Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 159

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

  1. #21
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,485

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

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    If only they had conducted good hearings during the formulation of the orignal McCain/Feingold bill. Besides that Bush should have vetoed that bill.
    They never dreamed that SCOTUS would turn on them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #22
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Yeah, it seems clear to me that there have to be limits, and the concept of money as speech just does not work for me at all. I like to think that if all the major candidates had the same money to spend, then the quality of elections would go up. The obvious problem is figuring out how to limit things in a way SCOTUS would allow.
    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.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    This is kind of weird. Isn't is supposed to be Republicans who play the "un-American" card?
    The Democrats have discovered that they've worn the "Racist" card out, so they're frantically trying to find a new trump.

    Democrats saying "unAmerican" isn't going to work, unless they're making a confession.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And that still doesn't solve many of the other problems with campaign finance.
    Better yet, read your Constitution carefully.

    In no place can you find a single word authorizing the federal government the authority to limit personal contributions on spending or controlling political advertising in any manner whatsoever.

    Taking the brakes off the un-Go Kart....that's the solution to the real problem, which is the government interfering in private and personal matters such as how people spend their money on politics or anything else.

  5. #25
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Democrats saying "unAmerican" isn't going to work, unless they're making a confession.
    See? That is a perfect example of what I was talking about.

  6. #26
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:14 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #27
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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).
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  8. #28
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    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.

  9. #29
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

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

    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.

  10. #30
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:14 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •