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

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

  • Total voters
    11
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then you should love the Kennedys Dixie.
 
Bfgrn said:
You are personally stupid. The corruption either happens the first week in Washington, or it probably never will.
Click to expand...

This is not correct. Corruption is an ever-evolving thing.

I'd actually say the opposite. I think that the vast majority of those in Congress go to DC w/ the best of intentions, and wanting to genuinely change things. It might take a term or 2, but they eventually realize that running for re-election is a year-round gig, and requires lots of money.

Depending on factors like competition in their district & what legislative initiatives they prioritize, the process of corruption can certainly develop & evolve over the course of many years....
 
yeap your right about all we have left now is what the workers of wisconson are doing right now.


They can own our government but they will never own us.

Viva al revolution.

They will never own the people and we will never act as slaves.
 
I'd be ok eliminating corp money if they eliminated union money. Do it like Obama did manly grass roots.

The pen is stronger than the knife, they can kill you once but they can't kill you twice
junior gong
 
They need to get rid of 527s and then force open and direct listing of every contribution to a candidate. People should know who is putting in the cash for any campaign. No stupid 527 laws that allow them to hide behind a wall of anonymity.
 
Onceler said:
This is not correct. Corruption is an ever-evolving thing.

I'd actually say the opposite. I think that the vast majority of those in Congress go to DC w/ the best of intentions, and wanting to genuinely change things. It might take a term or 2, but they eventually realize that running for re-election is a year-round gig, and requires lots of money.

Depending on factors like competition in their district & what legislative initiatives they prioritize, the process of corruption can certainly develop & evolve over the course of many years....
Click to expand...

I understand your take, but I see it totally different. It is a matter of personal responsibility, personal integrity and personal ethics. There is no reason to limit a good and honest representative because of what someone else does. That is really kind of socialist idea, or collectivism.

Here's one of my favorite Abe Lincoln quotes...

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
Abraham Lincoln
 
Bfgrn said:
I understand your take, but I see it totally different. It is a matter of personal responsibility, personal integrity and personal ethics. There is no reason to limit a good and honest representative because of what someone else does. That is really kind of socialist idea, or collectivism.

Here's one of my favorite Abe Lincoln quotes...

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
Abraham Lincoln
Click to expand...

do you think its ok for unions to spend this much money?
 
Gee....I NEVER would have guessed that Yurt started this thread as a gotcha about unions. He so rarely does stuff like that.

And here I thought he wanted a real discussion about money & politics....
 
Onceler said:
Gee....I NEVER would have guessed that Yurt started this thread as a gotcha about unions. He so rarely does stuff like that.

And here I thought he wanted a real discussion about money & politics....
Click to expand...

how is asking if they are ok with unions spending this kind of money a gotcha? i'm just curious where people draw the line....if they are against corps spending this kind of money, are they also against the unions....desh, bfgrn are pro union and i wondered where they stand.

but thanks for dropping by and whining about this thread....you're really good at that.
 
Yurt said:
how is asking if they are ok with unions spending this kind of money a gotcha? i'm just curious where people draw the line....if they are against corps spending this kind of money, are they also against the unions....desh, bfgrn are pro union and i wondered where they stand.

but thanks for dropping by and whining about this thread....you're really good at that.
Click to expand...

LOL

And where'd ya get that $30 million figure, Yurtsie?

Respectfully, you ain't fooling anyone...
 
bump for onceler

he can make an easy $500 and me gone from the board....all he has to do is say which post of mine in this thread says he supports union money
 
Yurt said:
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?
Click to expand...


corporations are collectives too, just like unions. Why does the naked profiteering of corporations seem more justifiable to you than organizations that advocate and profit workers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top