• 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!

Maine, Seattle Pave Next Path For Campaign Finance Reform

Beaudreaux said:
Do you not see the difference? I said I have no problem with Public Funding.

Did you even read the OP article you posted? It says, that each citizen will be given four each $25.00 vouchers that they can donate (give) to a candidate or candidates of their choice and that the candidates can then turn the vouchers in to receive actual cash in return to use to finance their political campaign.

That's what I've been talking about. Not basic Public Funding. But, that the government will be giving vouchers to citizens that can turn around and hand out tax money to a political candidate of their choice. That is wrong, and will not stand once taken to court.

Do you understand what I'm saying now? Read your own OP, please.
Click to expand...

The vouchers are credit for those who can now get public funding. And what of those who don't have 100 bucks to give? Where do they get to participate against the interests in CU? OH! They're poor, so they have to take what they get, even when we bring back the draft.
 
jet57 said:
The vouchers are credit for those who can now get public funding. And what of those who don't have 100 bucks to give? Where do they get to participate against the interests in CU? OH! They're poor, so they have to take what they get, even when we bring back the draft.
Click to expand...

Provide for me the Constitutional passage, that gives you the right to forcibly take money from me to give to a political candidate that I do not agree with finding?

Who decided $100.00 is the threshold for political donations to be considered speech? Why does anyone have to, and exactly how do you, "compete" with CU? That made no sense - compete with a SCOTUS ruling?

The last sentence of your post has reverted back where you were originally in this thread and I have no idea what you are trying to say.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Provide for me the Constitutional passage, that gives you the right to forcibly take money from me to give to a political candidate that I do not agree with finding?

Who decided $100.00 is the threshold for political donations to be considered speech? Why does anyone have to, and exactly how do you, "compete" with CU? That made no sense - compete with a SCOTUS ruling?

The last sentence of your post has reverted back where you were originally in this thread and I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Click to expand...

I already posted it dude. Your argument is getting circular now, and you're not reading what I've been saying to you. Please go back and review my replies and then maybe we can go on. I'm not chasing your rabbit anymore.
 
jet57 said:
I already posted it dude. Your argument is getting circular now, and you're not reading what I've been saying to you. Please go back and review my replies and then maybe we can go on. I'm not chasing your rabbit anymore.
Click to expand...

I have been polite and respectful up to this point, so your refusal to answer basic questions about your own beliefs has nothing to do with me. It's not a rabbit or a hole, it's a number of questions that are different from each other, that are linear in progression and not circular, that go directly to whether your argument holds water - which it doesn't, it sank a long time ago, you just don't know that you've drowned.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I have been polite and respectful up to this point, so your refusal to answer basic questions about your own beliefs has nothing to do with me. It's not a rabbit or a hole, it's a number of questions that are different from each other, that are linear in progression and not circular, that go directly to whether your argument holds water - which it doesn't, it sank a long time ago, you just don't know that you've drowned.
Click to expand...

Look, you have been trying to hook this into a violation of the first amendment and some notion of "tyranny". I have not bitten on that hook, nor will I. The measure as a subject is designed to give the average person (collectively) to compete with financing through Citizen's United. It is a leg up for regular people. That is the issue. Anything else is nonsense.

Now, what's your question.
 
jet57 said:
Look, you have been trying to hook this into a violation of the first amendment and some notion of "tyranny". I have not bitten on that hook, nor will I. The measure as a subject is designed to give the average person (collectively) to compete with financing through Citizen's United. It is a leg up for regular people. That is the issue. Anything else is nonsense.

Now, what's your question.
Click to expand...

It's not a hook. The OP article, that you posted, in a thread that you started, stated specifically actions that I asked you to show were legal and Constitutional for the government to do so. You are the one that went running around the Mulberry bush in some sort of unrecognizable screed.

The issue you say, is the only issue that matters, is the issue I have asked you to prove is legal and Constitutional. Can you do that? Can you provide evidence that those new laws are legal and Constitutional? Let me put it a different way: Regardless of the Citizens United case, how does the government justify giving ordinary citizens tax generated funds (the $100.00 in vouchers) to be given by those average citizens to political candidates for a political office? Can you answer that, please? That is all I've been asking for you to do.
 
Beaudreaux said:
It's not a hook. The OP article, that you posted, in a thread that you started, stated specifically actions that I asked you to show were legal and Constitutional for the government to do so. You are the one that went running around the Mulberry bush in some sort of unrecognizable screed.
Click to expand...

No, I haven't. I've been very consistent and articulated my thinking on the subject very well. You have jumped on the tyranny wagon, and a constitutional issue.

The issue you say, is the only issue that matters, is the issue I have asked you to prove is legal and Constitutional. Can you do that? Can you provide evidence that those new laws are legal and Constitutional? Let me put it a different way: Regardless of the Citizens United case, how does the government justify giving ordinary citizens tax generated funds (the $100.00 in vouchers) to be given by those average citizens to political candidates for a political office? Can you answer that, please? That is all I've been asking for you to do.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't remember being asked to prove the legality of an issue that is not a legal issue yet, the measure was just passed. I approve of the measure. If you have some sort of constitutional problem with allocation of municipal and state funding then you'll have to get a lawyer. I can't help you.
 
jet57 said:
No, I haven't. I've been very consistent and articulated my thinking on the subject very well. You have jumped on the tyranny wagon, and a constitutional issue.



I certainly don't remember being asked to prove the legality of an issue that is not a legal issue yet, the measure was just passed. I approve of the measure. If you have some sort of constitutional problem with allocation of municipal and state funding then you'll have to get a lawyer. I can't help you.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can't. Amazing that some people actually don't care about th legality of stealing from others, as long as it helps them or their ideology. What a shame.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I'm sure you can't. Amazing that some people actually don't care about th legality of stealing from others, as long as it helps them or their ideology. What a shame.
Click to expand...

Okay, now it's a different subject: how is a tax equal to theft? It's been going on throughout human history in one form or another, so how is it a theft?

Secondly, how would you that a government allocates its money for elections, just free willy- nilly to whomever asked? Or by popular vote, as in the measure mentioned above?
 
jet57 said:
Okay, now it's a different subject: how is a tax equal to theft? It's been going on throughout human history in one form or another, so how is it a theft?
Click to expand...

Don't deflect. How is it legal to give tax money to people to in turn give to politicians to use as political financing?
 
jet57 said:
I haven't the slightest idea where you are getting this "infringement on the first amendment argument" out of the OP. Taxpayers - are already forced to pay for elections through public funding of presidential elections. Just like taxpayers are forced to pay for war, public education in other states, corporate welfare... etc etc etc. This notion that the OP is in some way an affront to the first amendment is just looney. So, I really do not get the association you are trying to make.
Click to expand...

I didn't say these specific "reforms" were 1st amendment violations.

This notion that the OP is in some way an affront to the first amendment is just looney
Click to expand...
I agree ... it is loony to suggest they are.... which is why your opening statement

A true war of attrition is beginning against Citizens United
Click to expand...

...is loony.

CU is a pro-first amendment decision, so yeah, it's loony to suggest these reforms are an affront to the 1st amendment, or the CU decision.... they are neither.
 
jet57 said:
The vouchers are credit for those who can now get public funding. And what of those who don't have 100 bucks to give? Where do they get to participate against the interests in CU? OH! They're poor, so they have to take what they get, even when we bring back the draft.
Click to expand...

if you have no money to donate, you don't donate.
it's that simple.

I don't understand what you mean by "=....against the interests in CU?".... what "interests in CU " are you talking about , specifically.

the question of "where do they get to participate..." is an easy one to answer though.
....the voter booth.... like everyone else.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good afternoon Ocean,

There's a lot of economic activity involved in political campaigns and lots of jobs directly and indirectly related. If some $billionaire wants to throw money at a cause, as long as it's not in the form of a bribe, I say more power to him/her.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They hire small businesses to print things, people to coordinate and promote. They spend on advertising, etc., etc..

If we go the route these two states, what about Hollywood's efforts? Should "well timed" movies/puff pieces be included in this "campaigning"?

So, yes, no illegal activity, but otherwise, let the money flow. If we're that worried about gullible people getting swayed by shiny objects, we've already lost the point.
 
Thrilla said:
I didn't say these specific "reforms" were 1st amendment violations.

I agree ... it is loony to suggest they are.... which is why your opening statement



...is loony.

CU is a pro-first amendment decision, so yeah, it's loony to suggest these reforms are an affront to the 1st amendment, or the CU decision.... they are neither.
Click to expand...

You’re talking about CU being a first amendment issue. In the context of the OP the first has zero to do with it. It’s not about overturning CU, it’s about making it useless. I’ve been very consistent on that from the opening.

I agree ... it is loony to suggest they are.... which is why your opening statement
Click to expand...
I have no idea what that’s supposed to say. Can you clarify it?

A true war of attrition against CU is not looney at all, it’s exactly what the doctor ordered as a way to marginalize CU money.
 
Thrilla said:
if you have no money to donate, you don't donate.
it's that simple.

I don't understand what you mean by "=....against the interests in CU?".... what "interests in CU " are you talking about , specifically.

the question of "where do they get to participate..." is an easy one to answer though.
....the voter booth.... like everyone else.
Click to expand...

If public funds are going to be provided, then that money is going to go to campaigns anyway. Now everybody gets a shot to choose as well as vote. So I see nothing wrong with money going to those who cannot afford to donate $100 bucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom