View Poll Results: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

Voters
176. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    66 37.50%
  • No

    110 62.50%
Page 17 of 45 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 443

Thread: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

  1. #161
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,423
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Obviously a restriction on spending money on speech is a restriction on speech. It's absurd to say otherwise. That's the whole point of the restriction - to limit speech.

    Suppose the government passed a law saying you can't spend money on an abortion. Would that be a restriction on abortion rights? Of course.

    How about a law that says you have a right to an attorney - you just can't pay him. Obviously unconstitutional.

    Hey, I've got it! A law that says you can't buy a gun. You can own one, you see, just not buy one.

    Imagine a law that says you can't buy bumper stickers, signs, paint - or even pay money to register a URL for a website.
    NONE of our rights are absolute.

    And judging by the chorus from the right here, some of those restrictions are the bees knees. At least when they are applied to (someone else). Like OWS.

    We here many a diatribe to the effect you're not free to speak or assemble whenever you want wherever you want. We got rules around here.

    But dare to say you would like to see reasonable limits placed on election investments and yer treadin on the Constitution, man.

    Partisanship, in other words.

    That and "persuasive messaging". High tech propaganda.

    Before you fall back on your defense, do you really want me to post the numbers for ridiculous things people believe? All of which were born in the fevered minds of PR professionals? I love opportunities to innoculate the lurkers.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  2. #162
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,597
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Since current law already forbids it, why?



    So you've never given to a campaign? What about the millions of people who have?



    That's exactly why you really ought to read the thread.
    Nope, didn't have to. I don't believe private money should be given to ANY campaign. I believe all campaigns should be publicly and equally financed, so that we're not saddled with rich people who buy congressional seats based on their own wealth, or people stuffing their warchests with cash-for-promises from those with deep pockets. I say, no private money for campaigns. Ever. Then maybe we'd get people willing to serve the public instead of themselves.

    If you'd read more of my post than the three lines you quoted, you'd know exactly how I feel and why I feel that way.
    Last edited by DiAnna; 11-21-11 at 10:39 PM.

  3. #163
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,423
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    please... do elaborate on these easily devised mechanisms.
    Its been done to death here.

    To save time, can you think of a single reason a business entity NEEDS to be a PERSON?

    A piece of paper makes them so.

    That same piece of paper can grant them the exact same protections WITHOUT conferring personhood.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  4. #164
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,423
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Sure you did. You said lawyers can work pro bono and doctors can work for free.

    Are you saying you agree those hypothetical laws I cited would indeed be unconstitutional?
    I'M saying that ALL "priest class" occupations should be severely limited.

    I don't need to pay someone to speak to God for me.

    If the law is so complex it is impossible for me to interact with it on my own, the law is too complex.

    I have asthma, had it all my life. I don't need a doctor to tell me I need an inhaler. I DO have to pay a doctor to get a prescription for the SAME DRUG I've been taking for over twenty years.

    I shouldn't have to retain a lobbyist to petition congress for a redress of grievances. And lobbyists certainly shouldn't be providing legislators with boilerplate legislation for submission.

    Are lobbyists still paying homeless people to stand in line for them at the Capital?
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  5. #165
    Dungeon Master
    anti socialist

    X Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Texas Proud
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 04:24 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    44,721

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    NONE of our rights are absolute.

    And judging by the chorus from the right here, some of those restrictions are the bees knees. At least when they are applied to (someone else). Like OWS.

    We here many a diatribe to the effect you're not free to speak or assemble whenever you want wherever you want. We got rules around here.

    But dare to say you would like to see reasonable limits placed on election investments and yer treadin on the Constitution, man.

    Partisanship, in other words.

    That and "persuasive messaging". High tech propaganda.

    Before you fall back on your defense, do you really want me to post the numbers for ridiculous things people believe? All of which were born in the fevered minds of PR professionals? I love opportunities to innoculate the lurkers.
    "Reasonable limits" are already in place. What YOU want to do is completely shut down a certain group, preclude me from financially supporting a candidacy I want to while forcing me (through taxes) to support candidates I don't. That's not reasonable at all. (I know, I know, I'm being paid for my opinion by the GOP...spare me).

  6. #166
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    Nope, didn't have to. I don't believe private money should be given to ANY campaign. I believe all campaigns should be publicly and equally financed, so that we're not saddled with rich people who buy congressional seats based on their own wealth, or people stuffing their warchests with cash-for-promises from those with deep pockets. I say, no private money for campaigns. Ever. Then maybe we'd get people willing to serve the public instead of themselves.

    If you'd read more of my post than the three lines you quoted, you'd know exactly how I feel and why I feel that way.
    You can say whatever you want.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  7. #167
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Free For All View Post
    Just think 600 million tax dollars used to elect someone.... When we could of used that to save kids or give hand outs to the poor.
    Or taught you to learn the difference between "could of" and "could have"
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  8. #168
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Would you support an amendment to the United States Constitution which would bar corporations and unions from financially contributing to elections?

    Why or why not?
    Absolutely not. It is against the first amendment of the constitution. It is no more just to bar corporations and unions from pledging money in an election as it is just to bar smaller organizations and individuals from freely practicing their right to speak.

  9. #169
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    I shouldn't have to retain a lobbyist to petition congress for a redress of grievances.
    You don't have to. Write a letter or call them on the phone if you want.

    And lobbyists certainly shouldn't be providing legislators with boilerplate legislation for submission.
    Why not? Seriously, does it matter where the ideas come from? Citizens can offer boilerplate too.

    Are lobbyists still paying homeless people to stand in line for them at the Capital?
    Homeless? Not unless they've showered.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  10. #170
    Educator barbarian_style's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Existing between 2 entities of darkness
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 03:31 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    761

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Corporations aren't allowed to contribute to candidates. They can sponsor PACs that do, with voluntarily-collected money from individuals.
    OK, you can twist it around whatever, but they still run ads that can influence elections through there money laundering organizations and PACs. It still really eats at the heart of the core of what or who is really representing Americans.

Page 17 of 45 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... 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
  •