Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 66

Thread: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

  1. #11
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,985

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    Only way to do that is to ban political speech. If you don't, someone will need to arbitrarily put a dollar value on Person X's voice vs Person Y's voice.
    You don't have to ban political speech to set a limit on how much money can be donated to a candidate. That's silly.

  2. #12
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Seems to me if we had low limits on donations, then everyone could have equal speech.
    This strikes me as similar to the logic by which, if we simply ban handguns, criminals will all turn theirs in.



    Thanks to the fact that our government is actively involved in steering the market, there is massive return on investment to be made by investing in government decision-makers. So long as you have the former, you will get the latter. The history of several campaign "reform" efforts bear this out - all you do is push the money out of the limelight and to where it is more difficult to be seen. You won't get "equal speech", you will get "non-transparent funding of political campaigns".


    On top of that, this doesn't provide for any kind of differentiation in levels of focus or perceived importance. If I desperately believe that America needs education reform, why shouldn't I be allowed to spend my own money trying to sway the public to support my position? Why should I be limited to what Joe Schmoe my next door neighbor who doesn't care chooses to spend? Unless you intend to force everyone to pay your proposed cap, "speech" as represented by "money" still won't be equal.

  3. #13
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    You don't have to ban political speech to set a limit on how much money can be donated to a candidate. That's silly.
    In Hillary v Citizens United the government was forced to admit to SCOTUS that under the logic of the campaign finance reform act, it claimed the authority to ban books. I'd say that pretty much covers it.

  4. #14
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,985

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    This strikes me as similar to the logic by which, if we simply ban handguns, criminals will all turn theirs in.
    This strikes me as making absolutely no sense to the point I was making. Good for you.

    On top of that, this doesn't provide for any kind of differentiation in levels of focus or perceived importance. If I desperately believe that America needs education reform, why shouldn't I be allowed to spend my own money trying to sway the public to support my position? Why should I be limited to what Joe Schmoe my next door neighbor who doesn't care chooses to spend?
    You're not limited to what he CHOOSES to spend, but rather what he's capable to spend. Big difference.

    Unless you intend to force everyone to pay your proposed cap, "speech" as represented by "money" still won't be equal.
    Sure it would be. Having the right and not exercising it doesn't remove the fact you have the right.
    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    In Hillary v Citizens United the government was forced to admit to SCOTUS that under the logic of the campaign finance reform act, it claimed the authority to ban books. I'd say that pretty much covers it.
    I have no idea why you think what you said is at all relevant to what I said.

  5. #15
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Seems unlikely, as he seems to favor unequal money, which means unequal speech.

    Not really.
    Right, because you say so.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #16
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    This strikes me as making absolutely no sense to the point I was making.
    Ah. I will draw it out for you. You are assuming willing disarmament by those who have no incentive to do so, lots of incentive not to do so, and the means not to do so.

    You're not limited to what he CHOOSES to spend, but rather what he's capable to spend. Big difference.
    Joe likes to rack up the credit cards and has zero savings. He can't afford to spend anything. I, on the other hand, am deeply dedicated to improving our society, and am willing to devote much of the fruits of my labor and my life trying to achieve this worthy goal. Why, again, should I be limited to him?

    Sure it would be. Having the right and not exercising it doesn't remove the fact you have the right.
    Ah, but you were not asking for equal rights of speech but equal speech. As you put it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox
    unequal money, which means unequal speech
    Unequal Money = Unequal Speech.

    Even were there to be no cap, Joe's rights to speech are as free as Bill Gates. As you say, exercise of a right =/= the right itself.

    I have no idea why you think what you said is at all relevant to what I said.
    Because that is banning political speech

  7. #17
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,887

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    You don't have to ban political speech to set a limit on how much money can be donated to a candidate. That's silly.
    If I pay $2 for a button that says "Vote for Samhain" to wear wherever I go and Mark Cuban pays $2 for the same button to wear everywhere, is that the same contribution?

  8. #18
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,985

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Right, because you say so.
    No, because it's the truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Ah. I will draw it out for you. You are assuming willing disarmament by those who have no incentive to do so, lots of incentive not to do so, and the means not to do so.
    Nope, still doesn't make any sense.

    Your entire opposition seems to rest on the "if we make it a rule, then the rule will be violated". Well, we have laws against murder and murder still happens...should we just remove the laws on murder too?

    The idea we shouldn't strive for equality under the law because some people will break the law is absurd. And I have absolutely no idea why you think talking about guns is relevant to this discussion.

    Joe likes to rack up the credit cards and has zero savings. He can't afford to spend anything. I, on the other hand, am deeply dedicated to improving our society, and am willing to devote much of the fruits of my labor and my life trying to achieve this worthy goal. Why, again, should I be limited to him?
    You're not limited to him. This isn't hard to understand. Here, I'll give you a brief, off the cuff, example of a constitutional amendment.

    "Donations to political causes can exceed no more than 100 times the amount of the federal minimum wage per year".

    Obviously I'm just using random numbers, but you get the point. You're not limited by Joe, you're limited to the law.

    Ah, but you were not asking for equal rights of speech but equal speech. As you put it:

    Unequal Money = Unequal Speech.

    Even were there to be no cap, Joe's rights to speech are as free as Bill Gates. As you say, exercise of a right =/= the right itself.
    I'm really trying hard to understand what you're saying here. But it's not getting through. I'll try to clarify my position.

    Ted Cruz is saying that more money gives people more speech. If that's the case, then equal money gives equal speech. So set a limit on how much money can be donated, a limit which allows all Americans equal speech.

    Because that is banning political speech
    Again, what are you talking about? No one is saying we should ban political speech.

    Your entire post seems to have no basis in reality with regards to what I'm talking about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    If I pay $2 for a button that says "Vote for Samhain" to wear wherever I go and Mark Cuban pays $2 for the same button to wear everywhere, is that the same contribution?
    If that same button cost $1,000,000, would you be able to afford it?

    The point is to make it affordable for everyone to have a roughly equal opportunity to monetarily engage in political discourse (if we entertain the rather absurd notion that money = speech). By removing any limits to contributions, Mark Cuban can buy off a politician who wouldn't even need to listen to my opposing viewpoint, because I simply don't have enough money to make it worth his time.

    If you don't see how it's a problem to let only a wealthy few control the government, then I'm not sure you really belong in this discussion.

  9. #19
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Nope, still doesn't make any sense.
    Oh. Well then I will try to explain it to you more simply, perhaps with smaller words.

    Your entire opposition seems to rest on the "if we make it a rule, then the rule will be violated". Well, we have laws against murder and murder still happens...should we just remove the laws on murder too?
    Ah. You did get it, you are merely being obtuse .

    No. My point is that you are expecting an effect (disarmament) which will not occur. In the case of the armed criminals, the mechanism is illegal, in the case of money supporting political causes, it is not.

    Remember the 527 organization hooflah of the 2004 election? When you make it more difficult for people to donate to candidates, you do not stop money flowing to support candidates, you merely change how they go about doing it.

    You're not limited to him.
    That is what you are arguing for. Equal Money so we can have Equal Speech, right?


    This isn't hard to understand. Here, I'll give you a brief, off the cuff, example of a constitutional amendment.

    "Donations to political causes can exceed no more than 100 times the amount of the federal minimum wage per year".
    This will achieve neither of the ends that you have described. Firstly, because many people do not have that extra cash to donate, and so by your logic we are still allowing those who are wealthier to speak more than those who are not (which is a ridiculous backwards standard of judging a freedom by whether or not it is used - but it's yours), and secondly because many people will donate a variety within that limit, meaning that their speech is still unequal.

    Obviously I'm just using random numbers, but you get the point. You're not limited by Joe, you're limited to the law.
    Ah, but the law you have described does not, actually, create equal speech. It merely limits speech.

    I'm really trying hard to understand what you're saying here. But it's not getting through. I'll try to clarify my position.

    Ted Cruz is saying that more money gives people more speech. If that's the case, then equal money gives equal speech.
    Equal Speech =/= an Equal Right to Speech. I see no reason why we would want to force all Americans to engage in Equal Speech.

    For example, both Bill Gates and I are equally free to support Pro-Life causes. But I would wager that in fact I donate far more of my money to Pro-Life Speech than he does. My Speech in this instance is greater than his, even though our rights to engage in it are equal. Similarly, we both agree that School Reform is needed, but Gates donates far more than I do. In that case, his speech is more than mine but our right to it is still equal.

    So set a limit on how much money can be donated, a limit which allows all Americans equal speech.
    No, because no matter how you set the limit A) some people will not be able to meet it and B) those who want to exceed it will remain capable of legally doing so, and will simply have to do so in manners that are more convoluted and less transparent.

    Again, what are you talking about? No one is saying we should ban political speech.
    Sure you are. Specifically you are stating that we should ban political speech beyond a given limit.

    If that same button cost $1,000,000, would you be able to afford it?
    If I wasn't, would that mean that I do not have the right to purchase it?

    My exercise of a right is not the right itself. That is as true in the case of the million-dollar-button as it is in the case of me-and-joe-schmoe.

    If you don't see how it's a problem to let only a wealthy few control the government, then I'm not sure you really belong in this discussion.
    If you are incapable of recognizing that so long as we legislate buying and selling, the first things bought and sold will be legislators, I'm not sure you belong here. Want to get the money out of politics? Make it unprofitable by getting the politicians out of the money. Ironically, by reducing the reach of government and it's power to effect who wins and who loses in the marketplace, Cruz would actually reduce the incentives for the Big Money Folks to invest in politicians, reducing their extent to which "a wealthy few control the government."

  10. #20
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,696

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions - The Washington Post

    I thoroughly support this proposal, as it would eliminate the last of my demonstrably false idea that the non-rich have any voice in our government.
    Ultimately the only political speech that matters occurs at the ballot box. If seeing 3 political ads for one candidate for every 1 ad you see of their opponent sways you to vote for them then the problem isn't money in politics, the problem is you.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •