• 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!

Firm gives $1 million to pro-Romney group, then dissolves(edited)

Re: Super PAC's try end around

How is it a partisan issue?

We constantly hear the Libbos crying about the supreme court decision that allows corporations to donate to political campaigns, but we never hear them cry about how that same decision also allows unions to do the same. That's the real partisan issue, because we all know that unions are going to funnel millions to Democrats, long before Republicans; not to mention the public employees unions, who are now able to launder billions of tax dollars and turn them into campaign donations But, not a word about that from the Libbos.

Again, the liberals here all seem to agree to legislation that covers all campaign contributions from organizations, including unions

However, the rightwingers are only focusing on groups that contribute to dems, and ignoring the groups that contribute to repubs. The only partisanship here is coming from the rightwing
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

It's their money, not mine.

Who's money?

No one knows. Are you OK with a union funded corp giving money to dems? How about corps funded by foriegners?
 
Last edited:
Re: Super PAC's try end around

I imagine people face off all the time in courts where one has contributed to the judges campaign. I believe that the vast majority will do the correct thing and in the rare case they don't, we have an appeal process.

You act like I like that millions upon millions go into campaigns. I do not. I don't like many things our rights allow us to do, but as I said, it's better than the alternative.

Our rights are not unlimited, and you haven't shown any evidence of even opinion of what the alternatives are. The liberals and other lefties have proposed numerous suggestions and all you have done in response in point to the dems and complain about "Our rights! Our rights!"
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

I see where you use this line of reasoning further on so I'll only address it here. A union, corporation, or any group of people is only that. A group of people aligned with similiar beliefs.

Corps can be owned by a single person. Without disclosure, there is no way you can know what you claim to know
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

I strongly disagree here. Many people can work for a corporation for a paycheck while despising its politics or policies. We sometimes just do what we have to do.

Concerning corporations this is true but as far as Pacs, special interest groups, things like the NRA, NARAL, etc it's not. How do you suppose we seperate them?

The attempt to humanize corporations, PAC's and Unions to the point of having constitutional rights is ill advised and leads to a very dangerous place and I will have no part in it.

Other than potentially the amount of money, how is a PAC any different than if I get together with 5 of my rich friends and buy some television commericals?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

No because there are laws and regulations in place to address this. If I feel he erred in judgement there is an appeal process. A campaign donation really is no different than a political appointment. I may be suing for something that is political in nature and I know that the sitting judge was appointed by someone against my arguement, I have to trust he will rule based upon the law.

Again though, your arguement seems to be skewed to the idea what I like that people can give this kind of money. That's not the case. I simply dislike more the government deciding who can participate and who can't.

I don't believe you. I think you would be completely PO'd and freaked out and that would be entirely appropriate. It would be very hard to prove that a judge ruled against you because the plaintiff was his biggest campaign contributor, and appeals court generally gives trial courts wide discretion.

You have the opportunity to express your support for a candidate on election day, by casting a vote for him or her. Why is necessary to allow people to and corporations to give politicians large sums of money, which eveyone acknowledges corrupts the system?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

No because there are laws and regulations in place to address this. If I feel he erred in judgement there is an appeal process. A campaign donation really is no different than a political appointment. I may be suing for something that is political in nature and I know that the sitting judge was appointed by someone against my arguement, I have to trust he will rule based upon the law.

Again though, your arguement seems to be skewed to the idea what I like that people can give this kind of money. That's not the case. I simply dislike more the government deciding who can participate and who can't.

The fact that there are laws does not mean that we can't change them to make them more effective. You say you're against this, but you oppose any laws that would prevent it with the absurd argument that "we already have laws". Something tells me that you wouldn't use this argument when you do favor a piece of legislation.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Concerning corporations this is true but as far as Pacs, special interest groups, things like the NRA, NARAL, etc it's not. How do you suppose we seperate them?



Other than potentially the amount of money, how is a PAC any different than if I get together with 5 of my rich friends and buy some television commericals?

Your question was answered in the part of my response that you parsed out.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

I don't believe you.

O.K.

I think you would be completely PO'd and freaked out and that would be entirely appropriate. It would be very hard to prove that a judge ruled against you because the plaintiff was his biggest campaign contributor, and appeals court generally gives trial courts wide discretion.

You have the opportunity to express your support for a candidate on election day, by casting a vote for him or her. Why is necessary to allow people to and corporations to give politicians large sums of money, which eveyone acknowledges corrupts the system?

It isn't necessary. Just the same as it's not necessary to allow the KKK have a rally in the park. It's better than the alternative.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Concerning corporations this is true but as far as Pacs, special interest groups, things like the NRA, NARAL, etc it's not. How do you suppose we seperate them?

Haven't you ever heard of a corporate PAC. Your claim that all PACs are just groups of individuals has no basis in reality and the law.

The truth is, you have no idea how this corp was formed, or by whom, or by how many individuals, if any.


Other than potentially the amount of money, how is a PAC any different than if I get together with 5 of my rich friends and buy some television commericals?

Disclosure, for one.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

O.K.



It isn't necessary. Just the same as it's not necessary to allow the KKK have a rally in the park. It's better than the alternative.

Exactly what is wrong with requiring disclosure? You keep implying that the alternative is worse, but you never say what you mean. Why not disclose what you think will happen if we require disclosure from everyone who contributes to a political campaign?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Your question was answered in the part of my response that you parsed out.

I didn't feel it was so let's revisit it.

When I worked for J-M they had a PAC, and all but told us how much to "donate" and how to vote "for the good of the company and to keep our jobs". Corporations are very different from, say, a grassroots group of like minded people voicing support for a person or an ideal.

Unions are compromised of different people with differing opinions. Yet, once their money is in a PAC their individual voice may be ignored by the PAC in favor of a differing one.


This doesn't negate the point that all are simply a group of people. What changes between the time you have 1 person (you agree that is a person with rights, correct) and when many decide to get together to pool their resources?

What happened here to strip them of their rights?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Republican-leaning political organizations, including Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, spent $167 million on the U.S. midterm elections and came out on the winning side of almost twice as many races as they lost.

Rove’s American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS backed the victor in 23 of the 36 House and Senate races where a winner was declared. American Action Network, which shared space with the Crossroads groups, won 14 races and lost 10. The nation’s biggest business lobby, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, supported the winning candidate in 38 of 59 contests in a year dominated by voter concerns about the economy and joblessness. The groups also spent money in races that have yet to be decided.

“The record amount of secret money spent by right-wing outside groups turned this political storm into a Category 3 political hurricane,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Republican-leaning groups spent $167 million between Sept. 1 and Oct. 31 in support of their party’s nominees, compared with $68 million by Democratic-leaning organizations, Federal Election Commission reports show.

Rove-Backed Groups, U.S. Chamber Build Winning Record in Midterm Election - Bloomberg

hey, at least you still got the unions...

except they're all being decimated

and by the likes of andrew cuomo in new york, rahm the ram emanuel in the city of shoulders, moonbeam out here on the coast...

the state assemblies of massachusetts and illinois and jersey...

seeya at the polls, progressives
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

I didn't feel it was so let's revisit it.

When I worked for J-M they had a PAC, and all but told us how much to "donate" and how to vote "for the good of the company and to keep our jobs". Corporations are very different from, say, a grassroots group of like minded people voicing support for a person or an ideal.

Unions are compromised of different people with differing opinions. Yet, once their money is in a PAC their individual voice may be ignored by the PAC in favor of a differing one.


This doesn't negate the point that all are simply a group of people. What changes between the time you have 1 person (you agree that is a person with rights, correct) and when many decide to get together to pool their resources?

What happened here to strip them of their rights?

You are ignoring the fact that a PAC can be formed by one single individual, or a corp owned by one individual, including individuals who are not citizens of this country. Why do you continue posting this falsehood?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

I didn't feel it was so let's revisit it.

When I worked for J-M they had a PAC, and all but told us how much to "donate" and how to vote "for the good of the company and to keep our jobs". Corporations are very different from, say, a grassroots group of like minded people voicing support for a person or an ideal.

Unions are compromised of different people with differing opinions. Yet, once their money is in a PAC their individual voice may be ignored by the PAC in favor of a differing one.


This doesn't negate the point that all are simply a group of people. What changes between the time you have 1 person (you agree that is a person with rights, correct) and when many decide to get together to pool their resources?

What happened here to strip them of their rights?

Yes, they are a group of people, but in many cases they are not of a single opinion, but due to the nature of the corporations controlling the PAC's it is politic to contribute, thereby in some way being forced to set aside your real voice financially in order to possibly be considered for that nice promotion or a raise.

What we are/should be discussing are the rights of the individual voters. The OP and subsequent conversation has shown that large contributions from corporations, unions and PAC's can offset any potential financial voice that I may have by overshadowing it. My case is that the individuals rights are being endangered by this, you seem to be coming at it from the opposite direction.

I an an AARP member, and as such the AARP has a very loud and distinct financial voice. I don't agree lockstep with every single decision they make, same as many NRA members don't agree lockstep with them, but in order currently to have any financial voice I have no other alternative.

If entities like this were prohibited from participating from the process then my small financial voice could possibly carry much more weight.

Again, this should be about the rights of individuals being swept away by things listed in the OP.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Yes, they are a group of people, but in many cases they are not of a single opinion, but due to the nature of the corporations controlling the PAC's it is politic to contribute, thereby in some way being forced to set aside your real voice financially in order to possibly be considered for that nice promotion or a raise.

So there is something in it for you?

What we are/should be discussing are the rights of the individual voters. The OP and subsequent conversation has shown that large contributions from corporations, unions and PAC's can offset any potential financial voice that I may have by overshadowing it. My case is that the individuals rights are being endangered by this, you seem to be coming at it from the opposite direction.

I have to note, you didn't address my question.

What changes between the time you have 1 person (you agree that is a person with rights, correct) and when many decide to get together to pool their resources?


I an an AARP member, and as such the AARP has a very loud and distinct financial voice. I don't agree lockstep with every single decision they make, same as many NRA members don't agree lockstep with them, but in order currently to have any financial voice I have no other alternative.

Of course you do. My wife is mad at me because I won't join AARP. (I'll turn 50 in October). She says they provide all sorts of discounts. I say that I disagree with their politics and that I want no part of them.

If entities like this were prohibited from participating from the process then my small financial voice could possibly carry much more weight.

Again, this should be about the rights of individuals being swept away by things listed in the OP.

Not only can you not restrict speech you can't restrict ones rights of association.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

So there is something in it for you?



I have to note, you didn't address my question.

What changes between the time you have 1 person (you agree that is a person with rights, correct) and when many decide to get together to pool their resources?




Of course you do. My wife is mad at me because I won't join AARP. (I'll turn 50 in October). She says they provide all sorts of discounts. I say that I disagree with their politics and that I want no part of them.



Not only can you not restrict speech you can't restrict ones rights of association.

Um...have I been wasting my time with you by thinking we were having a reasonable conversation?

Something in it for me? Like keeping or advancing in a job? Yes, your point?

The first part of my quote addressed your question, in detail.

As a person dependent on SS and Medicare, no, I don't really have a choice.

I do not want to restrict any persons rights. Unlike you though, I am not willing to extend individual rights to corporations, unions or PAC's.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Our rights are not unlimited, and you haven't shown any evidence of even opinion of what the alternatives are. The liberals and other lefties have proposed numerous suggestions and all you have done in response in point to the dems and complain about "Our rights! Our rights!"

I've been in similar threads with 1perry and he's consistent in his first amendment stance. With which I partially agree. Dangerous ground that must be tread carefully.

The difference is our posistions is that I think not addressing these issues is more dangerous than doing so. Just very carefully, with an eye on the First.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Things to do, so I'll be away for a while.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Um...have I been wasting my time with you by thinking we were having a reasonable conversation?

Something in it for me? Like keeping or advancing in a job? Yes, your point?

There was something in it for you.

The first part of my quote addressed your question, in detail.

I disagree. You said that you believed they all didn't actually think the same. In the case provided here you have nothing to back up this accusation. I believe that those who join NARAL or the NRA basically all believe alike. Are you saying that some may have minor differences is what causes the group to lose their constitutional protections?

As a person dependent on SS and Medicare, no, I don't really have a choice.

I do not want to restrict any persons rights. Unlike you though, I am not willing to extend individual rights to corporations, unions or PAC's.

You have no choice in the matter.

Freedom of association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Exactly what is wrong with requiring disclosure? You keep implying that the alternative is worse, but you never say what you mean. Why not disclose what you think will happen if we require disclosure from everyone who contributes to a political campaign?

Retaliation is a legitimate concern. That's where a sticky wicket is.

I think I should be able to withhold my custom from a business that does things I don't approve of, including making donations to candidates or issues I'm against.

However, some might use this information to harass or vandalize an individual or business, which actually has happened. Addressing this facet of the issue is where the trouble lies. But I think it is something that could be dealt with appropriately.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

They are nothing more than a group of citizens aligned with similiar beliefs.

Similar beliefs...that depends...

People who work for large corporation can and do have different religious, political and social backgrounds. For example, where I work we're all public servants, but you'd be surprised to learn that many of my peers and co-workers have strong concervatives values. Some are very professional at what they do; others just come to collect a paycheck. Some employees come to work and do their jobs while others tend to gather around the water cooler in the breakroom to talk about current events or politics, grievences in the workplace or the latest rumors. And yet, although we see the struggles of ordinary citizens each and every day - some well-off, others dirt poor - we don't all share the same beliefs or values.

Another example, few of us like the fact that our State government has hiked up our insurance and retirement contributions out of our pay, but some see it as "okay" while others think it's "unfair" considering we haven't had a raise in 4-years and costs for health care had been increasing for the last 3-years (before ObamaCare was even on Congress' mind!). I work with people who are Christian, Morman, Methodist...I even know a guy whose an Atheist. As such, it is impossible for every employee to think, belief, and behave the same way. To think that everyone who works for a company are "aligned with similar beliefs" is a ridiculous notion. To put it simply, traders of a commodities firm may all be motivated by money, but they may differ on just how to go about earning or investing it.
 
Back
Top Bottom