• 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!

Out of State Money in Georgia Electiion

Leave it to our failed elite to decide that throwing even more money at the broken system sounds like a solution to anything.

They always think that the problem is the messaging, rather than their skimpy mostly crap mostly moldy oldie ideas.
 
The democrats desperately need a win on the board and will do anything to do it. I hope they are guarding the voting machines.
 
chuckiechan said:
The problem with (anti) CU is it was written to penalize Republican money sources, yet leave democrat sources largely untouched - unions, and "in kind" contributions such as feet on the street, rent a mob, paid time off for union work, etc.
Click to expand...

Unions are not as strong as you think they are.
 
Rexedgar said:
I heard that the Democrats, (and I'm sure Republicans), were pouring money into the race. How is that legal. Guess I am naive, but I would think that in an election for state representation in Congress, it would all have to happen in the state. I know money is the object in politics, but one would think there would be some rules??
Did I hear the story correctly?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you did. There has been close to 40 million dollars spent on this runoff. As you stated, most from out of state. How is it possible? Campaign donations to the candidates are limited to a certain dollar amount per election. But there is nothing stopping an advocacy group from running millions and millions of dollars in political ads. You know free speech, money is speech.

I'm not sure of exactly how it is done. But one thing is for sure, all this money has made the Atlanta TV and Radio stations very happy. The sad thing is the people of the 6th district have become pawns to the moneyed folks. The only question left to be answered is which party has bought this seat.
 
Perotista said:
I'm sure you did. There has been close to 40 million dollars spent on this runoff. As you stated, most from out of state. How is it possible? Campaign donations to the candidates are limited to a certain dollar amount per election. But there is nothing stopping an advocacy group from running millions and millions of dollars in political ads. You know free speech, money is speech.

I'm not sure of exactly how it is done. But one thing is for sure, all this money has made the Atlanta TV and Radio stations very happy. The sad thing is the people of the 6th district have become pawns to the moneyed folks. The only question left to be answered is which party has bought this seat.
Click to expand...

The money may have been spent by super PACs.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The money may have been spent by super PACs.
Click to expand...

Probably so. They can do that as long as they supposedly don't coordinate with the candidates or the candidates organizations. We were far better off before anyone attempted campaign finance reform. At least then all the money went directly and only to the candidates, their organization or the political party. No pacs or super pacs, not outside ads. The campaigns were directly responsible for the content and what was said.
 
Winston said:
According to Citizen's United, Money=Speech. The government cannot restrict a corporations ability to express themselves, by pouring large amounts of money into the political process. If you're really upset about it, there are people working to overturn the Citizen's United decision.

Until, then SuperPACs will continue to pour large amounts of money into our democratic process.

If Ossoff flipping a Red seat in GA, is what gets people to change their mind about money in politics, then that is a hefty dose of irony. People don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.
Click to expand...

and if there are, how are they doing it?

follow the money
 
Winston said:
According to Citizen's United, Money=Speech. The government cannot restrict a corporations ability to express themselves, by pouring large amounts of money into the political process. If you're really upset about it, there are people working to overturn the Citizen's United decision.

Until, then SuperPACs will continue to pour large amounts of money into our democratic process.

If Ossoff flipping a Red seat in GA, is what gets people to change their mind about money in politics, then that is a hefty dose of irony. People don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.
Click to expand...

Citizens United protects our democratic process from government attempts to ration political speech.
 
Jack Hays said:
Citizens United protects our democratic process from government attempts to ration political speech.
Click to expand...

No, no, no, I disagree. CU destroys our democracy by allowing wealthy people to pour unlimited amounts of money into the political process. Everyday people don't have an extra 200 million dollars laying around to give to political parties and candidates. So, any argument that CU protects the little guy starts off from a dishonest place.
 
Winston said:
No, no, no, I disagree. CU destroys our democracy by allowing wealthy people to pour unlimited amounts of money into the political process. Everyday people don't have an extra 200 million dollars laying around to give to political parties and candidates. So, any argument that CU protects the little guy starts off from a dishonest place.
Click to expand...

It protects us all, rich and poor alike. I don't want the government deciding who gets how much speech. There's no unity of the rich under CU; for every Koch there's a Steyer.
 
Jack Hays said:
It protects us all, rich and poor alike. I don't want the government deciding who gets how much speech. There's no unity of the rich under CU; for every Koch there's a Steyer.
Click to expand...

Maybe you have a point. I'll have to look into opposing viewpoints on CU when I have more time. But, I need to shower and get my haircut and go to work. Have a good one JH.
 
My out of state $$ as did others from throughout the country went to GA, MT and will continue to help elect Democrats.

It's nothing new or nefarious. Oh, and I used MY name and didn't hide behind some patriotic sounding PAC.
 
Rexedgar said:
Did I hear the story correctly?
Click to expand...

LOL!!!!!!!

Oh the Irony of someone who claims to lean slightly conservative not understanding why there aren't rules about the money that can be dumped into elections...

News Flash buddy, if you'd like to get money out of politics and put limitations on how much money can be donated to elections like this then DON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN.
 
Winston said:
Money in politics is the Koch Brothers MO. 2 billionaires bought your congress. If Ossoff flips GA-6 because of his war chest, that's beating the Koch brothers at their own game. No Republican notices when the Tea Party rides a magic carpet of dollars into congress, but when massively well funded Democrats start retaking congress, the excuses come out in full force.

If it takes Ossoff flipping GA-6, for Republicans to come to the right position on Money in Politics, bring it on.
Click to expand...


And Goldman Sachs is always all up in the white house etiher way.
 
Winston said:
No, no, no, I disagree. CU destroys our democracy by allowing wealthy people to pour unlimited amounts of money into the political process. Everyday people don't have an extra 200 million dollars laying around to give to political parties and candidates. So, any argument that CU protects the little guy starts off from a dishonest place.
Click to expand...

The popular concept of money = speech with regards to CU is a gross oversimplification and a misrepresentation.
It was a straight up restriction on actual speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
 
Jack Hays said:
It protects us all, rich and poor alike. I don't want the government deciding who gets how much speech. There's no unity of the rich under CU; for every Koch there's a Steyer.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure that they all have the "little guy" in mind when they come calling after the election.
 
Jack Hays said:
It really doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. The only thing we have is our one vote and that barely matters. What makes you think your speech amounts to anything. You can write letters to your congressman, you can write them to the editor, and you can post places like this. Nobody that can write legislation is listening or cares. If you don't have a nice check in your hand, you don't exist.
 
Last edited:
Federal lawmakers in one state vote on issues that very often adversely affect citizens in other states .
 
trblmkr said:
No, it doesn't. The only thing we have is our one vote and that barely matters. What makes you think your speech amounts to anything. You can write letters to your congressman, you can write them to the editor, and you can post places like this. Nobody that can write legislation is listening or cares. If you don't have a nice check in your hand, you don't exist.
Click to expand...

Don't presume limits you feel are felt by others.
 
Rexedgar said:
I heard that the Democrats, (and I'm sure Republicans), were pouring money into the race. How is that legal. Guess I am naive, but I would think that in an election for state representation in Congress, it would all have to happen in the state. I know money is the object in politics, but one would think there would be some rules??
Did I hear the story correctly?
Click to expand...

Citizens United is how it's legal. That's what they do. They are buying the government of the US seat by seat, and never mind the foreign money...
 
jet57 said:
Citizens United is how it's legal. That's what they do. They are buying the government of the US seat by seat, and never mind the foreign money...
Click to expand...

who is buying what? last I checked, the rich don't all vote the same way. indeed the richest fat cats tend to vote for more government, not less
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom