• 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!

Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

BTW, it's also still illegal for a corporation (or anyone else) to spend money to help a candidate outside the contribution limits. For instance, if a candidate says to a corporation "you go run this ad to support me" it's illegal.
 
BTW, it's also still illegal for a corporation (or anyone else) to spend money to help a candidate outside the contribution limits. For instance, if a candidate says to a corporation "you go run this ad to support me" it's illegal.

How are you going to prove it?:confused:
 
Because they can't afford the filing fee? That doesn't make any sense.
Don't be coy. I think you have some idea of the size of the war chest required to run for the house or senate.
 
Don't be coy. I think you have some idea of the size of the war chest required to run for the house or senate.

And how does keeping corporate money out of politics change that?
 
Don't be coy. I think you have some idea of the size of the war chest required to run for the house or senate.
If you can afford the filing fee, you can be on the ballot. If you require corporate money to get on the ballot, than you are probably indigent.

Don't be obtuse.
 
What figures? The fact that it was better than your Pokemon cartoons and....is that a cat with your every post? Ever owned a dog? Like Bandit?

No but I owned a junkyard once and had a dog that looked like you.
 
There you go again!:2razz:

circles :spin:

No, it was just a question to clarify what you mean. Are you asking me to prove this is illegal? Do you have some other point?
 
No but I owned a junkyard once and had a dog that looked like you.

I'm not convinced on the junkyard ownership, the cat doesn't fit.

See LA, Haji couldn't have sent that cat to do anything, Bandit getting the Quests out of more than one jam. Yes, it does figure.;)
 
Please come to the basement to the "idiot thread" please.:)

I am outta here. this debate is getting off topic.:3oops:

We don't care about the basement. We're here to have serious debates. You need to stop with your childish antics. Keep your basement nonsense out of the upstairs.
 
If you can afford the filing fee, you can be on the ballot. If you require corporate money to get on the ballot, than you are probably indigent.

Don't be obtuse.
It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to run a viable campaign for a congressional seat. Some Repubs have described this ruling as a boon for non-incumbents. But which potential candidates will be likely to benefit? You can be certain that it won't be someone with views similar to that of Ralph Nader(for example). So, the process will winnow out certain political views- even more than it already does, that is.
 
Nader's cohort doesn't stand a chance any way you slice it. I wouldn't exactly use them as the bellwether.
 
It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to run a viable campaign for a congressional seat. Some Repubs have described this ruling as a boon for non-incumbents. But which potential candidates will be likely to benefit? You can be certain that it won't be someone with views similar to that of Ralph Nader(for example). So, the process will winnow out certain political views- even more than it already does, that is.

It's really not going to benefit anyone that much. Most corporations don't want to go spending their money on political ads, and they could already do that anyway, just obliquely. The impact of this decision is overblown. The law it overturned was only 20 years old anyway, it's not like it's some kind of radical change (contrary to the crap you hear about it overturning "100 years" of precedent).
 
Please come to the basement to the "idiot thread" please.:)

I am outta here. this debate is getting off topic.:3oops:

Yeah, my kids go to the basement when they get tired of adult conversation too.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stop the trolling. Calling people trolls also needs to stop. This is also trolling. Report posts that you think are trolling.
 
It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to run a viable campaign for a congressional seat. Some Repubs have described this ruling as a boon for non-incumbents. But which potential candidates will be likely to benefit? You can be certain that it won't be someone with views similar to that of Ralph Nader(for example). So, the process will winnow out certain political views- even more than it already does, that is.
A) In other words, it does not keep people off the ballot. You declaring that it would is nothing more than useless hyperbole.

B) As has been described by articles upthread, this ruling will not have any noticeable change in the money involved in political campaigns.

C) I'm glad of anything that keeps people with views similar to that of Ralph Nader from running a viable campaign.
 
Back
Top Bottom