Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 160

Thread: Justices strike down political donor limits

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ask the NSA
    Last Seen
    07-24-16 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    5,849
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    But it's your government.

    And it's being bought and taken away from what it should be for, the people.

    Unlimited donations by anything, an individual, a corporation is simply legalized corruption.
    Campaign donor laws will change nothing. Those with the money and the willpower to bribe elected officials will do it regardless of legality. Most of these deals are happening behind closed doors and in secret anyway.

  2. #22
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    11-18-15 @ 01:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    440

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    The FEC decided...not the SC Justices. major disconnect.
    And four justices upheld that act.

    No offense but do you even have any idea what's being discussed here?

  3. #23
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,016

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Why is everyone up in arms about this? All this ruling does is change the number of candidates you can contribute too. Right now if you wanted to contribute $200 to every Congressional race in the country it is illegal as you exceed the maximum amount that can be donated to candidates. Now you can contribute the maximum allowed to any number of candidates.
    If you want to control election buying you need to limit what a candidate can spend on an election, as there is no 1st Amendment right to run for office, not what individuals can spend voicing their views, which is what a contribution is considered.
    There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
    P. J. O'Rourke

  4. #24
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,296
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by shavingcollywob View Post
    No, it's OUR government.

    And that "OUR" includes people who make more money than you.
    And that's fine, but they shouldn't be able to buy legislation.

    This is extremely dangerous to a democratic system and it will destroy it.

    It will turn America into a plutocracy.

  5. #25
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,036

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by shavingcollywob View Post
    No, it's OUR government.

    And that "OUR" includes people who make more money than you. I get that you might not like the candidates I support anymore than I like the candidates you support but that really is tough ****.
    And when those people who make more money have greater input because of their money, it becomes more their government than ours.

  6. #26
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by shavingcollywob View Post
    Why is that terrible?

    It seems to me that a person should have every right to support a candidate that supports the things you like. As long as nothing illegal is going on, I don't see any reason to limit anyone's free speech.
    Government of the richest, by the richest, for the richest. sigh.. Candidates used to have to court people who could donate thousands of dollars. Now why bother? Just court the people who can donate millions.


    Also, people went to jail for this stuff. It used to be illegal. Defending a practice that used to be illegal because it's now not isn't really logical.

  7. #27
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    11-18-15 @ 01:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    440

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    And that's fine, but they shouldn't be able to buy legislation.

    This is extremely dangerous to a democratic system and it will destroy it.

    It will turn America into a plutocracy.
    No one is buying legislation. They're supporting candidates however they choose.

  8. #28
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,296
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by shavingcollywob View Post
    No one is buying legislation. They're supporting candidates however they choose.
    You think flooding the political system with unlimited amounts of money has no effect on legislative outcomes?

  9. #29
    Guru
    1750Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southcental Texas
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,569

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by shavingcollywob View Post
    And four justices upheld that act.

    No offense but do you even have any idea what's being discussed here?
    How is voting in opposition... "upholding" an act? At best, the Justices held that the limit was constitutional. That's it.

    Flip it, twirl it, and bounce it any way you wish...


  10. #30
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,190

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    The SCOTUS system is very very very broken and needs more checks and balances. When the highest court in the nation, for which there is no appeal, is pretty much dictated by 9 people that almost always vote along ideological lines and not objective word of law that is a problem and not justice. The fact that most can predict the outcome will be 4-4 with the 1 "middle" person dictating the rulings points to how broken and unjust the SCOTUS system is. Just stack the court with libs/cons (common presidential tactic) and have whatever agenda you want approved of, letter of the law be damned.

    Rant aside, I support the ruling.
    I too support the ruling, however, to your larger point perhaps what the US needs is something similar to Canada's "Notwithstanding Clause" that was adopted a couple of decades ago with our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In order to get provincial approval of the document, the provinces wanted to ensure that appointed justices to our Supreme Court would not be the final arbiters of legislative rule.

    As in the US, our Supreme Court justices are appointed by the Prime Minister and go through a screening process but that process is not as difficult as in the US. As a result, there was concern in the provinces that a Supreme Court stacked by political masters at the federal level could override the will of the people in a province or for that matter the will of the people at the federal level. As a result, the Notwithstanding clause allows the federal or provincial government to adopt legislation that is immune from Supreme Court interference. If the Supreme Court rules a piece of legislation unconstitutional, the body that adopted it can pass legislation that basically says "notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, the legislation stands and will be enforced".

    Under our Constitution, governments at the federal and provincial levels must hold elections at least every five years, so the Notwithstanding clause has a lifespan of five years, allowing a newly formed government to either let the notwithstanding legislation lapse or reinforce it for another five years - the legislature in question can reinforce the clause an unlimited number of times.

    It should be noted that this clause does not apply to all parts of the constitution but only to those related to particular rights and freedoms.

    In the case related in this thread, as an example, if such a notwithstanding clause was in place, the US Congress and the President could pass and sign legislation that overruled the US Supreme Court decision for a period of time. In so doing, the issue may become an election issue going forward and would be more readily one where the majority of the voting public could express their opinions, not just the 9 justices of the Supreme Court.

    In the almost 3 decades this clause has been in place in Canada, it has been rarely used. Not sure how it would be used in the more volatile US political system.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •