Goodbye PACs, Hello JFCs

[bripat9643]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

no it isnt..

Yes it is.

 

[Mustang]

Someone can give as much money to a candidate as they like if I don't agree with that persons views and policies I won't be voting for them.

Q. Why do you think that Coke (and other companies( spend(s) so much on advertising?

A. Because it works.

 

[Plasmaball]

The First Amendment is clear. If you want to defend a person's right to burn a flag, be a Nazi, or have a gay pride parade, then you must allow an individual to employ his wealth as speech. So, I advise liberals here to swallow their pride and move on. You lost.

this isnt the samething.

 

[DennyO]

Maybe it's high time for the public to tune out the noise from the big electioneering machines and go back to digging up facts to form their decisions, not the emotional based advertising that permeates the airwaves now, which will only escalate in the future.

We need a form of an independent "voters union" along the lines of the Consumers Union to screen out the paid B.S.

 

[Plasmaball]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

no it isnt..

Yes it is.

no its not.

Giving my money to a woman's shelter is not freedom of speech.
Giving my money for advertising about the issues women go through that is my opinion, is freedom of speech.

This in the end is a very...lazy way to go about things. The game is rigged and this just made it even more so.

 

[boedicca]

Someone can give as much money to a candidate as they like if I don't agree with that persons views and policies I won't be voting for them.

Q. Why do you think that Coke (and other companies( spend(s) so much on advertising?

A. Because it works.

Advertising doesn't convince people to buy things they dislike.

Just sayin'.

 

[blackhawk]

Someone can give as much money to a candidate as they like if I don't agree with that persons views and policies I won't be voting for them.

Q. Why do you think that Coke (and other companies( spend(s) so much on advertising?

A. Because it works.

If you don't like the taste of Coke no amount of advertising will change that.

 

[jillian]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

money is not speech.

there shouldn't be ANY money in politics

 

[Mustang]

Someone can give as much money to a candidate as they like if I don't agree with that persons views and policies I won't be voting for them.

Q. Why do you think that Coke (and other companies( spend(s) so much on advertising?

A. Because it works.

Advertising doesn't convince people to buy things they dislike.

Just sayin'.

Like hell it doesn't. People tend to follow a crowd, and what's considered cool. Public opinion sways individual opinions. People will at least stop to reconsider. That's why negative advertising works too. If someone spends enough time and money assailing a candidate or a product, it tends to alter individual perception. This has been understood for years. It's why Madison Avenue makes so much money. It's why media consultants get huge fees.

 

[occupied]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

Yes it is. Unfortunately, decisions like this that lead to the very few controlling the entire debate eventually backfires. We continue to head down a path that will lead to the end of our democracy. Greed has no limits.

You poor blithering idiot.

The real beneficiaries of limiting campaign donations are Incumbents and the Status Quo. Campaign finance restrictions are to get rid of the outsider competition.

Let's also consider how elected officials, such as Obama, use vast amounts of government resources for their campaigns. Obama uses the pretext of a some government activity to justify using government resources for his fund raising trips.

If anything should be limited, that type of abuse is it.

It was long ago decided that as a sitting president must campaign for reelection a certain amount of public funds must be spent to keep him safe. That means the use of official means of travel and the security it takes to appear here and there. It's not just the president either, the winner of the nomination of the other party gets the same thing, government travel and secret service.

That being said, an incumbent is not always bad and an outsider is not always good. A newb in Washington can be just as easily corrupted, probably easier, by the K street snakes who are very much insiders and do not have term limits either.

 

[MarcATL]

Money is speech, so those with the most money have the loudest voices.

The right of free association means you can send your meager sums to an organization which will amplify your voice a million times louder than you could do on your own.

Lets do the math. 10% owns how much of the wealth?

HowStuffWorks "Is it true that 1 percent of Americans control a third of the wealth?"

Even more incredible is that the richest 10 percent of Americans control 75 percent of the wealth, leaving only 25 percent to the other 90 percent of Americans.

So if we do the math...If every single person NOT in the top 10% donated to the JFC for Stopping Puppy Kicking how many of the top 10% have to donate to defeat it. 10....20?

So now we have to play this game where we pretend that all money is the same (because all speech is the "same") and the amount of money doesnt matter because THEORETICALLY we could do the same...except we cant...unless we ignore amounts of money

Post of the thread.

 

[MarcATL]

Q. Why do you think that Coke (and other companies( spend(s) so much on advertising?

A. Because it works.

Advertising doesn't convince people to buy things they dislike.

Just sayin'.

Like hell it doesn't. People tend to follow a crowd, and what's considered cool. Public opinion sways individual opinions. People will at least stop to reconsider. That's why negative advertising works too. If someone spends enough time and money assailing a candidate or a product, it tends to alter individual perception. This has been understood for years. It's why Madison Avenue makes so much money. It's why media consultants get huge fees.

And why TheFOXNEWS hosts and spundits say things like "Some people say." before they go along to say whatever it is they already believe and/or want to be true and push it to the public.

And it's also why they always tout their audience and how they are killing all other cable news networks, aka have the most advertisers, aka have the most money and they then translate that to being "the most trusthworthy."

It's interesting how so many RWers in this thread are PRETENDING that more money DOESN'T mean more access and/or doesn't CHANGE the game.

 

[MarcATL]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

Since when does something that's free cost money? Paid speech is not free speech.

I know right!?!?

Fast forward 1 year and watch how many "waaaa politicians are corrupt and dont represent us" posts you drum up.

Yep,

All this does is make the nobility the far right supports more powerful over the little guy. OF COURSE they're never for the little guy!

Thats the thing about it. They complain about a bullet in their foot then applaud putting more bullets in the gun that is still pointed at their foot.

Then guess what they do..Complain when the gun goes off again

lol

EXACTLY!!

Someone made a thread this week about how the Republicans do EXACTLY what they complain about. That thread was SO on point. And they got SO angry about it.

Was that you? Cause you sure encapsulated it with this post.

 

[Plasmaball]

Someone can give as much money to a candidate as they like if I don't agree with that persons views and policies I won't be voting for them.

Q. Why do you think that Coke (and other companies( spend(s) so much on advertising?

A. Because it works.

Advertising doesn't convince people to buy things they dislike.

Just sayin'.

yes it does.....

 

[bripat9643]

no it isnt..

Yes it is.

no its not.

Giving my money to a woman's shelter is not freedom of speech.
Giving my money for advertising about the issues women go through that is my opinion, is freedom of speech.

This in the end is a very...lazy way to go about things. The game is rigged and this just made it even more so.

It appears you agree with Citizens United.

 

[bripat9643]

Q. Why do you think that Coke (and other companies( spend(s) so much on advertising?

A. Because it works.

Advertising doesn't convince people to buy things they dislike.

Just sayin'.

yes it does.....

No it doesn't.

 

[blackhawk]

I can't think of any advertising that has got me to buy something I really didn't want there has been a lot of promotion and advertising for Obaamcare I haven't bought that.

 

[Plasmaball]

Advertising doesn't convince people to buy things they dislike.

Just sayin'.

yes it does.....

No it doesn't.

yes it does...jesus you people are really pushing the limits of stupid

 

[Plasmaball]

Yes it is.

no its not.

Giving my money to a woman's shelter is not freedom of speech.
Giving my money for advertising about the issues women go through that is my opinion, is freedom of speech.

This in the end is a very...lazy way to go about things. The game is rigged and this just made it even more so.

It appears you agree with Citizens United.

not really.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The United States Supreme Court just handed down a decision today that will have a bigger impact on campaign financing than the Citizens United decision has.

That decision is McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf

Current law limits the aggregate amount an individual can donate to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees in an election cycle. That limit has just been removed by the McCutcheon decision.

The limit that a person can donate to an individual candidate is still in place, but now a person can donate to as many candidates as they wish. Before this decision, they had to stop after they had donated a total of $123,000. Only 600 people hit that limit in 2012.

With McCutcheon, though, we can now return to the pre-Watergate days where a bazillionaire can write a single check to a Joint Fundraising Committee (JFC) for whatever amount he wants, and that JFC can then funnel that money to candidates, political parties, and PACs as they see fit.

Remember the Obama Victory Fund? That was a JFC. Because of the aggregate limits in the law, an individual donor could only contribute $75,800 to that fund.

McCutcheon now removes that limit.


Let the good times roll!

Americans would rather have this vs. Lois Lerner impacting Campaign Financing.