• 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!

Schumer calls for hearings on 'un-American' court decision

And that still doesn't solve many of the other problems with campaign finance.

For example, lets say you give every candidate a $50 million dollar limit to use for campaigning.

What's to then stop, say, Exxon from going out and putting out a commercial, not sponsored by a campaign, supporting a candidate? Or stop PETA? Or the NRA? Or a local group in your home town buying money to put an ad in the paper because they feel strong about a candidate?

Right, and I should have made mention of this. The problem is that the more money an organization has, the more "voice" they have in an election, but to say that they cannot promote or advertise is an obvious free speech issue. I would like to see some way to limit it so that organizations have the right to free speech, and can run adds, but that the more money they have, the more voice they have. Unfortunately, I am not smart enough to see a good way to do that. Would saying that no organization can spend more than X dollars on political advertising over the course of any year be legal? How would you stop them from spinning off small companies to get around such a law? It's a really tricky thing, and I don't have a good solution, except to say I do not like the status quo much.

I don't have a problem with your solution to candidate spending and would support such a plan.
 
And that still doesn't solve many of the other problems with campaign finance.

For example, lets say you give every candidate a $50 million dollar limit to use for campaigning.

What's to then stop, say, Exxon from going out and putting out a commercial, not sponsored by a campaign, supporting a candidate? Or stop PETA? Or the NRA? Or a local group in your home town buying money to put an ad in the paper because they feel strong about a candidate?

See, that's the part that I see more about speech than the money. The ability to go out and say "I like this guy and I think you should vote for this guy for this reason" or "I don't like this guy, etc etc".

Just off the top of my head as far as a limits system....

There was over $800 million dollars spent last year just between McCain and Obama. Limit candidates to a total of $100 million. Additionally, put a small tax of maybe 2.5% on all political donations that goes into a specific fund that is untouchable save for some specific reasons.

Any party that recieved, lets say 5%, of the popular vote in the previous Presidential election and spent less than $25 million will recieve $5 million from that fund.

Once this gets underway for a bit, during the 2nd year of the current Presidentail cycle any of the money in the account in excess of what is needed would go straight to paying down the national debt.

The nice thing with this is you could almost garauntee that the two main party candidates will raise their full portion each time, which would result in an extra $5 million going into that pot.

So come the 2nd year of that Presidential cycle if there is no one that met the criteria (5% of the vote, less than 25 mil) then that money goes to paying down the debt. If there is, it stays there and goes to them the next election.

This would hopefully encourage people to vote third party if they agreed with that party, as now suddenly that vote DOES matter because you can try to get your 3rd party into range to get the bit of financing. It shouldn't have a big effect on "small" donations because if you donate $10 to your local politician cause its all you can afford your politician would still get $9.75 of it and the pot would get a quarter, hardly squelching even the voice of the poorest of poor.

If it started looking like more than one third party would become viable like this you could raise the tax on the campaigns to 5%, thus accounting potentially for 2 "third" parties. I would max it out at that, and add in some kidn of adendum so that it goes in descending order from the highest, but qualified party, to the lowest, until there's no further money left.

Just an idea shot from the hip there to try and limit at least the spending of the campaign itself, make third party votes worth while, and possibly get third parties somewhat further injected into the whole ordeal. That said, it'd still have a ton of holes.
I don't like this, because this is akin to a poll tax which is unconstitutional. And leftover money should not go to the debt nor another party (not of my choosing).
 
I don't like this, because this is akin to a poll tax which is unconstitutional. And leftover money should not go to the debt nor another party (not of my choosing).

How is it akin to a poll tax?

A poll tax to my understanding is a tax simply for being a citizen of said country (IE done in accordance with the census) or a tax to allow you to vote.

Millions upon millions of people vote each and every single year in this country without having given a dime to a politician.

Right, and I should have made mention of this. The problem is that the more money an organization has, the more "voice" they have in an election, but to say that they cannot promote or advertise is an obvious free speech issue. I would like to see some way to limit it so that organizations have the right to free speech, and can run adds, but that the more money they have, the more voice they have. Unfortunately, I am not smart enough to see a good way to do that. Would saying that no organization can spend more than X dollars on political advertising over the course of any year be legal? How would you stop them from spinning off small companies to get around such a law? It's a really tricky thing, and I don't have a good solution, except to say I do not like the status quo much.

I don't have a problem with your solution to candidate spending and would support such a plan.

See, I have no problem with the "more voice" thing because people ALWAYS have more voice.

Alec Baldwin has "more voice" than I do because he's famous and has more outlets. Should he have his ability to speak about politics restricted because his position gives him "more voice" about it than I?

Hell, someone who runs a blog has "more voice" in theory than someone that doesn't, should they be limited on how much they can speak about politics.

It goes on and on, and not even in regards to just politics.

Everyone has "more voice" than someone else on certain issues based on a multitude of factors with money being just one of them.
 
I love these 5-4 rulings. It's fun to watch the losers. When it goes against a conservative issue, they get all pissy about it. Now that it's going against a liberal position, they're doing the same thing.

What's wrong with accepting the fact that the Court is an equal branch of government and they're just fulfilling their constitutional role? This is what these guys get paid to do.
 
See, I have no problem with the "more voice" thing because people ALWAYS have more voice.

Alec Baldwin has "more voice" than I do because he's famous and has more outlets. Should he have his ability to speak about politics restricted because his position gives him "more voice" about it than I?

Hell, someone who runs a blog has "more voice" in theory than someone that doesn't, should they be limited on how much they can speak about politics.

It goes on and on, and not even in regards to just politics.

Everyone has "more voice" than someone else on certain issues based on a multitude of factors with money being just one of them.

More voice because you have a talent for getting your voice heard is different from money as more voice. If you run a blog that gets a ton of hits each day it's not the same thing as buying commercial time. To my mind, there is nothing wrong with limiting how much spending you can spend on an election, I just think the actual mechanics of such limits would be difficult to near impossible. Elections right now tend to heavily favor whoever spends the most, and has the most spent on their behalf. I think this is very much less than ideal.

Ever hear of candidates who start the process, but find out they cannot raise enough money to actually run come election year? things like that make me sad, that money is one of the keys to who we have to select among.
 
If only they had conducted good hearings during the formulation of the orignal McCain/Feingold bill. :roll: Besides that Bush should have vetoed that bill.

Just noticed......

Join Date: Mar 2006
Last Seen: Today 01:26 PM
Location: VA
Posts: 12,446
Thanks: 2,524
Thanked 2,457 Times in 1,714 Posts
Lean: Very Liberal
Gender:

:lamo
 
More voice because you have a talent for getting your voice heard is different from money as more voice. If you run a blog that gets a ton of hits each day it's not the same thing as buying commercial time. To my mind, there is nothing wrong with limiting how much spending you can spend on an election, I just think the actual mechanics of such limits would be difficult to near impossible. Elections right now tend to heavily favor whoever spends the most, and has the most spent on their behalf. I think this is very much less than ideal.

But what you're essentially saying is "Its okay if someone has more voice, as long as they have more voice based on reasons I think are okay".

Why is someone who has more voice because he's famous more important than someone who has more voice because he's rich?

Why is a person with a lot of friends having more voice than you fine, but a person who has a lot of fellow members of an organization not fine?

I don't understand why you're okay with "more voice" based on every other reason, except if the person or group has money.

It seems like you more simply have a problem with money in politics, and you're using the "more voice" reasoning to rationalize it so you don't have to say "I just don't like that those that are richer can have a bigger impact on things", because your "More voice" argument just doesn't make sense when you have such selective reasonings why you dislike some people having "more voice" and others not.

Ever hear of candidates who start the process, but find out they cannot raise enough money to actually run come election year? things like that make me sad, that money is one of the keys to who we have to select among.

Agree with you here, I just don't think its something that can honestly majorly happen. Even back in the early days its not like the founders were a bunch of shlubs living on the street with no clout of some kind. The sad fact is the vast majority of times in history those who have power, wealth, or influence are the ones most likely to get ahead in politics. Sucks? Sure. But at this point thinking of changing it in a major way is kind of like thinking we're going to fly to distant far off galaxies. Will we do it one day perhaps? Yeah, but its not exactly likely
 
Running a blog is not putting adds on TV or robocalls. It's people going to your site. A public figure being interviewed on their views is not actively advertising, it's more passive.

The problem here is I see a clear demarcation, but I am not seeing a great way to put it into words, except to say that in part it depends on what you do. Spending is not the same thing as talking to your friends, or posting something on the internet.
 
Allowing unlimited money in politics is just giving more civil rights to those who have more money. Being rich is great and we should all strive for it, but for basic necessities like health, rights, and the things that really matter, we should all be equal.
 
Running a blog is not putting adds on TV or robocalls. It's people going to your site. A public figure being interviewed on their views is not actively advertising, it's more passive.

The problem here is I see a clear demarcation, but I am not seeing a great way to put it into words, except to say that in part it depends on what you do. Spending is not the same thing as talking to your friends, or posting something on the internet.

Either way you're using your resources to your advantage.

If you're resource is fame and you're going out making statements at award shows or at interviews or fund raiser events and other things you're trading on your resource to have more voice.

If you're a talented writer and are able to get your views into news papers or on television or on a blog then you're trading on your resource to have more voice.

If you're a popular outgoing person that has charisma and a strong personality and you use that to spread information to your friends and convince them that your way is best then you're trading on your resources to have more voice.

If you're a successful businessman that managed to run a successful company and have excess money and you spend that to run advertising commercials or an ad in the paper than you're trading on your resources to have more voice.

No one has to listen to a famous person

No one has to read a blog or newspaper

No one has to listen to their friends talk politics

and guess what

No one has to watch an advertisement on TV or listen to an entire robo call
 
Just noticed......



:lamo
SHHHHHHHH, I'm trying to get Redress to like me. :mrgreen: Oh yeah, go Obama go~!!!! How that?
 
Link here

Umm, what?

He doesn't like the decision so he's threatening THE SURPREME COURT, an Equal part of government to not him but his entire BRANCH, with "hearings" simply because he disagrees with a decision they rendered concerning the constitution...which is, you know, they're job?

This is ridiculous.

I find the decision displeasing because it basically allows for corporations to buy off politicians without fear of going to prison.

I dislike business being involved with politics. It's a complete disservice to the working class.
 
Sometimes it's just not worth feeding the trolls aps. For some of our posters, over the top rhetoric is the only way they know to post.

Touche! (I'm always asking people why they acknowledge certain trolls.) Point well taken.
 
Allowing unlimited money in politics is just giving more civil rights to those who have more money. Being rich is great and we should all strive for it, but for basic necessities like health, rights, and the things that really matter, we should all be equal.

The constitution covers that pretty well.
 
Allowing unlimited money in politics is just giving more civil rights to those who have more money. Being rich is great and we should all strive for it, but for basic necessities like health, rights, and the things that really matter, we should all be equal.

We ARE all equal.
 
Link here

Umm, what?

He doesn't like the decision so he's threatening THE SURPREME COURT, an Equal part of government to not him but his entire BRANCH, with "hearings" simply because he disagrees with a decision they rendered concerning the constitution...which is, you know, they're job?

This is ridiculous.

Actually I don't believe that all parts of our government were to be equal.
Congress was supposed to have more power than the rest.

Just nitpicking. :)
 
Link here

Umm, what?

He doesn't like the decision so he's threatening THE SURPREME COURT, an Equal part of government to not him but his entire BRANCH, with "hearings" simply because he disagrees with a decision they rendered concerning the constitution...which is, you know, they're job?

This is ridiculous.

Actually, while there is a system of checks and balances and separation of powers in our government, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the different branches of government are equal with each other. If that was the case, the powers the presidency have assumed would be drastically cut back.

The Constitution doesn't say how much power each branch should have. Sometimes Congress is the dominant branch. Sometimes the Presidency is the dominant branch. A few times the Supreme Court brings the power of both down a few notches. But the Constitution never explicitly states, which isn't so bad since it gives our country's government the freedom it needs to effectively operate.
 
Last edited:
We ARE all equal.

I see little evidence of this. Unfortunately equality before the law has issues because of things like those with more resources being able to afford more/better lawyers in a civil case or in the case of free speech, someone with a megaphone has more speech over someone who can only shout. Right now those with more power are able to run rough-shod over those with less. This supreme court decision will simply make it worse.

Having more money or resources is great, but everyone should have access to the basics, or else we do not have a truly free society.
 
Last edited:
Link here

Umm, what?

He doesn't like the decision so he's threatening THE SURPREME COURT, an Equal part of government to not him but his entire BRANCH, with "hearings" simply because he disagrees with a decision they rendered concerning the constitution...which is, you know, they're job?

This is ridiculous.

Wow, you really are against free speech, aren't you?:shock:
 
Wow, you really are against free speech, aren't you?:shock:

Oh look, its you making idioticly ludicrous statements again. What a surprise.

Would you care to explain how you reach such an absurd conclussion, or would you rather just throw out trollish one liners which appears to be your MO?
 
He lives in DC, which while physically a part of the planet doesn't reside in the same plane of reality. Threatening the Supreme Court is beyond arrogant.

I disagree. You claim that he is arrogant because he criticizes a branch of "our, of the people government".

If everybody thought like you we would be doomed.:(
 
Back
Top Bottom