• 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!

Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

it is unseemly, to say the least, for our chief executive, in his sotu, to attempt to rally the legislative branch vs the judicial on some political battleground

most sub presidential
 
it is unseemly, to say the least, for our chief executive, in his sotu, to attempt to rally the legislative branch vs the judicial on some political battleground

most sub presidential

Why? He simply disagreed with the decision and said he wants to do something to change it if possible. He was a little direct about it, but there's nothing unusual about the legislative branch confronting the courts. Congress sometimes specifically overrules the courts by changing the law in response, when it's not a Constitutional issue of course.

What disturbed me is how misleading Obama's comments about the decision were in the SOTU.
 
he's often misleading, good point
 
i know, obama's one of em
 
i know, obama's one of em

I don't know he looked good bobo smacking the republicans the other night.

Never have I seen such a magnificent president before except for JFK. I believe his magnificent performance will set a new paradigm when it comes to political debate.:)
 
I didn't say that - you're trying to cover everyone else's ears.



Tough. That's free speech!

Do you think there should be limits on the amount of speech everyone should have? A dollar amount for everyone? Political parties, wealthy individuals, etc?

Yes. limits on spending? I have already said so. I think a reasonable limit would be the average earnings of an individual per year. If the S.C. wants to define corporations this way than we should have a flat limit on spending per " person".
Speech isn't corruption.

political ads are little more than propaganda. They are banned in Britain.
 
Yes. limits on spending? I have already said so. I think a reasonable limit would be the average earnings of an individual per year. If the S.C. wants to define corporations this way than we should have a flat limit on spending per " person".


political ads are little more than propaganda. They are banned in Britain.

So is radio host Mike Savage. The brits have given up their rights because they have been duped by fear mongers. They have closed circuit tv cameras all over the place like big brother.
 
political ads are little more than propaganda. They are banned in Britain.

And is the UK less corrupt and less beholden to special interests than the US? No.

Furthermore, you're oversimplifying things quite a bit. Political interests there can get around the ban on ads much in the same way as they do here.

(Not that the UK would ever be mistaken for a bastion of free speech in the first place.)
 
Last edited:
And as was pointed out to you pages ago, UNIONS SPEND MORE THAN CORPORATIONS.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ng-political-campaigns-17.html#post1058514838

If you're continuing to pretend otherwise, then you're being deliberately disingenuous.





Again, if GE wanted to spend 8.5B on politics, they could have done so already. You keep on pretending that this isn't the case.

They have funds, far beyond that of unions, to pull out the stops over issues/ races they care about. To pretend otherwise....
Do you have any numbers on $$ spent on K street?
 
They have funds, far beyond that of unions, to pull out the stops over issues/ races they care about.

So your argument is that even though unions spent more across the board for the past 20 years, corporations are actually more dangerous because they totally could have spent more if they had really wanted to? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Do you have any numbers on $$ spent on K street?

How is the amount of money spent on lobbying relevant to the question over which side is having a greater influence on elections? Lobbying is entirely unrelated to the issue we're discussing, except as further proof that campaign spending limits do nothing to curb corporate influence.
 
So is radio host Mike Savage. The brits have given up their rights because they have been duped by fear mongers. They have closed circuit tv cameras all over the place like big brother.

Do you believe that what you have to say right here, is not watched? I would say that this is not really the topic at hand but just wondering?...
 
How is the amount of money spent on lobbying relevant to the question over which side is having a greater influence on elections? Lobbying is entirely unrelated to the issue we're discussing, except as further proof that campaign spending limits do nothing to curb corporate influence.
I'm pretty sure she doesn't know the difference. :doh
 
Do you believe that what you have to say right here, is not watched? I would say that this is not really the topic at hand but just wondering?...

Wow, I apoligize. I did not know I had strayed off topic. I will go away and not bother anybody anymore. I love you. sometimes I forget what topic I am on.
 
