LOL. Again, it's not about the content of the speech and whether or not I agree with that content. It's about the effects of how the system is structured.
That text actually does not indicate what you're saying that you think it does.
Compelling national interest is an already a very well established reason for suppressing speech. So I am not sure where you got the idea that it isn't.
It's still not about what is said. It's not at all about the content of the speech. It's really not. It's about who is doing the "speaking" [the term is being used very loosely all of a sudden] and to whom in what circumstances.
Is it really that hard to distinguish between these two sets? Lobbying a member of govt {a corporation making donations to a political party or a PAC, a corporation taking a Congress critter golfing or on trip} and lobbying the electorate {that same corporation publishing an ad in a newspaper, buying airtime, creating a web site?}
You are being silly now. People do occasionally stand as independents and even more occasionally get elected. Britian's political parties used to be funded by party members but due to the lack of interest during the last 30 years as we become more and more right wing and people believe no one represents them, they have lost most of their members.
"ultimately" or directly?
Could you provide the source for your assertion on this matter.
Re-re-posting this yet again.What effects do you not like?
I was referring to "it produces perverse results that are harmful to the country as a whole." What perverse results do you mean?
That is true.But compelling national interest has a very specific legal meaning. It doesn't mean "I think things are bad."
Are denying that these things happen and the lobbyist do them? Or are you trying to carefully define a term? Or what?Well, see, now we've finally gotten to the point. Lobbying is NOT making donations or golf trips.
This doesn't reveal the totals or where they came from.
Re-re-posting this yet again.
That is true.
Are denying that these things happen and the lobbyist do them? Or are you trying to carefully define a term? Or what?
(In the U.S. at least, candidates fund themselves and have only a small dependence on the parties). Or run yourself without taking money?
http://www.cfinst.org/data/pdf/VitalStats_t8.pdf
Feel free.Not re-posting my response from a while back.
So lobbyists do these things for the fun of it? Or because it helps them to persuade the elected officials?Lobbyists do those things, but that doesn't make it "lobbying." Like you said, food comes from the sun, but it's not the sun.
This doesn't reveal the totals or where they came from.
This gives limits. It doesn't show how much money comes from real persons versus how much comes from artificial persons.
So lobbyists do these things for the fun of it? Or because it helps them to persuade the elected officials?
http://www.cfinst.org/data/pdf/VitalStats_t8.pdf
This shows that generally candidates get a plurality of their funding from artificial persons. I am not sure that actually helps your case that candidates fund themselves.
As I said, it shows the limits per each category. It doesn't show how many of each category did what. That is what you would need to show that "Most of the funding for our campaigns, despite the whining you may hear, comes from the people."Yes it does. Scroll down. It shows the sources of the money with the limits for each source.
See where the chart says "individual may give" etc? Those are the sources. None others are legal. You won't find any source that isn't a person, or doesn't get its funding in turn from a person. Ultimately, only individuals provide funding for the system. Corporations and unions and governments are all explicitly banned from giving money to any of these, or to candidates.
False. Most of the funding for our campaigns, despite the whining you may hear, comes from the people.
As I said, it shows the limits per each category. It doesn't show how many of each category did what.
Further, the next source you cited shows that that assertion is false.
http://www.cfinst.org/data/pdf/VitalStats_t8.pdf
You used it to support the assertion that candidates funded themselves.No it does not show that. It shows candidates getting a majority from individuals.
Can they enter into contracts? Are they real persons?And a PAC or party is not an artificial person.
Please copy and paste the language from this site: Contributions Brochure which details how much each category actually gave.Yes it does.
I was wrong about that one.No it doesn't.
Wow.
You used it to support the assertion that candidates funded themselves.
Can they enter into contracts? Are they real persons?
Please copy and paste the language from this site: Contributions Brochure which details how much each category actually gave.
Uh, what? No.
Cite for this assertion please.You can't find a single candidate who doesn't take money? (In the U.S. at least, candidates fund themselves and have only a small dependence on the parties). Or run yourself without taking money
http://www.cfinst.org/data/pdf/VitalStats_t8.pdf
No, artificial person can as well.Can only real persons enter into contracts?
no, some things are not persons at allAre all things that aren't real persons "artificial persons?"
I'll believe you that you lost track of which assertion you were being asked about
You want the government to have complete control of election funding?
I am not so hot on the public funds thingy. I am not that familiar with t either. But on its face, it sounds like a bad idea. I am open to changing my mind.
I would be comfortable with funding solely from the donations of individuals.
I am not so hot on the public funds thingy. I am not that familiar with t either. But on its face, it sounds like a bad idea. I am open to changing my mind.
I would be comfortable with funding solely from the donations of individuals.
I'm not, because we've already seen that buying our representatives comes with strings attached. A lot of people have a lot of money to buy a lot of power and influence. However, if every candidate received public funding in equal amounts, along with a strong and frequent batch of public debates... tv ads forbidden... then we would actually have a government of the people, instead of the "best government money can buy."
As it stands, rich people can buy their own congressional or senatoral seats, or even the governorship! California's top job was almost purchased by Meg Witman, a totally unqualified individual with credentials of already running two huge corporations into bankruptcy.
Not acceptable.
Yes, I want public regulations that prevent anonymous corporations from choosing our leaders for us.
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?