk-show rant and tell everyone what you think I believe.
Sorry. I have no time for that.
Where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah, it was me, at the end of most of my disagreements with Xmacro.
If I know your sect, I can anticipate your argument. I've seen the positions you and JDH take on different issues; it follows if you believe X, you must believe Y. If you continually mention how corporate money is flooding into everything, another set of beliefs must necessarily accompany those. I don't know precisely your set of beliefs, but if, you continually make arguments that toe a certain ideological line, I can guess that the rest of your beliefs follow that platform
You may have a point here, just remember, it's a two-way street. What JDH may not have figured out yet is that the threat of oligarchy and plutocracy that men like he and I fear, IS your goal, or at least it's the goal of those whom you constantly carry water.
"...while lumping unions in with nonprofits...", AND Political Action Commitees, AND think tanks (like the Heritage Foundation and other Conservative organizations).
Unfortunately, xmacro wants to see a bias that is not there, because he is bound and determined to pigeonhole me into one of his convenient little categories that he thinks a typical "liberal" would have. Very few people are accurately defined by talk radio personalities, because most of us are much more complicated than the shock jocks want their audiences to believe.
I have many views. Some are “libertarian”, some are “conservative”, some are “moderate”, some are “liberal”, but none of them are dominated by any of the others.
But in this case regarding campaign finances, I want NO organizations, whether corporate or otherwise to be able to buy or influence our elected representatives. I want them to represent We the People; the people who actually vote for them (as the founders intended) not the Corporations, the Organizations, or wealthy individuals who bought their office for them.
\
You may have a point here, just remember, it's a two-way street. What JDH may not have figured out yet is that the threat of oligarchy and plutocracy that men like he and I fear, IS your goal, or at least it's the goal of those whom you constantly carry water.
There are three great powers in politics, and any of these three would be harsh task masters if given half a chance: Government, Corporations, Unions. I know that you're afraid of an oligarchy, but the way I see it, Corporations are on the decline, and Gov't is on the rise, throwing things out of balance.
JDH:
Unfortunately, xmacro wants to see a bias that is not there, because he is bound and determined to pigeonhole me into one of his convenient little categories that he thinks a typical "liberal" would have. Very few people are accurately defined by talk radio personalities, because most of us are much more complicated than the shock jocks want their audiences to believe.
I have many views. Some are “libertarian”, some are “conservative”, some are “moderate”, some are “liberal”, but none of them are dominated by any of the others.
Fair enough; you're complicated, now explain to me why I'm wrong.
JDH:
But in this case regarding campaign finances, I want NO organizations, whether corporate or otherwise to be able to buy or influence our elected representatives. I want them to represent We the People; the people who actually vote for them (as the founders intended) not the Corporations, the Organizations, or wealthy individuals who bought their office for them.
This is again where the difference between liberals and conservatives comes out - you CAN'T legislate this kind of thing away. As Spock once said, "Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely" - the simple fact of human nature is that you can never legislate away the influence of money and power, you can only counterbalance it.
Citizens United brought the boogeyman out of the closet; instead of donating secretly to Super PAC's, corporations and unions and organizations of all stripes can donate directly to campaigns (might I remind you that campaigns must reveal their donors; Super PACs don't have to)
The simple nature of humans is to gain more power, money and influence to themselves. You simply cannoy stop it, cannot legislate it away and can't prevent it. There is nothing that Gov't can do to stop the corrupting influence of money, because Gov't itself is the biggest source of power, and thus the biggest source of corruption. So long as one section of men can rule over other men, there will ALWAYS be people who want to influence the rule makers; you'll never stop them from trying.
The best course of action is to make it transparent, make it so there can't be backroom deals and the money donated comes to the light; the next step is to have an informed citizenry who makes intelligent votes.
Warren Buffet ... Warren if you want to change something , why dont YOU run for office !!!
He doesn't have to run for office. Thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision "Citizens United", wealthy individuals, corporations, or even foreign governments can just buy the candidate of their choice, without having to go through the process of being elected.
How's the Kool-aid taste?
The only thing Citizens United did was recognize that corporations and unions were entities with free speech rights, allowing them to donate to elections. Take a look at all the "outrage" from the Left; it's always against corporations being allowed to donate, never against unions. I wonder why that is?
No organization or business should ever considered the equal or equivelant of an individual with regard to representative government and the elections of governmental representatives. Corporations are businesses, not People. Money is currency, not speech. If left unchecked, Citizens United will destroy our Democratic form of government, and replace it with an Oligarchy. Teddy Roosevelt warned us of this over 100 years ago.
Seriously, where do you life this stuff from? Your entire paragraph sounds like it was copied from the Daily Kos or MediaMatters.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander! Sorry public union guys.
Corporations and Unions (funny how you never once mentioned unions in your soapbox) aren't people, but they are entities - entities with rights. They aren't the equivalent of a "person" but they do have a similar set of rights, such as the right to sue and be sued, the right to protect their interests, etc. Your interpretation, that corporations aren't anything, would leave them unable to protect their interests.
Secondly, money is speech. If you don't have money, you can't get your message out; you can't buy airtime, you can't schedule lectures, you can't buy radio or tv spots - money enables a person to get their message heard, so it IS speech.
I will be more than happy to discuss this topic with you. However, I am not going to engage in an exchange of insults. I don't have time for that.
A union is an organization, so they were mentioned. I never said that corporations "aren't anytrhing". I said that they are businesses, not people, which is exactly what they are.
The Supreme Court can declare that money is speech, or that a Black Man is not a human being, or that the sale of Alcohol should be illegal, or that abortion sdhould be legal, but that does not make it so. The Court has made an error.
Money is not speech, it is currency. Speech is the expression of an idea or thought by a human being. Currency is used by human beings to purchase material goods and services.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Sorry public union guys.
As far as I'm concerned, monetary contributions to political campaigns should be limited to individuals (individual human beings) who actually reside in the voting district of the candidate, and those contributions should have limits as to the amounts allowed.
If money is speech, speech cannot be free, because those with more money will always be allowed more speech than those with less money. That does not describe the American Democratic Republic that I have lived in, nor does it describe a country in which I would choose to live in, either.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this one - this is what what divides liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe they can create a utopia; by banning money, they can make better elections.
The fact is, money is endemic in every election in every country. So when you say, "That does not describe the American Democratic Republic that I have lived in, nor does it describe a country in which I would choose to live in, either.", you really are describing "utopia", a word which translates to "nowhere"
Again, this is the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives - liberals believe they can legislate utopia - "if we can word the laws just right, we can legislate bad things away".
Conservatives realize this is a pipe dream - you can never legislate mans darkside away - there will ALWAYS be people with money and people without money who want to sway elections, and the best way to keep the worst excesses in line is to allow EVERYONE to participate, instead of a select few.
Your idea, that only individuals can participate and only in limited contributions, would result in candidates not being able to get their message out, to reach voters. Ron Paul would NEVER have been as big as he is if not for wealthy donors who believes in his message and gave him the money to get his platform out and make people aware of it; on the liberal side, Barack Obama would NEVER have been able to challenge Hillary Clinton's name brand recognition and warchest if not for wealthy donors who believed in him.
When libs like you whine about campaign finance, you only think of "those evil Republican" - you never think of the money that elects YOUR candidate, or how the guy YOU like would never have been able to tell you about his platform if not for his money
Lastly, keep in mind that just because someone has money, doesn't mean they're going to win - when was the last time a commercial changed your mind about anythign? When was the last time a stump speech make you change your vote? I'm gonna bet never - money is speech, it allows a candidate to tell people across the country what their platform is, so that people like Ron Paul and Barack Obama, newcomers, don't get crowded out by the old timers, by the people who've been around for decades. I haven't read beyond this but holy crap macro. First off yes I vote democrat and am registered dem. The exaggerations about liberal beliefs are just as bad as libs exaggerating cons that have extreme right beliefs. People need to get off their extreme right or left soapboxes and realize 99 percent of this country isn't as extremely angry as you. I honestly hope in ways a republican is next president so the angry white old head males can effin relax and chill out.
conservatives accept mans dark side and try to constrain it within reason
Warren Buffet ... Warren if you want to change something , why dont YOU run for office !!!
He doesn't have to run for office. Thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision "Citizens United", wealthy individuals, corporations, or even foreign governments can just buy the candidate of their choice, without having to go through the process of being elected.
How's the Kool-aid taste?
The only thing Citizens United did was recognize that corporations and unions were entities with free speech rights, allowing them to donate to elections. Take a look at all the "outrage" from the Left; it's always against corporations being allowed to donate, never against unions. I wonder why that is?
No organization or business should ever considered the equal or equivelant of an individual with regard to representative government and the elections of governmental representatives. Corporations are businesses, not People. Money is currency, not speech. If left unchecked, Citizens United will destroy our Democratic form of government, and replace it with an Oligarchy. Teddy Roosevelt warned us of this over 100 years ago.
Seriously, where do you life this stuff from? Your entire paragraph sounds like it was copied from the Daily Kos or MediaMatters.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander! Sorry public union guys.
Corporations and Unions (funny how you never once mentioned unions in your soapbox) aren't people, but they are entities - entities with rights. They aren't the equivalent of a "person" but they do have a similar set of rights, such as the right to sue and be sued, the right to protect their interests, etc. Your interpretation, that corporations aren't anything, would leave them unable to protect their interests.
Secondly, money is speech. If you don't have money, you can't get your message out; you can't buy airtime, you can't schedule lectures, you can't buy radio or tv spots - money enables a person to get their message heard, so it IS speech.
I will be more than happy to discuss this topic with you. However, I am not going to engage in an exchange of insults. I don't have time for that.
A union is an organization, so they were mentioned. I never said that corporations "aren't anytrhing". I said that they are businesses, not people, which is exactly what they are.
The Supreme Court can declare that money is speech, or that a Black Man is not a human being, or that the sale of Alcohol should be illegal, or that abortion sdhould be legal, but that does not make it so. The Court has made an error.
Money is not speech, it is currency. Speech is the expression of an idea or thought by a human being. Currency is used by human beings to purchase material goods and services.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Sorry public union guys.
As far as I'm concerned, monetary contributions to political campaigns should be limited to individuals (individual human beings) who actually reside in the voting district of the candidate, and those contributions should have limits as to the amounts allowed.
If money is speech, speech cannot be free, because those with more money will always be allowed more speech than those with less money. That does not describe the American Democratic Republic that I have lived in, nor does it describe a country in which I would choose to live in, either.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this one - this is what what divides liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe they can create a utopia; by banning money, they can make better elections.
The fact is, money is endemic in every election in every country. So when you say, "That does not describe the American Democratic Republic that I have lived in, nor does it describe a country in which I would choose to live in, either.", you really are describing "utopia", a word which translates to "nowhere"
Again, this is the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives - liberals believe they can legislate utopia - "if we can word the laws just right, we can legislate bad things away".
Conservatives realize this is a pipe dream - you can never legislate mans darkside away - there will ALWAYS be people with money and people without money who want to sway elections, and the best way to keep the worst excesses in line is to allow EVERYONE to participate, instead of a select few.
Your idea, that only individuals can participate and only in limited contributions, would result in candidates not being able to get their message out, to reach voters. Ron Paul would NEVER have been as big as he is if not for wealthy donors who believes in his message and gave him the money to get his platform out and make people aware of it; on the liberal side, Barack Obama would NEVER have been able to challenge Hillary Clinton's name brand recognition and warchest if not for wealthy donors who believed in him.
When libs like you whine about campaign finance, you only think of "those evil Republican" - you never think of the money that elects YOUR candidate, or how the guy YOU like would never have been able to tell you about his platform if not for his money
Lastly, keep in mind that just because someone has money, doesn't mean they're going to win - when was the last time a commercial changed your mind about anythign? When was the last time a stump speech make you change your vote? I'm gonna bet never - money is speech, it allows a candidate to tell people across the country what their platform is, so that people like Ron Paul and Barack Obama, newcomers, don't get crowded out by the old timers, by the people who've been around for decades.
I haven't read beyond this but holy crap macro. First off yes I vote democrat and am registered dem. The exaggerations about liberal beliefs are just as bad as libs exaggerating cons that have extreme right beliefs. People need to get off their extreme right or left soapboxes and realize 99 percent of this country isn't as extremely angry as you. I honestly hope in ways a republican is next president so the angry white old head males can effin relax and chill out.
conservatives accept mans dark side and try to constrain it within reason
Blurr, would you mind separating your arguement from the quote from xmacro? I'm having a real difficult time trying to figure out what parts are the quote and which parts are your response lol.
Comments
Unions weren't included in JDH's post because he wasn't thinking of them; he was thinking of evil corporations spending untold millions. What's left unsaid is that corporate donations usually split 50/50 between democrats and republicans (it's closer to 54-Repub, 46 Dem), while Union spending is typically 94% for Dems, 6% for Repubs.
And you're right, money always has a huge effect on elections, but the simple fact is, you remove money, and you take away peoples speech, you take away their ability to convey their message across the nation. LIke I said before, Ron Paul and Barack Obama would never have been elected if it were not for big donors; the party establishments would have picked the candidates instead of the people
Finally, you're right - there are incredibly stupid people (ie - swing voters) who don't pay attention to the news, who don't know anything about our politics, who can't even tell you who's running for election. The answer for these people isn't to limit the people who pick up a newspaper and know what's happening or take away their speech, it's to educate the idiots who can't tell you the difference between Obama and Ron Paul, who think Newt Gingrich is still Speaker of the House, or who think Hillary Clinton is running for president.
Sorry. I have no time for that.
This is a blatant falsehood, and if it is repeated again, it will be a lie. I mentioned organizations, which include unions, PACS, think tanks, non-profits, and many others, as well as corporations.
Where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah, it was me, at the end of most of my disagreements with Xmacro.
Unfortunately, xmacro wants to see a bias that is not there, because he is bound and determined to pigeonhole me into one of his convenient little categories that he thinks a typical "liberal" would have. Very few people are accurately defined by talk radio personalities, because most of us are much more complicated than the shock jocks want their audiences to believe.
I have many views. Some are “libertarian”, some are “conservative”, some are “moderate”, some are “liberal”, but none of them are dominated by any of the others.
But in this case regarding campaign finances, I want NO organizations, whether corporate or otherwise to be able to buy or influence our elected representatives. I want them to represent We the People; the people who actually vote for them (as the founders intended) not the Corporations, the Organizations, or wealthy individuals who bought their office for them.
Citizens United brought the boogeyman out of the closet; instead of donating secretly to Super PAC's, corporations and unions and organizations of all stripes can donate directly to campaigns (might I remind you that campaigns must reveal their donors; Super PACs don't have to)
The simple nature of humans is to gain more power, money and influence to themselves. You simply cannoy stop it, cannot legislate it away and can't prevent it. There is nothing that Gov't can do to stop the corrupting influence of money, because Gov't itself is the biggest source of power, and thus the biggest source of corruption. So long as one section of men can rule over other men, there will ALWAYS be people who want to influence the rule makers; you'll never stop them from trying.
The best course of action is to make it transparent, make it so there can't be backroom deals and the money donated comes to the light; the next step is to have an informed citizenry who makes intelligent votes.