• 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!

Harry Reid backs campaign spending amendment

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wholeheartedly endorsed a constitutional amendment to limit campaign spending on Thursday, putting the Senate on course to vote on the matter as early as July.
Reid said that the Senate Judiciary Committee will take up the amendment on June 3, which allows Congress and the states to limit fundraising and spending on federal campaigns and gives lawmakers the ability to regulate outside groups. From there, the amendment will go to the Senate floor, where it has little chance of passing due to broad GOP opposition to meddling with campaign finance laws.


But Democrats believe the failed vote on the amendment, which needs the backing of 67 senators, will still pay dividends in the run-up to the midterm elections, painting Republicans as supporters of big money in politics and Democrats as on the side of ordinary voters.

“Let me pose a question to everyone, including my friend the Republican Leader [Mitch McConnell]. If this unprecedented spending is free speech, where does that leave our middle-class constituents? The poor?” Reid said Thursday morning. “It leaves them out in the cold. How could everyday working families afford to make their voices heard if money equals free speech?”
Click to expand...


Read more: Harry Reid backs campaign spending amendment - Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com

In my opinion one of the most important bills to reach the Senate floor. Its clear that we are becoming more and more an oligarchy (if we arent already there) and that money is buying our elections and our representatives. Unfortunately this is not likely to pass :(
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more: Harry Reid backs campaign spending amendment - Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com

In my opinion one of the most important bills to reach the Senate floor. Its clear that we are becoming more and more an oligarchy (if we arent already there) and that money is buying our elections and our representatives. Unfortunately this is not likely to pass [/FONT][/COLOR]:(
Click to expand...

Of course it's not going to pass. This is just a gimmick. Reid has no intention of passing this bill.
 
"gives lawmakers the ability to regulate outside groups"
Click to expand...

Im interested in the details. On the surface it screams "a way to manipulate the system further to our advantage" to me. Perhaps I am overly cynical but I just cannot see a bill being passed with the fairness for all in mind. Anytime Congress passes a bill its generally to their advantage and they rarely give away anything.
 
Baralis said:
Im interested in the details. On the surface it screams "a way to manipulate the system further to our advantage" to me. Perhaps I am overly cynical but I just cannot see a bill being passed with the fairness for all in mind. Anytime Congress passes a bill its generally to their advantage and they rarely give away anything.
Click to expand...

Especially when it originates from Harry Reid.
 
apdst said:
Of course it's not going to pass. This is just a gimmick. Reid has no intention of passing this bill.
Click to expand...

If Reid had the charisma of P.T. Barnum, and the quote attributed to him - "there's a sucker born every minute" this might fool some people. He doesn't, and Reid loses his one. I wonder if he even realizes what people think of him. Evidently not, nor does he seem to care. It's all about grandstanding... :2bow:

Greetings, apdst. :2wave:
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063288938 said:
Especially when it originates from Harry Reid.
Click to expand...

:agree: Especially is the key word here! :thumbs:

Greetings, Mo. :2wave:
 
Putting the debt on a sustainable path will ultimately require increases in taxes or cuts in government benefits or services for people who consider themselves to be in the middle class,” he said, according to CNNMoney.

Though Elmendorf's comments may seem controversial, they're in line with what is actually taking place. President Obama's 2014 budget proposal included small tax increases on the middle class. In addition, lawmakers allowed the payroll tax cut to expire earlier this year, which hit middle- and low-income Americans harder than others.
Click to expand...

Doug Elmendorf, CBO Director: Fixing Debt Problem Requires Hitting The Middle Class

Reid knows how to help middle and low income Americans and its not by increasing taxes; but that wouldn't ignite the liberal base now would it?
 
polgara said:
:agree: Especially is the key word here! :thumbs:

Greetings, Mo. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Greetings polgara!

And to think that suggesting Hillary Clinton may have residual effects of head injuries sustained in 2012 is political grandstanding!
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more: Harry Reid backs campaign spending amendment - Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com

In my opinion one of the most important bills to reach the Senate floor. Its clear that we are becoming more and more an oligarchy (if we arent already there) and that money is buying our elections and our representatives. Unfortunately this is not likely to pass [/FONT][/COLOR]:(
Click to expand...

What the hell is the matter with Harry. doesn't he know oodles of money is freedom of speech?
 
`
A Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) is a dangerous tool. Once it's convened, there is no stopping it from changing whatever it wants, regardless of what the stated intention is. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, opposed convening a constitutional convention in a letter he wrote to Phyllis Schlafley when he said:

"I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don't like its agenda."​

I would oppose this particular congress from doing such a thing.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063289019 said:
Greetings polgara!

And to think that suggesting Hillary Clinton may have residual effects of head injuries sustained in 2012 is political grandstanding!
Click to expand...

Yeah! Must have been kind of embarrassing, though, when her husband agrees publically that it is true. :lol:
 
Interesting how he suddenly backs it after winning what will probably be his last term in office. Where was he before those elections that got him this far? Oh, yeah, he was spending large amounts of money from special interest groups to finance his campaigns.
 
Won't go anywhere. But I don't think SuperPACs is what our founders had in mind.
 
Why would you want to give the government the right to "regulate groups" involved in political campaigns - campaigns are a form of speech. Does the left really think their brand of government will sit well with the masses they can dictate them like Iran does to its people?

