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

[1stRambo]

Yo, this is America Obama, if you don`t like it? Leave loser!!! I say, spend, spend, spend!!! We are a FREE COUNTRY, not China! About using Jimmy Carter for anything? He and Obama are battling it out for the worst President ever!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 47039

quiet, loon.

the worst president in MY LIFETIME was baby bush. I don't know what planet YOU live on.

Yo, go bleed!

"GTP"

 

[JimBowie1958]

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?

The government is going to spend close to $3.5 trillion this year.
You want to reduce money spent on elections, you have to reduce the incentive.
Cut government spending by a couple of trillion.

do you libtards ever actually think for yourselves?

Libtards don't, but I'm to the right of Attila the Hun.

I am not a libtard, and yes, I support shrinking the government as a percentage of the economy, not in absolute numbers.

 

[JimBowie1958]

because that would exclude people who can't afford cable from the process.

I agree about campaigning. But that limits the reach of your candidate. We live in a country of millions of people. Access to them is important and their access to information is important.

For those who don't have cable TV, they could have the library or mail in requests for videos by candidates just in case they are also illiterate.

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, this is America Obama, if you don`t like it? Leave loser!!! I say, spend, spend, spend!!! We are a FREE COUNTRY, not China! About using Jimmy Carter for anything? He and Obama are battling it out for the worst President ever!!!
"GTP"
View attachment 47039

quiet, loon.
the worst president in MY LIFETIME was baby bush. I don't know what planet YOU live on.

You were born in 2001?
Yeah, that sound about right.

no, wackjob. but thanks for once again failing to impress....

...she says, unwittingly proving my point better than I ever could.

okie dokie, loon.

Yo, again, go bleed!

"GTP"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

The state congresses that ratified the Constitution and its first ten amendments are not the state governments in your view?

roflmao

Not in my view, in reality. Special Ed has a twin?

For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect.

Observing Constitution Day
​

The state legislatures did not ratify the proposed constitution, because the principle was that a government should not be voting on the type of the government which was being proposed. The people, the first time Americans acted as 'the people' on a national level in individual states, responded to the state calls for state conventions, not state congresses as you ignorantly state. Ignorant because of the distinctions between what constitutes a congress and what constitutes a convention. .

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Limit FREE SPEECH? Bull Shit!

8 people writing large checks is not "free speech".

But it is for those 8 people who want to abridge our freedoms!

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

The state congresses that ratified the Constitution and its first ten amendments are not the state governments in your view?

roflmao

Not in my view, in reality. Special Ed has a twin?

For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect.

Observing Constitution Day
​

The state legislatures did not ratify the proposed constitution, because the principle was that a government should not be voting on the type of the government which was being proposed. The people, the first time Americans acted as 'the people' on a national level in individual states, responded to the state calls for state conventions, not state congresses as you ignorantly state. Ignorant because of the distinctions between what constitutes a congress and what constitutes a convention. .

Yawn.
None of this is any way negates the soundness of what I said.

 

[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

No, they didn't, which is why they wrote Article V in the Constitution, dude.

You're conflating things again. It's a sign of weak knowledge or desperation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
​

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. This is HOW the people who ratified the US Constitution gave the power of 'trumping' rights to the national government over that of the individual states

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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!

how so?

I see citizens united as the worst court decision since dred scott

Libs don't like it because now the unions have competition.

Unions never had competition?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Obviously some money is required to pay people to set up the booths, etc.

I am talking about getting all the Big Corporate money out of the process and limiting the money to issue advocacy and tax payers voluntarily contributing to a shared fund that candidates get equal access to if they have the required petition submissions..

then you have to amend the Constitution, but seeing as you cannot get people here to agree with you on anything, how in the whacky world wide reality can you and people like you convince others to allow you anywhere near the Constitution?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

The state congresses that ratified the Constitution and its first ten amendments are not the state governments in your view?

roflmao

Not in my view, in reality. Special Ed has a twin?

For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect.

Observing Constitution Day
​

The state legislatures did not ratify the proposed constitution, because the principle was that a government should not be voting on the type of the government which was being proposed. The people, the first time Americans acted as 'the people' on a national level in individual states, responded to the state calls for state conventions, not state congresses as you ignorantly state. Ignorant because of the distinctions between what constitutes a congress and what constitutes a convention. .

Yawn.
None of this is any way negates the soundness of what I said.

ok, you're only trolling


thanx

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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!

how so?

I see citizens united as the worst court decision since dred scott

Libs don't like it because now the unions have competition.

Unions never had competition?

Unions never had to compete with corporate donations. Now they do.
And their whining..................hilarious

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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!

how so?

I see citizens united as the worst court decision since dred scott

Libs don't like it because now the unions have competition.

Unions never had competition?

Unions never had to compete with corporate donations. Now they do.
And their whining..................hilarious

You're joking, right? Unions and Corps participated in federal elections before the ruling

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Hilarious!

how so?

I see citizens united as the worst court decision since dred scott

Libs don't like it because now the unions have competition.

Unions never had competition?

Unions never had to compete with corporate donations. Now they do.
And their whining..................hilarious

You're joking, right? Unions and Corps participated in federal elections before the ruling

How did corporations participate, before?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

how so?

I see citizens united as the worst court decision since dred scott

Libs don't like it because now the unions have competition.

Unions never had competition?

Unions never had to compete with corporate donations. Now they do.
And their whining..................hilarious

You're joking, right? Unions and Corps participated in federal elections before the ruling

How did corporations participate, before?

Try looking into what K Street means in politics and then maybe go to the OpenSecrets website and I'll throw you a bone

2000 Presidential Race First In Modern History Where Political Parties Spend More On TV Ads Than Candidates Brennan Center for Justice

The vast majority of money spent by the parties on television ads was “soft money,” the unregulated and unlimited party donations from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

how so?

I see citizens united as the worst court decision since dred scott

Libs don't like it because now the unions have competition.

Unions never had competition?

Unions never had to compete with corporate donations. Now they do.
And their whining..................hilarious

You're joking, right? Unions and Corps participated in federal elections before the ruling

How did corporations participate, before?

Unions and corporations have been covered under the exact same limitations in terms of campaign donations.

Citizens United opened up the floodgates for both - prior to CU, unions had the same restrictions that corporations had.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Libs don't like it because now the unions have competition.

Unions never had competition?

Unions never had to compete with corporate donations. Now they do.
And their whining..................hilarious

You're joking, right? Unions and Corps participated in federal elections before the ruling

How did corporations participate, before?

Try looking into what K Street means in politics and then maybe go to the OpenSecrets website and I'll throw you a bone

2000 Presidential Race First In Modern History Where Political Parties Spend More On TV Ads Than Candidates Brennan Center for Justice

The vast majority of money spent by the parties on television ads was “soft money,” the unregulated and unlimited party donations from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals.

And now they can donate directly.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Unions never had competition?

Unions never had to compete with corporate donations. Now they do.
And their whining..................hilarious

You're joking, right? Unions and Corps participated in federal elections before the ruling

How did corporations participate, before?

Try looking into what K Street means in politics and then maybe go to the OpenSecrets website and I'll throw you a bone

2000 Presidential Race First In Modern History Where Political Parties Spend More On TV Ads Than Candidates Brennan Center for Justice

The vast majority of money spent by the parties on television ads was “soft money,” the unregulated and unlimited party donations from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals.

And now they can donate directly.

No, they can't.

Seriously, I get the impression that you don't understand this issue at all.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Unions never had competition?

Unions never had to compete with corporate donations. Now they do.
And their whining..................hilarious

You're joking, right? Unions and Corps participated in federal elections before the ruling

How did corporations participate, before?

Try looking into what K Street means in politics and then maybe go to the OpenSecrets website and I'll throw you a bone

2000 Presidential Race First In Modern History Where Political Parties Spend More On TV Ads Than Candidates Brennan Center for Justice

The vast majority of money spent by the parties on television ads was “soft money,” the unregulated and unlimited party donations from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals.

And now they can donate directly.

yep, yet you stated unions had no competition from corporations:

"Unions never had to compete with corporate donations. Now they do.
And their whining..................hilarious"

so it is you who are hilarious

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Unions never had to compete with corporate donations. Now they do.
And their whining..................hilarious

You're joking, right? Unions and Corps participated in federal elections before the ruling

How did corporations participate, before?

Try looking into what K Street means in politics and then maybe go to the OpenSecrets website and I'll throw you a bone

2000 Presidential Race First In Modern History Where Political Parties Spend More On TV Ads Than Candidates Brennan Center for Justice

The vast majority of money spent by the parties on television ads was “soft money,” the unregulated and unlimited party donations from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals.

And now they can donate directly.

No, they can't.

Seriously, I get the impression that you don't understand this issue at all.

you are not alone in that impression