• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top Senate Dem: Koch brothers are un-American.....

What if...? said:
And how does unlimited anonymous money not equal "rationing" of speech? If money's is the only voice heard?

Poor people don't buy attack ads because they CAN'T.
Click to expand...

i believe that violates on of the principles of the code of Hammurabi, That the strong shall not harm the weak.
 
Jack Hays said:
But not all the people who can buy ads are in agreement. Think of it like a trial. We have an adversarial justice system in the belief that two contending parties will bring the truth to light most of the time. We have an adversarial political system with big money on both sides. Seems fair to me.:peace
Click to expand...

money should not be the price of admission into our democratic system.
 
What if...? said:
Nope.

Full disclosure of who donated to what is specifically approved in the CU decision.

Let all the ads funded by the Kochs say at the bottom "Paid for by Koch Industries".

Let the voters decide what that means.
Click to expand...

That applies to donations to candidates and I don't object to it. Independent advocacy requires no donor disclosure.:peace
 
MMC said:
The Senate's top Democrat criticized a pair of billionaire brothers in unusually harsh terms Wednesday, accusing the conservative duo of being "un-American," spreading lies about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and lacking a conscience.

In a pair of appearances on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., became the latest Democrat this election year to denunciate Charles and David Koch — pronounced "Coke."

The brothers' representatives said Reid's attack was "disgraceful" and accused him of attacking people hurt by the 2010 health care law.

Reid's focus was on television ads that are being used against Democratic congressional candidates, commercials that he said misleadingly criticize the health care law.

"When you make billions of dollars a year you can be as immoral and dishonest as your money will allow you to be," Reid said. "It's too bad that they're trying to buy America, and it's time that the American people spoke out against this terrible dishonesty of these two brothers who are about as un-American as anyone that I can imagine."

Hours earlier, Reid said the ads were misleadingly lambasting the health care law. "It's easy to do if you have no conscience and are willing to lie," he said.....snip~

Top Senate Dem: Koch brothers are un-American



Awww. Whats the matter Harry? Getting worried about those Obama's lies now? Think Harry here will call the CBO and others liars too?

What did Harry forget about forcing people to buy the O'care?
Click to expand...

These constant attacks are sure to only continue the lack of bi-partisan cooperation in the congress. As if it's good leadership, leading the way to cooperation and compromise because people are always willing to work with others who constantly and usually unfounded hammering on you?

Need to learn more about people if you believe this, I think. Yeah, I think we've finally found the source of the political partisanship in the congress causing all the grid lock of recent years. It's the Democrat's fault, and their lack of respect for their opposition members of congress.
 
Rainman05 said:
To keep the comment size smaller, I had to chop down your comment.

Well, ok, if you consider the $5000 thing to be a solution, I won't argue on that. It's certainly a solution and better than what exists now. But it wouldn't fix the problem because you have SuperPACs. If not superpacs, you can get any other organization, even an NGO, to be the means by which people buy political influence by donating money that isn't regulated by that $5k limit you imposed.


I already offered a solution to this problem, the way I see it, for each race, you set a sum of money for all contenders.

So say you have a district with 4 congressmen running. You give a 1mil $ budget for that district and with that, you organize the most efficient means of getting all their messages heard through an independent commission formed by the people of that district that are not aligned to any party. That means say, 4 debates, posters for everyone and 2 tv ads and 1 radio ad and 1 internet video for each of them and 5 newspaper coverings of events. And that's it. The rest they do without any other money. If they want to go door to door or do press events, that's their business. But they don't get more money or be allowed to spend their own money other than the money that is for the campaign.

What this means is that you can have a campaign the citizens of the county want it. The paragraph above was a hypothetical. it could be all just debates. And not stupid, childish format of a debate with 3min answer time and 1 min reply time or whatever it was in the presidentials... no, i mean real debates. If people want to hear the candidates give 10min replies, they should. If they want to hear them give short 1min replies, they decide. The people decide the means by which they will listen to the people who want their vote. This way they can choose the format that suits them.

In the world of consumerism, the name of the game is customization and variety. Or better put, choices in everything that matters. When you buy a car, you pick the model with all the traits, accessories, if you want automatic gear or manual like drivers, if you want a certain color, and you can get a test drive with each to see if you like it. If not, you go and grab another.

-Ah, but then the govt can control the amount of money that will be given, hence, controlling democracy!
Well no, each district gets the same amount of money for the number of candidates that there are. So if the comitee decides on 1mil $ for a district with 4 candidates, and 1.25mil for a district with 5, and etc... basically 250k for each candidate, then that's that. Every district with that amount of candidates gets that amount of money. And each district comitee, formed by the people of that district, decide how that money is to be spent. Maybe they take 400k to organize common events, like debates or activities or whatever... and the rest they give to each of the 4 candidates evenly to plan out their campaigns. Or whatever.

And if the election comittee gives too much money... then the voters will punish the ruling party for being wasteful... and if they give too little, they'll punish them for trying to strangle democracy and killing the democratic process.

Trust me, even if it's 250k per candidate for congress, it's way cheaper than what is going on now.
Congressional campaigns for candiates are even 4.5mil Cost to win congressional election skyrockets - CNN.com
That means he's been purchased at least 15x more than the people pay him.

No superpacs... no nothing. You give the people the right to ensemble in commitees to decide how the race is to be done, you give them power of the purse, you give them the power, completely, totally and you make the politicians understand that they work for the people.
Click to expand...

Another approach is to modify broadcasters Public Service Announcement requirements during election cycles to distribute "x" amount of airtime to at least the top three "parties" involved. Awarded by lot, so they have no way of knowing what time slots they'll get.
 
eohrnberger said:
These constant attacks are sure to only continue the lack of bi-partisan cooperation in the congress. As if it's good leadership, leading the way to cooperation and compromise because people are always willing to work with others who constantly and usually unfounded hammering on you?

Need to learn more about people if you believe this, I think. Yeah, I think we've finally found the source of the political partisanship in the congress causing all the grid lock of recent years. It's the Democrat's fault, and their lack of respect for their opposition members of congress.
Click to expand...



Heya Eohrn. Definitely with Harry Reid.....who will go down as the Worst Senate leader this nation ever had. He isn't all that bright as some give him credit for his victories come off the GOP's Mistakes. Otherwise he would be the mute point he was meant to be.
 
Jack Hays said:
But not all the people who can buy ads are in agreement. Think of it like a trial. We have an adversarial justice system in the belief that two contending parties will bring the truth to light most of the time. We have an adversarial political system with big money on both sides. Seems fair to me.:peace
Click to expand...

Bad example.

People who can afford high power lawyers do VASTLY better than those who must rely on public defenders.
 
As with Trans-Canada changing the Nebraska Constitution after buying up all lobbying firms in NE.
Which has led to a revolt by GOP farmers/ranchers .
What if...? said:
Bad example.

People who can afford high power lawyers do VASTLY better than those who must rely on public defenders.
Click to expand...
 
What if...? said:
Another approach is to modify broadcasters Public Service Announcement requirements during election cycles to distribute "x" amount of airtime to at least the top three "parties" involved. Awarded by lot, so they have no way of knowing what time slots they'll get.
Click to expand...

With some mechanism to insure that fringe parties are not elevated to equal status. Probably through a multiplier mechanism. If your party raises $X then you can amplify by 20X.
 
