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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
The spirit of democratic elections is one person-one vote with everyone having equal power in the ballot box. If that ideal is extended to contributions then no one should be able to have more influence just because they can spend more. Why should you be able to buy influence just because you can afford it?If both parties had to rely solely on limited individual contributions it would be a great day for electoral freedom in this country.Yeah thats what the Dems are proposing pretty much.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.
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?
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?
Why should you be able to influence more because you're supported by your parents/welfare and have lots of time to be out there talking to people, passing out pamphlets, ringing doorbells, etc while I'm working and can't devote the time to spreading a political message I believe in. Why should you have that structural advantage to promoting your political views while my structural advantage, money I'm willing to donate which can be used to fund advertisements, is denied to me?The spirit of democratic elections is one person-one vote with everyone having equal power in the ballot box. If that ideal is extended to contributions then no one should be able to have more influence just because they can spend more. Why should you be able to buy influence just because you can afford it?If both parties had to rely solely on limited individual contributions it would be a great day for electoral freedom in this country.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?
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?
One man, one vote is not changed. Here, I'll give you an example. No matter how much money liberals spend trying to convince me to support the racist position of affirmative action, I'll never support such racism. Ever. So go ahead, spend all your money, my vote is my own and if your message doesn't resonate with me then I'll never be influenced by your message.The spirit of democratic elections is one person-one vote with everyone having equal power in the ballot box. If that ideal is extended to contributions then no one should be able to have more influence just because they can spend more. Why should you be able to buy influence just because you can afford it?If both parties had to rely solely on limited individual contributions it would be a great day for electoral freedom in this country.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?
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?
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the equal protection clause? It is a sad thing for republicans that there is no way to get their money flowing freely while simultaneously throttling contributions for democrats. Democrats (most of them anyway) would jump at a chance to make all of the money disclosable and limited to what a small businessman can afford. Only then can they take the survival of Joe's Garage or Melba's diner seriously.Why should you be able to influence more because you're supported by your parents/welfare and have lots of time to be out there talking to people, passing out pamphlets, ringing doorbells, etc while I'm working and can't devote the time to spreading a political message I believe in. Why should you have that structural advantage to promoting your political views while my structural advantage, money I'm willing to donate which can be used to fund advertisements, is denied to me?The spirit of democratic elections is one person-one vote with everyone having equal power in the ballot box. If that ideal is extended to contributions then no one should be able to have more influence just because they can spend more. Why should you be able to buy influence just because you can afford it?If both parties had to rely solely on limited individual contributions it would be a great day for electoral freedom in this country.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?
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?
What I'm asking you is how you propose to harm the Democrats like you're trying to harm the Republicans.
quite a few ran on the tea party ticket in 2010. of course the libs did everything they could to label them a lunatics.Is it even possible for a working class person to achieve national office anymore and it not be a noteworthy fluke?considering the left claims to be against the rich and money in politics it sure didn;t stop them from voting for the rich democrats
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the equal protection clause? It is a sad thing for republicans that there is no way to get their money flowing freely while simultaneously throttling contributions for democrats. Democrats (most of them anyway) would jump at a chance to make all of the money disclosable and limited to what a small businessman can afford. Only then can they take the survival of Joe's Garage or Melba's diner seriously.Why should you be able to influence more because you're supported by your parents/welfare and have lots of time to be out there talking to people, passing out pamphlets, ringing doorbells, etc while I'm working and can't devote the time to spreading a political message I believe in. Why should you have that structural advantage to promoting your political views while my structural advantage, money I'm willing to donate which can be used to fund advertisements, is denied to me?
It's because they were lunatics and were backed up by some pretty deep pockets and promised to protect the .01% as a matter of policy.quite a few ran on the tea party ticket in 2010. of course the libs did everything they could to label them a lunatics.Is it even possible for a working class person to achieve national office anymore and it not be a noteworthy fluke?considering the left claims to be against the rich and money in politics it sure didn;t stop them from voting for the rich democrats
It's the best answer I had to a stupid question, If I were to turn it around I could ask why big money (not you) can be allowed to shout down any number of regular people just because they can afford air time or lobbyists or sweet trips to Hawaii? A balance must be struck between big business and The People because it is clear from our present state that the interests of the two do not always or even usually coincide.Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the equal protection clause? It is a sad thing for republicans that there is no way to get their money flowing freely while simultaneously throttling contributions for democrats. Democrats (most of them anyway) would jump at a chance to make all of the money disclosable and limited to what a small businessman can afford. Only then can they take the survival of Joe's Garage or Melba's diner seriously.Why should you be able to influence more because you're supported by your parents/welfare and have lots of time to be out there talking to people, passing out pamphlets, ringing doorbells, etc while I'm working and can't devote the time to spreading a political message I believe in. Why should you have that structural advantage to promoting your political views while my structural advantage, money I'm willing to donate which can be used to fund advertisements, is denied to me?
That's not, at all, an answer to my question.
It's the best answer I had to a stupid question, If I were to turn it around I could ask why big money (not you) can be allowed to shout down any number of regular people just because they can afford air time or lobbyists or sweet trips to Hawaii? A balance must be struck between big business and The People because it is clear from our present state that the interests of the two do not always or even usually coincide.Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the equal protection clause? It is a sad thing for republicans that there is no way to get their money flowing freely while simultaneously throttling contributions for democrats. Democrats (most of them anyway) would jump at a chance to make all of the money disclosable and limited to what a small businessman can afford. Only then can they take the survival of Joe's Garage or Melba's diner seriously.Why should you be able to influence more because you're supported by your parents/welfare and have lots of time to be out there talking to people, passing out pamphlets, ringing doorbells, etc while I'm working and can't devote the time to spreading a political message I believe in. Why should you have that structural advantage to promoting your political views while my structural advantage, money I'm willing to donate which can be used to fund advertisements, is denied to me?
That's not, at all, an answer to my question.
LOL. You realize that doesnt support your contention, right?Money can buy advertisements, which brings the issues before the voters that aren't paying attention....Are the ones with the most money?
91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins
The chart analyzes 467 congressional races held in 2012. Its findings:
* Candidates who out-fundraised their opponents were nine times more likely to win elections in 2012.
* Winning congressional candidates outspent their opponents by about 20 to 1.
And in these latest midterms?
Money Won on Tuesday, But the Rules of the Game Have Changed
The real story of the election’s campaign finance chapter was not which side had more resources, but that such a large chunk of the cost was paid for by a small group of ultra-wealthy donors using outside groups to bury voters with an avalanche of spending. Both sides had plenty of support from outside spenders, but Republican and conservative outside groups outpaced the spending of Democratic and liberal ones. Democratic/liberal groups channeled most of their money through organizations that disclosed donors, while their more conservative counterparts relied heavily on secret sources funneling money through political nonprofits.
Some things seem never to change, and this year’s midterms reprised many of the same old stories. But there were also a handful of surprises, some of which may portend new dynamics in how elections are financed.
Every election since 1998 has been more expensive than the one before it, and predictably the 2014 election will follow that path, CRP has projected — though the total projected cost of $3.67 billion is only a slight uptick over the price tag of the 2010 midterm. Counting all forms of spending — by candidates, parties and outside groups — Team Red is projected to have spent $1.75 billion, while Team Blue’s spending is projected to ring in at $1.64 billion.
CRP’s analysis of last night’s results finds that in House races, the candidate who spent the most prevailed 94.2 percent of the time; the Senate figure is slightly lower, 81.8 percent. Despite several key upsets of Senate Democrats who, as incumbents, had the cash advantage, this is actually an increase from 2012, when 93.8 percent of higher-spending candidates in the House won, and just 75.8 percent of those candidates in the Senate could claim victory.
It also makes it possible for groups that support one candidate over another to lie about their opponent.
It's up to us to stay informed so we don't fall of the lies.
Lots of unsupported and unsupportable statements here.Campaign contributions come from citizens and entities that would like to see that candidate win. Lot's of money means lots of support. Lots of support usually means lots of votes.
That's certainly not a true statement.
The Big Money that went into this election was from "the few" who influence our elected so called representation of all Americans.
You actually believe the the candidates who got the biggest total contributions proves "lot's of money means lots of support"? A very huge portion of our population has been spinning their wheels economically for the last three decades! They hardly have a pot to piss in, let alone make monetary political contributions to clueless politicians.
Please post a graph so you can demonstrate again how little you know.
Really Rabbi? As usual you post like a little loyal goose-stepper who is too lazy to think for themselves.
Try to read this and see if you can counter this with some facts.
Donor Demographics OpenSecrets
Money is shutting down the voice of America, even yours, well maybe not yours, stupidly nodding and blindly accepting what the plutocracy has to say is not a voice. No amount of grass-roots street level political advocacy has as much pull on government policy as a few well paid lobbyists.It's the best answer I had to a stupid question, If I were to turn it around I could ask why big money (not you) can be allowed to shout down any number of regular people just because they can afford air time or lobbyists or sweet trips to Hawaii? A balance must be struck between big business and The People because it is clear from our present state that the interests of the two do not always or even usually coincide.Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the equal protection clause? It is a sad thing for republicans that there is no way to get their money flowing freely while simultaneously throttling contributions for democrats. Democrats (most of them anyway) would jump at a chance to make all of the money disclosable and limited to what a small businessman can afford. Only then can they take the survival of Joe's Garage or Melba's diner seriously.Why should you be able to influence more because you're supported by your parents/welfare and have lots of time to be out there talking to people, passing out pamphlets, ringing doorbells, etc while I'm working and can't devote the time to spreading a political message I believe in. Why should you have that structural advantage to promoting your political views while my structural advantage, money I'm willing to donate which can be used to fund advertisements, is denied to me?
That's not, at all, an answer to my question.
But money isn't shutting down your voice, you can still speak, you can still pamphlet, you can still go door-to-door and pitch your position.
If you have time to do these things and I don't, then you have an advantage that I don't have. How do you propose to fix this imbalance?
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the equal protection clause? It is a sad thing for republicans that there is no way to get their money flowing freely while simultaneously throttling contributions for democrats. Democrats (most of them anyway) would jump at a chance to make all of the money disclosable and limited to what a small businessman can afford. Only then can they take the survival of Joe's Garage or Melba's diner seriously.
But money isn't shutting down your voice, you can still speak, you can still pamphlet, you can still go door-to-door and pitch your position.
Read better next time, I sited equal protection to mean that they cannot make restrictive rules for Labor Union PACs that do not also apply to industry PACS. Do you have a problem with that interpretation?Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the equal protection clause? It is a sad thing for republicans that there is no way to get their money flowing freely while simultaneously throttling contributions for democrats. Democrats (most of them anyway) would jump at a chance to make all of the money disclosable and limited to what a small businessman can afford. Only then can they take the survival of Joe's Garage or Melba's diner seriously.
No we are all aware of the equal protection clause, WTF does it have to with this conversation / thread??
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".
A primary motivation for this clause was to validate and perpetuate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War.
The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase "Equal Justice Under Law". This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation, and also the basis for many other decisions rejecting discrimination against people belonging to various groups.
The Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state governments. However, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that equal protection requirements apply to the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Looks like more, poor, poor nigga shit to me, where is the racial tone in this thread except for your post??\
So the next lie would be the Republicans throttling Democratic contributions, that is another blatant lie you are bold face telling ......... quote anyone with republican affiliations in this thread that has advocated that Bull Shit!!
Democrats have crushed the small business owners, we spoke loud and clear with our money and our votes this last election.
Read better next time, I sited equal protection to mean that they cannot make restrictive rules for Labor Union PACs that do not also apply to industry PACS. Do you have a problem with that interpretation?
Totally missed the metaphor but if you insist. The drunk in question owns the bar, it's the only one in town, he runs it for his amusement and has everyone on locked in with him. At some point metaphors break down into unrealistic situations. The reality of the situation is that there are several hundred lobbyists for every congressman in Washington, how can we speak over that crowd of professional influence buyers?Those obnoxious drunks are most often showed the door by the bouncers and even though you may not like what they have to say, you can always leave. Sensible people who don't want to hear horse shit just simply get up and leave, most of the time the bar owner realizes his money is going out the door because of the obnoxious drunk ............. usually the drunk has no clue why he gets slapped jacked over the head and wakes up in the ally butthurt ..............
Kinda like you................
That's right, money is speech. You may have spare time on your hands which you use to make outreach to people to put your viewpoint before hem, but if money (speech) is removed from the equation, then those with time to spare get a structural advantage. Most conservatives work for a living so they don't have the spare time that liberals have and so liberals plus union members will have a lot more influence with their ability to get face time with strangers.But money isn't shutting down your voice, you can still speak, you can still pamphlet, you can still go door-to-door and pitch your position.
That would be a compelling argument if not for the premise that money is speech. As such, money does quote literally shut down others' voices in much the same way an obnoxious drunk drowns out the the sensible voices in a room.
Read better next time, I sited equal protection to mean that they cannot make restrictive rules for Labor Union PACs that do not also apply to industry PACS. Do you have a problem with that interpretation?Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the equal protection clause? It is a sad thing for republicans that there is no way to get their money flowing freely while simultaneously throttling contributions for democrats. Democrats (most of them anyway) would jump at a chance to make all of the money disclosable and limited to what a small businessman can afford. Only then can they take the survival of Joe's Garage or Melba's diner seriously.
No we are all aware of the equal protection clause, WTF does it have to with this conversation / thread??
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".
A primary motivation for this clause was to validate and perpetuate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War.
The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase "Equal Justice Under Law". This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation, and also the basis for many other decisions rejecting discrimination against people belonging to various groups.
The Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state governments. However, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that equal protection requirements apply to the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Looks like more, poor, poor nigga shit to me, where is the racial tone in this thread except for your post??\
So the next lie would be the Republicans throttling Democratic contributions, that is another blatant lie you are bold face telling ......... quote anyone with republican affiliations in this thread that has advocated that Bull Shit!!
Democrats have crushed the small business owners, we spoke loud and clear with our money and our votes this last election.
