If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   The FEC finally gets around to fixing that whole Citizen's United thing   (politico.com) divider line 75
    More: Cool, Federal Election Commission, Fe C, independent expenditures, campaign finance reform, Citizens United  
•       •       •

7255 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Mar 2012 at 5:23 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-07 05:17:32 PM
Pay attention, children, this is how you troll
 
2012-03-07 05:28:49 PM
Unless it ether involves forcing companies to be restricted to the same limits you or I are, i'm not interested.
 
2012-03-07 05:33:07 PM

Antimatter: Unless it ether involves forcing companies to be restricted to the same limits you or I are, i'm not interested.


You are free to give a few hundred million to your favorite Super PAC, just as they are.

In fact, most huge Super PAC checks come from individuals, not corporations.
 
2012-03-07 05:33:12 PM

Antimatter: Unless it ether involves forcing companies to be restricted to the same limits you or I are, i'm not interested.


Never happen, unlike you and me those companies are people.
 
2012-03-07 05:33:45 PM
Thanks for the misleading headline, subby. I got my hopes up, only to have them utterly dashed. Nicely played, you jerk.


And:
"It is troubling that you have not addressed the clear implications of Citizens United as to what regulations now need to be repealed and brought into compliance," said Jim Bopp, the conservative attorney who successfully argued the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case.


Shut up Jim Bopp, you cock.
 
2012-03-07 05:39:07 PM

mongbiohazard: Shut up Jim Bopp, you cock.


Isn't that a Hanson song? Rather unusual of them to call out one guy like that.
 
2012-03-07 05:40:16 PM

Geotpf: Antimatter: Unless it ether involves forcing companies to be restricted to the same limits you or I are, i'm not interested.

You are free to give a few hundred million to your favorite Super PAC, just as they are.

In fact, most huge Super PAC checks come from individuals, not corporations.


I mean restrict the Super pacs to the limits we can spend.
 
2012-03-07 05:40:34 PM
Headline: the FEC is finally doing something about Citizens United

Article: the FEC is split along partisan lines and isn't doing anything. Some attorney is complaining that they aren't doing anything hard enough.
 
2012-03-07 05:43:37 PM
/shakes fist at subby.
 
2012-03-07 05:45:03 PM

Antimatter: Geotpf: Antimatter: Unless it ether involves forcing companies to be restricted to the same limits you or I are, i'm not interested.

You are free to give a few hundred million to your favorite Super PAC, just as they are.

In fact, most huge Super PAC checks come from individuals, not corporations.

I mean restrict the Super pacs to the limits we can spend.


Super PACs are restricted to the limits you can spend-- they and you can spend as much as they want on political speech. The FEC tried to argue that the trivial fact that money is expended when exercising the right to free speech gave them the right to criminalize it (and, under that logic, they could have made putting a bumper sticker on your car illegal-- somebody had to pay for the sticker, right?) Super PAC's are actually more restricted, in that they can't contribute directly to a candidate. You, however, can up to certain limits. What Citizens United did is prevent the government from criminalizing speech based on how the citizens attempting to speak have organized their affairs.
 
2012-03-07 05:45:48 PM

arcsecond: mongbiohazard: Shut up Jim Bopp, you cock.

Isn't that a Hanson song? Rather unusual of them to call out one guy like that.


And now mm Bopp is stuck in my head.

Great.
 
2012-03-07 05:46:25 PM
We're a long ass-ways from fixing the problems with our election system.
 
2012-03-07 05:47:10 PM

arcsecond: mongbiohazard: Shut up Jim Bopp, you cock.

Isn't that a Hanson song? Rather unusual of them to call out one guy like that.


If I didn't want to risk destroying my sanity with the earworm I'd pull up the lyrics and make verse or two into a parody.... but no comedy is worth staring into the eyes of madness like that.


verbaltoxin: Headline: the FEC is finally doing something about Citizens United

Article: the FEC is split along partisan lines and isn't doing anything. Some attorney is complaining that they aren't doing anything hard enough.



And even worse, it's the attorney responsible for Citizens United and he's complaining that they aren't complying with that they aren't changing the rules to suit his horrid opinion fast and strongly enough. He's pissed that he thinks they're waiting for the outcome of a case which could possibly weaken the Citizens United result a little, and wants them to change the rules before that happens because he knows how hard it will be for them to change them back with half the panel in his slimy back pocket.
 
2012-03-07 05:49:39 PM
The FEC is complicit in the corporate-judicial takeover of our democracy. If Obama had a spine, he would have made sure the government channeled Andrew Jackson: "John Roberts has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
 
2012-03-07 05:50:11 PM

Antimatter: Geotpf: Antimatter: Unless it ether involves forcing companies to be restricted to the same limits you or I are, i'm not interested.

You are free to give a few hundred million to your favorite Super PAC, just as they are.

In fact, most huge Super PAC checks come from individuals, not corporations.

I mean restrict the Super pacs to the limits we can spend.


You can contribute more to a candidate than a Super PAC can.
 
2012-03-07 05:51:04 PM
The CU ruling has the highest anger to understanding ratio of all time. So many people are outraged by it yet they can't be bothered to know precisely what was ruled.
 
2012-03-07 05:51:34 PM
"Citizen is United," Subby? Really?
 
2012-03-07 05:55:01 PM

Mrbogey: The CU ruling has the highest anger to understanding ratio of all time. So many people are outraged by it yet they can't be bothered to know precisely what was ruled.


Blame it on the Lame stream Media and 0bama's partisan, uninformed attack at the State of the Union.
 
2012-03-07 05:58:45 PM

Forced Perspective: Super PACs are restricted to the limits you can spend-- they and you can spend as much as they want on political speech. The FEC tried to argue that the trivial fact that money is expended when exercising the right to free speech gave them the right to criminalize it (and, under that logic, they could have made putting a bumper sticker on your car illegal-- somebody had to pay for the sticker, right?) Super PAC's are actually more restricted, in that they can't contribute directly to a candidate. You, however, can up to certain limits. What Citizens United did is prevent the government from criminalizing speech based on how the citizens attempting to speak have organized their affairs.


I'm going to go out into the street at three in the morning with a megaphone and start screaming at my neighbors about the Federal Reserve and silver dimes. And if the police do anything about it, then we might as well outlaw bumper stickers, because stickers and late-night crackpot serenades are exactly the same. Or maybe there is such a thing as a reasonable restriction on speech.
 
2012-03-07 05:59:54 PM

Mrbogey: The CU ruling has the highest anger to understanding ratio of all time. So many people are outraged by it yet they can't be bothered to know precisely what was ruled.


The common understanding of CU is much closer to reality than the majority's depiction of the effects the ruling would have.
 
2012-03-07 06:04:26 PM

Mrbogey: The CU ruling has the highest anger to understanding ratio of all time. So many people are outraged by it yet they can't be bothered to know precisely what was ruled.


I dunno. I'd say that honor goes to Liebeck v. McDonald's.
 
2012-03-07 06:07:08 PM

birdboy2000: The FEC is complicit in the corporate-judicial takeover of our democracy. If Obama had a spine, he would have made sure the government channeled Andrew Jackson: "John Roberts has made his decision; now let him enforce it."


Right because giving the House a reason to impeach him is exactly what Obama should be doing. Jackson had the luxury of a complicit congress.
 
2012-03-07 06:07:27 PM

Tusz:

I'm going to go out into the street at three in the morning with a megaphone and start screaming at my neighbors about the Federal Reserve and silver dimes. And if the police do anything about it, then we might as well outlaw bumper stickers, because stickers and late-night crackpot serenades are exactly the same. Or maybe there is such a thing as a reasonable restriction on speech.


yet another person who doesn't understand...sigh...

there are already penalties for "free speech" especially in the area of public safety (yelling fire in a theater).

saying why you like one candidate or dislike another candidate is hardly in the same class.
 
2012-03-07 06:09:33 PM

Tusz: I'm going to go out into the street at three in the morning with a megaphone and start screaming at my neighbors about the Federal Reserve and silver dimes. And if the police do anything about it, then we might as well outlaw bumper stickers, because stickers and late-night crackpot serenades are exactly the same. Or maybe there is such a thing as a reasonable restriction on speech.


So much this. This isn't about speech, it's about volume.

As a wise man (me) once said: Money is not speech. It is more like the volume knob on an amplifier. The very wealthy have knobs that go up to 11, and they aren't afraid to use them to drown the rest of us out.

And the notion that super PACs and candidates are separate is entirely fiction. Newt Gingrich spent something like $22,000 campaigning in the run-up to Super Tuesday. His "non-connected" super PAC spent over $3,000,000.
 
2012-03-07 06:11:40 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: saying why you like one candidate or dislike another candidate is hardly in the same class.


At a certain volume, it becomes exactly the same class.
 
2012-03-07 06:13:21 PM

Mrbogey: The CU ruling has the highest anger to understanding ratio of all time. So many people are outraged by it yet they can't be bothered to know precisely what was ruled.



I'm not sure that the problem is a lack of understanding. The problem is the unintended consequences that arose from the ruling.

Note I said unintended, and not unforeseen. The justices might not have realized what the consequences would be... but there were folks warning about it. Then again, the justices might not have actually cared too much what the consequences would be since I know at least one or two of them are of the mindset of "don't expect US to fix poorly written laws, expect lawmakers to write the laws better or fix their mistakes."
 
2012-03-07 06:13:41 PM

skinnycatullus: Tusz: I'm going to go out into the street at three in the morning with a megaphone and start screaming at my neighbors about the Federal Reserve and silver dimes. And if the police do anything about it, then we might as well outlaw bumper stickers, because stickers and late-night crackpot serenades are exactly the same. Or maybe there is such a thing as a reasonable restriction on speech.

So much this. This isn't about speech, it's about volume.

As a wise man (me) once said: Money is not speech. It is more like the volume knob on an amplifier. The very wealthy have knobs that go up to 11, and they aren't afraid to use them to drown the rest of us out.

.


but it isn't just about rich people. It is unfair that some people have the time and resources to volunteer for political parties, get on phone banks, raise awareness, lie, etc.
 
2012-03-07 06:15:22 PM

skinnycatullus: tenpoundsofcheese: saying why you like one candidate or dislike another candidate is hardly in the same class.

At a certain volume, it becomes exactly the same class.


At a certain volume, it becomes what we commonly refer to as "the press."
 
2012-03-07 06:16:24 PM

mongbiohazard: Mrbogey: The CU ruling has the highest anger to understanding ratio of all time. So many people are outraged by it yet they can't be bothered to know precisely what was ruled.

The problem is the unintended consequences that arose from the ruling.



what unintended consequences are those exactly?
 
2012-03-07 06:18:59 PM

mongbiohazard: I'm not sure that the problem is a lack of understanding. The problem is the unintended consequences that arose from the ruling.


I think there was more than one "correct" way to rule. The CU ruling was technically correct in that it followed logically from prior rulings. A more correct, IMHO, ruling would have paid attention more closely to the question of the public's interest in preventing (or at least not increasing) corruption of the political process.
 
2012-03-07 06:22:47 PM

skinnycatullus: Tusz: I'm going to go out into the street at three in the morning with a megaphone and start screaming at my neighbors about the Federal Reserve and silver dimes. And if the police do anything about it, then we might as well outlaw bumper stickers, because stickers and late-night crackpot serenades are exactly the same. Or maybe there is such a thing as a reasonable restriction on speech.

So much this. This isn't about speech, it's about volume.

As a wise man (me) once said: Money is not speech. It is more like the volume knob on an amplifier. The very wealthy have knobs that go up to 11, and they aren't afraid to use them to drown the rest of us out.

And the notion that super PACs and candidates are separate is entirely fiction. Newt Gingrich spent something like $22,000 campaigning in the run-up to Super Tuesday. His "non-connected" super PAC spent over $3,000,000.


Thirded.
 
2012-03-07 06:25:28 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: but it isn't just about rich people. It is unfair that some people have the time and resources to volunteer for political parties, get on phone banks, raise awareness, lie, etc.


That is a ridiculous comparison. Someone spending 24 hours a day, 365 days a year volunteering, manning phone banks, etc., would never approach the advantage gained by someone with a billion bucks to spend buying ads. Besides, this isn't about making everyone exactly equal, it's about preventing a very few people from drowning out everyone else.
 
2012-03-07 06:26:01 PM

skinnycatullus: mongbiohazard: I'm not sure that the problem is a lack of understanding. The problem is the unintended consequences that arose from the ruling.

I think there was more than one "correct" way to rule. The CU ruling was technically correct in that it followed logically from prior rulings. A more correct, IMHO, ruling would have paid attention more closely to the question of the public's interest in preventing (or at least not increasing) corruption of the political process.


If that is what they wanted then they should go after lobbyists. How is preventing a group from putting out ads a corruption of the political process?
 
2012-03-07 06:33:34 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: mongbiohazard: Mrbogey: The CU ruling has the highest anger to understanding ratio of all time. So many people are outraged by it yet they can't be bothered to know precisely what was ruled.

The problem is the unintended consequences that arose from the ruling.



what unintended consequences are those exactly?



You know what, I think I can guess where you're going to go with that and I'd have to agree with you that the consequences have been exactly what Jim Bopp and friends were hoping for.

They were hoping that they'd win the case and get the arcane system of effectively unfettered political patronage we have now. I just don't think the majority on the court foresaw that result.
 
2012-03-07 06:41:51 PM

skinnycatullus: tenpoundsofcheese: but it isn't just about rich people. It is unfair that some people have the time and resources to volunteer for political parties, get on phone banks, raise awareness, lie, etc.

That is a ridiculous comparison. Someone spending 24 hours a day, 365 days a year volunteering, manning phone banks, etc., would never approach the advantage gained by someone with a billion bucks to spend buying ads. Besides, this isn't about making everyone exactly equal, it's about preventing a very few people from drowning out everyone else.


But it is all a matter of degrees, isn't it? It is all about where you are drawing the line.
You want to draw the line at billionaires, what about millionaires? what about people worth 200k?
I think someone who has the time and resources to volunteer a lot drowns out my efforts a lot more than a millionaire who donates money for some ads.
 
2012-03-07 06:43:15 PM

mongbiohazard: tenpoundsofcheese: mongbiohazard: Mrbogey: The CU ruling has the highest anger to understanding ratio of all time. So many people are outraged by it yet they can't be bothered to know precisely what was ruled.

The problem is the unintended consequences that arose from the ruling.



what unintended consequences are those exactly?


You know what, I think I can guess where you're going to go with that and I'd have to agree with you that the consequences have been exactly what Jim Bopp and friends were hoping for.

They were hoping that they'd win the case and get the arcane system of effectively unfettered political patronage we have now. I just don't think the majority on the court foresaw that result.


I hope that Supreme Court Justices decide the cases based on whether or not it is constitutionally and legally valid, not based on guess what the consequences could be.
 
2012-03-07 06:43:19 PM

mongbiohazard: Thanks for the misleading headline, subby. I got my hopes up, only to have them utterly dashed. Nicely played, you jerk.


Cyberluddite: "Citizen is United," Subby? Really?

verbaltoxin: Headline: the FEC is finally doing something about Citizens United

Article: the FEC is split along partisan lines and isn't doing anything. Some attorney is complaining that they aren't doing anything hard enough.


omnibus_necanda_sunt: /shakes fist at subby.


I feel like I may have pissed you guys off. I'm sorry.

\Had better headlines rejected today
\\fark the mods for redlighting those and greenlighting the troll headline
\\\subby
 
2012-03-07 06:45:12 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: skinnycatullus: mongbiohazard: I'm not sure that the problem is a lack of understanding. The problem is the unintended consequences that arose from the ruling.

I think there was more than one "correct" way to rule. The CU ruling was technically correct in that it followed logically from prior rulings. A more correct, IMHO, ruling would have paid attention more closely to the question of the public's interest in preventing (or at least not increasing) corruption of the political process.

If that is what they wanted then they should go after lobbyists. How is preventing a group from putting out ads a corruption of the political process?



I guess I was wrong about where you were hoping to lead me. The part that is corrupting with the groups putting out ads for candidates is that they can do it with unlimited dollars from a tiny powerful group of Americans, and thus effectively subsidize the campaign for a candidate and drown out other speech. Ask Santorum about how that works out... He's being out-marketed in many states so incredibly lopsidedly that it skews the election away from him whether it should be or not. In effect he cannot answer all of the charges, compete with all the advertising, afford the legions of canvassers, have as many or as high-profile events....

Imbalances like that surely have - and probably will - always exist, but it's to the detriment of the society overall when those imbalances are as severe as they have gotten and driven by so few people. The grass-roots candidates - who aren't already part of the wealthy elite club - just don't stand a chance anymore, and democracy has suffered as a result.

Favors are traded quietly... Candidates appease their corporate masters with a wink and a nod and a vote, and those corporate masters ensure that the money to ensure that "their guy" keeps getting elected perpetually flows unfettered.

People who are smarter then I put it thusly...
 
2012-03-07 06:47:50 PM

somedude210: I feel like I may have pissed you guys off. I'm sorry.

\Had better headlines rejected today
\\fark the mods for redlighting those and greenlighting the troll headline
\\\subby



lol, don't feel bad... it's the country's laws that has us pissed off, really.
 
2012-03-07 06:48:16 PM
Mager

The house was democratic at the time CU was passed - it only turned Republican because of corporate cash outspending dems 7-1.
 
2012-03-07 06:48:40 PM

skinnycatullus: tenpoundsofcheese: but it isn't just about rich people. It is unfair that some people have the time and resources to volunteer for political parties, get on phone banks, raise awareness, lie, etc.

That is a ridiculous comparison. Someone spending 24 hours a day, 365 days a year volunteering, manning phone banks, etc., .


Why hasn't this issue been raised before?

I am allowed to contribute $2500 to a candidate (or some number like that).

But another person is allowed to contribute a year of their time to a campaign as well as the $2,500.
That is fundamentally unfair since I should be allowed to contribute another $50k or so to hire a person to work on a campaign that I support.
 
2012-03-07 06:53:31 PM

mongbiohazard: tenpoundsofcheese: skinnycatullus: mongbiohazard: I'm not sure that the problem is a lack of understanding. The problem is the unintended consequences that arose from the ruling.

I think there was more than one "correct" way to rule. The CU ruling was technically correct in that it followed logically from prior rulings. A more correct, IMHO, ruling would have paid attention more closely to the question of the public's interest in preventing (or at least not increasing) corruption of the political process.

If that is what they wanted then they should go after lobbyists. How is preventing a group from putting out ads a corruption of the political process?


I guess I was wrong about where you were hoping to lead me. The part that is corrupting with the groups putting out ads for candidates is that they can do it with unlimited dollars from a tiny powerful group of Americans, and thus effectively subsidize the campaign for a candidate and drown out other speech.

so? the press drowns out advertising and subsidize campaigns more than anything out there. Ask Romney how that works.

Imbalances like that surely have - and probably will - always exist, but it's to the detriment of the society overall when those imbalances are as severe as they have gotten and driven by so few people. The grass-roots candidates - who aren't already part of the wealthy elite club - just don't stand a chance anymore, and democracy has suffered as a result.

yeah, that really hurt 0bama.

 
2012-03-07 06:57:40 PM
I picture Breitbart being Meatwad and reasonable people being Master Shake from the Moon Master episode.

Meatwad: Come, face a true warrior.
Master Shake: (blasts plastic sword with shotgun) Was that it? Has he been faced? Are we done here?
Meatwad: Impossible, the moon sceptor was invincible. There is but one in the known universe... Good thing I bought the 3-pack.
Master Shake: Well whip 'em out let do this!!!

Breitbart: Look at this condemning video!!!!
Reasonable People: Are you serious??? You look ridiculous. Please stop wasting my time.
Breitbart: But look here!!! Another (heavily edited) video that proves I'm right!!!
Reasonable People: Keep 'em coming. You're just making yourself look like a fool.
Breitbart: [gasp] [clutches chest] [thud]
Reasonable Person 1: Did Breitbart just say something?
Reasonable Person 2: Don't even look at him. He's an attention whore. Ignore him and he'll go away.
 
2012-03-07 07:00:07 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: skinnycatullus: tenpoundsofcheese: but it isn't just about rich people. It is unfair that some people have the time and resources to volunteer for political parties, get on phone banks, raise awareness, lie, etc.

That is a ridiculous comparison. Someone spending 24 hours a day, 365 days a year volunteering, manning phone banks, etc., .

Why hasn't this issue been raised before?

I am allowed to contribute $2500 to a candidate (or some number like that).

But another person is allowed to contribute a year of their time to a campaign as well as the $2,500.
That is fundamentally unfair since I should be allowed to contribute another $50k or so to hire a person to work on a campaign that I support.


Is there something preventing you from contributing your own time to working on a campaign that you support?
 
2012-03-07 07:01:15 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: But it is all a matter of degrees, isn't it? It is all about where you are drawing the line.


Yes. Unfortunately, the court decided not to draw a line at all.

I started my own super PAC (see my profile). I've read the rulings and the regulations and have been following this pretty closely. There are real consequences (and the court should absolutely take those into account along with constitutional considerations, btw).

The GOP is destroying itself because of this ruling. While I am enjoying that on a certain level, I know that the Democratic Party is next. The farking president is already going against his principles to encourage PAC donations. By 2016, the whole thing will be a clusterfark as big as the GOP is enduring now. You may think that is fine, but I am going to do what I can to prevent it.
 
2012-03-07 07:03:40 PM

heinekenftw: arcsecond: mongbiohazard: Shut up Jim Bopp, you cock.

Isn't that a Hanson song? Rather unusual of them to call out one guy like that.

And now mm Bopp is stuck in my head.

Great.


Allow me to help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuzyODgWRp4
 
2012-03-07 07:09:25 PM

mak3_7up_y0urs: tenpoundsofcheese: skinnycatullus: tenpoundsofcheese: but it isn't just about rich people. It is unfair that some people have the time and resources to volunteer for political parties, get on phone banks, raise awareness, lie, etc.

That is a ridiculous comparison. Someone spending 24 hours a day, 365 days a year volunteering, manning phone banks, etc., .

Why hasn't this issue been raised before?

I am allowed to contribute $2500 to a candidate (or some number like that).

But another person is allowed to contribute a year of their time to a campaign as well as the $2,500.
That is fundamentally unfair since I should be allowed to contribute another $50k or so to hire a person to work on a campaign that I support.

Is there something preventing you from contributing your own time to working on a campaign that you support?


Yes, cancer.
 
2012-03-07 07:10:41 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: so? the press drowns out advertising and subsidize campaigns more than anything out there. Ask Romney how that works.



I'd be happy to since it's working out quite well for him. The press is caught up in this problem as well. Our press is addicted to the access that incumbents and connected donors can arrange. When they challenge a party or candidates too harshly they also run the risk of losing access, funding and advertising. The press also now also has a revolving door policy with the connected political class, and regularly provides them with airtime and punditry to air their view that less connected candidates simply do not get. That the press in theory should be bolder, more independent and do better does not actually help the body politic when it isn't.

Money will always corrupt the political process to some extent... but unlimited money is resulting in unlimited corruption.


tenpoundsofcheese: yeah, that really hurt 0bama.



Do you think that by bringing up one of the - if not THE - most well-funded political campaigns in history that you're not actually proving my point? Because you are. There's PLENTY of big money behind Obama, not just "grassroots" money. So yeah, case in point. Both "sides" of our political system comprise an incumbent oligarchic class which is just shafting us mercilessly, and shamelessly pissing away the legacy of our forefathers.

Protip: I'm no Democrat. I'm a Reagan-loving, steak-eating, gun-coveting Republican. Which is why I'm so disappointed in the Republican party for their role in this garbage.

Oh, and you can spell the man's name properly. You don't make a golem by writing "Obama" on a piece of paper and putting it in a statue's mouth, you know. It doesn't make you look clever, and in fact quite the contrary.
 
2012-03-07 07:16:02 PM

mongbiohazard:
tenpoundsofcheese: yeah, that really hurt 0bama.


Do you think that by bringing up one of the - if not THE - most well-funded political campaigns in history that you're not actually proving my point? .


Yes. The argument was that unless you are part of the wealthy elite club you don't stand a chance. I disagree.

Clinton was for more in that club than 0bama was at the time.

IIRC, Bill Clinton wasn't all that wealthy or elite when he ran nor was Carter.
 
2012-03-07 07:27:39 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: mak3_7up_y0urs: tenpoundsofcheese: skinnycatullus: tenpoundsofcheese: but it isn't just about rich people. It is unfair that some people have the time and resources to volunteer for political parties, get on phone banks, raise awareness, lie, etc.

That is a ridiculous comparison. Someone spending 24 hours a day, 365 days a year volunteering, manning phone banks, etc., .

Why hasn't this issue been raised before?

I am allowed to contribute $2500 to a candidate (or some number like that).

But another person is allowed to contribute a year of their time to a campaign as well as the $2,500.
That is fundamentally unfair since I should be allowed to contribute another $50k or so to hire a person to work on a campaign that I support.

Is there something preventing you from contributing your own time to working on a campaign that you support?

Yes, cancer.


So you have the time and ability to frequently post on Fark, but you can't use that time and ability to provide online support to a campaign?
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report