Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's no different that me being able to yell louder than you.The Koch brothers are spending over 800 million dollars on Republican candidates.So, again: why do you hate free speech?
How is this free speech when it drowns out everyone else?
Rather than bleat about unfair spending on republican candidates, why don't you dell ideas that people will buy?
No limits for anyone
However....FULL disclosure
I want to know who owns my Critter
Billionaires bankrolling 2016 campaign to unprecedented degree Fox News
"Billionaires are bankrolling the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign to an unprecedented degree, with at least 40 of the wealthiest Americans plowing $60 million into super PACs aligned with the top tier of candidates.
The torrent of super PAC money is revolutionizing presidential politics in the wake of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals into these outside groups.
Super PACs backing 17 presidential candidates raised more than $250 million in the first six months of this year, roughly doubling the $125 million raised by the candidates for their campaigns, disclosure reports filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission show."
This is stupid. Corporations and the wealthy elites are trying to buy our elections.
not exactly true, but that is what the Court has said in a narrow decision. So legally, yes. In reality, no.Campaign donations = free speech.
Wait... its "unfair" that I can yell a million times louder than you?No, it is different when one person can yell a million times louder than everyone else.It's no different that me being able to yell louder than you.The Koch brothers are spending over 800 million dollars on Republican candidates.So, again: why do you hate free speech?
How is this free speech when it drowns out everyone else?
Rather than bleat about unfair spending on republican candidates, why don't you dell ideas that people will buy?
... because you know you do not have a sound position, and you hate the fact that I point it out.I am done discussing this with you...
I didn't see an option for public financed elections only, which is what I would like to see. Even politicians admit that they spend most of their time begging for money. Why should they only consider input from those that donate anyway? There's enough resources and staff members, and phone calls and letters from the public for them to understand what the voters want.
I didn't see an option for public financed elections only, which is what I would like to see. Even politicians admit that they spend most of their time begging for money. Why should they only consider input from those that donate anyway? There's enough resources and staff members, and phone calls and letters from the public for them to understand what the voters want.
I don't see the public support for public finance. People in America can be brainwashed with just a few well placed attack ads and woooooosh! The sound of common sense and self-interest flying out the open windows
I didn't see an option for public financed elections only, which is what I would like to see. Even politicians admit that they spend most of their time begging for money. Why should they only consider input from those that donate anyway? There's enough resources and staff members, and phone calls and letters from the public for them to understand what the voters want.
I don't see the public support for public finance. People in America can be brainwashed with just a few well placed attack ads and woooooosh! The sound of common sense and self-interest flying out the open windows
I didn't see an option for public financed elections only, which is what I would like to see. Even politicians admit that they spend most of their time begging for money. Why should they only consider input from those that donate anyway? There's enough resources and staff members, and phone calls and letters from the public for them to understand what the voters want.
I don't see the public support for public finance. People in America can be brainwashed with just a few well placed attack ads and woooooosh! The sound of common sense and self-interest flying out the open windows
The general public may be in favor of more campaign finance reform after this election
They can't buy an election. Who votes? .
Should be illegal? I guess, but then again why should somebody be restricted from donating to campaigns? I know who Sheldon is from Massachusetts.I didn't see an option for public financed elections only, which is what I would like to see. Even politicians admit that they spend most of their time begging for money. Why should they only consider input from those that donate anyway? There's enough resources and staff members, and phone calls and letters from the public for them to understand what the voters want.
I don't see the public support for public finance. People in America can be brainwashed with just a few well placed attack ads and woooooosh! The sound of common sense and self-interest flying out the open windows
The attack ads will be there regardless of how elections are financed. The donations we see today are nothing but the buying and bribing of politicians and should be illegal. A couple weekends ago the repubs came down here to orange country to perform for the cokes and other billionaires. Mitt romney was so bought off that sheldon adelson admitted that he threw 100 million romney's way to get obama out of the white house.
Olmert Netanyahu Interfered in U.S. Elections for Sheldon Adelson Haaretz Daily Newspaper Israel News
Should be illegal? I guess, but then again why should somebody be restricted from donating to campaigns? I know who Sheldon is from Massachusetts.I didn't see an option for public financed elections only, which is what I would like to see. Even politicians admit that they spend most of their time begging for money. Why should they only consider input from those that donate anyway? There's enough resources and staff members, and phone calls and letters from the public for them to understand what the voters want.
I don't see the public support for public finance. People in America can be brainwashed with just a few well placed attack ads and woooooosh! The sound of common sense and self-interest flying out the open windows
The attack ads will be there regardless of how elections are financed. The donations we see today are nothing but the buying and bribing of politicians and should be illegal. A couple weekends ago the repubs came down here to orange country to perform for the cokes and other billionaires. Mitt romney was so bought off that sheldon adelson admitted that he threw 100 million romney's way to get obama out of the white house.
Olmert Netanyahu Interfered in U.S. Elections for Sheldon Adelson Haaretz Daily Newspaper Israel News
Like I posted previously:
2012 was supposed to be terrible . It wasn't. I believe there is a point of diminishing returns on most of the big money spent. So worrying about a few more billion is pointless as far as I can see.
As with healthcare reform where there was always the public demand going back more than a few decades, with campaign finance initiatives the propaganda and misinformation will destroy public support. People are dumb, dumb, dumb. The more people that vote, the dumber the vote gets
2012 was supposed to be terrible . It wasn't. I believe there is a point of diminishing returns on most of the big money spent. So worrying about a few more billion is pointless as far as I can see.
As with healthcare reform where there was always the public demand going back more than a few decades, with campaign finance initiatives the propaganda and misinformation will destroy public support. People are dumb, dumb, dumb. The more people that vote, the dumber the vote gets
Romney did not buy the 2012 GOP primary races.They can't buy an election. Who votes? .
In effect they can buy the election the same way Romney bought the GOP nomination in 2012. His supposedly independent PAC run by his friends had unlimited funding, in effect. When they got low in cash Romney would go and do a speech in Wall Street, literally, to get more funding for them. But they were independent of his influence and control. Right.
This attack ad money overwhelm ed his opponents with hit pieces that ran 24/7 when needed. For example after the very conservative Newt Gingrich won South Carolina, Romney's attack PAC flooded the Florida air waves and by the end of the Florida primary Gingrich was viewed as a RINO. Yeah, Gingrich the RINO and Romney the true conservative was the prevailing opinion. The ability to convince the public that up was down is what is so dangerous about such big money in politics.
I worked at a business chain in a metro area that had just moved to that area three months before and they flooded the markets with advertising on every radio station and TV station. I had people coming to me or telling on the phone that they had bought their merchandise five years ago at that exact same store owned by that exact same company.
Modern advertising is regularly used to convince people that their service are strong where in fact they are extremely weak. Why improve service when you can just buy a bunch of ads and 'fix' the problem?
People who act like there is no problem with allowing corporations to flood the air waves with one sided coverage are either 1. stupid, 2. fools, or 3. corrupt and loves corporate control of our elections.
Nothing could be further from the truth. But I was involved in local politics and up close on upper level politics. Candidates come out of the trenches of a party. Party activists vet candidates of their own respective parties. We have a huge number of independents, which means the electorate is mostly uninvolved or non enrolled. They do not get to vet candidates because they say they hate the parties.. Oh well, dumb is dumb.It seems like you think that special interest funding of elections doesn't sway the candidates. If that were the case, then there would be diminishing returns for the big money donors and their donations would be dwindling year by year. But they are increasing year by year.
2012 was supposed to be terrible . It wasn't. I believe there is a point of diminishing returns on most of the big money spent. So worrying about a few more billion is pointless as far as I can see.
The 2012 election was terrible, that is if you think that one man coming in with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and buying a disproportionate amount of air time to convince a plurality of the public that has IQs below the average on the Bell Curve is a bad thing. Yes, the impact of advertising is a matter of disproportionate results, but where that saturation point lies is well above the percentage numbers needed to win elections in a democratic process.
As with healthcare reform where there was always the public demand going back more than a few decades, with campaign finance initiatives the propaganda and misinformation will destroy public support. People are dumb, dumb, dumb. The more people that vote, the dumber the vote gets
With good leadership and regulated electoral advertising that prohibits say telling deliberate lies like 'My opponent used to suck Hitler's dick.' we can help stupid voters vote more intelligently. Of course you have to use a light touch here, but what Romney did to Gingrich was not a light touch by any means and it should have been stopped/prohibited by elections limits.
Romney did not buy the 2012 GOP primary races.
You're arguing about gaming the system. Well with any reform the law of unintended consequences will have people gaming the new system. I'm not arguing doing nothing n the way of reform, just arguing the proposed simple solutions usually never work.
The problem with paying to close attention to the talking heads and popularity polls is you get a skewed picture or reality. The horse race and who is in the lead. Each primary race for a while had Romney behind, yet the voters went with Romney time and time again. Electability or the perception of it. That may be massaged by ad buys, but if people are that dumb, and I believe they are...less money will not solve that problem. A smart consultant with less money can accomplish the very same outcome.
I don''t know that I or others are arguing that there is no problem with allowing corporations to flood the air waves with one sided coverage. I believe the laws allow it. I also believe with less money...but I already made that point. An educated and informed electorate is the only thing that can save the system, but when sports and celebrity bs in the regular media and on social media get most of people's free time...we are doomed.
Propose a smart solution to getting people aware and involved rather than trying to legislate a way through
2012 was supposed to be terrible . It wasn't. I believe there is a point of diminishing returns on most of the big money spent. So worrying about a few more billion is pointless as far as I can see.
The 2012 election was terrible, that is if you think that one man coming in with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and buying a disproportionate amount of air time to convince a plurality of the public that has IQs below the average on the Bell Curve is a bad thing. Yes, the impact of advertising is a matter of disproportionate results, but where that saturation point lies is well above the percentage numbers needed to win elections in a democratic process.
As with healthcare reform where there was always the public demand going back more than a few decades, with campaign finance initiatives the propaganda and misinformation will destroy public support. People are dumb, dumb, dumb. The more people that vote, the dumber the vote gets
With good leadership and regulated electoral advertising that prohibits say telling deliberate lies like 'My opponent used to suck Hitler's dick.' we can help stupid voters vote more intelligently. Of course you have to use a light touch here, but what Romney did to Gingrich was not a light touch by any means and it should have been stopped/prohibited by elections limits.
I don't believe 2012 was anymore terrible than 2008, 2004, and 200, and 1996, and 1992, and...
I agree with your second part, but there's that damn constitution thing that keeps getting in the way. I like dirty politics up to a point -- the point where I am winning and can step back above the fray.
politics is a contact sport where I come from. There are invisible lines that should not be crossed, but as with obscenity "I know it when I see it"
Billionaires bankrolling 2016 campaign to unprecedented degree Fox News
"Billionaires are bankrolling the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign to an unprecedented degree, with at least 40 of the wealthiest Americans plowing $60 million into super PACs aligned with the top tier of candidates.
The torrent of super PAC money is revolutionizing presidential politics in the wake of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals into these outside groups.
Super PACs backing 17 presidential candidates raised more than $250 million in the first six months of this year, roughly doubling the $125 million raised by the candidates for their campaigns, disclosure reports filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission show."
This is stupid. Corporations and the wealthy elites are trying to buy our elections.