What if...? said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Type of entity engaging in outside spending501(c)(4)s (social welfare organizations) [SUP]1[/SUP]
501(c)(6)s (business leagues) [SUP]2[/SUP]		501(c)(5)s (e.g., labor unions) [SUP]11[/SUP]527s not subject to FEC reporting requirements for political committees [SUP]20[/SUP]Super PACs [SUP]29[/SUP]All others required to register with FEC as a political committee maintaining federal account [SUP]39[/SUP]All individuals or other entitys not otherwise listed
Are there limits on the size of contributions that can be made to entity?NONONONO [SUP]30[/SUP]YES [SUP]40[/SUP]NO
Is entity making Independent Expenditures required to disclose most of its contributors?NO [SUP]3[/SUP]YES [SUP]12[/SUP]YES [SUP]21[/SUP]YES [SUP]31[/SUP]YES [SUP]41[/SUP]NO [SUP]49[/SUP]
Is entity making Electioneering Communications required to disclose most of its contributors?NO (corporations)
YES (others)[SUP]4[/SUP]		YES [SUP]13[/SUP]YES [SUP]22[/SUP]YES [SUP]32[/SUP]YES [SUP]42[/SUP]NO (corporations and unions)
YES (others) [SUP]50[/SUP]
Is entity engaging in Issue Ads required to disclose most of its contributors?NO [SUP]5[/SUP]YES [SUP]14[/SUP]YES [SUP]23[/SUP]YES [SUP]33[/SUP]YES [SUP]43[/SUP]NO
YES [SUP]15[/SUP]YES [SUP]24[/SUP]YES [SUP]34[/SUP]YES [SUP]44[/SUP]NO
Must entity itemize other disbursements it makes for any purpose?NO [SUP]7[/SUP]YES [SUP]16[/SUP]YES [SUP]25[/SUP]YES [SUP]35[/SUP]YES [SUP]45[/SUP]NO
Must entity immediately file special reports disclosing disbursements for Independent Expenditures?YES [SUP]8[/SUP]YES [SUP]17[/SUP]YES [SUP]26[/SUP]YES [SUP]36[/SUP]YES [SUP]46[/SUP]YES [SUP]51[/SUP]
YES [SUP]9[/SUP]YES [SUP]18[/SUP]YES [SUP]27[/SUP]NO [SUP]37[/SUP]NO [SUP]47[/SUP]YES [SUP]52[/SUP]
NO [SUP]10[/SUP]YES [SUP]19[/SUP]YES [SUP]#28[/SUP]YES [SUP]38[/SUP]YES [SUP]48[/SUP]NO
 
RiverDad said:
With some mechanism to insure that fringe parties are not elevated to equal status. Probably through a multiplier mechanism. If your party raises $X then you can amplify by 20X.
Click to expand...

I've always thought a set minimum of three with allowances for more if they pass a "support threshhold" of aome kind.

I don't have a problem with "mixing it up", America could use a little exposure to ideas outside the usual dichotomy, but yeah, not EVERYBODY.
 
Rainman05 said:
To keep the comment size smaller, I had to chop down your comment.

Well, ok, if you consider the $5000 thing to be a solution, I won't argue on that. It's certainly a solution and better than what exists now. But it wouldn't fix the problem because you have SuperPACs. If not superpacs, you can get any other organization, even an NGO, to be the means by which people buy political influence by donating money that isn't regulated by that $5k limit you imposed.


I already offered a solution to this problem, the way I see it, for each race, you set a sum of money for all contenders.

So say you have a district with 4 congressmen running. You give a 1mil $ budget for that district and with that, you organize the most efficient means of getting all their messages heard through an independent commission formed by the people of that district that are not aligned to any party. That means say, 4 debates, posters for everyone and 2 tv ads and 1 radio ad and 1 internet video for each of them and 5 newspaper coverings of events. And that's it. The rest they do without any other money. If they want to go door to door or do press events, that's their business. But they don't get more money or be allowed to spend their own money other than the money that is for the campaign.

What this means is that you can have a campaign the citizens of the county want it. The paragraph above was a hypothetical. it could be all just debates. And not stupid, childish format of a debate with 3min answer time and 1 min reply time or whatever it was in the presidentials... no, i mean real debates. If people want to hear the candidates give 10min replies, they should. If they want to hear them give short 1min replies, they decide. The people decide the means by which they will listen to the people who want their vote. This way they can choose the format that suits them.

In the world of consumerism, the name of the game is customization and variety. Or better put, choices in everything that matters. When you buy a car, you pick the model with all the traits, accessories, if you want automatic gear or manual like drivers, if you want a certain color, and you can get a test drive with each to see if you like it. If not, you go and grab another.

-Ah, but then the govt can control the amount of money that will be given, hence, controlling democracy!
Well no, each district gets the same amount of money for the number of candidates that there are. So if the comitee decides on 1mil $ for a district with 4 candidates, and 1.25mil for a district with 5, and etc... basically 250k for each candidate, then that's that. Every district with that amount of candidates gets that amount of money. And each district comitee, formed by the people of that district, decide how that money is to be spent. Maybe they take 400k to organize common events, like debates or activities or whatever... and the rest they give to each of the 4 candidates evenly to plan out their campaigns. Or whatever.

And if the election comittee gives too much money... then the voters will punish the ruling party for being wasteful... and if they give too little, they'll punish them for trying to strangle democracy and killing the democratic process.

Trust me, even if it's 250k per candidate for congress, it's way cheaper than what is going on now.
Congressional campaigns for candiates are even 4.5mil Cost to win congressional election skyrockets - CNN.com
That means he's been purchased at least 15x more than the people pay him.

No superpacs... no nothing. You give the people the right to ensemble in commitees to decide how the race is to be done, you give them power of the purse, you give them the power, completely, totally and you make the politicians understand that they work for the people.
Click to expand...

Why should the government have any role at all in deciding who can spend what to disseminate his/her political views?:roll:
 
Jack Hays said:
Why should the government have any role at all in deciding who can spend what to disseminate his/her political views?:roll:
Click to expand...

then you believe that it is ok for government to be sold to the highest bidder?
 
Jack Hays said:
I believe in free, unrationed political speech.:peace
Click to expand...

that was not the question
the question is about the buying and selling of government
it has nothing to do with a free speech argument

do you believe that government should be for sale to the highest bidder?
your answer can be
'yes'
or
'no'
 
justabubba said:
that was not the question
the question is about the buying and selling of government
it has nothing to do with a free speech argument

do you believe that government should be for sale to the highest bidder?
your answer can be
'yes'
or
'no'
Click to expand...

On the contrary, it has everything to do with it. What you seem to regard as the buying and selling of government I regard as constitutionally protected free speech. I don't believe the buying or selling of the government is in any way involved or implied.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
Why should the government have any role at all in deciding who can spend what to disseminate his/her political views?:roll:
Click to expand...

You clearly don't get it.
The government works for you, the citizen. It's not "Why should the government have any role at all in deciding who can spend what to disseminate his/her political views?", it's "How much are you, the citizens, willing to spend on the democratic process". Because the government's money is YOUR money, the taxpayers'.
 
Jack Hays said:
On the contrary, it has everything to do with it. What you seem to regard as the buying and selling of government I regard as constitutionally protected free speech. I don't believe the buying or selling of the government is in any way involved or implied.:peace
Click to expand...

then you sanction political corruption
the buying and selling of government
thanks for playing 'how much will you bid for the legislation you want'
 
Rainman05 said:
You clearly don't get it.
The government works for you, the citizen. It's not "Why should the government have any role at all in deciding who can spend what to disseminate his/her political views?", it's "How much are you, the citizens, willing to spend on the democratic process". Because the government's money is YOUR money, the taxpayers'.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that any taxpayer money (or government money) should be used in any part of the political process except counting the votes. The government not only works for the citizens, it also governs them, and government evolves easily into rulership. I prefer the risks of a privately financed political process to the risks of a government administered political process. Free, unrationed political speech.:peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom