- Joined
- Nov 10, 2016
- Messages
- 14,607
- Reaction score
- 9,303
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
We need campaign finance reform, without a doubt. Most of the current crop in Congress would oppose it.A study showed that 86% of elections in this country are won by the candidate who send the most. THe wealthy donors who can donate huge amounts without letting the public know who they are own our elections and our candidates after they win. When the Citizens decision was handed down, many constitutional experts said it was a terrible decision, but one of the conservative justices oh the court said it would have no effect on our elections. Do not know if he was naive or just plain lying. Is it time to pass and amendment to limit the excesses of Citizens?
A study showed that 86% of elections in this country are won by the candidate who send the most. THe wealthy donors who can donate huge amounts without letting the public know who they are own our elections and our candidates after they win. When the Citizens decision was handed down, many constitutional experts said it was a terrible decision, but one of the conservative justices oh the court said it would have no effect on our elections. Do not know if he was naive or just plain lying. Is it time to pass and amendment to limit the excesses of Citizens?
The real issue with citizens united though is how it killed transparency in how ads are paid for, which has allowed money to flow into our elections from other countries.
The only thing I would support is full disclosure of who contributes, who they contribute to and how much.A study showed that 86% of elections in this country are won by the candidate who send the most. THe wealthy donors who can donate huge amounts without letting the public know who they are own our elections and our candidates after they win. When the Citizens decision was handed down, many constitutional experts said it was a terrible decision, but one of the conservative justices oh the court said it would have no effect on our elections. Do not know if he was naive or just plain lying. Is it time to pass and amendment to limit the excesses of Citizens?
Devil's advocate or Putin's advocate?That's certainly an issue, but how do you stop it and still protect the citizens ability to exercise their political expression without repercussions?
Also playing devils advocate here why is external influence negative? Liberals (and conservatives) spend massive amounts every year outside their own jurisdictions to influence policy. Why should a New Yorker have any influence over Texas elections anymore than Germany having influence over US elections?
Why should government have a say in anything?Why should the FEC (or any government agency) have any say in which groups (or corporations) can (or can’t) engage in “political speech” (CU was about releasing an anti-Hillary movie) within 30 to 60 days of a federal election? If “news” corporations are allowed to do so then why not others?
Devil's advocate or Putin's advocate?
1st question: You state that corporations, businesses, are not citizens. That would not have an effect on actual people being able to contribute to federal elections or any other election.That's certainly an issue, but how do you stop it and still protect the citizens ability to exercise their political expression without repercussions?
Also playing devils advocate here why is external influence negative? Liberals (and conservatives) spend massive amounts every year outside their own jurisdictions to influence policy. Why should a New Yorker have any influence over Texas elections anymore than Germany having influence over US elections?
What I mean is that Russians and Chinese can use the existing dark money channels to influence our elections. I don't think that's appropriate and its already been documented as happening.That's certainly an issue, but how do you stop it and still protect the citizens ability to exercise their political expression without repercussions?
Also playing devils advocate here why is external influence negative? Liberals (and conservatives) spend massive amounts every year outside their own jurisdictions to influence policy. Why should a New Yorker have any influence over Texas elections anymore than Germany having influence over US elections?
1st question: You state that corporations, businesses, are not citizens. That would not have an effect on actual people being able to contribute to federal elections or any other election.
2nd question: And, it makes sense that only actual citizens of a state be allowed to contribute to its state candidates. However, federal candidates pass legislation that affects everyone in the U.S. so those candidates' election donations should not be limited to just state citizens.
Why should government have a say in anything?
The issue is that vast amounts of wealth = power. THat much power, without checks/balances, leads to a corrupted system. For the same reasons that our government uses checks and balances and division of power, etc., doesn't accept bribes, is the same reason we should limit money in politics.
The idea that it limits free speech is nonsense. It's a huge part of how our governance comes into being...it should be regulated with sensible regulations regarding money (power).
What I mean is that Russians and Chinese can use the existing dark money channels to influence our elections. I don't think that's appropriate.
I would be willing to give that up to avoid the problem of dark money and its open door for foreign influence.I don't think its appropriate that New York and California funnel money to influence who is elected in Georgia.
I don't think its appropriate that New York and California funnel money to influence who is elected in Georgia.
Why not? NY and CA certainly control federal law in GA.
only if we also limit every union from donatingA study showed that 86% of elections in this country are won by the candidate who send the most. THe wealthy donors who can donate huge amounts without letting the public know who they are own our elections and our candidates after they win. When the Citizens decision was handed down, many constitutional experts said it was a terrible decision, but one of the conservative justices oh the court said it would have no effect on our elections. Do not know if he was naive or just plain lying. Is it time to pass and amendment to limit the excesses of Citizens?
I would be willing to give that up to avoid the problem of dark money and its open door for foreign influence.
I would be willing to give that up to avoid the problem of dark money and its open door for foreign influence.
Mrs. Clinton’s total expenses were $565 million, compared with $775 million for President Obama; Mr. Trump spent $322 million, while Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee that year, spent $460 million.A study showed that 86% of elections in this country are won by the candidate who send the most. THe wealthy donors who can donate huge amounts without letting the public know who they are own our elections and our candidates after they win. When the Citizens decision was handed down, many constitutional experts said it was a terrible decision, but one of the conservative justices oh the court said it would have no effect on our elections. Do not know if he was naive or just plain lying. Is it time to pass and amendment to limit the excesses of Citizens?
When wealth is more or less evenly distributed, then this is fine. But when it starts becoming concentrated into a few organizations and individuals, and if votes can effectively be purchased under the doctrine of free speech, then at what point does a democracy transform into an oligarchy?We should never give up free political speech leaving it up to some government agency to decide which corporations and/or groups can (or can’t) speak freely on political matters within 30 to 60 days of a federal election. The SCOTUS was 100% correct in it’s CU ruling.
Then we just need to get use to the social unrest and hope we keep having a country.We should never give up free political speech leaving it up to some government agency to decide which corporations and/or groups can (or can’t) speak freely on political matters within 30 to 60 days of a federal election. The SCOTUS was 100% correct in it’s CU ruling.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?