• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

22 states, including Kentucky, join campaign finance fight

vendur said:
A group of people can't vote, they can only vote as individual persons. A group of people can freely associate and pool their money for a shared cause, be it to build the biggest pizza in the world or to elect a jackass who lies real good I fail to understand your confusion.
Click to expand...

the biggest pizza in the world isn't going to effect which laws are passed, or how they get passed ect. Allowing the rich to influence elections in a country where he who spends wins is essentially allowing people to buy politicians and allows companies and the rich to dictate law. Our polliticians need to be working to do what is best for our country and for our people, but not their financiers.
 
muciti said:
the biggest pizza in the world isn't going to effect which laws are passed, or how they get passed ect. Allowing the rich to influence elections in a country where he who spends wins is essentially allowing people to buy politicians and allows companies and the rich to dictate law. Our polliticians need to be working to do what is best for our country and for our people, but not their financiers.
Click to expand...

The system before this only allowed the major media corporations to unduly affect elections. Now everyone has that right. Others can also enjoy the liberty of supporting their own candidates/issues without having to own a media empire. You do't see an issue with only the media having that power before? Some mix of fascism and aristocracy, replaced by good old capitalism.
 
Since large campaign contributions are expected to buy future favors and access to various politicians, to me it's nothing short of legalized bribery.

Until private funding is completely removed, replaced by governmental campaign dollars that are split equally among all candidates, only the rich and powerful will be able to afford public office. California was nearly saddled with a governor who literally used her own millions to try and purchase the office of governor. People who would be excellent public servents in state and federal legislatures are unable to run for those offices because they don't have million-dollar warchests until they find a benefactor who will finance them in return for future favors.

As long as people and corporations can buy congress, corruption will continue to run rampant, and congress will represent their interests over the interests of the people and the nation as a whole.
 
vendur said:
The system before this only allowed the major media corporations to unduly affect elections. Now everyone has that right. Others can also enjoy the liberty of supporting their own candidates/issues without having to own a media empire. You do't see an issue with only the media having that power before? Some mix of fascism and aristocracy, replaced by good old capitalism.
Click to expand...

that is not capitalism. i don't think any organization, media, or corporate or otherwise should be influencing anything with politics. I don't believe any politician should be taking any donations from anyone for any reason. When money becomes a factor it becomes a problem.
 
DiAnna said:
Since large campaign contributions are expected to buy future favors and access to various politicians, to me it's nothing short of legalized bribery.

Until private funding is completely removed, replaced by governmental campaign dollars that are split equally among all candidates, only the rich and powerful will be able to afford public office. California was nearly saddled with a governor who literally used her own millions to try and purchase the office of governor. People who would be excellent public servents in state and federal legislatures are unable to run for those offices because they don't have million-dollar warchests until they find a benefactor who will finance them in return for future favors.

As long as people and corporations can buy congress, corruption will continue to run rampant, and congress will represent their interests over the interests of the people and the nation as a whole.
Click to expand...

Dang, I have to agree with you 100%.
 
States can't ban or limit electioneering speech or spending by private parties....

they can limit direct campaign contributions though.
 
muciti said:
Can you show me where it says you have the right to use money to influence candidates and voting?
Click to expand...

The 1st amendment to our constitution. Media exposure costs money, travel costs money and producing ads, banners and signs costs money. If you are only free to speak on your porch or on a free blog then you are not really going to "get that word out" very effectively. If you are limitted in giving to a challenger, yet the incumbent is free to travel, speak and get 'news' exposure (all on the public dime) then you need some serious financial help just to have a fighting chance to compete with that, much less the additional 'private' campaign funds that the incumbent can raise too.
 
Thrilla said:
States can't ban or limit electioneering speech or spending by private parties....

they can limit direct campaign contributions though.
Click to expand...

How can a state limit them?
 
AdamT said:
Dang, I have to agree with you 100%.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. That gives a HUGE advantage to the incumbent, as they may speak, travel and get on the 'news' using taxpayer money, as we see Obama do daily. Just how is that "fair"? Also to get started requires HUGE amounts of money, just to get petition signatures to QUALIFY for public campaign aid. If I can get public money just for SAYING that I want to run, I would take that in a heartbeat, as would 99% of the homeless. Think, before you drink, even koolaid.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
How can a state limit them?
Click to expand...

same way the federal government can.
( there is a public interest in mitigating quid pro quo behavior, which is why limits can be imposed on campaign donations.)


keep in mind that they can only limit direct campaign contributions... not electioneering speech/spending.
 
jamesrage said:
If money is considered speech then these states have absolutly no busniss trying to restrict the 'speech' of anyone. Corporations just like NRA,GOA, planned parenthood, churches,unions, GLAAD and other group are an assembly of persons.That assembly of people are entitled to their other constitutional rights ,just like a church, unions, GLAAD, NRA, GOA, or any other group of people are entitled to exercise their other constitutional rights. Last I checked there is no one at a time clause in the first amendment or in the bill rights. Lib-tards seem to fail to understand that fact and the fact that corporations are groups of individuals and as a group of individuals they don't lose their rights.

The SC never said WalMart is a person, nor did they say banks are people. That is stupid BS invited by lib-tards because they can no longer restrict the rights that group.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that since the First Amendment (and the Court) do not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.[2]

snip..

The majority argued that the First Amendment must protect speakers with equal vigor and that the First Amendment does not tolerate prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Because corporations are groups of individuals, the corporate form must receive the same free speech privileges as individual citizens. Likewise, the majority argued that independent expenditures are a form of speech, and limiting a corporation's ability to spend money also limits its ability to speak.
Click to expand...

What in the world are you talking about? Do you even know?

WAKE UP CALL:

Regardless of whether you're a corporation or an actual flesh and blood human being, when political influence is determined by the largesse of one's bank roll instead of the sagacity of one's ideas, freedom of speech loses all value.
 
AdamT said:
Where in the Constitution does it say that corporations are people?
Click to expand...


Corporations are an assembly of people,something the 1st amendment says you have a right to do. The right of the people peaceably to assemble is a constitutional right.

Or that the enumerated rights apply to organizations, as opposed to individuals?
Click to expand...

They apply to both because individuals make up groups and individuals can make up groups. Your rights do not disappear just because you form a group nor do they disappear just because you choose not to be part of a group.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that a corporation would have the right to spend tens of millions of dollars to influence many thousands of votes, but not have the right to vote itself?
Click to expand...

Those people in that corporation can vote in their designated polling places.

We're in one of the places where you have to stand back and say, "wait a minute ... this **** doesn't make sense."
Click to expand...

No were not. You choose to ignore facts.When you ignore facts of course you can say "wait a minute this **** doesn't make sense". The fact is corporations are a peaceful assembly of people. As a peaceful assembly of people they can pool their money together to buy ads, make campaign contributions and so on just like any other group of people can.
 
muciti said:
Can you show me where it says you have the right to use money to influence candidates and voting?
Click to expand...

Things like faxes, emails, letters, signs, bumper stickers, phone calls, and many other things used for political advertising are speech. Money pays for those things. Therefore you have a right to use money to pay for those things.
 
Citizen's United was a horrible ruling from an overly activist Supreme Court.
 
GJ Flash said:
"A corporation using corporate funds to pay for political speech does not necessarily allow for the views of individuals working for the same corporation."

True enough. When I worked in city government I had to join the union. I had to pay union dues. The union, in turn, gave vast sums of money to political campaigns that I strongly disagreed with. Is that the same? Or is that different?

Americans must pay taxes (well, half of us must). A significant portion of those taxes must go to public employees. Public employees must pay union dues. Unions must use that money to support liberal politics. Following the money, that means all taxpayers must provide financial support to liberal causes. Is that fair?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for election finance reform. Our political system shouldn't be up for grabs to the highest bidder. My problem is with the folks who only want to reform one side of the equation.
Click to expand...


You'll actually find that most here who want campaign money limited include unions in their equations.
 
Sig said:
What in the world are you talking about? Do you even know?

WAKE UP CALL:

Regardless of whether you're a corporation or an actual flesh and blood human being, when political influence is determined by the largesse of one's bank roll instead of the sagacity of one's ideas, freedom of speech loses all value.
Click to expand...

When you have no tax liability then all gov't spending, especially on you, your friends and your familiy are wonderful ideas. If representation were tied to taxation, then we would see a very different attitude about gov't spending. Corporations find themselves in a pickle there, lots of taxes yet no vote at all. A citizen that gets their entire "income" from gov't programs is apt to vote far differently than one that pays 20% (or more) of their private income to the gov't in taxes. It is charity when I choose to help support my neighbor in need, it is tyranny when the gov't forces me to help support your neighbor in need.
 
Last edited:
What if...? said:
You'll actually find that most here who want campaign money limited include unions in their equations.
Click to expand...

Plus many now among the majority party in office love the idea, since they get a HUGE advantage, since they may travel, speak and get 'news' coverage all on the public dime, like Obama is doing daily, yet the challenger has no such luck, as they must raise every dime that they spend privately. Yes they can!
 
Thrilla said:
same way the federal government can.
( there is a public interest in mitigating quid pro quo behavior, which is why limits can be imposed on campaign donations.)


keep in mind that they can only limit direct campaign contributions... not electioneering speech/spending.
Click to expand...

And of cohrse functionally there is no difference between the two.

Contributors just pick up the tab for electioneering, instead of directly contributing to the campaign.

That way, the campaign can spend its money elsewhere.

Its a wall of words.
 
disneydude said:
Citizen's United was a horrible ruling from an overly activist Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a horrible ruling that the leftwing coporate media are no longer the only ones to significantly affect election outcomes.
 
vendur said:
Yes, it's a horrible ruling that the leftwing coporate media are no longer the only ones to significantly affect election outcomes.
Click to expand...

So how, pray tell, did right wing candidates get elected BEFORE CU set their investors free?
 
What if...? said:
So how, pray tell, did right wing candidates get elected BEFORE CU set their investors free?
Click to expand...

Cause only a certain portion of the population is so stupid to believe whatever the TV tells them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom