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.

(Townhall)   Harry Reid tried to restrict a corporation's freedom of speech. Next he will be looking to restrict their freedom of religion and their right to bear arms   (townhall.com) divider line 85
    More: Asinine, Harry Reid, Democratic Party, freedom of religions, organizations, humans, health spending, u.s. sen., Tom Steyer  
•       •       •

1558 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Apr 2014 at 5:47 PM (13 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-30 04:12:38 PM
All in one day? Damn, he's good.
 
2014-04-30 04:23:06 PM
And when we say speech, we mean money.


Same thing, right?
 
2014-04-30 04:32:07 PM
"Asinine" is slang for "good" right? All the cool kids are saying it now? "Asinine ride, dude!" "Betty is so asinine! I would totally do her!"
 
2014-04-30 04:41:33 PM
Here's the amendment he's supporting:

SECTION 1

To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on-
            (1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and
            (2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION 2

To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, each State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on-
            (1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and
            (2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION 3

Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

SECTION 4

Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
 
2014-04-30 04:46:02 PM

ArkAngel: Here's the amendment he's supporting:


Given the Court's recent rulings, I don't really see how this would be considered constitutional. Not saying I agree, but I don't see how this solves the issue.
 
2014-04-30 04:47:26 PM
Okay, I LOLd at "Kochsteria itch"

It sounds like something I picked up from that hooker in Prague.
 
2014-04-30 05:03:17 PM
Source link


DamnYankees: ArkAngel: Here's the amendment he's supporting:

Given the Court's recent rulings, I don't really see how this would be considered constitutional. Not saying I agree, but I don't see how this solves the issue.


That's why it's an amendment.
 
2014-04-30 05:04:25 PM

DamnYankees: Given the Court's recent rulings, I don't really see how this would be considered constitutional.


...because it's a constitutional amendment. By definition it would be constitutional.
 
2014-04-30 05:14:44 PM
Just the other day Harry Reid tried to quarter troops in my spare bedroom!!!
 
2014-04-30 05:16:17 PM
Oh, this thing again?  Isn't this where the conservatives are pushing for the right to lie in their ads?

Yes, I could see how that would kneecap them a bit.  It is all they've got.
 
2014-04-30 05:17:48 PM

StrikitRich: Just the other day Harry Reid tried to quarter troops in my spare bedroom!!!


I know it's not Constitutional.  But I could live with it.  Would be the most action I've gotten in months.
 
2014-04-30 05:23:16 PM

Diogenes: StrikitRich: Just the other day Harry Reid tried to quarter troops in my spare bedroom!!!

I know it's not Constitutional.  But I could live with it.  Would be the most action I've gotten in months.


.........OK?
 
2014-04-30 05:26:04 PM

fusillade762: That's why it's an amendment.


nmrsnr: ...because it's a constitutional amendment. By definition it would be constitutional.


Thanks - I misread TFA. I had thought this was supposed to be an amend to a bill, not the constitution. Forget what I said earlier.
 
2014-04-30 05:28:03 PM

StrikitRich: Diogenes: StrikitRich: Just the other day Harry Reid tried to quarter troops in my spare bedroom!!!

I know it's not Constitutional.  But I could live with it.  Would be the most action I've gotten in months.

.........OK?


Look, it's been a long day, it's a Clownhall article, and I'm killing time before I leave work.

If you want my best work you'll have to check me after my first cup of coffee in the morning.
 
2014-04-30 05:30:44 PM
Wait, millions of people get health insurance, and health spending spikes?

I'm trying to find a correlation here, but cannot....

Oh, the constitutional amendment thing is interesting, but meh.
 
2014-04-30 05:50:09 PM
So spending more money on someone else makes others have "less speech" unless they are corporations and rich people.
 
2014-04-30 05:54:31 PM
If by "corporations", you meant "everyone".

Also, Section 3 nullifies the whole thing.
 
2014-04-30 05:57:09 PM

DrBenway: "Asinine" is slang for "good" right? All the cool kids are saying it now? "Asinine ride, dude!" "Betty is so asinine! I would totally do her!"


Her face a four but her asinine.
 
2014-04-30 05:58:33 PM
I found a Republican Congressman's comment referring to this subject as a "free market" issue amusing.

So buying votes of the electorate is the same as buying stocks on Wall Street? Poor analogy.
 
2014-04-30 05:59:07 PM
Good.
 
2014-04-30 06:00:48 PM

BMFPitt: If by "corporations", you meant "everyone".

Also, Section 3 nullifies the whole thing.


Maybe you can tell us then how giving money to others for political speech can both be "Free Speech" and "Anti-free speech"?
 
2014-04-30 06:01:39 PM
Harry Reid wants to limit union contributions?
 
2014-04-30 06:07:56 PM

Corvus: BMFPitt: If by "corporations", you meant "everyone".

Also, Section 3 nullifies the whole thing.

Maybe you can tell us then how giving money to others for political speech can both be "Free Speech" and "Anti-free speech"?


WTF are you babbling about?
 
2014-04-30 06:09:50 PM

cchris_39: Harry Reid wants to limit union contributions?


The amendment doesn't distinguish unions from other kinds of corporations, so I guess so. Or at least he considers it worth it.
 
2014-04-30 06:10:20 PM

AirForceVet: I found a Republican Congressman's comment referring to this subject as a "free market" issue amusing.

So buying votes of the electorate is the same as buying stocks on Wall Street? Poor analogy.


The marketplace of ideas, indeed.
 
2014-04-30 06:10:50 PM

vernonFL: Okay, I LOLd at "Kochsteria itch"

It sounds like something I picked up from that hooker in Prague.


I like how they laugh at all the libs who bring up the Koch brothers, but then they go on to froth at the mouth about George Soros, Van Jones, and Saul Alinsky.
 
2014-04-30 06:17:34 PM

BMFPitt: Corvus: BMFPitt: If by "corporations", you meant "everyone".

Also, Section 3 nullifies the whole thing.

Maybe you can tell us then how giving money to others for political speech can both be "Free Speech" and "Anti-free speech"?

WTF are you babbling about?


Well SCOTUS said it was limiting speech when money is given to a political group because the other group broke campaign laws.

But the SCOTUS said it was free speech when a corporation gave to a political group.


So maybe you can explain to us how it's both.
 
2014-04-30 06:19:41 PM

DrBenway: AirForceVet: I found a Republican Congressman's comment referring to this subject as a "free market" issue amusing.

So buying votes of the electorate is the same as buying stocks on Wall Street? Poor analogy.

The marketplace of ideas, indeed.


Well I guess when you are the GOP and have a lot of money but no ideas, you want to change the electoral system so that it is based on a candidate's financial assets rather than the candidate's ideas.
 
2014-04-30 06:21:06 PM

kidgenius: vernonFL: Okay, I LOLd at "Kochsteria itch"

It sounds like something I picked up from that hooker in Prague.

I like how they laugh at all the libs who bring up the Koch brothers, but then they go on to froth at the mouth about George Soros, Van Jones, and Saul Alinsky.


I think you misspelled Benghazi.
 
2014-04-30 06:21:37 PM

Corvus: BMFPitt: Corvus: BMFPitt: If by "corporations", you meant "everyone".

Also, Section 3 nullifies the whole thing.

Maybe you can tell us then how giving money to others for political speech can both be "Free Speech" and "Anti-free speech"?

WTF are you babbling about?

Well SCOTUS said it was limiting speech when money is given to a political group because the other group broke campaign laws.

But the SCOTUS said it was free speech when a corporation gave to a political group.

So maybe you can explain to us how it's both.


I have to say I'm not sure what your point is, either.
 
2014-04-30 06:22:29 PM

DamnYankees: Forget what I said earlier.


I hold bad grudges, man.
 
2014-04-30 06:23:48 PM
I have literally no idea what to think about this, but if Town Hall is upset about something I'll likely support the opinion they oppose. Oh they're crying about Harry Reid trying to better the country? Yawn.
 
2014-04-30 06:25:22 PM
They buried the lead. We're getting our own politburo!
 
2014-04-30 06:28:24 PM

Corvus: Well SCOTUS said it was limiting speech when money is given to a political group because the other group broke campaign laws.


No idea what this is referencing, please cite the case.
 
2014-04-30 06:35:51 PM

heavymetal: DrBenway: AirForceVet: I found a Republican Congressman's comment referring to this subject as a "free market" issue amusing.

So buying votes of the electorate is the same as buying stocks on Wall Street? Poor analogy.

The marketplace of ideas, indeed.

Well I guess when you are the GOP and have a lot of money but no ideas, you want to change the electoral system so that it is based on a candidate's financial assets rather than the candidate's ideas.


Pretty much what they did with Romney.
 
2014-04-30 06:36:42 PM

meat0918: Wait, millions of people get health insurance, and health spending spikes?


Health speech rose.
 
2014-04-30 06:48:49 PM

DrBenway: "Asinine" is slang for "good" right? All the cool kids are saying it now? "Asinine ride, dude!" "Betty is so asinine! I would totally do her!"


I am just going to assume the best of subby and that the tag was for the article.
 
2014-04-30 06:50:21 PM
A constitutional amendment?  Not in this political climate.
 
2014-04-30 07:06:29 PM

BMFPitt: If by "corporations", you meant "everyone".

Also, Section 3 nullifies the whole thing.


They need one more clause in the amendment.

"Note to SCOTUS: Money or in-kind transfers is not speech covered in the first amendment".
 
2014-04-30 07:06:59 PM

kidgenius: vernonFL: Okay, I LOLd at "Kochsteria itch"

It sounds like something I picked up from that hooker in Prague.

I like how they laugh at all the libs who bring up the Koch brothers, but then they go on to froth at the mouth about George Soros, Van Jones, and Saul Alinsky.


Lulz.  Even the "libs" were like... "I'm sorry, Paul Alinsky who??"
 
2014-04-30 07:24:09 PM
Another day another TrollHaul piece of garbage.
 
2014-04-30 07:26:17 PM

Diogenes: StrikitRich: Just the other day Harry Reid tried to quarter troops in my spare bedroom!!!

I know it's not Constitutional.  But I could live with it.  Would be the most action I've gotten in months.


Send me the ones that are too straight for you.
 
2014-04-30 07:37:02 PM

cchris_39: Harry Reid wants to limit union contributions?


If the answer is yes, will you contact your representatives and tell them you support the amendment?

Because the answer is yes.
 
2014-04-30 07:46:56 PM

StrikitRich: Just the other day Harry Reid tried to quarter troops in my spare bedroom!!!


img.fark.net

Thanks Obama Reid!
 
2014-04-30 08:08:39 PM
Actual headline on the Washington Post's main page right now:

Harry Reid's Koch problem

 
2014-04-30 08:22:22 PM

nmrsnr: DamnYankees: Given the Court's recent rulings, I don't really see how this would be considered constitutional.

...because it's a constitutional amendment. By definition it would be constitutional.


You beat me to it, but I still think it's asinine to say "That's unconstitutional. Let's add it to the constitution." For instance, flag-desecration amendments.

More to the point, I think it's very much an open debate whether money is speech. I see both sides, but my gut sides with the Dems on this one.
 
2014-04-30 08:27:53 PM

Mercutio74: A constitutional amendment?  Not in this political climate.


Unfortunately, political climate change is a hoax perpetrated by political climatologists so they can keep that sweet grant lucre rolling in. We know the political climate has changed before, but those were natural changes, and there's nothing we can do about the current political climate. Also, Al Gore.
 
2014-04-30 08:33:16 PM

a particular individual: Mercutio74: A constitutional amendment?  Not in this political climate.

Unfortunately, political climate change is a hoax perpetrated by political climatologists so they can keep that sweet grant lucre rolling in. We know the political climate has changed before, but those were natural changes, and there's nothing we can do about the current political climate. Also, Al Gore.


Wow. That approaches Pocket Ninja-levels of poetic political beauty
 
2014-04-30 08:38:11 PM

a particular individual: You beat me to it, but I still think it's asinine to say "That's unconstitutional. Let's add it to the constitution."


Not sure exactly what you mean by that?

If it's constitutional, by definition you don't need an amendment.

Every amendment, after the bill of rights, was unconstitutional.
 
2014-04-30 08:47:09 PM
www.maderacomputers.com
Townhall link? Yep. I can resist.
 
2014-04-30 08:52:04 PM

a particular individual: More to the point, I think it's very much an open debate whether money is speech.


www.joeydevilla.com
 
2014-04-30 09:05:59 PM

StrikitRich: Just the other day Harry Reid tried to quarter troops in my spare bedroom!!!


Yep, all those BLM SWAT team members trying to stay overnight at the Bundy Ranch!  Oh Hell Noez, there goes another of our Bill of Rights... ouch my 1st, 2nd and now 3rd amendments under attack by the Demon-crats!
 
2014-04-30 09:09:36 PM

DrBenway: "Asinine" is slang for "good" right? All the cool kids are saying it now? "Asinine ride, dude!" "Betty is so asinine! I would totally do her!"


Betty's ass is a nine!
 
2014-04-30 09:11:07 PM
a particular individual: "prolitical climatologists" FTFY

So "Proctologists"? I see what you did there...
 
2014-04-30 09:27:19 PM

KenShabby: StrikitRich: Just the other day Harry Reid tried to quarter troops in my spare bedroom!!!

[img.fark.net image 700x520]

Thanks Obama Reid!


Wow, it's got to be a biatch finding women who are all the same height like that.
 
2014-04-30 09:32:31 PM

impaler: a particular individual: You beat me to it, but I still think it's asinine to say "That's unconstitutional. Let's add it to the constitution."

Not sure exactly what you mean by that?

If it's constitutional, by definition you don't need an amendment.

Every amendment, after the bill of rights, was unconstitutional.


What I meant, for example: Laws against flag "desecration" are at odds with the 1st Amendment. (Texas v. Johnson; common sense, et al) The right-wing approach is to just shove it into the constitution, consistency be damned, Dude, if it's against the whole point of the constitution, leave it out.

You'd think we wouldn't need amendments clarifying other amendments, but we have them: the 14th, for example. Many others have been proposed and failed. The 9th and 10th both clarify the other 8 amendments. (Enumerating rights does not limit them; states' rights)

I disagree that every amendment after the Bill of Rights is unconstitutional. The constitution provides for its amendment. All 17 after the BOR were passed by that process.

One reason we got the 13th, 14th and 19th (e.g.) is that existing laws and constitutional provisions were at odds with the Bill of Rights. You can't have slavery in a democracy. The constitution was flawed from the get-go, and it took a civil war and a lot of riots to just make the constitution agree with itself..
 
2014-04-30 09:33:36 PM

Gyrfalcon: a particular individual: Mercutio74: A constitutional amendment?  Not in this political climate.

Unfortunately, political climate change is a hoax perpetrated by political climatologists so they can keep that sweet grant lucre rolling in. We know the political climate has changed before, but those were natural changes, and there's nothing we can do about the current political climate. Also, Al Gore.

Wow. That approaches Pocket Ninja-levels of poetic political beauty


How do you know I'm not PN?
 
2014-04-30 09:41:26 PM

a particular individual: How do you know I'm not PN?


You didn't try to post as seemingly believing what you were typing. Great PN posts start off seeming like basic projective ignorance then veer off into batshiat land about 3 sentences in. Mike_Lowell does the same thing with Poe's Law.

Not Gyrfalcon am lacking ladybits.
 
2014-04-30 09:48:56 PM

BMFPitt: a particular individual: More to the point, I think it's very much an open debate whether money is speech.

[www.joeydevilla.com image 600x408]



I know, I know. But this isn't science; it's philosophy. Philosophy is open to debate.

I'm a Democrat. I hate Citizens United. I do see a point in it, though.

Would you want to forbid all donations to campaigns? Should you be forbidden to donate $25 to your candidate's election fund?

Should we limit how much a candidate can spend of his or her own money to get elected?

I'm not saying money is speech. I am saying you should be able to spend your money however you want.

If you want to spend your money on a printing press and a radio station and a TV station and an ISP, that is your right. And the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of the press and of speech and of the people peaceably to assemble...
 
2014-04-30 09:53:14 PM

Zafler: a particular individual: How do you know I'm not PN?

You didn't try to post as seemingly believing what you were typing. Great PN posts start off seeming like basic projective ignorance then veer off into batshiat land about 3 sentences in. Mike_Lowell does the same thing with Poe's Law.

Not Gyrfalcon am lacking ladybits.


In any case, thanks for the compliment.

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-30 09:59:05 PM
I want to ban all campaign donations by everyone, and give each candidate certain amount of airtime, any candidate whether green, libertarian, R, or D, etc. Also no restrictions when having debates, all major parties with a certain small percentage like 1% to be included. I want to ban lobbying completely and give money to each candidate out of the feds pocket that gives them more staff to interact with their voters so everyone with a phone, computer, or pen can lobby equally. Also redistricting is done by non biased panels based on logic. You would see a much better change and people couldn't blame "both sides" again.

But I guess that makes me Un-American.
 
2014-04-30 10:07:07 PM

Bob Robert: I want to ban all campaign donations by everyone, and give each candidate certain amount of airtime, any candidate whether green, libertarian, R, or D, etc. Also no restrictions when having debates, all major parties with a certain small percentage like 1% to be included. I want to ban lobbying completely and give money to each candidate out of the feds pocket that gives them more staff to interact with their voters so everyone with a phone, computer, or pen can lobby equally. Also redistricting is done by non biased panels based on logic. You would see a much better change and people couldn't blame "both sides" again.

But I guess that makes me Un-American.


Un-American like a fox.
 
2014-04-30 10:09:46 PM

a particular individual: I'm a Democrat. I hate Citizens United. I do see a point in it, though.
...
I'm not saying money is speech. I am saying you should be able to spend your money however you want.

If you want to spend your money on a printing press and a radio station and a TV station and an ISP, that is your right. And the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of the press and of speech and of the people peaceably to assemble...


So what do you hate about it, since you seem to be OK with the idea should be able to spend money on speech?

Your post kind of sounds like one of those, "I hate Obamacare but like everything in it" kind of things.
 
2014-04-30 10:27:13 PM

ArkAngel: Here's the amendment he's supporting:

SECTION 1

To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on-
            (1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and
            (2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION 2

To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, each State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on-
            (1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and
            (2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION 3

Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

SECTION 4

Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


That seems incredibly over-broad. Especially the (2) parts. What if some dick-bag group of people got into power and set the amount of money that could be spent on an election to like $4. It would be almost impossible to run any campaign without spending any money. Incumbents would win every election based on name recognition alone. What would be better is to just say that corporations are not people and don't have first amendment rights. The owners of corporations have rights, if they have something to say, then pay a farking dividend and spend your own goddamned money.

Alternatively, we could pass an amendment that changes the process so that money isn't everything. For example, allow run-offs or proportional representation.
 
2014-04-30 10:36:27 PM

BMFPitt: a particular individual: I'm a Democrat. I hate Citizens United. I do see a point in it, though.
...
I'm not saying money is speech. I am saying you should be able to spend your money however you want.

If you want to spend your money on a printing press and a radio station and a TV station and an ISP, that is your right. And the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of the press and of speech and of the people peaceably to assemble...

So what do you hate about it, since you seem to be OK with the idea

[sic] should be able to spend money on speech?

Your post kind of sounds like one of those, "I hate Obamacare but like everything in it" kind of things.


Maybe it sounds like that. I was just showing that I understand the other argument. I deplore the Citizens United decision.
 
2014-04-30 10:54:44 PM

a particular individual: Zafler: a particular individual: How do you know I'm not PN?

You didn't try to post as seemingly believing what you were typing. Great PN posts start off seeming like basic projective ignorance then veer off into batshiat land about 3 sentences in. Mike_Lowell does the same thing with Poe's Law.

Not Gyrfalcon am lacking ladybits.

In any case, thanks for the compliment.

[img.fark.net image 150x196]


Gol-dang goat gotta rough tongue, tell you what....
 
2014-04-30 11:03:19 PM
Ironic considering how the piece of shiat is against the citizens having rights to privacy. Oh and his whole support for SOPA too
 
2014-04-30 11:41:38 PM

Diogenes: StrikitRich: Diogenes: StrikitRich: Just the other day Harry Reid tried to quarter troops in my spare bedroom!!!

I know it's not Constitutional.  But I could live with it.  Would be the most action I've gotten in months.

.........OK?

Look, it's been a long day, it's a Clownhall article, and I'm killing time before I leave work.

If you want my best work you'll have to check me after my first cup of coffee in the morning.


IDK. It definitely got a that's why he's faved chuckle out of me.
 
2014-04-30 11:51:45 PM

shamanwest: Diogenes: StrikitRich: Diogenes: StrikitRich: Just the other day Harry Reid tried to quarter troops in my spare bedroom!!!

I know it's not Constitutional.  But I could live with it.  Would be the most action I've gotten in months.

.........OK?

Look, it's been a long day, it's a Clownhall article, and I'm killing time before I leave work.

If you want my best work you'll have to check me after my first cup of coffee in the morning.

IDK. It definitely got a that's why he's faved chuckle out of me.


Sigh... you're faved. ... ... it's late
 
2014-05-01 12:07:17 AM

machoprogrammer: Ironic considering how the piece of shiat is against the citizens having rights to privacy. Oh and his whole support for SOPA too


derp
 
2014-05-01 12:25:03 AM

karmaceutical: kidgenius: vernonFL: Okay, I LOLd at "Kochsteria itch"

It sounds like something I picked up from that hooker in Prague.

I like how they laugh at all the libs who bring up the Koch brothers, but then they go on to froth at the mouth about George Soros, Van Jones, and Saul Alinsky.

Lulz.  Even the "libs" were like... "I'm sorry, Paul Alinsky who??"


Bill Maher had a hilarious bit a whlle back on 'Who the fark is Saul Alinsky?'

'I asked Suru who Saul Alinsky was, and she came back with fark if I know!'
 
2014-05-01 12:33:13 AM
Suri, not Suru.
 
2014-05-01 12:34:29 AM
How about something simpler:

SECTION 1
All contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office - and the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates - must be-
(1) made by individual citizens
(2) publicly declared by the receiving party
(3) made fully and freely available for public review by the receiving party


That may not be a perfect amendment, but it beats the hell out of the mess the one quoted above would create.

- Corporations are not people
- I don't care how much someone is donating, as long as everyone knows how much that someone is donating. If you want to try to buy an election, everyone will know it.
 
2014-05-01 01:31:44 AM

a particular individual: Would you want to forbid all donations to campaigns? Should you be forbidden to donate $25 to your candidate's election fund?


I like the proposal Lawrence Lessig suggested in this article:

Here's one way: almost every voter pays at least $50 in some form of federal taxes. So imagine a system that gave a rebate of that first $50 in the form of a "democracy voucher." That voucher could then be given to any candidate for Congress who agreed to one simple condition: the only money that candidate would accept to finance his or her campaign would be either "democracy vouchers" or contributions from citizens capped at $100. No PAC money. No $2,500 checks. Small contributions only. And if the voter didn't use the voucher? The money would pass to his or her party, or, if an independent, back to this public funding system.

Fifty dollars a voter is real money: more than $6 billion an election cycle. (The total raised in 2010: $1.86 billion.) It's also my money, or your money, used to support the speech that we believe: this is not a public financing system that forces some to subsidize the speech of others. And because a campaign would have to raise its funds from the very many, it could weaken the power of the very few to demand costly kickbacks for their contributions - what the Cato Institute calls "corporate welfare," like subsidies to ethanol manufacturers, or tariffs protecting the domestic sugar industry. Cato estimates that in 2009, the cost of such corporate welfare was $90 billion. If cutting the link to special interest funders could shrink that amount by just 10 percent, the investment would, across a two-year election cycle, pay for itself three times over.
 
2014-05-01 02:34:27 AM

Alphax: Suri, not Suru.


Why is he asking Tom Cruise's daughter about Saul Alinsky?
 
2014-05-01 03:05:09 AM
As long as he doesn't try to restrict their freedom to profiteer.
 
2014-05-01 04:07:46 AM

Alphax: Suri, not Suru.


Sulu, not Suru
 
2014-05-01 04:35:34 AM
The clip I was referring to, from 1/27/12, appartently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtLEPPgbNyM
 
2014-05-01 07:07:35 AM
There's nothing inconsistent in the fact that some rights apply to both groups and individuals whereas others apply only to individuals.

It's not rocket science, unless you have the reasoning skills of kindergartners.

A group of people can buy space in a newspaper to speak with one voice, but we vote as individuals.
 
2014-05-01 07:43:54 AM

Will-Mun: And when we say speech, we mean money.


Same thing, right?


As long as it's not SOROS money then yeah, of course.
 
2014-05-01 08:02:50 AM

Hickory-smoked: I like the proposal Lawrence Lessig suggested in this article:


it kinda neglects the parts that actually matter.

the money given to a candidate is only half the picture - the money spent on issue ads, pacs, etc wouldn't be affected by limiting a candidate to public funds. It would just give them an individual slush fund, and leave the rest of the situation an absolute quagmire that it is presently.

Not saying I have a better answer, as laws that proscribe you, I, or KochSorosCo from putting up an ad for anything from a political candidate to a party to an issue just aren't going to go anywhere.
 
2014-05-01 09:01:18 AM

BMFPitt: a particular individual: More to the point, I think it's very much an open debate whether money is speech.

[www.joeydevilla.com image 600x408]



Seriously.  How is that an "open debate?"  The only reason it could possibly be considered an "open debate" is because wealthy special interests want it to be an open debate.  Money isn't speech. Period.  Having money can help facilitate speech, or make one's voice louder, but it isn't speech.
 
2014-05-01 09:06:44 AM

dstrick44: Will-Mun: And when we say speech, we mean money.


Same thing, right?

As long as it's not SOROS money then yeah, of course.



I love how campaign finance/political money is seen as a purely partisan issue by a large number of idiots on the internet.  Like anyone who supports restricting campaign finance/political money is a hypocrite if they ever vote for a democrat, because democrats are corrupted by it too.

The way I see it, one party (the GOP) is actively dismantling campaign finance/political money regulations, and fighting even the most basic regulations that simply require the disclosure of political spending.  While the Dems are as soaked in political money as the republicans, at least they are making some efforts to reign it in (or at a minimum, recognize that it is a problem).  The GOP's position is "open the flood gates on secret political funding as wide as possible."

So it takes a heckuva lot of stupidity and cognitive dissonance for a right winger to go on rants about SOROS and bloomberg, etc. giving political money, only to then ignore the actual right wing/republican ideology which states that unlimited secret campaign contributions are perfectly fine (so long as they're funneled towards republicans).
 
2014-05-01 11:13:17 AM

100 Watt Walrus: How about something simpler:

SECTION 1
All contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office - and the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates - must be-
(1) made by individual citizens
(2) publicly declared by the receiving party
(3) made fully and freely available for public review by the receiving party


That may not be a perfect amendment, but it beats the hell out of the mess the one quoted above would create.

- Corporations are not people
- I don't care how much someone is donating, as long as everyone knows how much that someone is donating. If you want to try to buy an election, everyone will know it.


This one is way better.
 
2014-05-01 12:51:53 PM

heap: Hickory-smoked: I like the proposal Lawrence Lessig suggested in this article:

it kinda neglects the parts that actually matter.

the money given to a candidate is only half the picture - the money spent on issue ads, pacs, etc wouldn't be affected by limiting a candidate to public funds. It would just give them an individual slush fund, and leave the rest of the situation an absolute quagmire that it is presently.

Not saying I have a better answer, as laws that proscribe you, I, or KochSorosCo from putting up an ad for anything from a political candidate to a party to an issue just aren't going to go anywhere.


I'd still argue that anything that dilutes the influence of the superPACs is a good step. Necessary even.

This might also be of interest:
http://mayone.us/
 
Displayed 85 of 85 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report