Suspicions confirmed

[radcen]

A brave Anonymous congressman writes a tell all book to line his own pockets.

Nothing new.

Really? Can you provide a comprehensive list of all the similar books published in the past?

 

[Frank Apisa]

I guess to some...yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater is an inalienable right.

 

[haymarket]

I guess to some...yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater is an inalienable right.

the idea pushed by Thrilla that somehow one can make a secret PRIVATE contribution in a PUBLIC election to determine PUBLIC officials to hold PUBLIC office is rather absurd in the extreme.

One wonders if our Founders had that attitude the Declaration of Independence would have simply been issued with no signatures attached .......... to respect their right to privacy .......... of course.

 

[Dittohead not!]

And do you agree that ALL these contributions and contributors would be a matter of public record BEFORE Election Day so that the public can weight that in their right to make a informed decision?

It should be printed right on the ballot: Candidate supported by Phizer and Standard Oil. Candidate supported by Goldman Sachs. Whatever. Let the voters know who they're really voting for.

 

[haymarket]

It should be printed right on the ballot: Candidate supported by Phizer and Standard Oil. Candidate supported by Goldman Sachs. Whatever. Let the voters know who they're really voting for.

If there were enough room - that sounds great. In practical terms though I would be happy if ALL contributions were halted by law seven days before the Election Day and then all the campaigns would have 48 hours to put up on the net and to the public a complete list of all contributors with dollar value. Then the people could judge that information and take into into consideration.

 

[Dittohead not!]

If there were enough room - that sounds great. In practical terms though I would be happy if ALL contributions were halted by law seven days before the Election Day and then all the campaigns would have 48 hours to put up on the net and to the public a complete list of all contributors with dollar value. Then the people could judge that information and take into into consideration.

Ballots could get a bit long, come to think of it.

If money talks, and its speech is protected just like that of citizens, then we must let it talk, but let's at least know whose money is doing the talking.

 

[poweRob]

No surprises there, at least not to most of the members of DP.

source

Good for him. Even though anyone paying any attention knows this, it's a huge wall to overcome hearsay talk and actual first hand accounts of it happening from the horses mouth.

 

[Thrilla]

Crap. "Partisan politics" was PRECISELY how money became 'free speech' - the quotes by the founding fathers made it plain that they NEVER thought that corporate money should ever have a say in our government. When a liberal SCOTUS overturns that particularly noxious precedent, our system will be returning to what it originally was. And if you don't like it, too bad. There's the border, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

no, not really... and No, SCOTUS isn't going ot magically overturn CU... .and no, SCOTUS isn't going to allow far left lunatics to destroy free speech rights..
but , yes.. if all that happen, I'll be gone... as you'll have been successful at killing free speech in the USA

It's pretty sad to see an American actually defend a billionaire's "right" to essentially buy politicians....

it's even sadder to see a lefty vehemently opposing free speech protections, but hey, we're used to you people opposing rights... .so it's not surprising.

 

[Thrilla]

So, you moved the goal posts! I'm shocked, I tell you.... :roll:

so you move the discussion into foreigners and foreign corporation ,and have the gall to say i'm moving goalposts?....interesting.

That's correct, they are under current law, but that's not the question being debated. And even the "independent" stuff is a violation of their rights to free speech if money is in fact speech. So the question concedes a limit, but you're insisting that there can be no limits on our first amendment rights - it's just false.

aye, it's current law, and it was hte law before the unconstitutional McCain fiengold was passed in 2002.
of course money is speech, it can be no other way.... 1st,everything related to speech costs money, so there is no separating money from speech there.... spending money on electioneering, issues, or whatever, is most definitely a politcal expression... IE, politcal speech.
SCOTUS has called it correct twice.

you're talking about limiting foreigners and saying its' somehow a limit on "our" speech?...shouldn't you be arguing it's a limit on "their" speech?... but yes, it's correct there are rational limits, especailly when we talking about matters of national sovereignty.

Why is GE any different than Bank of China or Saudi Aramco? GE as an entity doesn't give a flying **** about clean air or water, U.S. jobs, pay, the poor, etc. except as those things relate to their bottom line which is the same analysis obviously foreign corps make. And if we prohibit "GE" from using it's multi-$billion balance sheet to influence elections, every US resident working for GE still has their free speech rights intact. Their CEO can still go on any show, etc. and speak about anything he wants.

why is GE different?... because it's an American corporation... duh.

and i would suggest that contribution limits serve the purpose pf mitigating corruption ( IE, quid pro quo bribery)...but banning associations from spending money on political speech that is independent of campaigns or parties is , no matter how you slice it, a violation of the 1st amendment...
and really... if you can ban or limit politcal speech form associations, under what premise can individuals be believed to have protected speech at all?... you claim all the employees at a corporation still have their free speech rights, but you've just taken those rights and placed them in severe jeopardy and vacated any rationale you would have to retain those rights for individuals...you would have completely undermined the entire concept of free speech.

And, again, when you mention national security/sovereignty you're again admitting that OF COURSE we can and do limit political speech, and the question is when (not if) it's appropriate.

that's true as well....
I haven't really said anything about unlimited rights... that's an inference you're making.

national sovereignty and disallowing a foreign country from electioneering is a well grounded rationale to ban speech...and we've yet to see a well grounded rationale for banning Americans politcal speech.

 

[Thrilla]

It's relevant to me and many others who want to know who was bought by whom and for how much. If you don't care, fine, but don't be telling me it's not relevant to me or without value - it is relevant to me and I use this information to inform my votes, nearly every election, and so is very valuable information for me! I am sure of it! And I'm not alone!!.

you're curiosity is of no objective value to the political process.
at best, the only thing you would be doing is seeing if a group influenced the position of a candidate, and even that would be a stretch
the important quality is the actual position of the candidate, not who agrees with him or supports him...period.

LOL, where in your sacred constitution is the 'right' to secretly donate to political orgs? You can't demand we point to the Constitution only when it suits your argument.

I suggest you do research on the right ot privacy.... there' plenty of material, including multiples SCOTUS cases, to learn from.
some landmark cases are Roe V wade, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas
and of course, the 4th Amendment.

You know it's not there, so on what principle do contributors demand a right to secret donations? At best it's your preference, which is fine. I'm arguing those like me with strong preferences for disclosure have the 'right' to demand disclosure, and that seems clearly allowed by the Constitution. The political process works out these competing preferences, as intended.

you'll have to show me where the right of you to demand the government hand over private details of other peoples affairs would find legal protection...because, really this is the first time hearing of this new "right".

Whose rights are being "denied" here? If we deny "GE's" rights, the people of GE retain theirs. BTW, I'm not Haymarket...

i'm talking about the right of anyone who engages in political expression....in particular to anyone who donates money for political causes, issues, or candidates..... which, i'm not sure of you're aware or not, consists of individuals and associations alike..... individuals, who you argue, must be forced to disclose their identity to quench your idle curiosity.

my bad on calling you Haymarket....I get you leftist authoritarians who continually argue in opposition to the rights of americans mixed up sometimes.

 

[Thrilla]

I am arguing that money is NOT speech.

umm.. ok?.... are you trying to argue that independent expenditures on protected speech is bribery?

 

[Thrilla]

Your formula is a recipe for complete and total disaster and a obscene corruption of our political process.

Of course you want privacy to rule in political contributions as it then permits rich right wing corporatists to stand int he dark shadows and manipulate our politicians to dance their own tune. And since they share your political ideology and agenda, that is fine with you.

Its disgusting and will help destroy our system.

:lamo... that was dumb, in light of historical fact.

disclosure of contributions( to individual candidates) did not come into existence until 1974.... how did we ever survive, as a Nation, the preceding 198 years Haymarket?
according to you, our system should have been utterly destroyed..... yet it wasn't.... not even close.


and for your information, privacy doesn't only count for right wingers, it counts for everybody... including leftist anti-american authoritarians like yourself.

unlike you, I'll stand up for everyone rights, not just those who share political affiliations or ideas with..... it's called having principles.

 

[haymarket]

umm.. ok?.... are you trying to argue that independent expenditures on protected speech is bribery?

Why would you lead in with my answer to the same question you already asked and then ask it a second time?

 

[Thrilla]

I guess to some...yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater is an inalienable right.

yelling " fire" isn't a form of political speech, so you're off topic.

as an aside.... what if the crowed theater is on fire?...what then?

 

[haymarket]

:lamo... that was dumb, in light of historical fact.

disclosure of contributions( to individual candidates) did not come into existence until 1974.... how did we ever survive, as a Nation, the preceding 198 years Haymarket?
according to you, our system should have been utterly destroyed..... yet it wasn't.... not even close.


and for your information, privacy doesn't only count for right wingers, it counts for everybody... including leftist anti-american authoritarians like yourself.

unlike you, I'll stand up for everyone rights, not just those who share political affiliations or ideas with..... it's called having principles.

No - in this case it has nothing to do with any so called PRINCIPLE. Its all what every agrees with you and your politics.

You stand up for right wing political positions like this one so lets not put some cheap gold paint on that turd.

The idea that you can support the concept that one can make a secret PRIVATE contribution in a PUBLIC election to determine PUBLIC officials to hold PUBLIC office is rather absurd in the extreme.

One wonders if our Founders had that attitude the Declaration of Independence would have simply been issued with no signatures attached .......... to respect their right to privacy .......... of course
.


And if you have any integrity - and we will soon find out - its time you stepped up to the plate and do something that is somewhat foreign to you - submitting verifiable evidence of your claims. In this case - calling me an anti-american authoritarian.

Prove it .

Or apologize if you have any honor and any integrity.

Of course, you will do neither.

 

[Thrilla]

the idea pushed by Thrilla that somehow one can make a secret PRIVATE contribution in a PUBLIC election to determine PUBLIC officials to hold PUBLIC office is rather absurd in the extreme.

One wonders if our Founders had that attitude the Declaration of Independence would have simply been issued with no signatures attached .......... to respect their right to privacy .......... of course.

yeah.. its so absurd that the USA lived under such an environment for 200 years.... and did just fine.

now , as if by magic, haymarket's curiosity overrides everyone else's right to be secure in their affairs....

 

[haymarket]

yeah.. its so absurd that the USA lived under such an environment for 200 years.... and did just fine.

now , as if by magic, haymarket's curiosity overrides everyone else's right to be secure in their affairs....

By all means, step up and produce the monetary figures of election costs for those previous elections and verify that there was a problem with rich people buying elections then as they are attempting to do today with the Koch Brothers and other big donors.

read and learn

How Big Money Corrupts the Economy : Democracy Journal

https://represent.us/action/theproblem-3/

This is called VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE. I produced it for you. Now its your turn to produce it for me showing that all these past 200 years of elections were free of such influence.

Of course, you will NOT do so.

 

[Thrilla]

No - in this case it has nothing to do with any so called PRINCIPLE. Its all what every agrees with you and your politics.

don't lie to me about what i belive.

You stand up for right wing political positions like this one so lets not put some cheap gold paint on that turd.

2 sentenced, 2 lies... you're doing well tonight Hyamarket.. in your usual form.

The idea that you can support the concept that one can make a secret PRIVATE contribution in a PUBLIC election to determine PUBLIC officials to hold PUBLIC office is rather absurd in the extreme.

and yet it worked just fine for 200 years... whch jsut goes to show that you're not only wrong, but your idea of "absurd" is ..well, absurd.

One wonders if our Founders had that attitude the Declaration of Independence would have simply been issued with no signatures attached .......... to respect their right to privacy .......... of course

I'll admit that you have a point when you can show me where the founders were forced by the government to disclose their identities against their will.
.

And if you have any integrity - and we will soon find out - its time you stepped up to the plate and do something that is somewhat foreign to you - submitting verifiable evidence of your claims. In this case - calling me an anti-american authoritarian.


Prove it .

Or apologize if you have any honor and any integrity.

Of course, you will do neither.

awww. look at Haymarket trying to order me around as if he has power over me.... how very authoritarian of you.

I don't need to prove my opinion of you...whether you like it or not, it's my opinion... your approval or agreement is wholly irrevelent.
honor and integrity have nothing to do with any of this... you're just tryign to use them to emotionally manipulate me into dancing to your tune..... and we both know that's not going to happen... you sank that boat long ago.

 

[Thrilla]

By all means, step up and produce the monetary figures of election costs for those previous elections and verify that there was a problem with rich people buying elections then as they are attempting to do today with the Koch Brothers and other big donors.

read and learn

How Big Money Corrupts the Economy : Democracy Journal

https://represent.us/action/theproblem-3/

This is called VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE. I produced it for you. Now its your turn to produce it for me showing that all these past 200 years of elections were free of such influence.

Of course, you will NOT do so.

congratulations,. you provided verifiable evidence of something I wasn't arguing .... good Job Haymarket!.. way to go!

I've never argued past elections were free of influence, nor would I..... hell, the entire notion of politcal speech is to influence politics.

now, instead of dishonestly moving the goalposts , why don't we go back to what was actually being discussed... forced disclosures.
how did our nation survive 200 years of not having forced disclosures haymarket?... how do you reconcile facts with your fanciful opinion?

 

[haymarket]

don't lie to me about what i belive..

I don't know what you belive... if that means how you live. But I do know that your view on this topic is the right wing view.

That is NOT a LIE and your use of the term shows you have not the slightest idea what one is.

and yet it worked just fine for 200 years... whch jsut goes to show that you're not only wrong, but your idea of "absurd" is ..well, absurd.

As I accurately predicted , you would provide NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that big money in politics was a problem during the time you refer to.

You FAILED that test.

You see, a personal opinion without verifiable evidence to prove the claim is worthless. And that is what you have given us.

I don't need to prove my opinion of you...whether you like it or not, it's my opinion... your approval or agreement is wholly irrevelent.

If you have any honor, you do need to prove your opinion of putting such a pejorative label on me.

If you have any integrity, you do indeed need to prove your opinion of putting such a pejorative label upon me.

Of course, if you have neither, your opinion stands for what it is worth without any evidence. And we both know what is said about everybody having one.

 

[haymarket]

congratulations,. you provided verifiable evidence of something I wasn't arguing .... good Job Haymarket!.. way to go!

I've never argued past elections were free of influence, nor would I..... hell, the entire notion of politcal speech is to influence politics.

now, instead of dishonestly moving the goalposts , why don't we go back to what was actually being discussed... forced disclosures.
how did our nation survive 200 years of not having forced disclosures haymarket?... how do you reconcile facts with your fanciful opinion?

Your post makes no sense. My verifiable evidence (and I know thats a hard concept for you to understand - let alone use) shows that big money is a big problem in the nations politics today. And that is why we need a new approach to big money donations.

So now its your turn to show that this problem was not part of that 200 years of politics you use to claim you are right.

Can you do it?

I know the answer and so do you.

 

[Thrilla]

I don't know what you belive... if that means how you live. But I do know that your view on this topic is the right wing view.

no, it's a classical liberal view on the matter...which puts into question exactly what you pretend to "know" insofar as political science in concerned. ( sorry, classical liberalism cannot be accurately described as "right wing")

That is NOT a LIE and your use of the term shows you have not the slightest idea what one is.

yes of course... when you purposefully and willfully say untrue things, it's not a lie.... derp derp derp. :roll:

... maybe you should just tell the truth and say it's your opinion that my view is "right wing"....and that your opinion is wholly based on my political lean relative to your own.
relative to you, i'm certainly a "right winger"..... but if we are to deal in facts, I can only be considered a centrist( in general).. and quite liberal on the specific matter of individual rights.

As I accurately predicted , you would provide NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that big money in politics was a problem during the time you refer to.

again, I won't provide evidence for something i do not argue...you need to stick to the topic at hand and stop moving the goalposts.

You FAILED that test.

yes, I failed to deliver verifiable evidence for something I wasn't even arguing about....:lamo...derpity derp.

You see, a personal opinion without verifiable evidence to prove the claim is worthless. And that is what you have given us.

what part of "your approval or agreement is wholly irrelevant" did you not understand?

If you have any honor, you do need to prove your opinion of putting such a pejorative label on me.

false premise...my honor is not tied to proving anything to you.

If you have any integrity, you do indeed need to prove your opinion of putting such a pejorative label upon me.

false premise... my integrity is not tied to proving anything to you.

Of course, if you have neither, your opinion stands for what it is worth without any evidence. And we both know what is said about everybody having one.

again, your agreement or approval are wholly irrelevant to my opinion..... do I need to find a simpler way to express this concept to you?

 

[Thrilla]

Your post makes no sense. My verifiable evidence (and I know thats a hard concept for you to understand - let alone use) shows that big money is a big problem in the nations politics today. And that is why we need a new approach to big money donations..

oif course it makes no sense, I'm still addressing the specific topic we were discussing, and you've changed it to something different... it's just another dishonest tactic of yours.
now pick a topic and stick to it.

So now its your turn to show that this problem was not part of that 200 years of politics you use to claim you are right.

that fact that this nation survived and prospered for 200 years without mandatory disclosed rules is self-evident.

now, if you're wanting to discuss the dangers of big money in politics, i'm all for it... but at least give me a heads up when you change the topic.

Can you do it?

can i do what?... provide evidence for something i'm not arguing?.... most likely, no.... can i provide evidence for the arguments i actually make, absolutely..... in this particular case, "self evident" is relevant, though.

I know the answer and so do you.

arrogance is unbecoming , especially when it relies on objective dishonesty.

 

[haymarket]

no, it's a classical liberal view on the matter...

Which is irrelevant and has nothing to do with problems that exist today.

when you purposefully and willfully say untrue things, it's not a lie.... derp derp derp.

Your position on this issue is horribly right wing. So there is no lie. Once again, you demonstrate that you have no idea what a LIE actually is since in this case it is an accurate description of your position.

again, I won't provide evidence for something i do not argue.

Oh but you did argue it. Your argument is based on the assumption that for "200 years" there was no need to adopt the reform I and there have indicated in reporting campaign contributions. And that is predicated on the assumption that you can demonstrate that big money in politics was no problem and thus needed no reporting.

But you have not done that. You cannot do that. You will not do that. Your aversion to backing up your opinion with verifiable evidence is obvious and the achilles heel of your posts.

false premise...my honor is not tied to proving anything to you.

only if your have any honor or integrity to defend. And that is obvious that you do not as you apply extremist labels to me but then you cannot case the checks your mouth carelessly writes.

again, your agreement or approval are wholly irrelevant to my opinion..... do I need to find a simpler way to express this concept to you?

Yes - you can provide the verifiable evidence that I am an anti-American authoritarian that you accused me of being. Or can you prostrate yourself before me and beg for forgiveness for applying such a label without any proof. .

 

[haymarket]

oif course it makes no sense

every single thing you said in this post was dealt with in my previous posts. You are only repeating and saying nothing new which has not already been crushed and flushed.

that fact that this nation survived and prospered for 200 years without mandatory disclosed rules is self-evident.

that argument is nonsensical and worthless as evidenced by it applies TO EVERYTHING THAT HAS GONE BEFORE.

One could say in 1860 that "slavery has worked well during out nations existence and there is no need to change".

One could apply your illogic and say that "denying females equal rights as citizens has worked well for 150 years and there is no need to change".

One could apply your claim to any issue that has existed in our history but then was reformed with new law.

And it is an argument that is worthless in and of itself.