Last edited:
[
How is the amount of money spent on lobbying relevant to the question over which side is having a greater influence on elections? Lobbying is entirely unrelated to the issue we're discussing, except as further proof that campaign spending limits do nothing to curb corporate influence.
The only races on which corporations are going to spend money are the few that are relevant to their interests. I have not argued that there are more ways, than one, to corrupt the system. First, you gerrymander the districts so that most are "safe". Then you allow media consolidation so that diversity of speech is limited and then you -the corporation- can narrow the field further, to the very few elections/issues that might be worth influencing. Hey, the proof is easily recognizable in the total abdication the administration & dems have shown towards the special interests in the H.C. legislation.
 
I don't know he looked good bobo smacking the republicans the other night.

Never have I seen such a magnificent president before except for JFK. I believe his magnificent performance will set a new paradigm when it comes to political debate.:)

oh, sure, he's got STYLE

trouble is no one believes him

he says his health care bill provides "support for states," but every blue governor in the nation is up in arms over the 200B dollars of unbacked mandates in the form of medicaid expansion

he says massachusetts was not aimed at him

he's not an ideologue

he doesn't deal with lobbyists, an insult to america's intelligence, or perhaps we've all forgotten AIG, the SEIU, Phrma...

he's been open

his health care is centrist

his stimulus created 2M jobs

republicans are the ones in danger of losing their seats if they follow him (tell it to dorgan, reid, coakley, corzine, deeds, dodd, lincoln, bayh, nelson, specter, bennett, feingold and more than 50 dogs and freshmen in pelosi's place)

he's being painted as a bolshevik

he hasn't been able to get his word out

republicans have offered no alternatives

yet his latest talking point is, as repeated over and over by axelord and gibbs on the sunday talks, he's embraced republican ideas from the get go, all over the place, in his recovery act which isn't to be called a stimulus anymore, in his health care, in his budget...

meanwhile, his entire agenda is out of reach

yeah, he's AWESOME, dude, hella cool
 
Just curious? Why do you bother commenting if you think it is beneath you?
Beneath me? Where did I say that?

Instead of reading what isn't there, perhaps you should read what is there.
 
oh, sure, he's got STYLE

trouble is no one believes him

he says his health care bill provides "support for states," but every blue governor in the nation is up in arms over the 200B dollars of unbacked mandates in the form of medicaid expansion

he says massachusetts was not aimed at him

he's not an ideologue

he doesn't deal with lobbyists, an insult to america's intelligence, or perhaps we've all forgotten AIG, the SEIU, Phrma...

he's been open

his health care is centrist

his stimulus created 2M jobs

republicans are the ones in danger of losing their seats if they follow him (tell it to dorgan, reid, coakley, corzine, deeds, dodd, lincoln, bayh, nelson, specter, bennett, feingold and more than 50 dogs and freshmen in pelosi's place)

he's being painted as a bolshevik

he hasn't been able to get his word out

republicans have offered no alternatives

yet his latest talking point is, as repeated over and over by axelord and gibbs on the sunday talks, he's embraced republican ideas from the get go, all over the place, in his recovery act which isn't to be called a stimulus anymore, in his health care, in his budget...

meanwhile, his entire agenda is out of reach

yeah, he's AWESOME, dude, hella cool

Thanks. I am glad that people are finally getting the message about corporate spending.:)
 
that's nice

obama's a transparent phony

his entire agenda is dead
 
stay tuned and find out
 
Any data on that?.

Well, do you believe that all advertising campaigns are 100% effective 100% of the time?

I see no reason why anyone would need to be provided data to realize that sometimes advertisements fail or backfire. Do you buy everything you see on every commercial you see on TV?

Sorry, I fail to see how defining the rights delineated in the constitution as meant for people not corporations cedes power to Washington. I would say that it helps to cede power to citizens.

In the case of the 1st amendment, allowing the government to decide through legislation who or what the right applies to is ceding power to the government.... the amendment states "shall make no law." No exceptions are included and the amendment has not been repealed.

Hmm, I think that many of our elected officials are extremely unhappy with a situation that forces them to spend two days out of every work week raising money rather than doing the people's business. Judging from the Abramoff scandal there are certainly people whose minds are twisted by the flow of money. NOt all, though.

It doesn't take all of them to churn out crappy and/or unconstitutional policy... just some.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom