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

[occupied]

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?

No but you do, you are the one advocating for rules against both ....................
Wake up, dumb ass, freedom of speech has already been upheld by SCOTUS .................. you don't get to silence either!!

Now can you FUCKING comprehend that or twist it around another fucking moronic way??
The last little slippery pig fucked around till I nailed all four hoofs down and put a round through his head, same dumb ass shit you playing, it is coming .............

I am advocating for the voting public of the USA to be able to have some say in the actions of their elected representatives. Money talks but small individual donations are meaningless next to the millions that a relatively small group can marshal to push their narrow self-serving agenda.

 

[Rikurzhen]

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?

No but you do, you are the one advocating for rules against both ....................
Wake up, dumb ass, freedom of speech has already been upheld by SCOTUS .................. you don't get to silence either!!

Now can you FUCKING comprehend that or twist it around another fucking moronic way??
The last little slippery pig fucked around till I nailed all four hoofs down and put a round through his head, same dumb ass shit you playing, it is coming .............

I am advocating for the voting public of the USA to be able to have some say in the actions of their elected representatives. Money talks but small individual donations are meaningless next to the millions that a relatively small group can marshal to push their narrow self-serving agenda.

What you're talking about is corruption, not speech during campaigns. While they may be linked, they are not synonymous.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

I'm not sure if I should point out that your entire position is based on utter stupidity by claiming that liberals have more "spare time" based on the implied premise that they do not work, or if I should instead emphasize that by positing excess money is somehow a more appropriate form of power concentration than excess time you are simply making an eeny-meeny-miny-mo arbitrary selection which you happen to prefer, seemingly for purely partisan reasons and without regard for any actual interest in democratic elections where the collective people control the government.

Eh, let's go with "all of the above."

 

[occupied]

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?

What they can do is focus legislation on unions, not labor union PACs. All funding to a labor union PAC must come from voluntary donations of members with no coercion involved. Union dues are for union business, political donations must be voluntary. It is an offense to freedom to compel a Republican union member to donate to Democratic political campaigns.

Still no go, a law that narrow and overtly meant to undercut another party is called a "bill of attainder" and will never pass muster.

 

[Rikurzhen]

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.

I'm not sure if I should point out that your entire position is based on utter stupidity by claiming that liberals have more "spare time" based on the implied premise that they do not work

Liberals have a very definite advantage with over-zealous young people just coming into politics. Kids have way more time than working adults. Liberals have advantages with union members in that unions compel their members to engage in political activities. Welfare mothers have lots of spare time to work to insure that their welfare benefits are not cut.

There are 3 large and distinct factions who have lots of spare time on their hands that have no counterpart in the conservative sphere. Conservative middle class people have an advantage of money that the liberals don't have.

Money = Time = Speech

 

[Rikurzhen]

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?

What they can do is focus legislation on unions, not labor union PACs. All funding to a labor union PAC must come from voluntary donations of members with no coercion involved. Union dues are for union business, political donations must be voluntary. It is an offense to freedom to compel a Republican union member to donate to Democratic political campaigns.

Still no go, a law that narrow and overtly meant to undercut another party is called a "bill of attainder" and will never pass muster.

Nope. A union is different from a union PAC. PAC money must be received from voluntary donations. Unions exist to act on behalf of members with respect to their dealing with employers, not to sway political elections. Unions spending on politics is beyond their remit. Union members voluntarily choosing to donate extra to a union PAC is fine. There is no violation of law, or even spirit of law, taking place here.

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

So you would prefer if an organization like the NRA was prohibited from donating to candidates, but you're probably just fine with SEIU writing bills, dictating Democrat policy and spending millions on campaign contributions.

 

[occupied]

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.

I'm not sure if I should point out that your entire position is based on utter stupidity by claiming that liberals have more "spare time" based on the implied premise that they do not work

Liberals have a very definite advantage with over-zealous young people just coming into politics. Kids have way more time than working adults. Liberals have advantages with union members in that unions compel their members to engage in political activities. Welfare mothers have lots of spare time to work to insure that their welfare benefits are not cut.

There are 3 large and distinct factions who have lots of spare time on their hands that have no counterpart in the conservative sphere. Conservative middle class people have an advantage of money that the liberals don't have.

Money = Time = Speech

Here's an idea, hire some people to pass out your pamphlets for you. Is that not suitable? Maybe because you know it's practically useless to do that kind of thing in this age of media blitzes. If you cannot afford airtime, large donations or lobbyists you know it's pissing in the wind.

 

[occupied]

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?

What they can do is focus legislation on unions, not labor union PACs. All funding to a labor union PAC must come from voluntary donations of members with no coercion involved. Union dues are for union business, political donations must be voluntary. It is an offense to freedom to compel a Republican union member to donate to Democratic political campaigns.

Still no go, a law that narrow and overtly meant to undercut another party is called a "bill of attainder" and will never pass muster.

Nope. A union is different from a union PAC. PAC money must be received from voluntary donations. Unions exist to act on behalf of members with respect to their dealing with employers, not to sway political elections. Unions spending on politics is beyond their remit. Union members voluntarily choosing to donate extra to a union PAC is fine. There is no violation of law, or even spirit of law, taking place here.

How you feel things should be has little to do with what is possible under the constitution. It is just not possible to do what you want, isn't the constitution a bitch when it protects people you do not like?

 

[SwimExpert]

Liberals have a very definite advantage with over-zealous young people just coming into politics. Kids have way more time than working adults. Liberals have advantages with union members in that unions compel their members to engage in political activities. Welfare mothers have lots of spare time to work to insure that their welfare benefits are not cut.

There are 3 large and distinct factions who have lots of spare time on their hands that have no counterpart in the conservative sphere. Conservative middle class people have an advantage of money that the liberals don't have.

Money = Time = Speech

You really are starting to sound quite shrill. You sound like a whiny little brat. Whaaaaa, they are more motivated than us and have young people and have more time than me and I'm jealous, whaaaa!

Get over this partisan bullshit. Fools like you are ruining the once proud GOP, and the country along with it. Campaign finance is not a partisan issue. I repeat campaign finance is not a partisan issue! Stop complaining about make believe partisan advantages.

You also are demonstrating that you're entire position is based on partisan brainwashing, and devoid of logic. If money equals time, then it should make no difference if money buys politics or if time "buys" politics. Since you clearly are saying that it does make a difference, you're making amazing self contradictions. You're a loon.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Liberals have a very definite advantage with over-zealous young people just coming into politics. Kids have way more time than working adults. Liberals have advantages with union members in that unions compel their members to engage in political activities. Welfare mothers have lots of spare time to work to insure that their welfare benefits are not cut.

There are 3 large and distinct factions who have lots of spare time on their hands that have no counterpart in the conservative sphere. Conservative middle class people have an advantage of money that the liberals don't have.

Money = Time = Speech

You really are starting to sound quite shrill. You sound like a whiny little brat. Whaaaaa, they are more motivated than us and have young people and have more time than me and I'm jealous, whaaaa!

I'm not jealous, you're just dense. I'm applying the same equality argument as the speech opponents - "It's not fair that some groups spend more money, so we need to limit their speech by putting spending restrictions on their speech." Well, some groups have more time and others have more political intensity, so to make things fair we need to limit their ability to use their spare time and their excess political intensity. For the sake of fairness, you understand.

Get over this partisan bullshit. Fools like you are ruining the once proud GOP, and the country along with it. Campaign finance is not a partisan issue. I repeat campaign finance is not a partisan issue! Stop complaining about make believe partisan advantages.

Sure it is.

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

No but you do, you are the one advocating for rules against both ....................
Wake up, dumb ass, freedom of speech has already been upheld by SCOTUS .................. you don't get to silence either!!

Now can you FUCKING comprehend that or twist it around another fucking moronic way??
The last little slippery pig fucked around till I nailed all four hoofs down and put a round through his head, same dumb ass shit you playing, it is coming .............

I am advocating for the voting public of the USA to be able to have some say in the actions of their elected representatives. Money talks but small individual donations are meaningless next to the millions that a relatively small group can marshal to push their narrow self-serving agenda.

Is not a "relatively small group" a collective of individuals? What is the difference if a candidate gets 10 grand from a group representing 10 people and a grand apiece from 10 individuals? NEA, SEIU and NRA are all large groups that send in donations they collect from a membership with common interests.

 

[occupied]

Liberals have a very definite advantage with over-zealous young people just coming into politics. Kids have way more time than working adults. Liberals have advantages with union members in that unions compel their members to engage in political activities. Welfare mothers have lots of spare time to work to insure that their welfare benefits are not cut.

There are 3 large and distinct factions who have lots of spare time on their hands that have no counterpart in the conservative sphere. Conservative middle class people have an advantage of money that the liberals don't have.

Money = Time = Speech

You really are starting to sound quite shrill. You sound like a whiny little brat. Whaaaaa, they are more motivated than us and have young people and have more time than me and I'm jealous, whaaaa!

Get over this partisan bullshit. Fools like you are ruining the once proud GOP, and the country along with it. Campaign finance is not a partisan issue. I repeat campaign finance is not a partisan issue! Stop complaining about make believe partisan advantages.

You also are demonstrating that you're entire position is based on partisan brainwashing, and devoid of logic. If money equals time, then it should make no difference if money buys politics or if time "buys" politics. Since you clearly are saying that it does make a difference, you're making amazing self contradictions. You're a loon.

He wants to use the rule of law as a partisan weapon with two sets of rules, one restrictive for liberal money and another permissive for conservative money.

 

[The Rabbi]

...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.​

Money can buy advertisements, which brings the issues before the voters that aren't paying attention.

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.

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.

Lots of unsupported and unsupportable statements here.
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

LOL. You realize that doesnt support your contention, right?

From my link: "Only a tiny fraction of Americans actually give campaign contributions to political candidates, parties or PACs
Fuck man, you just aren't too bright are you? I even made an attempt to limit graphs being as you can't read graphs that 5th graders can read. And you still don't get it!
I posted facts, you posted your typical bullshit sans any facts. Of course that's your well known M.O.

That doesnt really support your contention. Sorry. I can't help that logic and reading werent your strong points.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

You really are starting to sound quite shrill. You sound like a whiny little brat. Whaaaaa, they are more motivated than us and have young people and have more time than me and I'm jealous, whaaaa!

Get over this political bullshit. Fools like you are ruining the once proud GOP, and the country along with it. Campaign finance is not a political issue. I repeat campaign finance is not a political issue! Stop complaining about make believe political advantages.

You also are demonstrating that you're entire position is based on political brainwashing, and devoid of logic. If money equals time, then it should make no difference if money buys politics or if time "buys" politics. Since you clearly are saying that it does make a difference, you're making amazing self contradictions. You're a loon.

See the loon part is when you take the word partisan and insert political , which is synonymous. Comprehension problems or just ignorant??
Campaign finance is not a political issue, do you know how big of a fool you sound like??
Political parties raise money to help their cause and get their members eleceted, that seek / procuring is campaign finance ...............

See when an intelligent person impeaches your shit and makes it where the common nigga can understand then you really sound amazing ignorant!!

 

[SwimExpert]

So you would prefer if an organization like the NRA was prohibited from donating to candidates, but you're probably just fine with SEIU writing bills, dictating Democrat policy and spending millions on campaign contributions.

Precisely my point. Both parties are deep in the pockets of special interests. Both parties will continue to be so, until we are willing to take bold measures to get the big money out. Anyone who says it's just the Republicans, or that campaign finance would somehow be a move directly against the GOP and the GOP alone, is either insane or incredibly ignorant.

Governance by special interests not only is entirely removed from the best interests of the country or the people, but it is the antithesis of the true spirit of government of and by a free people.

 

[SwimExpert]

See the loon part is when you take the word partisan and insert political , which is synonymous.

Completely incorrect. The rest of your rabble isn't worth spitting on. You should take a nap, you're irrationally cranky.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

See the loon part is when you take the word partisan and insert political , which is synonymous.

Completely incorrect. The rest of your rabble isn't worth spitting on. You should take a nap, you're irrationally cranky.

In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party.

 

[Ernie S.]

So you would prefer if an organization like the NRA was prohibited from donating to candidates, but you're probably just fine with SEIU writing bills, dictating Democrat policy and spending millions on campaign contributions.

Precisely my point. Both parties are deep in the pockets of special interests. Both parties will continue to be so, until we are willing to take bold measures to get the big money out. Anyone who says it's just the Republicans, or that campaign finance would somehow be a move directly against the GOP and the GOP alone, is either insane or incredibly ignorant.

Governance by special interests not only is entirely removed from the best interests of the country or the people, but it is the antithesis of the true spirit of government of and by a free people.

Special interest groups are coalitions of people with a common interest. What's the difference if XYZ PAC donates 10 million or their one million members donate 10 bucks each?

It's foolish (and inefficient) to restrict an organizations contributions to anything less than the total allowed for its collective membership.

 

[Rikurzhen]

So you would prefer if an organization like the NRA was prohibited from donating to candidates, but you're probably just fine with SEIU writing bills, dictating Democrat policy and spending millions on campaign contributions.

Precisely my point. Both parties are deep in the pockets of special interests. Both parties will continue to be so, until we are willing to take bold measures to get the big money out. Anyone who says it's just the Republicans, or that campaign finance would somehow be a move directly against the GOP and the GOP alone, is either insane or incredibly ignorant.

Governance by special interests not only is entirely removed from the best interests of the country or the people, but it is the antithesis of the true spirit of government of and by a free people.

I don't see people making that argument, I see liberals getting upset about Citizens United and wanting to return to the rules which existed prior and which allowed this to occur: