- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,552
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Moderator's Warning: |
Gabriel in thread banned from this thread |
Moderator's Warning: |
Gabriel in thread banned from this thread |
Moderator's Warning: |
Coronado is now thread banned from this thread |
Well obviously it's going to fail because your politicians will be bought off. Fix it. There should be zero tolerance to corporate donations. If you can not fix it your "democracy"/ government is broken for good.
And being as they are political discussion, they are protected by the First Amendment, moreso even than tits.
They don't actually discuss anything, and propaganda and lies shouldn't be First Amendment protected, anyway.
Technocratic said:We need to step away from COnstitution worship anyway.
I'll enlarge my sig so there's no further confusion:
"On a Super-Secret Mission to Take Over the World!"
It's a JOKE.
1) These aren't *my* politicians.
2) As I've said before in this thread, the best way to "fix it" isn't for campaign finance reform but rather electoral reform.
3) Corporate executives are voters too, and deserve their rights too.
Finance reform would work fine. Corporate voters should not have increased value over and above the working poor. But even so a 3k cap on donations would increase their value.
Who determines what is "propaganda and lies"? That's the line that every dictator in the world uses to stifle his opposition.
Umm it's our governing document. Are you suggesting we replace the rule of law with a free-for-all system of government? How is that working out for Pakistan?
I feel kinda scorned and bitter, at times, about this.
I'd like to call it, "You reap what you sow."
(Not you specifically.)
I think ultimately, people want leadership in some form from government. If someone they consider a leader tells them that we are going to need to go through some austerity, there is a chance people will support that. But this is never going to happen until people begin to trust government again. The number one problem with trust is that government is corrupt.
If you vote no .. please explain.
That doesn't cover the problem of third party ads.
No, I am suggesting viewing it like a document and framework instead of frothing at the mouth like it's a holy text. There's no reason to interpret freedom of speech as protecting any kind of speech whatsoever.
free speech. its not a legitimate government function to tell someone how to spend their money
Free Spech isn't being silenced, it is being limited if we introduce limits on campaign funds. I would actually argue free speech is being more fully represented by leveling the playing field like this. If everyone has the same amount of funds, then everyone can afford the same amount of ads, rallies, etc. Now, it is jut up to the candidate's ability to use the money they've been given most effectively, and I know I'd consider that if I was looking for someone to give my vote to. In our current system, the group that has more funds dominates the other group in the media, and that prevents the suppressed group from succesfully presenting his/her platform to the voters.
Third-party ads are a problem?That doesn't cover the problem of third party ads.
Your assumption is that the playing field -should- be 'level', under one defintion of that word.Free Spech isn't being silenced, it is being limited if we introduce limits on campaign funds. I would actually argue free speech is being more fully represented by leveling the playing field like this. If everyone has the same amount of funds, then everyone can afford the same amount of ads, rallies, etc.
The "suppressed" group? Dont you mean the group that doesn't have a message strong enough to attract as much support as the other guy? That's not a problem for the government to solve.In our current system, the group that has more funds dominates the other group in the media, and that prevents the suppressed group from succesfully presenting his/her platform to the voters.
The "suppressed" group? Dont you mean the group that doesn't have a message strong enough to attract as much support as the other guy? That's not a problem for the government to solve.
Your assumption is that the playing field -should- be 'level', under one defintion of that word.
If campaign donations are a measure of support for a candidate, both in terms of the number of people that donate and the amount that thay they give, then artifically limiting the fund that a candidate can use merely squashes the support of the candidate with the most support, and in doing so, restricts the rights of his supporters to some lowest common demoninator.
The "suppressed" group? Dont you mean the group that doesn't have a message strong enough to attract as much support as the other guy? That's not a problem for the government to solve.
I'm skeptical that there is any causal relationship between the amount of money that the candidate spends and the electoral results they achieve...at least once you get beyond the point where most voters know who the candidate is. It's true that there is a correlation, but I think this is more due to the fact that popular candidates tend to get both a lot of votes and a lot of money, rather than any direct relationship between the money and the votes.
Therefore I'm skeptical that federally-financed political campaigns would do much.
Wouldn't libertarians like to get corperations out of Federal policy making? Why not let policy be what politics are about?
msnbc.com Video Player