• 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!

Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

Is Citizen's United et al ruling compatible with democracy?

  • yes

    Votes: 9 39.1%

  • no

    Votes: 14 60.9%
  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .
HippoDance69 said:
You understand that a foreign national, while (s)he cannot donate directly to a Congressional Caimpaign, can donate to a Political Action Committee. Even one whose only purpose is to elect a singular Congressional Represenative?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do know that. Do you not find a problem with that?
 
xpiher said:
Yes, I do know that. Do you not find a problem with that?
Click to expand...

I don't discriminate based on country of origin. I know this may sound extreme, but I judge ideas based purely on their merit. Irregardless if someone from a different country is supplying the means for me to know of the idea, or someone right down the street.

What, exactly, do you find objectionable?
 
xpiher said:
Its not about liking what people have to say, its about why should a person in another state, who has no ties to that state, be able to lobby in that state? It would be like a foreign national giving money to congress.
Click to expand...

No, that would be illegal.



Again, there are negatives to our freedoms. It's better than not having them.
 
1Perry said:
No and I provided an example. John Kerry spent how many millions upon millions of dollars and a guy with a decades old beef with him, brought him down.
Click to expand...

Now imagine what the PR geniuses who came up with that one will do with unlimited anonymous money.
 
What if...? said:
Now imagine what the PR geniuses who came up with that one will do with unlimited anonymous money.
Click to expand...

Why? Millions upon millions did not help Kerry. You have this belief that people can not think for themselves. A small portion perhaps can't but again, there are negatives to our freedoms but it's better than the alternative.

How much did Gore pay Naomi Wolf (who I like by the way) to help make him more manly? It didn't work.
 
Last edited:
1Perry said:
I understand. You've thrown in the towel. It's a simple concept and question. If one person has a Constitutional Right to have his say, what happens that makes it wrong when he gets together with similiar minded people?
Click to expand...

Nothing, until unlimited money provides grotesque amplification of one group's speech over a less well funded group of equal number.
 
1Perry said:
Free speech is not always pretty. Rights are not always positive. It is still better than the alternative.



The single charismatic speaker can drown out 50 unprepared speakers. One guy caused the death of 900 in Jonestown.



Do you know 20 people that have banded together to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence an election or is this just a hypothetical?
Click to expand...

Corporate boards were under scrutiny for campaign contributions that supported agendas not shared by their shareholders without their knowledge.

Basically the same thing the right claims about unions supporting Dems even though not all union members are Dems. Just on the shareholder side of the coin.
 
What if...? said:
Corporate boards were under scrutiny for campaign contributions that supported agendas not shared by their shareholders without their knowledge.
Click to expand...

And we changed that.
 
1Perry said:
Why? Millions upon millions did not help Kerry. You have this belief that people can not think for themselves. A small portion perhaps can't but again, there are negatives to our freedoms but it's better than the alternative.

How much did Gore pay Naomi Wolf (who I like by the way) to help make him more manly? It didn't work.
Click to expand...

I gotta kinda wonder about a new guy who claims that scientific persuasion is of negligible impact using textbook examples of successful and unsuccesful PR campaigns.

Right off the top of your head.

"Nothing to see here folks, move along."
 
HippoDance69 said:
What is the alternative that you want to provide?
Click to expand...

Pie in the sky?

Publicly funded elections. Top 3-4 candidates. Instant runoff, I think the method is. Or something similar.

Campaign ad time to be provided free of cost by commercial stations as a condition of their license. Slots to be awarded by lot. Making television and radio is so much easier now that it can effectively be done by volunteer effort.

What we're getting isn't more voices being heard, its fewer voices getting heard more often at much higher volume.

Its not discourse, its propaganda wars.
 
HippoDance69 said:
I don't discriminate based on country of origin. I know this may sound extreme, but I judge ideas based purely on their merit. Irregardless if someone from a different country is supplying the means for me to know of the idea, or someone right down the street.

What, exactly, do you find objectionable?
Click to expand...

They aren't citizens in the country, they shouldn't be allowed to directly influence elections or buy, which often happens, influence in congress.

The best solution would be for candidates to simply stick to campaigning in person and doing debates, but that's Utopian and not very realistic. I also do not like the idea of institutionalizing the big parties which is what public funding of election ads can, but not always, happen. We already have this with publicly funded primary elections.

I for one am for free speech, even if it is expensive. However, for this to work, it needs to be known by everyone. Hyper-information is what I personally would advocate, this means full disclosure laws. IMO, you give up your right to privacy when you take a more active part in politics than voting. I have the right to know who donates money to who. If you are worried about reprisal, then make it illegal to fire people for their political opinion, or you can deal with it?
 
Last edited:
I think anything outside of totally equal public funding of campaigns is uncompatible with democracy. The lobbyists were already turning the country into a plutocracy now unions and corporations have unlimited influence. Obama is already talking about raising $1bil for the 2012 campaign.
 
What if...? said:
I gotta kinda wonder about a new guy who claims that scientific persuasion is of negligible impact using textbook examples of successful and unsuccesful PR campaigns.

Right off the top of your head.

"Nothing to see here folks, move along."
Click to expand...

LOL. I've discussed this stuff for years.
 
NGNM85 said:
The Fair Elections Now Act is a promising remedy;
Home | Fair Elections Now
Click to expand...

I don't have time to read through this right now but I'd venture to guess it's something along the lines of what Arizona did and the USSC tossed.

Judaism: The Jewish site | The fate of Arizona’s Clean Elections Act, which the Supreme Court on Monday declared unconstitutional, was foreshadowed March 28, during oral arguments. Lawyers defending the law insisted its purpose was to combat corruption or the appearance thereof. The court has repeatedly said this is the only constitutionally permissible reason for restricting the quantity of political speech. The law’s defenders insisted its purpose was not to “level the playing field” by equalizing candidates’ resources, which the court has declared an unconstitutional reason for regulating speech. But Chief Justice John Roberts replied: “Well, I checked the Citizens Clean Elections Commission Web site this morning, and it says that this act was passed to ‘level the playing field’ when it comes to running for office.” Game over.

George Will
 
What if...? said:
Gotta link for that? Not bein a jerk. Haven't seen that and its relevant to my thinking on this issue.
Click to expand...

I have about 5 minutes right now. Give me some time (if you see me post and still have no link, be patient, it will be today).
 
xpiher said:
They aren't citizens in the country, they shouldn't be allowed to directly influence elections or buy, which often happens, influence in congress.

The best solution would be for candidates to simply stick to campaigning in person and doing debates, but that's Utopian and not very realistic. I also do not like the idea of institutionalizing the big parties which is what public funding of election ads can, but not always, happen. We already have this with publicly funded primary elections.

I for one am for free speech, even if it is expensive. However, for this to work, it needs to be known by everyone. Hyper-information is what I personally would advocate, this means full disclosure laws. IMO, you give up your right to privacy when you take a more active part in politics than voting. I have the right to know who donates money to who. If you are worried about reprisal, then make it illegal to fire people for their political opinion, or you can deal with it?
Click to expand...

Where does it state this in the Constitution? You do not have the right to know where people spend their own money. It's none of your business.
 
Just an observation and this is hardly scientific. It was noted before that my opinion was on the losing end of public opinion. I even agreed that I likely was. According to the poll here, I'm not.
 
What if...? said:
You forgot the poll!

No, it is not compatible.

Unlimited anonymous money will be the end of our democracy.

If you're going to shout over everybody by means of your wealth, then I want to know who you are so that I can vote against you with my dollars if necessary. Deny you my business if I disagree with your donation, give you my business if I support it.

Money is not speech. The ability to anonymously buy EVERY SINGLE MINUTE of available airtime was certainly not what the Founders had in mind.

Corporations are not people. They can be neither imprisoned nor executed. They never sleep. They share no DNA with homo sapiens.

The upcoming election will certainly be akin to a trip through the Looking Glass.
Click to expand...


Well said! I agree completely.
 
1Perry said:
Where does it state this in the Constitution? You do not have the right to know where people spend their own money. It's none of your business.
Click to expand...

You cannot use the constitution to defend these actions because the founders never envisioned it, and TBH, sticking to the constitution, in a strict manner, in this regard is simply a dodge. When you are trying to affect the political policy of the nation, you are having an impact on me. Because of this impact, I have a right to know how that will affect me, why it is being done, and the interest that are supporting it Because it affects me. In order to be a well informed voter, and to exercise the privileged of voting in a view consistent with Jefferson, I need this information.
 
1Perry said:
Just an observation and this is hardly scientific. It was noted before that my opinion was on the losing end of public opinion. I even agreed that I likely was. According to the poll here, I'm not.
Click to expand...

Your observation is badly skewed. The fact that political forum poll consisting of a majority of conservative members agree with a conservative position is hardly indicative of the general public's position on the subject.
 
Catawba said:
Your observation is badly skewed. The fact that political forum poll consisting of a majority of conservative members agree with a conservative position is hardly indicative of the general public's position on the subject.
Click to expand...

Read posts 98 and 102 before you start taking 1Perry seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom