Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 160

Thread: Justices strike down political donor limits

  1. #121
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    10-10-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,073

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Justices strike down political donor limits - CNN.com




    File this under "duh", although you can never be quite sure with this Supreme Court.

    The fact that it's 5-4 is astounding. That "four" don't even think you should have to present a valid ID to vote, but they want to tell valid voters what to do with their money.
    Keep in mind that those same 4 are the only ones who believe that destroying the 4th Amendment is a bad idea.

  2. #122
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    10-10-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,073

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    This i agree they should have to disclose who gives them over that amount of money.
    No they shouldn't. In a free market, anyone should be allowed to give any amount of $$ to any candidate without having to disclose it.

    The current problem w/political donations is that those who have the connections to launder funds or transfer them directly via Swiss bank accounts have an unfair advantage over other donors.

    And that needs to end.

  3. #123
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,718

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by solletica View Post
    No they shouldn't. In a free market, anyone should be allowed to give any amount of $$ to any candidate without having to disclose it.

    The current problem w/political donations is that those who have the connections to launder funds or transfer them directly via Swiss bank accounts have an unfair advantage over other donors.

    And that needs to end.
    no because i don't want foreign countries donating money through dummy corporations. which is illegal. there has to be a way to track where the money comes from.
    this isn't a free market. this is a political election.

  4. #124
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    10-10-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,073

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    no because i don't want foreign countries donating money through dummy corporations. which is illegal. there has to be a way to track where the money comes from.
    this isn't a free market. this is a political election.
    I don't care how many foreign individuals donate to US elections. I only care whether the US govt. does it (and it currently has the world record on it) at taxpayer expense.

  5. #125
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,718

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by solletica View Post
    I don't care how many foreign individuals donate to US elections. I only care whether the US govt. does it (and it currently has the world record on it) at taxpayer expense.
    you should care. if you don't care then that is your issue. money should still be accountable from where it comes from.

  6. #126
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,847

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by solletica View Post
    No they shouldn't. In a free market, anyone should be allowed to give any amount of $$ to any candidate without having to disclose it.
    I'm not sure why you'd support that. I especially don't see the libertarian principle at work for guaranteed anonymous "speech."

    As to the 1st Amendment, it's never been an absolute right. The question is whether limits on buying politicians serve a "compelling" national interest. The question answers itself in my view - of course there should be limits on the ability of money to corrupt the political process.

  7. #127
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by erod View Post
    i didn't say a bigger voice. You did.

    You just want them to have no voice because that's what you do. You look for every means possible to limit the authority of those that contribute the most and succeed. It's one massive robin hood scheme driven by a party-drunk inferiority complex.
    *cough*

    Quote Originally Posted by erod View Post
    corporate are built by people, employ people, and serve people. They also pay massive taxes to government. Those taxes are made up of money earned by those people, and as a whole, it deserves a voice in politics.

    Much more, in fact, than the 5th grade dropout
    who's hooked on heroin that is picked up in a bus and pushes a button in exchange for another hit.
    Do you just not think about what you write?

  8. #128
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,073

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    Terrible...

    The reason we HAD limits was so that candidates would not be beholden to individuals.

    EG. Sheldon Adelson is a casino mogul. He is strongly against online gambling because it cuts into his profit margins. He's only going to fund candidates who oppose online gambling. Now watch, GOP candidates will move to oppose online gambling.

    Similar things are going to happen with the Democrats.

    It's funny, the so called "originalists" are among the most activist judges in American history.
    There is a solution to this.Amend the Constitution to limit political contributions. Limit political contributions to individuals, Limit how much a individual can donate to a candidate, limit that individual to donating to candidates only in that voter's district and limit media exposure that a media outlet may give to a candidate.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  9. #129
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:47 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,073

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    *cough*



    Do you just not think about what you write?
    Yes, but do you? I said it shouldn't have a bigger voice, but I didn't say it shouldn't have a voice. Can you not follow?

  10. #130
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Yes, but do you? I said it shouldn't have a bigger voice, but I didn't say it shouldn't have a voice. Can you not follow?
    In which post did you say that Corporations shouldn't have a bigger voice? I've looked through your back posts; there's nothing even remotely resembling that statement.

    Look. You made an extremely unfortunate statement; that corporations deserve the right to political speech more than a 5th grade dropout. We've all gone too far when making a point, it's understandable. However, instead of acknowledging your mistake you resort to personal insults and outright fabrications. So to answer your question, yes: I think I'm following what you're trying to do and no, it's not working.

Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •