• 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

phattonez said:
Isn't it not just lobbyists but also political groups that write legislation?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who writes it. Anybody can go to Congress and hand them a bill and say "you should pass this." So what?

What matters is who votes on it. That's Congress alone. It is their power and their responsibility.
 
misterman said:
It doesn't matter who writes it. Anybody can go to Congress and hand them a bill and say "you should pass this." So what?

What matters is who votes on it. That's Congress alone. It is their power and their responsibility.
Click to expand...

I know. I was just stating a fact. I didn't say whether it was good or bad.
 
phattonez said:
Isn't it not just lobbyists but also political groups that write legislation?
Click to expand...

Yes. I agree they do.

Yet Jack Abramoff and his like are what Vader was getting at. We can vote out constituents, but not lobbyists. These people are usually more talented, better paid, and have a silky tongue even Obama would envy.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Yes. I agree they do.

Yet Jack Abramoff and his like are what Vader was getting at. We can vote out constituents, but not lobbyists. These people are usually more talented, better paid, and have a silky tongue even Obama would envy.
Click to expand...

But in the end it shouldn't matter. If our politicians get swayed by lobbyists to vote against their constituents wishes, then they should be voted out.

Maybe the solution would be shorter terms for senators.
 
phattonez said:
But in the end it shouldn't matter. If our politicians get swayed by lobbyists to vote against their constituents wishes, then they should be voted out.
Click to expand...

Right. Blaming lobbyists just takes responsibility from those who choose to take their advice - and those of us who choose those congressmen.
 
phattonez said:
But in the end it shouldn't matter. If our politicians get swayed by lobbyists to vote against their constituents wishes, then they should be voted out.

Maybe the solution would be shorter terms for senators.
Click to expand...

Maybe senators should be voted in via the approval of a state congress?:)
 
misterman said:
Right. Blaming lobbyists just takes responsibility from those who choose to take their advice - and those of us who choose those congressmen.
Click to expand...

People only care about one thing when voting (not counting far right republicans and far left democrats): If they have more or less money than the last time they voted. The far right actually cares about abortion and the far left just wants to save some trees.

This nation is ran by the elderly;)
 
NoJingoLingo said:
I know, you keep saying it as if it will magically become true.
Click to expand...

No.

I keep saying it because it is true.

How loud would you be screaming if the court had ruled instead that GOONIONS, your beloved goonions, couldn't pay member's money for political purposes?

Would we have to measure the outrage on the Left on the Richter Scale?
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
It is logical to assume that if congressmen are voting for laws that constituents don't like then they'll be voted out of office. I mean, we do have elections, right?
Click to expand...

The United States Senate has less turnover than the Politburo had.

At least Politburo members finally died.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
If it's not a person then how can it possibly have rights protected under the constitution that a person has?
Click to expand...

Since when does a whole have less than the sum of its parts?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Maybe senators should be voted in via the approval of a state congress?:)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind that either. With shorter term limits both methods would be equally effective.
 
RightinNYC said:
It's not a talking point, it's empirical fact. Unions fill out the bulk of the list of biggest campaign donors.
Click to expand...

First, the ability to spend is far more relevant than past spending habits. Corporate interest groups need only threaten to swamp the airwaves with ads to achieve their goal. This is not conjecture. It has been repeated by veteran Washington insiders and the evidence is quite obvious in the H.C. legislation.

Second, corporations and unions are not always at odds as so many people in this thread seem to assume. You cannot be serious that the Sierra Club (for example) has any chance of being heard against the combined advertising budget of corporate interests plus unions !?
 
PeteEU said:
And death to US democracy. So when is the new Senator for Bank of America going to take his seat?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you really that we won't go the route of the EU?

Thank you, Surpeme Court!
 
PeteEU said:
And death to US democracy. So when is the new Senator for Bank of America going to take his seat?
Click to expand...

As soon as a majority of voters elect him.

You have a problem with majority rule by voters?
 
Vader said:
I never thought of it that way. Maybe it will. I just dislike business and politics being in bed with one another.

Maybe ... I just do not trust business ... or the government to be honest.
Click to expand...

I see "Tea Party" under your name. And your first distrust is against business? How can someone who supports the Tea Party concept (most of us strongly support the U. S. Constitution) be more skeptical against business than government. Business makes government possible, although you would never understand this from the present, opaque administration.

As others have written, McCain-Feingold is bad legislation that takes away the voice of business but somehow allows the liberal leanings of big unions to remain in power. This bill showed McCain at his worst (right up there with amnesty for illegals) and Feingold as expected... and it was bad for the rest of us. If anything, this bill shows another reason for a contender to knock off McCain this fall.

Perhaps some transparency can come during 2010 even if it goes against the Dems in power.
 
rebelbuc said:
I see "Tea Party" under your name. And your first distrust is against business? How can someone who supports the Tea Party concept (most of us strongly support the U. S. Constitution) be more skeptical against business than government. Business makes government possible, although you would never understand this from the present, opaque administration.
Click to expand...

The Tea Party label is his attempt at wit (plus some way of getting back at American for calling himself "Very Liberal").
 
j-mac said:
For what common citizen? Look, I am a veteran truck driver, I can assure you that I don't set the world on fire, but tell me, all you anti business people, what are you going to do for a job when you destroy the ones currently?



j-mac
Click to expand...
Now there's a strawman if I ever saw one. Who is anti-business? Some of us are simply anti-corporate-control-of-our-government.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Now there's a strawman if I ever saw one. Who is anti-business? Some of us are simply anti-corporate-control-of-our-government.
Click to expand...

Vader is. :2wave:
 
phattonez said:
It is logical to assume that if congressmen are voting for laws that constituents don't like then they'll be voted out of office. I mean, we do have elections, right?
Click to expand...
No, we have a farse. We are presented candidates to vote on. Most constituents are low-info voters and easily hoodwinked by ads.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
No, we have a farse. We are presented candidates to vote on. Most constituents are low-info voters and easily hoodwinked by ads.
Click to expand...

So republicanism is a sham. What better system to you propose?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Source

So there we have it!
Click to expand...

Medicare part D. See, you've been so hoodwinked that you can't even remember the damaging crap that corporate interests get away with so how can you vote correctly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom