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

[candycorn]

De-funding politics half ass gets us nowhere. Stop paying the politicians. Stop allowing them to take legal bribes, and then we'll talk.

Yeah, pay them nothing. That is how you get the best person for the job.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As for the overall issue of campaign finance, I personally have a significant conflict of interest.

I run IE campaigns for interest groups. The precedent of Citizens United (specifically, Speechnow v. FEC) allows for my paychecks.

 

[jillian]

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.

amusing little exchange. i'll have to tell bill gates he doesn't know how to think for himself. apparently neither does warren buffet.

*shakes head and laughs at the wingerness of your statement*

Bill and Warren like to talk about raising tax rates on rich folks, while they work to make sure the government gets none of their billions after they die.

Yes. How terrible that they gave their money to charity.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

As for the overall issue of campaign finance, I personally have a significant conflict of interest.

I run IE campaigns for interest groups. The precedent of Citizens United (specifically, Speechnow v. FEC) allows for my paychecks.

IE campaigns? Is that anything like A, E I, O U..."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As for the overall issue of campaign finance, I personally have a significant conflict of interest.

I run IE campaigns for interest groups. The precedent of Citizens United (specifically, Speechnow v. FEC) allows for my paychecks.

IE campaigns? Is that anything like A, E I, O U..."

Independent Expenditure

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

As for the overall issue of campaign finance, I personally have a significant conflict of interest.

I run IE campaigns for interest groups. The precedent of Citizens United (specifically, Speechnow v. FEC) allows for my paychecks.

IE campaigns? Is that anything like A, E I, O U..."

Independent Expenditure

I know somebody who sells software platforms for NPs

how does one RUN an IE campaign? Is this like some Tea Party group or Store Front church asking for NP status and raising money?

Coordinated Communications and Independent Expenditures Brochure

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As for the overall issue of campaign finance, I personally have a significant conflict of interest.

I run IE campaigns for interest groups. The precedent of Citizens United (specifically, Speechnow v. FEC) allows for my paychecks.

IE campaigns? Is that anything like A, E I, O U..."

Independent Expenditure

I know somebody who sells software platforms for NPs

how does one RUN an IE campaign? Is this like some Tea Party group or Store Front church asking for NP status and raising money?

Coordinated Communications and Independent Expenditures Brochure

The same way that you "RUN" any campaign.

This is how it usually works - an organization of some sort - a 527, 501c4, whatever - wants to support candidate x with unlimited, unreported money.

Since they can't just donate to the candidate's campaign itself (all of that is reported and limited), they instead hire me (or any number of other people) and we run a secondary campaign explicitly in favor of candidate x.

The only catch is that I (or anyone else involved in the IE) is not allowed to "coordinate" with the actual campaign, or any groups officially working on the campaign.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

As for the overall issue of campaign finance, I personally have a significant conflict of interest.

I run IE campaigns for interest groups. The precedent of Citizens United (specifically, Speechnow v. FEC) allows for my paychecks.

IE campaigns? Is that anything like A, E I, O U..."

Independent Expenditure

I know somebody who sells software platforms for NPs

how does one RUN an IE campaign? Is this like some Tea Party group or Store Front church asking for NP status and raising money?

Coordinated Communications and Independent Expenditures Brochure

The same way that you "RUN" any campaign.

This is how it usually works - an organization of some sort - a 527, 501c4, whatever - wants to support candidate x with unlimited, unreported money.

Since they can't just donate to the candidate's campaign itself (all of that is reported and limited), they instead hire me (or any number of other people) and we run a secondary campaign explicitly in favor of candidate x.

The only catch is that I (or anyone else involved in the IE) is not allowed to "coordinate" with the actual campaign, or any groups officially working on the campaign.

My question is YOU actually run the campaigns

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As for the overall issue of campaign finance, I personally have a significant conflict of interest.

I run IE campaigns for interest groups. The precedent of Citizens United (specifically, Speechnow v. FEC) allows for my paychecks.

IE campaigns? Is that anything like A, E I, O U..."

Independent Expenditure

I know somebody who sells software platforms for NPs

how does one RUN an IE campaign? Is this like some Tea Party group or Store Front church asking for NP status and raising money?

Coordinated Communications and Independent Expenditures Brochure

The same way that you "RUN" any campaign.

This is how it usually works - an organization of some sort - a 527, 501c4, whatever - wants to support candidate x with unlimited, unreported money.

Since they can't just donate to the candidate's campaign itself (all of that is reported and limited), they instead hire me (or any number of other people) and we run a secondary campaign explicitly in favor of candidate x.

The only catch is that I (or anyone else involved in the IE) is not allowed to "coordinate" with the actual campaign, or any groups officially working on the campaign.

My question is YOU actually run the campaigns

Yep.

The way I do it by being hired by an organization to run it, who then give me a pile of money to do it with.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If you're interested in an example of an IE that I ran (in this case, for SEIU), here's one from a long enough time ago that I don't feel weird about discussing it:

SEIU Spending 400 000 To Help Democrat Dannel Malloy Others In 30 Days Foley Predicts Boomerang Vs. Unions - Capitol Watch

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

Lol, let me type this very slowly for you so you can keep up, lol.

When the states have a constitutional amendment convention, they have no higher authority over them. Not Congress, not the SCOTUS not the POTUS. No one. If they pass a series of amendments or toss out the Constitution altogether and 40 states ratify it, then that new Constitution and/or amendments are the law of the land no matter what you, the POTUS, SCOTUS, Congress or anyone else thinks about it.

And that is a simple fact you need to learn. That is how we ended up with THIS current Constitution, dude.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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?

Wow, Eyes gots to assplain everything to some people, huh?

If we get a States Constitutional Amendment Article V Convention started, then that Convention can consider any issue that it wants to.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you're interested in an example of an IE that I ran (in this case, for SEIU), here's one from a long enough time ago that I don't feel weird about discussing it:

SEIU Spending 400 000 To Help Democrat Dannel Malloy Others In 30 Days Foley Predicts Boomerang Vs. Unions - Capitol Watch

SEIU has a 32BJ unit?

Hmmm .....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Lol, let me type this very slowly for you so you can keep up, lol.

When the states have a constitutional amendment convention, they have no higher authority over them. Not Congress, not the SCOTUS not the POTUS. No one. If they pass a series of amendments or toss out the Constitution altogether and 40 states ratify it, then that new Constitution and/or amendments are the law of the land no matter what you, the POTUS, SCOTUS, Congress or anyone else thinks about it.

And that is a simple fact you need to learn. That is how we ended up with THIS current Constitution, dude.

That is NOT how we ended up with our current Constitution.

No one was discussing Article V. you brought that in out of right field. It's as if you're having a one-way conversation with yourself, but post your statements as replied to other people's psost so that you look as mentally ill as you obviously must be

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

But unions were far stronger with 'soft money' sources of support.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

That is NOT how we ended up with our current Constitution.

No one was discussing Article V. you brought that in out of right field. It's as if you're having a one-way conversation with yourself, but post your statements as replied to other people's psost so that you look as mentally ill as you obviously must be

Delegates gathered to amend the Articles of Confederation, which are still part of the US legal Code by the way, and wound up just writing a brand ne Constitution.

And I was talking about an Article V Convention almost from the fourth post, dear.

 

[JimBowie1958]

As for the overall issue of campaign finance, I personally have a significant conflict of interest.

I run IE campaigns for interest groups. The precedent of Citizens United (specifically, Speechnow v. FEC) allows for my paychecks.

Oh so IT's YOUR FAULT!

That frigging figures!

lol

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

Wow, Eyes gots to assplain everything to some people, huh?

If we get a States Constitutional Amendment Article V Convention started, then that Convention can consider any issue that it wants to.

Like anyone in their right minds would allow anyone like you anywhere nears the US Constitution

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If you're interested in an example of an IE that I ran (in this case, for SEIU), here's one from a long enough time ago that I don't feel weird about discussing it:

SEIU Spending 400 000 To Help Democrat Dannel Malloy Others In 30 Days Foley Predicts Boomerang Vs. Unions - Capitol Watch

SEIU has a 32BJ unit?

Hmmm .....

It's a building services union - janitors, superintendents, etc

 

[JimBowie1958]

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?

Wow, Eyes gots to assplain everything to some people, huh?

If we get a States Constitutional Amendment Article V Convention started, then that Convention can consider any issue that it wants to.

Like anyone in their right minds would allow anyone like you anywhere nears the US Constitution

So now that you have descended into personal attacks, I guess that means you haven't got much else to say of any substance.

Have fun..