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.

(Seattle Times)   Outrageous example of need for campaign finance reform - two ultra-rich white guys try to influence state politics. Oh, wait, they're supporting a gay marriage campaign? Never mind   (seattletimes.nwsource.com) divider line 133
    More: Ironic, campaign finance reform, same-sex marriages, National Organization for Marriage, Nike Inc., Bill Gates, Maine Legislature  
•       •       •

1441 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Jul 2012 at 10:23 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-03 11:04:19 AM  

gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away


Marriage isn't a right.
 
2012-07-03 11:05:58 AM  
1) Granting corporations and individuals the unfettered constitutional right to spend as much money as they want to support a political candidate is a terrible idea.

2) At least these guys are spending political cash to support a civil rights type movement, rather than spread misinformation or promote their private pecuniary interests.

3) Does anyone really think that our special-interest-cash-soaked government works well?
 
2012-07-03 11:07:01 AM  

Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.


Yes, but equal protection under the law is.

And aspects of marriage have found constitutional protections in many supreme court rulings.
 
2012-07-03 11:07:41 AM  

Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.


Yes, it farking is. It's the right to engage in a legal agreement with another consenting adult and in doing so to enjoy certain social, financial, and legal benefits, including the right of visitation when hospitalized and the right of inheritance as a spouse, that other consenting adults can enjoy without issue.

We have a right to enter into legal agreements. We have a right to visit our loved ones. We have a right to be seen as equal in the eyes of the law.
 
2012-07-03 11:10:04 AM  

skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: Why can't conservatives get it through their thick heads that liberals don't want ANY monies unfairly influencing politics?

is the Gates contribution unfairly influencing politics?


Are they donating to a specific politician? No.
I said "unfairly." Full disclosure is not unfair in my book.

AFAIK all donations to specific politicians are public record, no?



Get back to me when SuperPACs have full disclosure. Otherwise your question is unanswerable.
 
2012-07-03 11:10:27 AM  

Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.


Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

The unanimous opinion from Loving v. Virginia would beg to differ.
 
2012-07-03 11:11:08 AM  

Lord_Baull: skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: Why can't conservatives get it through their thick heads that liberals don't want ANY monies unfairly influencing politics?

is the Gates contribution unfairly influencing politics?


Are they donating to a specific politician? No.
I said "unfairly." Full disclosure is not unfair in my book.

AFAIK all donations to specific politicians are public record, no?


Get back to me when SuperPACs have full disclosure. Otherwise your question is unanswerable.


you made the "specific politician" distinction, not me
 
2012-07-03 11:11:39 AM  

too-old: Tor_Eckman: Here's the thing, dumbmitter-You can believe that campaign finance reform is desperately needed in our system, while not having a problem with fighting fire with fire under the current system.

I know that's a complicated thing to understand for a pea-brain, but if you try really hard you might be able to get it. If you get off of the crack pipe, you may even be able to grasp the concept of the false equivalence fallacy someday, too.

You sound like you need to get laid


Well of course I do. ASL?
 
2012-07-03 11:11:53 AM  

Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.


Do we have ourselves a Libertarian? Let me ask you a question, are we have equal protection under the law?
 
2012-07-03 11:12:56 AM  

Glenn Beck Knows a Strawman: Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.

Do we have ourselves a Libertarian? Let me ask you a question, are we have equal protection under the law?


Yes. Also, all your base are belong to us.
 
2012-07-03 11:13:13 AM  

Glenn Beck Knows a Strawman: Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.

Do we have ourselves a Libertarian? Let me ask you a question, are we supposed to have equal protection under the law?


Me fail english? That's unpossible.
 
2012-07-03 11:14:26 AM  

skullkrusher: Glenn Beck Knows a Strawman: Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.

Do we have ourselves a Libertarian? Let me ask you a question, are we have equal protection under the law?

Yes. Also, all your base are belong to us.


I should have proof-read... already lambasted myself.

/mmmmm basted lamb
 
2012-07-03 11:14:58 AM  

Glenn Beck Knows a Strawman: Glenn Beck Knows a Strawman: Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.

Do we have ourselves a Libertarian? Let me ask you a question, are we supposed to have equal protection under the law?

Me fail english? That's unpossible.


I am America, and so can you!
 
2012-07-03 11:15:14 AM  

Chummer45: Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.

Yes, but equal protection under the law is.

And aspects of marriage have found constitutional protections in many supreme court rulings.


Agreed, the present situation of straight marriage only is unacceptable. But expanding the institution seems like a wrong headed way to go about it. Why do we all need a stamp of .government approval on our personal lives?
 
2012-07-03 11:15:14 AM  

Glenn Beck Knows a Strawman: skullkrusher: Glenn Beck Knows a Strawman: Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.

Do we have ourselves a Libertarian? Let me ask you a question, are we have equal protection under the law?

Yes. Also, all your base are belong to us.

I should have proof-read... already lambasted myself.

/mmmmm basted lamb


yum
 
2012-07-03 11:15:19 AM  

skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: Why can't conservatives get it through their thick heads that liberals don't want ANY monies unfairly influencing politics?

is the Gates contribution unfairly influencing politics?


Are they donating to a specific politician? No.
I said "unfairly." Full disclosure is not unfair in my book.

AFAIK all donations to specific politicians are public record, no?


Get back to me when SuperPACs have full disclosure. Otherwise your question is unanswerable.

you made the "specific politician" distinction, not me



Like I said, until SuperPACs have full disclosure, can we answer whether or not "specific candidates" are getting donations? I highlighted the important part of your question in bold.
 
2012-07-03 11:16:28 AM  

Chummer45: 1) Granting corporations and individuals the unfettered constitutional right to spend as much money as they want to support a political candidate is a terrible idea.

2) At least these guys are spending political cash to support a civil rights type movement, rather than spread misinformation or promote their private pecuniary interests.

3) Does anyone really think that our special-interest-cash-soaked government works well?


Issues and candidates are inseparable as far as the First Amendment is concerned. I guess the bottom line here is, so long as it's an issue agree with, we are OK with unfettered spending. That is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.
 
2012-07-03 11:18:35 AM  

Lord_Baull: skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: Why can't conservatives get it through their thick heads that liberals don't want ANY monies unfairly influencing politics?

is the Gates contribution unfairly influencing politics?


Are they donating to a specific politician? No.
I said "unfairly." Full disclosure is not unfair in my book.

AFAIK all donations to specific politicians are public record, no?


Get back to me when SuperPACs have full disclosure. Otherwise your question is unanswerable.

you made the "specific politician" distinction, not me


Like I said, until SuperPACs have full disclosure, can we answer whether or not "specific candidates" are getting donations? I highlighted the important part of your question in bold.


that's the problem with the SPACs. They are not for "specific" candidates in that they cannot be involved in campaigns... but they are
 
2012-07-03 11:21:15 AM  

Serious Black: Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

The unanimous opinion from Loving v. Virginia would beg to differ.


This is the point where someone points out that just because the Supreme Court rules on something, that doesn't make it Constitutional...
 
2012-07-03 11:24:59 AM  

skullkrusher: Glenn Beck Knows a Strawman: Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.

Do we have ourselves a Libertarian? Let me ask you a question, are we have equal protection under the law?

Yes. Also, all your base are belong to us.


*swish*
 
2012-07-03 11:31:12 AM  

Ned Stark: Chummer45: Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.

Yes, but equal protection under the law is.

And aspects of marriage have found constitutional protections in many supreme court rulings.

Agreed, the present situation of straight marriage only is unacceptable. But expanding the institution seems like a wrong headed way to go about it. Why do we all need a stamp of .government approval on our personal lives?


So we should stop trying to extend marriage to gay couples, and start trying to prevent straight people from being married? That seems like a winning strategy.

It's not a governmental stamp of approval. It's a guarantee of legal rights under our system. It's a contract more than anything else.
 
2012-07-03 11:35:06 AM  

Cataholic: Chummer45: 1) Granting corporations and individuals the unfettered constitutional right to spend as much money as they want to support a political candidate is a terrible idea.

2) At least these guys are spending political cash to support a civil rights type movement, rather than spread misinformation or promote their private pecuniary interests.

3) Does anyone really think that our special-interest-cash-soaked government works well?

Issues and candidates are inseparable as far as the First Amendment is concerned. I guess the bottom line here is, so long as it's an issue agree with, we are OK with unfettered spending. That is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.


No, you c00000000k. There is a difference in spending uncontrolled amounts on a candidate that has the ability to form laws and regulations that benefit you (or your company) versus an issue that affects millions. If they put that money into a candidate and the candidate started pushing laws about gay marriage, you might have a point, but they aren't and you don't. They are putting their money for a cause, which might turn their representatives' opinions because they can see it's something important to their constituents and maybe change things in the laws.

/Which is the way to do it, honestly.
 
2012-07-03 11:35:57 AM  
If they're fighting for the right cause, I don't mind if they have to bend some rules.

/Chaotic Good
 
2012-07-03 11:37:04 AM  

Ned Stark: Chummer45: Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.

Yes, but equal protection under the law is.

And aspects of marriage have found constitutional protections in many supreme court rulings.

Agreed, the present situation of straight marriage only is unacceptable. But expanding the institution seems like a wrong headed way to go about it. Why do we all need a stamp of .government approval on our personal lives?


Because otherwise couples would have to spend thousands to get a lawyer to prepare and file all of the individual legal documents necessary to share property, private information, and finances that marriage does in one move.
 
2012-07-03 11:38:52 AM  

skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: Why can't conservatives get it through their thick heads that liberals don't want ANY monies unfairly influencing politics?

is the Gates contribution unfairly influencing politics?


Are they donating to a specific politician? No.
I said "unfairly." Full disclosure is not unfair in my book.

AFAIK all donations to specific politicians are public record, no?


Get back to me when SuperPACs have full disclosure. Otherwise your question is unanswerable.

you made the "specific politician" distinction, not me


Like I said, until SuperPACs have full disclosure, can we answer whether or not "specific candidates" are getting donations? I highlighted the important part of your question in bold.

that's the problem with the SPACs. They are not for "specific" candidates in that they cannot be involved in campaigns... but they are



Exactly.
 
2012-07-03 11:43:13 AM  

gingerjet: Rincewind53: They each donated $100,000... whoooooo. Good for them, that's soooo much. Meanwhile, Chick-Fil-A donated 2 MILLION against gay marriage.

The Chick-Fil-A donation was for a right wing fringe group who may or may not spend the money on marriage initiatives. Balmer and Gates money is specifically for the Washington marriage campaign. A bit of a difference. And in both Washington and Minnesota - equality campaigns have outraised the wingnuts significantly.


Fringe group? With $2m? On an issue most Republicans concur with them?

Define "fringe".
 
2012-07-03 11:43:29 AM  

Ned Stark: Chummer45: Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.

Yes, but equal protection under the law is.

And aspects of marriage have found constitutional protections in many supreme court rulings.

Agreed, the present situation of straight marriage only is unacceptable. But expanding the institution seems like a wrong headed way to go about it. Why do we all need a stamp of .government approval on our personal lives?


Well then, it looks like the only options are (a) abolish marriage entirely as a legal distinction, or (b) allow same-sex marriage.

Take your pick.
 
2012-07-03 11:46:35 AM  

FunkyBlue: Cataholic: Chummer45: 1) Granting corporations and individuals the unfettered constitutional right to spend as much money as they want to support a political candidate is a terrible idea.

2) At least these guys are spending political cash to support a civil rights type movement, rather than spread misinformation or promote their private pecuniary interests.

3) Does anyone really think that our special-interest-cash-soaked government works well?

Issues and candidates are inseparable as far as the First Amendment is concerned. I guess the bottom line here is, so long as it's an issue agree with, we are OK with unfettered spending. That is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.

No, you c00000000k. There is a difference in spending uncontrolled amounts on a candidate that has the ability to form laws and regulations that benefit you (or your company) versus an issue that affects millions. If they put that money into a candidate and the candidate started pushing laws about gay marriage, you might have a point, but they aren't and you don't. They are putting their money for a cause, which might turn their representatives' opinions because they can see it's something important to their constituents and maybe change things in the laws.

/Which is the way to do it, honestly.


I never said that I agreed with unfettered spending. I think that we need much more effective campaign finance regulations. The reason is because "issue" ads often simply try to circumvent candidate donations - typically by trashing the candidate's opponent.

I think that most of our problems are solved once we recognize the fact that money does not equal speech.
 
2012-07-03 11:48:00 AM  

Ned Stark: Why do we all need a stamp of .government approval on our personal lives?


Read the Loving v Virginia opinion again. It doesn't say "Interracial marriage is government-approved". It says "The government is not allowed to outlaw it, ever". Same result, opposite path.
 
2012-07-03 11:51:24 AM  

Chummer45: Ned Stark: Chummer45: Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.

Yes, but equal protection under the law is.

And aspects of marriage have found constitutional protections in many supreme court rulings.

Agreed, the present situation of straight marriage only is unacceptable. But expanding the institution seems like a wrong headed way to go about it. Why do we all need a stamp of .government approval on our personal lives?

Well then, it looks like the only options are (a) abolish marriage entirely as a legal distinction, or (b) allow same-sex marriage.

Take your pick.


A, naturally.

But were getting B.
 
2012-07-03 12:06:16 PM  

Ned Stark: Chummer45: Ned Stark: Chummer45: Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.

Yes, but equal protection under the law is.

And aspects of marriage have found constitutional protections in many supreme court rulings.

Agreed, the present situation of straight marriage only is unacceptable. But expanding the institution seems like a wrong headed way to go about it. Why do we all need a stamp of .government approval on our personal lives?

Well then, it looks like the only options are (a) abolish marriage entirely as a legal distinction, or (b) allow same-sex marriage.

Take your pick.

A, naturally.

But were getting B.


Sooner rather than later hopefully.

But I have a question: Even the biggest L Libertarian agrees that one of the reasons our government exists is to enforce contracts. As marriage has all kinds of legal issues attached to it (property, children, wills, etc.), and I assume you would want all of those issues handled via private contracts, how can the government ever completely, well, divorce itself from the issue?
 
2012-07-03 12:06:59 PM  

kid_icarus: If the Mormons Republicans can do it, I don't see why others can't.


FTFY

See, it's not just the Mormons that do this on the Right, although the voices in your head might insist on that being so.
 
2012-07-03 12:09:06 PM  

gingerjet: Rincewind53: They each donated $100,000... whoooooo. Good for them, that's soooo much. Meanwhile, Chick-Fil-A donated 2 MILLION against gay marriage.

The Chick-Fil-A donation was for a right wing fringe group who may or may not spend the money on marriage initiatives. Balmer and Gates money is specifically for the Washington marriage campaign. A bit of a difference. And in both Washington and Minnesota - equality campaigns have outraised the wingnuts significantly.


Because in Washington the will of the people is clearly on the side of gay marriage, but it's lost at the polls for the typical reasons. This time, since the inequality is impacting businesses who just want to make money, you're seeing spending to get a definative resolution of the issue where the ass-clowns will just have to go back to their churches and sulk about it.

farking Christians just can't leave people alone to live their lives.
 
2012-07-03 12:10:49 PM  
Subby, you're still describing feudalism. Some kings were great and progressive, some were tyrannical. Who resembles conservatives in the US? I certainly hope both sides are utilizing this dangerous new ability until it is thrown out, i wouldn't want one side to run away with it.
 
2012-07-03 12:13:43 PM  

Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.


Neither is voting. Doesn't mean you can arbitrarily prevent selected individuals you don't like from doing it.
 
2012-07-03 12:22:09 PM  

kid_icarus: If the Mormons can do it, I don't see why others can't.


And we're done here.

I'm all for fixing the system until the rich can't influence it either way. Until the system is fixed, though, I don't see the problem with the side I agree with taking money. To do otherwise would be like walking into a duel unarmed because I don't like guns -- it's a great way to lose.

/Buddy Roemer stuck by his campaign finance reform guns and refused to take large contributions
//look where it got him
 
2012-07-03 12:22:27 PM  
You mean two guys openly contribute to a political campaign in the state they have lived in for decades?

Goodness, that's almost exactly what we've been complaining about.
 
2012-07-03 12:22:27 PM  

jso2897: Doesn't mean you can arbitrarily prevent selected individuals you don't like from doing it.


Theoretically, you could, so long as it is uniformly enforced and does not contravene one of the constitutional provisions regarding the voting privilege.

You know, like felons.
 
2012-07-03 12:24:48 PM  
They donated $100,000 each. Chik-fil-a donated 2 million dollars.

So... This makes it even?
 
2012-07-03 12:26:14 PM  

Tickle Mittens: Because in Washington the will of the people is clearly on the side of gay marriage, but it's lost at the polls for the typical reasons.


I'm not so sure about that. Here in Seattle and in places like Bellingham and San Juan County there's a lot of support for marriage equality. If you get into places like Kitsap County, most of Snohomish and Thurston Counties, and the vast wasteland that is Eastern Washington, they still hate teh gheys with a deep, burning passion.
 
2012-07-03 12:26:50 PM  
Ironic? Nope.
 
2012-07-03 12:27:37 PM  

FunkyBlue: No, you c00000000k.



What is this? I don't even. huh?
 
2012-07-03 12:31:25 PM  
Open contributions from residents of the state to issues rather than people is something I have no problem with.
 
2012-07-03 12:34:00 PM  
So they donated to the campaign for a specific issue, rather than buying a candidate outright?

As has been said before Dumbmitter, false equivalency.
 
2012-07-03 12:34:33 PM  
libertarian

Well there's yer problem.

In any case, we managed to handle those things for the vast majority of human history without growing a crushing weight of bureaucracy and without state-officiated marriage spreading beyond the ultra rich. I'm sure it could be done again.
 
2012-07-03 12:39:29 PM  

Ned Stark: Chummer45: Ned Stark: Chummer45: Ned Stark: gittlebass: the difference is, they're trying to give people more rights, not take them away

Marriage isn't a right.

Yes, but equal protection under the law is.

And aspects of marriage have found constitutional protections in many supreme court rulings.

Agreed, the present situation of straight marriage only is unacceptable. But expanding the institution seems like a wrong headed way to go about it. Why do we all need a stamp of .government approval on our personal lives?

Well then, it looks like the only options are (a) abolish marriage entirely as a legal distinction, or (b) allow same-sex marriage.

Take your pick.

A, naturally.

But were getting B.


The problem is not that government is recognizing marriage for some random reason. Government is involved because it's a contract. By definition, law must be involved.
 
2012-07-03 12:47:45 PM  

Ned Stark: In any case, we managed to handle those things for the vast majority of human history without growing a crushing weight of bureaucracy and without state-officiated marriage spreading beyond the ultra rich. I'm sure it could be done again.


Yes, please, lets go back to how they handled marriage in the good old days, like the middle ages. They did it so well back then.
 
2012-07-03 12:56:42 PM  

BMulligan: Tickle Mittens: Because in Washington the will of the people is clearly on the side of gay marriage, but it's lost at the polls for the typical reasons.

I'm not so sure about that. Here in Seattle and in places like Bellingham and San Juan County there's a lot of support for marriage equality. If you get into places like Kitsap County, most of Snohomish and Thurston Counties, and the vast wasteland that is Eastern Washington, they still hate teh gheys with a deep, burning passion.


You see how they sell it on the news, which is pretty conservative in their leanings, the polling is what it is, the vote turns out different. The the voters with shiat going on in their lives don't participate strongly in every election, the people in death's waiting-room do. But this will be a major election, Seattle metro is going to smackdown the rest of the state tell them to STFU and pick some god damn apples. Also where my wallawalla sweets at? By the time the next chance for churches to unwelcomely interject themselves into other people's lives comes around, more of those withered asshats will be dead.

/That's my guess/prediction anyway.
 
2012-07-03 01:06:57 PM  
I'm conflicted. I'm generally pro-gay marriage, but I'm also pro chick-Fil-A's delicious mini-chicken biscuits on their breakfast menu. I guess I'll have to boycott. Does anyone know of a chicken place that does equivalently good breakfast and isn't pro or anti marriage equality?
 
2012-07-03 01:09:53 PM  

LucklessWonder: I'm conflicted. I'm generally pro-gay marriage, but I'm also pro chick-Fil-A's delicious mini-chicken biscuits on their breakfast menu. I guess I'll have to boycott. Does anyone know of a chicken place that does equivalently good breakfast and isn't pro or anti marriage equality?


McDonald's had a chicken biscuit sandwich for awhile IIRC, but they went gay a few years ago. I'm not sure of any other options.
 
Displayed 50 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report