cawacko
Well-known member
That would be interesting. I can see some lobbyist giving a politician $20k but then telling him he really gave them $50k.
Were fucking owned
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
That would be interesting. I can see some lobbyist giving a politician $20k but then telling him he really gave them $50k.
But if he were not able to prove he gave a dollar would his claim be of much value?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
lol....as if someone would give a politician anything if they weren't going to get credit for it somehow......
cawacko
Well-known member
I would think he could show the politician the check and say I'm putting this into your account tommorow. The politician could check his account the next day.
If it was for a cause or politician they believed in, plenty would still donate. Those who would not are exactly the kind we want to limit.
I give money without any need for credit. It's kind of nice to see your name on their scroll but I doubt the lack of that would influence me.
Crashk
Unite or Die
since corporations now are persons what happens if an American company, owned by the Chinese, decides to spend a billion in advertising for a stooge they back? Get a grip Yurt. Corporatism is just another name for Fascism which your side is backing.
I like RString's idea.
I know a lot of people here get it, but I don't think most Americans understand how beholden most politicians are to their donors. They really represent them more than their districts or states.
I actually used to work on capitol hill (many moons ago). A group of us were having drinks with a congressman at a fundraiser, and he was a little drunk. He told us that everyone he knew in Congress came to Washington with the same attitude - they were going to make a difference, and change the way DC operates. He said that within a term or 2, that changed for everyone, and that donor money was the only thing anyone cared about (especially in the House, where you're basically running for re-election all the time).
He was getting out; said it would disgust most Americans to find out what really went on....
I know a lot of people here get it, but I don't think most Americans understand how beholden most politicians are to their donors. They really represent them more than their districts or states.
I actually used to work on capitol hill (many moons ago). A group of us were having drinks with a congressman at a fundraiser, and he was a little drunk. He told us that everyone he knew in Congress came to Washington with the same attitude - they were going to make a difference, and change the way DC operates. He said that within a term or 2, that changed for everyone, and that donor money was the only thing anyone cared about (especially in the House, where you're basically running for re-election all the time).
He was getting out; said it would disgust most Americans to find out what really went on....
I could think of ways to protect against your scenario. You would have some sort of clearinghouse for the funds which would only be distributed at intervals (e.g., weekly), to the candidates.
But, that's part of the reason why I said "if we were able" to keep the info from the politician. If politicians are good at anything it is finding ways around the laws they enact. Which is big part of why I am skeptical of CFR, in general.
cawacko
Well-known member
I believe 100% what you just said. There have been books written on exactly that. I'm sure the power is intoxicating to those in D.C. and they don't want to give it up. Hence the fact we always hear from different politicians about how they'll do things differently when they're in D.C. and yet nothing ever changes.
It's one way people got so excited about Obama with his talk of changing how D.C. operates and thus the big let down by him to some people that it's not really possible to change it.
cawacko
Well-known member
I like your idea, I didn't mean to sound negative towards it I guess it just brought out my cynical side regarding D.C. and how people operate there.
When you start off on the wrong foot you're always out of step.....
The SCOTUS ruling was about the First Amendment....FREE SPEECH....
not about " who gives the most amount and to whom"........
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
How many times do I have to school you on this? Yelling "First Amendment" does not automatically justify your beliefs and viewpoints. There are little things called "specifics" and "details".....no one was denying the right to free speech, but the original contention was one of true identification, which determines is past rulings were violating rules. The SCOTUS ruling went above and beyond that, and did exactly what I said above.
Here, read and learn:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31878.html
Remove ass from anus and read slowly.....
By Warren Richey Staff writer / January 21, 2010
Washington
The US Supreme Court has struck down a major portion of a 2002 campaign-finance reform law, saying it violates the free-speech right of corporations to engage in public debate of political issues.
In a landmark 5-to-4 decision announced Thursday, the high court overturned a 1990 legal precedent and reversed a position it took in 2003, when a different lineup of justices upheld government restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations during elections.
“Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 57-page majority opinion. “No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”
The court is not ruling on the how elections will be affected, only on the constitutionality of the law...[/SIZE][/B][/COLOR]
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...t-Campaign-finance-limits-violate-free-speech
Last edited:
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you're wrong as usual....it was about speech, it was about denying speech based on association, the corporation....
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Really? Then please read the original case, and then tell me how a case about a company properly identifying itself regarding a commercial is about "speech"?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Nice copy and paste....pity no one explains exactly how a simple case of getting some PAC group to own up to authorship of a political slam video suddenly becomes "free speech" for corporationsa and unions that are NOW given same status as you are I, an idividual human being who is a citizen of the USA. You should have read further:
The decision comes in a case called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The case involved a decision by the FEC to block video-on-demand broadcasts of a 90-minute documentary attacking the potential presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The film, “Hillary: The Movie,” was produced by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation. The group complained that the FEC action was unconstitutional censorship of political speech.
The agency responded that the documentary was similar to a pre-election broadcast attack advertisement and thus could be regulated by the FEC under BCRA.
Citizens United filed suit, arguing before a three-judge panel that the McCain-Feingold law was unconstitutional in the way it was being enforced by the FEC against “Hillary: The Movie.”
The panel disagreed. It ruled that the documentary was the functional equivalent of electioneering and that Citizens United must disclose the documentary’s financial supporters if it wanted to run broadcast ads during election season.
In its ruling on Thursday, the high court upheld the lower court’s ruling on the disclosure issue but reversed on the constitutional challenge.
Bottom line: Bush appointees doing what they do best....screwing the public. I don't want to hear a peep for jokers like you about unions and campaign funding ever again...because they and the corporations have now been given a nod to go the distance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012102654.html
Last edited:
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
what case? the case overturned? or the case that was prior to the recent scotus case decision that said trumped that case?
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
The decision comes in a case called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The case involved a decision by the FEC to block video-on-demand broadcasts of a 90-minute documentary attacking the potential presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The film, “Hillary: The Movie,” was produced by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation. The group complained that the FEC action was unconstitutional censorship of political speech.
The agency responded that the documentary was similar to a pre-election broadcast attack advertisement and thus could be regulated by the FEC under BCRA.
Citizens United filed suit, arguing before a three-judge panel that the McCain-Feingold law was unconstitutional in the way it was being enforced by the FEC against “Hillary: The Movie.”
The panel disagreed. It ruled that the documentary was the functional equivalent of electioneering and that Citizens United must disclose the documentary’s financial supporters if it wanted to run broadcast ads during election season.
In its ruling on Thursday, the high court upheld the lower court’s ruling on the disclosure issue but reversed on the constitutional challenge.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...n-finance-limits-violate-free-speech/(page)/2
Now, explain to me how the SCOTUS determines that unions and corporations suddenly become on par with you and me AS AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING WHO IS A USA CITIZEN FROM THIS CASE?
Last edited: