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 30 of 45 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 443

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

  1. #291
    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 Simon W. Moon View Post
    You didn't point anything out. You made an unsupported accusation. If you had said something and then provided some sort of supporting evidence, then you MAY have done what you think you have done.
    Your views, as stated by the part I quoted, indicate that the only reason you want to suppress speech is because you disagree with it. You think it has been bad for the country. That's not a legitimate reason for suppressing speech.

    Is there some difficulty in distinguishing between the legislature the electorate and the govt? I am not sure there's a real problem with that.
    So give me some basic wording for such a law.

    Yes, when you're talking about two activities that both amount to nothing more than free speech, it's awfully hard to distinguish between the two. Are you going to, say, forbid someone from ever saying "Congress should do X"?
    Last edited by misterman; 11-23-11 at 01:37 PM.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  2. #292
    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 alexa View Post
    So you will only vote for multi millionaires who can afford to fund themselves?
    No, you vote for whomever you want to.

    Are you saying money is required to run for office? Hmmm. If so...why?
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  3. #293
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    10-29-17 @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,684

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    No, you vote for whomever you want to.
    I pointed out that some people fund all three main political parties in the UK - clearly for gain. You said then avoid voting for someone who receives the money. The question would be who is left.

    I am finished. You do not address the issue which is corruption. Clearly if people fund all three main parties in the UK, then they have more of a say on policy than the people of the UK. If we want genuine representative democracy, then we need to end this corruption and we need to get people more interested in politics again. The occupy movement is making a good start on that
    George Monboit "Neoliberalism is inherently incompatible with democracy, as people will always rebel against the austerity and fiscal tyranny it prescribes. Something has to give, and it must be the people. This is the true road to serfdom: disinventing democracy on behalf of the elite."

  4. #294
    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 alexa View Post
    I pointed out that some people fund all three main political parties in the UK - clearly for gain. You said then avoid voting for someone who receives the money. The question would be who is left.
    You can't find a single candidate who doesn't take money? (In the U.S. at least, candidates fund themselves and have only a small dependence on the parties). Or run yourself without taking money?

    I am finished. You do not address the issue which is corruption. Clearly if people fund all three main parties in the UK, then they have more of a say on policy than the people of the UK.
    No, that's not clear at all. You're just assuming your conclusion.

    If we want genuine representative democracy, then we need to end this corruption and we need to get people more interested in politics again. The occupy movement is making a good start on that
    The Occupy Movement is already raising money for its own activities. To which I laugh, since they or you won't get it.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  5. #295
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    10-29-17 @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,684

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    You can't find a single candidate who doesn't take money? (In the U.S. at least, candidates fund themselves and have only a small dependence on the parties). Or run yourself without taking money?
    As I general rule I believe they are funded by their party. Hence why the suggestion that the tax payer give more to each party in order to limit funding from people with an ulterior motive.

    You however are by what you are suggesting here, limiting your politicians to those who have a bob or two.


    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    No, that's not clear at all. You're just assuming your conclusion.
    Like I said, it is impossible if someone refuses to see what is in front of them. But you know a lot depends on what you want from your Representative Democracy. Recently I read that it was a system which allowed for a change of Government without violence. The important thing is keeping people believing it is genuinely giving them a voice. The low voting rate suggest that feeling is not strong at the moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post

    The Occupy Movement is already raising money for its own activities. To which I laugh, since they or you won't get it.
    what's to laugh at and why should they give their money to me? What is interesting is it spreading about the place. There British occupy began to be in solidarity with the US. It is quietly getting interest.
    The Occupy movement that has spread from Wall Street has electrified people across the globe. It has focused attention on the crimes of the financial elite, as well as raising profound questions about the way we live. This is a movement that resonates with millions across the world who agree that the "99%" are suffering while the "1%" enrich themselves.

    We therefore oppose utterly the recent attempts to criminalise and violently disperse occupiers in a string of US cities. This is a deliberate, co-ordinated process of trying to stifle protest. We note that Oakland mayor Jean Quan told the BBC that the move against Occupy Oakland came after a conference call "with 18 cities across the country who had the same situation".

    As the 1% comes together in an effort to crush the movement, the 99% must come together to defend it. We stand with the US Occupy movement and similar groups across the world. We are also appalled that the City of London Corporation has renewed its threat to take legal action against the St Paul's occupation. This well-planned occupation has encouraged debates everywhere about the bailout of the banks, the behaviour of corporations, environmental degradation and the future of society. It should be encouraged, not met by intimidation.
    Letters: We stand by the Occupy movement | UK news | The Guardian

    Britain used to be quite alive politically. In the past 30 years it has gone to sleep as people have felt they have no way of change - very nice and going with the neo-con distaste for democracy. Very quietly the occupy movement is waking people up and it is good that it is people also together across continents. We have yet to see how it will develop but it could be interesting.
    George Monboit "Neoliberalism is inherently incompatible with democracy, as people will always rebel against the austerity and fiscal tyranny it prescribes. Something has to give, and it must be the people. This is the true road to serfdom: disinventing democracy on behalf of the elite."

  6. #296
    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 alexa View Post
    As I general rule I believe they are funded by their party. Hence why the suggestion that the tax payer give more to each party in order to limit funding from people with an ulterior motive.
    So start a new party and don't take the money. If the voters are so desperate for one that doesn't take the money, they should flock to this new party.

    You however are by what you are suggesting here, limiting your politicians to those who have a bob or two.
    False. Most of the funding for our campaigns, despite the whining you may hear, comes from the people.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  7. #297
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,945
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Your views, as stated by the part I quoted, indicate that the only reason you want to suppress speech is because you disagree with it.
    LOL. Again, it's not about the content of the speech and whether or not I agree with that content. It's about the effects of how the system is structured. I am all for various sorts of ideas being floated and discussed by the electorate.
    and for the record, here is what you quoted:
    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    At the moment artificial persons have more rights than is good for us as a nation. My case is that artificial person should be restricted from lobbying our govt because it produces perverse results that are harmful to the country as a whole--but beneficial to the lobbying groups and the legislators promoting them.
    That text actually does not indicate what you're saying that you think it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    You think it has been bad for the country. That's not a legitimate reason for suppressing speech.
    Compelling national interest is an already a very well established reason for suppressing speech. So I am not sure where you got the idea that it isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Are you going to, say, forbid someone from ever saying "Congress should do X"?
    It's still not about what is said. It's not at all about the content of the speech. It's really not. It's about who is doing the "speaking" [the term is being used very loosely all of a sudden] and to whom in what circumstances.
    Is it really that hard to distinguish between these two sets? Lobbying a member of govt {a corporation making donations to a political party or a PAC, a corporation taking a Congress critter golfing or on trip} and lobbying the electorate {that same corporation publishing an ad in a newspaper, buying airtime, creating a web site?}

    Further, even if there are some grey areas somewhere where I personally have troubling wording a distinction, that's really not much of a case against trying to make the govt more beholden to private citizens who are real persons than to artificial persons.
    I may be wrong.

  8. #298
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    10-29-17 @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,684

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    So start a new party and don't take the money. If the voters are so desperate for one that doesn't take the money, they should flock to this new party.
    You are being silly now. People do occasionally stand as independents and even more occasionally get elected. Britian's political parties used to be funded by party members but due to the lack of interest during the last 30 years as we become more and more right wing and people believe no one represents them, they have lost most of their members.

    The problem including the problem of tapped individual donations is discussed here

    BBC News - Today - Party funding 'not sexy, but important'



    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post

    False. Most of the funding for our campaigns, despite the whining you may hear, comes from the people.
    You said the person should fund them self or run without money. Now, as with everything you are changing what you are saying again.
    George Monboit "Neoliberalism is inherently incompatible with democracy, as people will always rebel against the austerity and fiscal tyranny it prescribes. Something has to give, and it must be the people. This is the true road to serfdom: disinventing democracy on behalf of the elite."

  9. #299
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,945
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    You can't find a single candidate who doesn't take money? (In the U.S. at least, candidates fund themselves and have only a small dependence on the parties).
    Cite for this assertion please.
    I may be wrong.

  10. #300
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,945
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    False. Most of the funding for our campaigns, despite the whining you may hear, comes from the people.
    "ultimately" or directly?
    Could you provide the source for your assertion on this matter.
    I may be wrong.

Page 30 of 45 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... 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
  •