CDZ Should Corporations and Big Donors Be Limited in Donations to Politics?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well that is the problem yes. The very people that we want to keep from buying their seats in Congress or the White House are the people that won't allow WE THE PEOPLE to change the campaign finance laws.

And this seems to be one area where most people regardless of party want to see change for the sake of the country.

That is why we need a States Constitutional Amendment Article V Convention.

Anything passed by said convention will still have to be approved by 3/4ths of the states, so it cant turn into a run away convention. The states would reject anything looney.

You really think so? You have far too much faith in the same people (the states) that keep electing the people who you say are the problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

funny how there's no choice for "there shouldn't be any money in politics".
not surprising.

Indeed -- because no one is so stupid as to think that such a thing would, could, or should ever happen.

 

[jillian]

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.

funny how there's no choice for "there shouldn't be any money in politics".

not surprising.

no money in politics or in elections?

We have a constitutionally protected right to petition our government. this equals spending money

and we should petition our government. that is separate from the desire to fund someone's candidacy. I think there should be a certain amount of money given to each candidate by the government once they obtain a base-level of signatures getting them on the ballot. I don't think that a few billionaires should fund their candidate of choice and I don't think that a candidate, once elected, should be beholden to the interests that paid for him or her to get elected.

as for petitioning one's government, i'm all for it. but I think that means sign a petitioin, write a letter, protest, carry signs and march, etc. it doesn't mean put seven zeros after the 1 on the check you write.

 

[jillian]

Well that is the problem yes. The very people that we want to keep from buying their seats in Congress or the White House are the people that won't allow WE THE PEOPLE to change the campaign finance laws.

And this seems to be one area where most people regardless of party want to see change for the sake of the country.

That is why we need a States Constitutional Amendment Article V Convention.

Anything passed by said convention will still have to be approved by 3/4ths of the states, so it cant turn into a run away convention. The states would reject anything looney.

the history of the "states" is one of bigotry and repression of individual rights.... hence troops being needed to integrate schools.

federal laws trump state laws if they are in conflict.

you should probably get over it. because loony is what comes from the radicals in the "states".

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

funny how there's no choice for "there shouldn't be any money in politics".

not surprising.

no money in politics or in elections?

We have a constitutionally protected right to petition our government. this equals spending money

and we should petition our government. that is separate from the desire to fund someone's candidacy. I think there should be a certain amount of money given to each candidate by the government once they obtain a base-level of signatures getting them on the ballot. I don't think that a few billionaires should fund their candidate of choice and I don't think that a candidate, once elected, should be beholden to the interests that paid for him or her to get elected.

as for petitioning one's government, i'm all for it. but I think that means sign a petitioin, write a letter, protest, carry signs and march, etc. it doesn't mean put seven zeros after the 1 on the check you write.

Why not, instead of giving them X amount of money, just let them have free access to a cable network, say an hour a day that anyone could DVR and watch when they want?

The more we purge money from the electoral process the better. If you want to help your candidate do it the old fashioned way and wear some leather off your shoes hitting the pavement.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

funny how there's no choice for "there shouldn't be any money in politics".

not surprising.

no money in politics or in elections?

We have a constitutionally protected right to petition our government. this equals spending money

and we should petition our government. that is separate from the desire to fund someone's candidacy. I think there should be a certain amount of money given to each candidate by the government once they obtain a base-level of signatures getting them on the ballot. I don't think that a few billionaires should fund their candidate of choice and I don't think that a candidate, once elected, should be beholden to the interests that paid for him or her to get elected.

as for petitioning one's government, i'm all for it. but I think that means sign a petitioin, write a letter, protest, carry signs and march, etc. it doesn't mean put seven zeros after the 1 on the check you write.

in order to fund campaigns to petition, money would have to be spent. What i f one person wanted to fund a petition campaign you would be against that too? see how muddy it gets when you say 'politics' and not elections?


what about a wealthy person funding their own campaign with their own money within any set limits on amounts?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

funny how there's no choice for "there shouldn't be any money in politics".

not surprising.

no money in politics or in elections?

We have a constitutionally protected right to petition our government. this equals spending money

and we should petition our government. that is separate from the desire to fund someone's candidacy. I think there should be a certain amount of money given to each candidate by the government once they obtain a base-level of signatures getting them on the ballot. I don't think that a few billionaires should fund their candidate of choice and I don't think that a candidate, once elected, should be beholden to the interests that paid for him or her to get elected.

as for petitioning one's government, i'm all for it. but I think that means sign a petitioin, write a letter, protest, carry signs and march, etc. it doesn't mean put seven zeros after the 1 on the check you write.

Why not, instead of giving them X amount of money, just let them have free access to a cable network, say an hour a day that anyone could DVR and watch when they want?

The more we purge money from the electoral process the better. If you want to help your candidate do it the old fashioned way and wear some leather off your shoes hitting the pavement.

The more we purge money from the electoral process the better.

Hilarious!

 

[JimBowie1958]

the history of the "states" is one of bigotry and repression of individual rights.... hence troops being needed to integrate schools.

Wrong. The federal government exists due to the consent of the states and their people.

federal laws trump state laws if they are in conflict.

True, but that has nothing to do with an Article V convention. Have you read up on that?

you should probably get over it. because loony is what comes from the radicals in the "states".

And you are stereotyping millions of people as loons for simply advocating a Constitutional right?

Does that make you a loon, a hater, or just out of the loop?

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

funny how there's no choice for "there shouldn't be any money in politics".

not surprising.

no money in politics or in elections?

We have a constitutionally protected right to petition our government. this equals spending money

and we should petition our government. that is separate from the desire to fund someone's candidacy. I think there should be a certain amount of money given to each candidate by the government once they obtain a base-level of signatures getting them on the ballot. I don't think that a few billionaires should fund their candidate of choice and I don't think that a candidate, once elected, should be beholden to the interests that paid for him or her to get elected.

as for petitioning one's government, i'm all for it. but I think that means sign a petitioin, write a letter, protest, carry signs and march, etc. it doesn't mean put seven zeros after the 1 on the check you write.

Why not, instead of giving them X amount of money, just let them have free access to a cable network, say an hour a day that anyone could DVR and watch when they want?

The more we purge money from the electoral process the better. If you want to help your candidate do it the old fashioned way and wear some leather off your shoes hitting the pavement.

The more we purge money from the electoral process the better.

Hilarious!

Why?

lol, do you libtards ever actually think for yourselves?

 

[M14 Shooter]

the history of the "states" is one of bigotry and repression of individual rights.... hence troops being needed to integrate schools.

Wrong. The federal government exists due to the consent of the states and their people.

This is true -- the states have the power to dissolve the federal government, while the federal government can do no such thing to the states.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

funny how there's no choice for "there shouldn't be any money in politics".

not surprising.

no money in politics or in elections?

We have a constitutionally protected right to petition our government. this equals spending money

and we should petition our government. that is separate from the desire to fund someone's candidacy. I think there should be a certain amount of money given to each candidate by the government once they obtain a base-level of signatures getting them on the ballot. I don't think that a few billionaires should fund their candidate of choice and I don't think that a candidate, once elected, should be beholden to the interests that paid for him or her to get elected.

as for petitioning one's government, i'm all for it. but I think that means sign a petitioin, write a letter, protest, carry signs and march, etc. it doesn't mean put seven zeros after the 1 on the check you write.

Why not, instead of giving them X amount of money, just let them have free access to a cable network, say an hour a day that anyone could DVR and watch when they want?

The more we purge money from the electoral process the better. If you want to help your candidate do it the old fashioned way and wear some leather off your shoes hitting the pavement.

We need money in the electoral process. We also need sensible limits. and the battle will be in the details. Very few reasonable and intelligent people would advocate taking all money out of the process because it sounds like fairy dust

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

funny how there's no choice for "there shouldn't be any money in politics".

not surprising.

no money in politics or in elections?

We have a constitutionally protected right to petition our government. this equals spending money

and we should petition our government. that is separate from the desire to fund someone's candidacy. I think there should be a certain amount of money given to each candidate by the government once they obtain a base-level of signatures getting them on the ballot. I don't think that a few billionaires should fund their candidate of choice and I don't think that a candidate, once elected, should be beholden to the interests that paid for him or her to get elected.

as for petitioning one's government, i'm all for it. but I think that means sign a petitioin, write a letter, protest, carry signs and march, etc. it doesn't mean put seven zeros after the 1 on the check you write.

in order to fund campaigns to petition, money would have to be spent. What i f one person wanted to fund a petition campaign you would be against that too? see how muddy it gets when you say 'politics' and not elections?


what about a wealthy person funding their own campaign with their own money within any set limits on amounts?

Easy solution; take out ALL THE MONEY possible.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

funny how there's no choice for "there shouldn't be any money in politics".

not surprising.

no money in politics or in elections?

We have a constitutionally protected right to petition our government. this equals spending money

and we should petition our government. that is separate from the desire to fund someone's candidacy. I think there should be a certain amount of money given to each candidate by the government once they obtain a base-level of signatures getting them on the ballot. I don't think that a few billionaires should fund their candidate of choice and I don't think that a candidate, once elected, should be beholden to the interests that paid for him or her to get elected.

as for petitioning one's government, i'm all for it. but I think that means sign a petitioin, write a letter, protest, carry signs and march, etc. it doesn't mean put seven zeros after the 1 on the check you write.

Why not, instead of giving them X amount of money, just let them have free access to a cable network, say an hour a day that anyone could DVR and watch when they want?

The more we purge money from the electoral process the better. If you want to help your candidate do it the old fashioned way and wear some leather off your shoes hitting the pavement.

We need money in the electoral process. We also need sensible limits. and the battle will be in the details. Very few reasonable and intelligent people would advocate taking all money out of the process because it sounds like fairy dust

But we don't need that money coming from billionares. Set up a fund that people can donate to and divey out, and also let the 'soft money' flow from the people willing to work unabated.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You really think so? You have far too much faith in the same people (the states) that keep electing the people who you say are the problem.

Look at who controls most of the state governments and see for yourself. The states make up the convention delegates.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

funny how there's no choice for "there shouldn't be any money in politics".

not surprising.

no money in politics or in elections?

We have a constitutionally protected right to petition our government. this equals spending money

and we should petition our government. that is separate from the desire to fund someone's candidacy. I think there should be a certain amount of money given to each candidate by the government once they obtain a base-level of signatures getting them on the ballot. I don't think that a few billionaires should fund their candidate of choice and I don't think that a candidate, once elected, should be beholden to the interests that paid for him or her to get elected.

as for petitioning one's government, i'm all for it. but I think that means sign a petitioin, write a letter, protest, carry signs and march, etc. it doesn't mean put seven zeros after the 1 on the check you write.

in order to fund campaigns to petition, money would have to be spent. What i f one person wanted to fund a petition campaign you would be against that too? see how muddy it gets when you say 'politics' and not elections?


what about a wealthy person funding their own campaign with their own money within any set limits on amounts?

Easy solution; take out ALL THE MONEY possible.

Former Justice Stevens has one rational solution which is about an amendment stating in regards to the first amendment, money is not to be confused with speech. The laws on campaign finance reform were all about limiting money, not taking it out. Public funding is not taking money out either. You appear to be shouting 'Fire' in the theater


"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H. L. Mencken

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You really think so? You have far too much faith in the same people (the states) that keep electing the people who you say are the problem.

Look at who controls most of the state governments and see for yourself. The states make up the convention delegates.

states are where most constitutionally protected rights have been violated. States are also prickly things. Iowa and New Hampshire and a few other states got into a pissing match over who was to hold the first primaries. It set off a panic for a while until wiser heads intervened

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the history of the "states" is one of bigotry and repression of individual rights.... hence troops being needed to integrate schools.

Wrong. The federal government exists due to the consent of the states and their people.

This is true -- the states have the power to dissolve the federal government, while the federal government can do no such thing to the states.

Yeah, this was tried with a civil war between the states.
wow!


thank you. In responding to you I just wrote out a brilliant plan.idea. Too good to be shared here.

thank you

 

[M14 Shooter]

the history of the "states" is one of bigotry and repression of individual rights.... hence troops being needed to integrate schools.

Wrong. The federal government exists due to the consent of the states and their people.

This is true -- the states have the power to dissolve the federal government, while the federal government can do no such thing to the states.

Yeah, this was tried with a civil war between the states.

You clearly do not understand what I mean here.
I am not surprised.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the history of the "states" is one of bigotry and repression of individual rights.... hence troops being needed to integrate schools.

Wrong. The federal government exists due to the consent of the states and their people.

federal laws trump state laws if they are in conflict.

True, but that has nothing to do with an Article V convention. Have you read up on that?

you should probably get over it. because loony is what comes from the radicals in the "states".

And you are stereotyping millions of people as loons for simply advocating a Constitutional right?

Does that make you a loon, a hater, or just out of the loop?

fact (thank you jillian ): the history of the "states" is one of bigotry and repression of individual rights

This is WHY the people who ratified the US Constitution gave the power of 'trumping' rightsto the national government over that of the individual states

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the history of the "states" is one of bigotry and repression of individual rights.... hence troops being needed to integrate schools.

Wrong. The federal government exists due to the consent of the states and their people.

This is true -- the states have the power to dissolve the federal government, while the federal government can do no such thing to the states.

Yeah, this was tried with a civil war between the states.

You clearly do not understand what I mean here.
I am not surprised.

yet the people


get it, the people versus the states? The federal constitution was vetted and ratified by conventions of the people in each state, not by state governments.