TheDemSocialist said:
Read more: Harry Reid backs campaign spending amendment - Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com

In my opinion one of the most important bills to reach the Senate floor. Its clear that we are becoming more and more an oligarchy (if we arent already there) and that money is buying our elections and our representatives. Unfortunately this is not likely to pass [/FONT][/COLOR]:(
Click to expand...
 
Oh, God. This is laughable. This guy rakes in tons of this cash, now he is acting like it's someone else, as if he doesn't do it. When you think of Washington politics, of corrupt elected officials, those that make decisions based on what's good for them and don't give a crap about the American people, Hary Ried is right at the top of that list.
 
CalGun said:
Why would you want to give the government the right to "regulate groups" involved in political campaigns - campaigns are a form of speech. Does the left really think their brand of government will sit well with the masses they can dictate them like Iran does to its people?
Click to expand...

Spending money is a form of speech? So the rich have more "free speech" than the rest of us?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Spending money is a form of speech? So the rich have more "free speech" than the rest of us?
Click to expand...

Pretty much the way I see it as well. Personally I would like to see a general fund that all contributions go into and is then divided equally among all candidates of the same office. That would remove the financial edge which we have to admit can be a pretty big determining factor when campaigning. It would probably also help a little to keep politicians out of the pockets of the special interest groups that throw money at their campaigns. In my view it has come down to you either sell out or you have zero chance at rasing enough money to compete. Alas so many see $ in the same category as free speech and pools will never happen.
 
Free speech is just that, free, and if you want to make sure its heard you have a right to make it so. If it is not heard due to government restriction then how is it free. I can't imagine any more right sacred in a free nation then being allowed to propel our message to as many as we want over politics.

TheDemSocialist said:
Spending money is a form of speech? So the rich have more "free speech" than the rest of us?
Click to expand...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more: Harry Reid backs campaign spending amendment - Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com

In my opinion one of the most important bills to reach the Senate floor. Its clear that we are becoming more and more an oligarchy (if we arent already there) and that money is buying our elections and our representatives. Unfortunately this is not likely to pass [/FONT][/COLOR]:(
Click to expand...

What Harry Reid wants is the perception from the voters that the Democrats are on the side of ordinary people. Remember back in 2012 both Obama and Romney spent raised and spent a billion dollars apiece. Then in 2008 Obama raised and spent 750 million without federal matching funds vs McCain who raised and spent 368 million which included federal matching funds. If one is honest about this whole thing, both parties owe their heart and soul to big money donors, special interests, corporations, Wall Street, lobbyist, pacs and super pacs, probably hundreds of outside organizations, all with enough money to raise and spend billions. There is no high moral ground here for the Democrats.

Now having said all of the above, I wish Reid luck although I know it is just an election ploy. But what else is new in the world of politics? Elections are won and lost on perceptions, what the voter perceives to be true, not on the reality of truth. Nonetheless, Senator Reid has my backing on this. You do not know how much I wish he was sincere about it instead of an election gimmick.
 
Perotista said:
What Harry Reid wants is the perception from the voters that the Democrats are on the side of ordinary people. Remember back in 2012 both Obama and Romney spent raised and spent a billion dollars apiece. Then in 2008 Obama raised and spent 750 million without federal matching funds vs McCain who raised and spent 368 million which included federal matching funds. If one is honest about this whole thing, both parties owe their heart and soul to big money donors, special interests, corporations, Wall Street, lobbyist, pacs and super pacs, probably hundreds of outside organizations, all with enough money to raise and spend billions. There is no high moral ground here for the Democrats.

Now having said all of the above, I wish Reid luck although I know it is just an election ploy. But what else is new in the world of politics? Elections are won and lost on perceptions, what the voter perceives to be true, not on the reality of truth. Nonetheless, Senator Reid has my backing on this. You do not know how much I wish he was sincere about it instead of an election gimmick.
Click to expand...

it isn't really about the money, its about who gives the money.

reid is a hypocrite.
 
mtm1963 said:
it isn't really about the money, its about who gives the money.

reid is a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Name me one politician who isn't. Almost all of them are the "Do as I say and not as I do," type of political/elected leaders.
 
CalGun said:
Free speech is just that, free, and if you want to make sure its heard you have a right to make it so. If it is not heard due to government restriction then how is it free. I can't imagine any more right sacred in a free nation then being allowed to propel our message to as many as we want over politics.
Click to expand...

That didnt answer my question. If money is considered speech and spending money is considered speech. Do the rich have more free speech because they have more money?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Spending money is a form of speech? So the rich have more "free speech" than the rest of us?
Click to expand...
So since Im too poor to own a newspaper, the New York Times has to refrain from any political commentary?
 
Fletch said:
So since Im too poor to own a newspaper, the New York Times has to refrain from any political commentary?
Click to expand...

If you cant purchase it thats your problem. More money=more power to buy things and services. So are we saying that our elected officials are for sale?
But simple question. Since money is considered free speech does that mean that the rich have more free speech?
 
Perotista said:
Name me one politician who isn't. Almost all of them are the "Do as I say and not as I do," type of political/elected leaders.
Click to expand...

its the democrats running around going, OMG, OMG about citizens united, not the republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom