Do you support a corporation(s) spending $30 million to elect a president?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Do you support a corporation(s) spending $30 million to elect a president?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Yes. Freedom of association.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yes. Freedom of association.

then you agree with justice scalia's concurrence in Citizen and so do i. though i would be remiss if i did not say that such sums of money seem to corrupt our election process.

should a corp or group be allowed to directly donate to a president's campaign?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

then you agree with justice scalia's concurrence in Citizen and so do i. though i would be remiss if i did not say that such sums of money seem to corrupt our election process.

should a corp or group be allowed to directly donate to a president's campaign?

Once again, yes. Freedom of association is one of the most important freedoms.

There is no question that financing leads can lead to corruption, but I believe there are better solutions to such problems.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

then you agree with justice scalia's concurrence in Citizen and so do i. though i would be remiss if i did not say that such sums of money seem to corrupt our election process.

should a corp or group be allowed to directly donate to a president's campaign?

There is no restriction on labor unions, special interest groups, 527s, or PACs, so why should there be some arbitrary restriction placed on corporations? They have just as much right as those other entities, to contribute to political campaigns, and in all honesty, take a much bigger 'risk' in doing so, in my opinion. No one gives a crap if MoveOn.org contributes to their favorite Liberal, it's expected... But if Acme, Inc. donates to someone you don't like... are you going to continue doing business with them?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

There is no restriction on labor unions, special interest groups, 527s, or PACs, so why should there be some arbitrary restriction placed on corporations? They have just as much right as those other entities, to contribute to political campaigns, and in all honesty, take a much bigger 'risk' in doing so, in my opinion. No one gives a crap if MoveOn.org contributes to their favorite Liberal, it's expected... But if Acme, Inc. donates to someone you don't like... are you going to continue doing business with them?

you're right. i thought liberals might further explain their abhorrence to corporations and their power to "help elect the gop or the right". i keep hearing how powerful corporations are and how evil the Citizens case is, yet, liberals do not speak to their large groups that help elect their candidates. i keep hearing how corporations have MILLIONS to donate or help elect a candidate, thus, Citizens has truly screwed this country.

i threw out the $30 mill figure as a reference point. i'm just curious where we draw the line.

for me, i believe its free "speech", in that, it is part of free association as scalia elucidated in his concurrence. it seems to me though, if we allow these mega corporations or groups/unions whatever....the ability to influence elections vis a vis their right to "associate", then can we say our elections are really "by the people"? granted the people have the vote, but buy millions of dollars of air time means something in most elections. obama's mega war chest of over half a billion helped him, yet, meg whitman's 150 mill didn't help her against brown who spent virtually nothing compared to her.

should our elections cost hundreds of millions or a billion dollars?

 

[Onceler]

then you agree with justice scalia's concurrence in Citizen and so do i. though i would be remiss if i did not say that such sums of money seem to corrupt our election process.

should a corp or group be allowed to directly donate to a president's campaign?

Just to get this straight: you admit it corrupts the process, but support it?

Cool.

 

[NOVA]

George Soros is not a corporation.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Just to get this straight: you admit it corrupts the process, but support it?

Cool.

i thought you didn't have a reading comprehension issue? let's see what i said again:

though i would be remiss if i did not say that such sums of money seem to corrupt our election process

google the word and get back to me.

further, there is nothing wrong with believing a "right" has limitations. for example, i don't believe the 2nd am gives us the right to bear nuclear arms. i agree with scalia, and this does not contradict my beliefs. if you actually read scalia concurrence, you would realize this, but you haven't and you're just here to pout.

 

[Onceler]

i thought you didn't have a reading comprehension issue? let's see what i said again:



google the word and get back to me.

further, there is nothing wrong with believing a "right" has limitations. for example, i don't believe the 2nd am gives us the right to bear nuclear arms. i agree with scalia, and this does not contradict my beliefs. if you actually read scalia concurrence, you would realize this, but you haven't and you're just here to pout.

Nah; I caught the "seem", and thought it was such a tepid, wussified word to use in this case that I completely ignored it.

In case you're confused or inadequately informed on this issue, let me clarify it as succinctly as possible: large sums of corporate money absolutely, indisputably corrupt the political process. They do not "seem" to. They do.

 

[Onceler]

Oh, and unions, and interest groups, wealthy interests and 527's, too - before you get to the "where are the lefties" point....

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I am personally of the opinion that lack of term limits does more to increase corruption then corporate money.

 

[Onceler]

I am personally of the opinion that lack of term limits does more to increase corruption then corporate money.

Possibly; long tenure in office is almost guaranteed corruption. I used to oppose term limits as restrictive of voter freedom, but the reality of it is inescapable...

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Onceler;775371]Nah; I caught the "seem", and thought it was such a tepid, wussified word to use in this case that I completely ignored it.

In case you're confused or inadequately informed on this issue, let me clarify it as succinctly as possible: large sums of corporate money absolutely, indisputably corrupt the political process. They do not "seem" to. They do.

i see...so no matter what, if your political opponents use actual words that have meaning, their wussified. no wonder you have issues reading. you ignore what words truly mean.

look, i don't know if it absolutely corrupts or not. it SEEMS like it. but what you're saying is, because i don't know 100%, its wussified. so if anyone has an opinion other than yours, their wussified.

where is your 100% proof that corporate money (ALONE, as i don't want to use "seem" as that is wussified, so you of course support union funds...) corrupts? if a union spent the same, is that corruption?

 

[Onceler]

i see...so no matter what, if your political opponents use actual words that have meaning, their wussified. no wonder you have issues reading. you ignore what words truly mean.

look, i don't know if it absolutely corrupts or not. it SEEMS like it. but what you're saying is, because i don't know 100%, its wussified. so if anyone has an opinion other than yours, their wussified.

where is your 100% proof that corporate money (ALONE, as i don't want to use "seem" as that is wussified, so you of course support union funds...) corrupts? if a union spent the same, is that corruption?

Several decades of observation of the political process? Corporate money rules Washington; it doesn't influence, it doesn't merely buy...it rules. It would be extreme naivite to argue that. If you want specific examples, start w/ the prescription drug bill - there is plenty on the internets about the history of that bill, the players, who paid them & where they ended up. It's a brutal read for anyone who isn't sure how deep corporate money goes, and how completely it corrupts, so brace yourself.

And I pre-emptively answered your union question in my other post above; union money sucks too.

 

[Bfgrn]

I am personally of the opinion that lack of term limits does more to increase corruption then corporate money.

You are personally stupid. The corruption either happens the first week in Washington, or it probably never will.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

you're right. i thought liberals might further explain their abhorrence to corporations and their power to "help elect the gop or the right". i keep hearing how powerful corporations are and how evil the Citizens case is, yet, liberals do not speak to their large groups that help elect their candidates. i keep hearing how corporations have MILLIONS to donate or help elect a candidate, thus, Citizens has truly screwed this country.

i threw out the $30 mill figure as a reference point. i'm just curious where we draw the line.

for me, i believe its free "speech", in that, it is part of free association as scalia elucidated in his concurrence. it seems to me though, if we allow these mega corporations or groups/unions whatever....the ability to influence elections vis a vis their right to "associate", then can we say our elections are really "by the people"? granted the people have the vote, but buy millions of dollars of air time means something in most elections. obama's mega war chest of over half a billion helped him, yet, meg whitman's 150 mill didn't help her against brown who spent virtually nothing compared to her.

should our elections cost hundreds of millions or a billion dollars?

During the debates over McCain-Feingold, someone made a rather brilliant point I had never considered (usually I consider brilliant points first)... What he said, has stuck with me through all of the CFR debates since. His point was simple, since when does making something more scarce, make it less important or influential?

We need to elect representatives who are above reproach. This requires we look at their character and integrity. This is precisely why Chris Christie is so popular, you get the sense the man can't be 'bought' by special interests. Corporations and business entities, have considerable interest in what goes down politically in America, just as much as the average citizen, in my opinion, because they are who provide the bulk of the jobs and tax revenues. Why should their voices and concerns be muted, while other interests enjoy unfettered freedom of expression and association? It makes no sense, in the sense of fairness.

 

[Booyah!]

During the debates over McCain-Feingold, someone made a rather brilliant point I had never considered (usually I consider brilliant points first)... What he said, has stuck with me through all of the CFR debates since. His point was simple, since when does making something more scarce, make it less important or influential?

We need to elect representatives who are above reproach. This requires we look at their character and integrity. This is precisely why Chris Christie is so popular, you get the sense the man can't be 'bought' by special interests. Corporations and business entities, have considerable interest in what goes down politically in America, just as much as the average citizen, in my opinion, because they are who provide the bulk of the jobs and tax revenues. Why should their voices and concerns be muted, while other interests enjoy unfettered freedom of expression and association? It makes no sense, in the sense of fairness.

Do you think Gov. Christie is "above reproach"?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Do you think Gov. Christie is "above reproach"?

I don't know, I was just saying that's why he is popular. People get the impression he can't be bought by union and special interest lobbies. I would say, most of this, is due to his actions as Governor thus far. He does walk the walk.

 

[Schadenfreude]

then you agree with justice scalia's concurrence in Citizen and so do i. though i would be remiss if i did not say that such sums of money seem to corrupt our election process.

should a corp or group be allowed to directly donate to a president's campaign?

no, corporations are not citizens and are not allowed to vote