So It Doesn't Bother Anyone That Over 90% of the Winning Candiates...

[Rikurzhen]

Unions have been movers and shakers within the Democratic Party for a very long time. Why shouldn't others have the same opportunity to speak with a collective voice?

They have every opportunity, they just have to sign their name on the bottom of the bullshit they want to say.

Unions though don't permit free votes on how to spend money, the union leadership makes the decision, not individual dues-paying members. Require all union spending to be freely donated apart from union dues.

Tightening restrictions on labor union political activity while easing restrictions on other political groups is not possible as they are the same under the law.

Sure it's possible. You want to know individual donors to issue-groups, so make the law also require unions to solicit individual donations, with no duress to members, and to stop unions spending union dues on political campaigns. You guys are arguing that PEOPLE should be the focus, so live by that rule.

We saw what happened in Wisconsin after Public Service Unions could no longer charge mandatory dues to members and could only be financed by voluntary membership. The same is likely to happen here - individual union members will likely not want to donate their own money to finance union political activities.

To be equal under the law, stockholders, for example in the coal industry, would be allowed to say where coal industry contributions went. A union or a company donates money to their PAC and then the PAC sends it wherever, there is no direct link between the stockholders or the union member and the PAC that organizes in their name. Making it so might have some very interesting implications in the corporate world. The more I think about it the more I like it.

Corporate shareholders are not compelled to be shareholders, they have the freedom of exit which union members do not have. A corporation is a voluntary association, most unions are not.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

My point is that a two-party system that relies on regular people to fund campaigns is better than what is shaping up now, a system where there is no substantial economic difference between the parties.

So you are against "no substantial economic difference between the parties", ie : limit campaign contributions, we have been down this road, ruled unconstitutional.

We are distracted with silly social issues while the same Neo-Con economic agenda is pursued no matter who is in charge.

Neoconservatism is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s. Many of its adherents rose to political fame during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Neoconservatives peaked in influence during the presidency of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the invasion of Iraq.[1] Prominent neoconservatives in the Bush administration included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer.

The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism.[2] Neoconservatives frequently advocate the "assertive" promotion of democracy and promotion of "American national interest" in international affairs including by means of military force.[3][4] The movement had its intellectual roots in the Jewish[5] monthly review magazine Commentary.[6][7] C. Bradley Thompson, a professor at Clemson University, claims that most influential neoconservatives refer explicitly to the theoretical ideas in the philosophy of Leo Strauss (1899–1973).[8]

The anti-Stalinist left comprises various kinds of left-wing politics critical of Joseph Stalin, of Stalinism as a political philosophy, and of the actual system of governance Stalin implemented as Premier of the Soviet Union.

It may also refer to left-wing opposition to dictatorships, cults of personality, and police states, features commonly attributed to totalitarian Stalinist regimes, such as those of Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro,[1][2] etc.

Ferguson ring any bells??
Bad policeman for shooting that thug, fucking police states

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you have a better solution? All the solutions tried thus far are failures. They are unconsttutional restrictions of free speech and they force a candidate to spend most of his time on his fundraisers rather than getting his message out.
No limits. More money in politics.

The better solution would be to amend the constitution with the following:

Congress shall have power to regulate the financing of election campaigns for federal offices, and the states shall have the power to regulate the financing of elections within the states, so long as such regulations are of even effect to all political parties and candidates. Any law regulating the financing of elections will take effect exactly one year after its passage.

Yeah thats what the Dems are proposing pretty much.
Forget it. It will insure one party rule forever. Too many ambiguities. I like it simple and open. No restrictions, period.

 

[occupied]

They have every opportunity, they just have to sign their name on the bottom of the bullshit they want to say.

Unions though don't permit free votes on how to spend money, the union leadership makes the decision, not individual dues-paying members. Require all union spending to be freely donated apart from union dues.

Tightening restrictions on labor union political activity while easing restrictions on other political groups is not possible as they are the same under the law.

Sure it's possible. You want to know individual donors to issue-groups, so make the law also require unions to solicit individual donations, with no duress to members, and to stop unions spending union dues on political campaigns. You guys are arguing that PEOPLE should be the focus, so live by that rule.

We saw what happened in Wisconsin after Public Service Unions could no longer charge mandatory dues to members and could only be financed by voluntary membership. The same is likely to happen here - individual union members will likely not want to donate their own money to finance union political activities.

To be equal under the law, stockholders, for example in the coal industry, would be allowed to say where coal industry contributions went. A union or a company donates money to their PAC and then the PAC sends it wherever, there is no direct link between the stockholders or the union member and the PAC that organizes in their name. Making it so might have some very interesting implications in the corporate world. The more I think about it the more I like it.

Corporate shareholders are not compelled to be shareholders, they have the freedom of exit which union members do not have. A corporation is a voluntary association, most unions are not.

No one is compelled to take a job in a union shop. Going to a place where you know there is a union and hiring on is the same sort of voluntary transaction as buying stock. More importantly, what you are proposing is PAC reform, if individual donors are allowed a vote on the actions of a PAC then it really does include stockholders as well as union members, they cannot be made into two different things or the law is unconstitutional.

 

[SwimExpert]

Do you have a better solution? All the solutions tried thus far are failures. They are unconsttutional restrictions of free speech and they force a candidate to spend most of his time on his fundraisers rather than getting his message out.
No limits. More money in politics.

The better solution would be to amend the constitution with the following:

Congress shall have power to regulate the financing of election campaigns for federal offices, and the states shall have the power to regulate the financing of elections within the states, so long as such regulations are of even effect to all political parties and candidates. Any law regulating the financing of elections will take effect exactly one year after its passage.

Yeah thats what the Dems are proposing pretty much.
Forget it. It will insure one party rule forever. Too many ambiguities. I like it simple and open. No restrictions, period.

No, you like it bought and paid for. You firmly believe in wealth above all else. Wealth before liberty, before justice, and before democracy. At least be honest about your priorities.

 

[Flopper]

When Barack Obama raised a record breaking billion dollars that was OK. When he welched on his agreement to take gov't funds and be bound by restrictions, that was OK.
BUt now the GOP has won and suddenly money makes politiics dirty.
Seriously?
Hey maybe now you believe money is speech.

The average price of winning or holding on to a six-year term in the U.S. Senate averaged $10,476,451, and $1,689,580 in the House. Being rich or selling your soul to the devil should be a requirement for office.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you have a better solution? All the solutions tried thus far are failures. They are unconsttutional restrictions of free speech and they force a candidate to spend most of his time on his fundraisers rather than getting his message out.
No limits. More money in politics.

The better solution would be to amend the constitution with the following:

Congress shall have power to regulate the financing of election campaigns for federal offices, and the states shall have the power to regulate the financing of elections within the states, so long as such regulations are of even effect to all political parties and candidates. Any law regulating the financing of elections will take effect exactly one year after its passage.

Yeah thats what the Dems are proposing pretty much.
Forget it. It will insure one party rule forever. Too many ambiguities. I like it simple and open. No restrictions, period.

No, you like it bought and paid for. You firmly believe in wealth above all else. Wealth before liberty, before justice, and before democracy. At least be honest about your priorities.

And you believe in state control above all. You dont want people bundling their money or voting with their wallets. You want the state to dictate who can and can't run.
Stalinist.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

No one is compelled to take a job in a union shop. Going to a place where you know there is a union and hiring on is the same sort of voluntary transaction as buying stock. More importantly, what you are proposing is PAC reform, if individual donors are allowed a vote on the actions of a PAC then it really does include stockholders as well as union members, they cannot be made into two different things or the law is unconstitutional.

Stocks that shareholders do not agree with their "corporate entity" politics are usually sold. Large corporations make statements and segments of the public boycott them also effectively lowering stock value at times, based on political stances. As a shareholder, holding on to that stock or selling is totally up to you and your conscious. You want need to move to another town as this is a task that can be accomplished over the internet. If you have to go to make car bumpers at the union plant and you disagree with "company politics" then chances there is another car bumper plant around the corner is, not too good. You can not justify the two as equal, buying and selling of stock can be preformed over a smart phone. Getting another job, feeding the family and paying for the house is something that takes time. Most reasonable and prudent folks that work jobs usually buy a house and raise a family. When you start the shop may not have been union, the policies of the union change over time or your views on things change over time. Time in a job and vesting in 401K and retirement plans never entered your mind before making those statements.

 

[Rikurzhen]

No one is compelled to take a job in a union shop.

What's this union shop bullshit? An employer hires an employee. They're the ones who have a relationship. Unions step in after the fact and try to get employees to bargain as a group. A union shop precludes an employer and employee from forming a relationship. An employee is by all means COMPELLED to join a union in a union shop.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Do you have a better solution? All the solutions tried thus far are failures. They are unconsttutional restrictions of free speech and they force a candidate to spend most of his time on his fundraisers rather than getting his message out.
No limits. More money in politics.

The better solution would be to amend the constitution with the following:

Congress shall have power to regulate the financing of election campaigns for federal offices, and the states shall have the power to regulate the financing of elections within the states, so long as such regulations are of even effect to all political parties and candidates. Any law regulating the financing of elections will take effect exactly one year after its passage.

Yeah thats what the Dems are proposing pretty much.
Forget it. It will insure one party rule forever. Too many ambiguities. I like it simple and open. No restrictions, period.

No, you like it bought and paid for. You firmly believe in wealth above all else. Wealth before liberty, before justice, and before democracy. At least be honest about your priorities.

Let's test the strength of your convictions. How are you prepared to gut the Left in terms of fundraising?

 

[DebateDrone]

When Barack Obama raised a record breaking billion dollars that was OK. When he welched on his agreement to take gov't funds and be bound by restrictions, that was OK.
BUt now the GOP has won and suddenly money makes politiics dirty.
Seriously?
Hey maybe now you believe money is speech.

I think ever-increasing amounts of money spent on elections was a concern before Obama or the GOP mid-terms.

 

[occupied]

No one is compelled to take a job in a union shop. Going to a place where you know there is a union and hiring on is the same sort of voluntary transaction as buying stock. More importantly, what you are proposing is PAC reform, if individual donors are allowed a vote on the actions of a PAC then it really does include stockholders as well as union members, they cannot be made into two different things or the law is unconstitutional.

Stocks that shareholders do not agree with their "corporate entity" politics are usually sold. Large corporations make statements and segments of the public boycott them also effectively lowering stock value at times, based on political stances. As a shareholder, holding on to that stock or selling is totally up to you and your conscious. You want need to move to another town as this is a task that can be accomplished over the internet. If you have to go to make car bumpers at the union plant and you disagree with "company politics" then chances there is another car bumper plant around the corner is, not too good. You can not justify the two as equal, buying and selling of stock can be preformed over a smart phone. Getting another job, feeding the family and paying for the house is something that takes time. Most reasonable and prudent folks that work jobs usually buy a house and raise a family. When you start the shop may not have been union, the policies of the union change over time or your views on things change over time. Time in a job and vesting in 401K and retirement plans never entered your mind before making those statements.

Ask yourself why the Citizen's United decision also let unions off the hook? Addressing labor union political activities requires one to address the actions of PACs and as of this time there is no legal distinction between union PACs and industry PACs and that there can be no distinction under the constitution.

 

[occupied]

Do you have a better solution? All the solutions tried thus far are failures. They are unconsttutional restrictions of free speech and they force a candidate to spend most of his time on his fundraisers rather than getting his message out.
No limits. More money in politics.

The better solution would be to amend the constitution with the following:

Congress shall have power to regulate the financing of election campaigns for federal offices, and the states shall have the power to regulate the financing of elections within the states, so long as such regulations are of even effect to all political parties and candidates. Any law regulating the financing of elections will take effect exactly one year after its passage.

Yeah thats what the Dems are proposing pretty much.
Forget it. It will insure one party rule forever. Too many ambiguities. I like it simple and open. No restrictions, period.

No, you like it bought and paid for. You firmly believe in wealth above all else. Wealth before liberty, before justice, and before democracy. At least be honest about your priorities.

Let's test the strength of your convictions. How are you prepared to gut the Left in terms of fundraising?

If both parties had to rely solely on limited individual contributions it would be a great day for electoral freedom in this country.

 

[SwimExpert]

And you believe in state control above all.

That's deliciously ironic, coming from you. Everything I've seen from you has been a positive orgasm of government power.

You dont want people bundling their money or voting with their wallets.

Well, when it comes to electing government officials, you're right. I want to see people voting with their ballots, not their wallets.

You want the state to dictate who can and can't run.

Well that's an unfounded, and preposterous statement. Not only is such a statement light years away from even being remotely suggestible in anything I've said, it's actually the exact opposite of what I said. Were you not paying attention? The amendment I proposed explicitly forbids regulations that would impair any party or candidate in a non-uniform way. But hey, who needs reality when a low IQ and some mud will make you happier than a pig in shit on Sabbath, right?

 

[SwimExpert]

Let's test the strength of your convictions. How are you prepared to gut the Left in terms of fundraising?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Do you have a better solution? All the solutions tried thus far are failures. They are unconsttutional restrictions of free speech and they force a candidate to spend most of his time on his fundraisers rather than getting his message out.
No limits. More money in politics.

The better solution would be to amend the constitution with the following:

Congress shall have power to regulate the financing of election campaigns for federal offices, and the states shall have the power to regulate the financing of elections within the states, so long as such regulations are of even effect to all political parties and candidates. Any law regulating the financing of elections will take effect exactly one year after its passage.

Yeah thats what the Dems are proposing pretty much.
Forget it. It will insure one party rule forever. Too many ambiguities. I like it simple and open. No restrictions, period.

No, you like it bought and paid for. You firmly believe in wealth above all else. Wealth before liberty, before justice, and before democracy. At least be honest about your priorities.

Let's test the strength of your convictions. How are you prepared to gut the Left in terms of fundraising?

If both parties had to rely solely on limited individual contributions it would be a great day for electoral freedom in this country.

What if I my convictions are more deeply held than yours, why would limiting my speech to the limit of your speech be a good idea?

 

[occupied]

Let's test the strength of your convictions. How are you prepared to gut the Left in terms of fundraising?

He apparently thinks, all things being equal, that the democratic party could never survive without it's big donors and that the republican party would be just fine, truth is that both would be forced to more moderate and populist policies that actually favor the middle class.

 

[SwimExpert]

Let's test the strength of your convictions. How are you prepared to gut the Left in terms of fundraising?

He apparently thinks, all things being equal, that the democratic party could never survive without it's big donors and that the republican party would be just fine, truth is that both would be forced to more moderate and populist policies that actually favor the middle class.

Perhaps, but it sounds more to me like he's saying that, in his opinion, the only acceptable reason to endorse campaign finance is to strike a partisan blow to the Democrats. Which is simply ridiculous, and borders on fascism.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Let's test the strength of your convictions. How are you prepared to gut the Left in terms of fundraising?

He apparently thinks, all things being equal, that the democratic party could never survive without it's big donors and that the republican party would be just fine, truth is that both would be forced to more moderate and populist policies that actually favor the middle class.

Do you really think that the Democrats would cut blacks and Hispanics loose in order to have more appeal to middle class voters?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Let's test the strength of your convictions. How are you prepared to gut the Left in terms of fundraising?

He apparently thinks, all things being equal, that the democratic party could never survive without it's big donors and that the republican party would be just fine, truth is that both would be forced to more moderate and populist policies that actually favor the middle class.

Perhaps, but it sounds more to me like he's saying that, in his opinion, the only acceptable reason to endorse campaign finance is to strike a partisan blow to the Democrats. Which is simply ridiculous, and borders on fascism.

What I'm asking you is how you propose to harm the Democrats like you're trying to harm the Republicans.