RE: is money speech?

RE: is money speech? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: is money speech? (9/9/2014 8:28:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas This media audit, coupled with the recent proposal of 49 Senate Democrats to amend the Constitution to give Congress plenary power to regulate political speech, paints a disturbing picture of a coordinated assault on the First Amendment. And the talking points language is crafted. The IRS is forever tainted with the smell of political hackery From the Associated Press: IRS says it has lost emails from 5 more employees [img]http://binaryapi.ap.org/632c71d7673e4034ba18d8087cca9bf3/460x.jpg[/img] Yup. Another Bush appointee not up to the job. And yup, Bush Lite should have canned her.

Sanity -> RE: is money speech? (9/9/2014 8:34:59 PM)
You are claiming she's a Republican... [sm=rofl.gif] These "talking points" as you call them, write themselves. Or rather, its the Democrats writing them for the Republicans...

DomKen -> RE: is money speech? (9/9/2014 8:36:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: You just wrote it. The amendment says it already. Where does it say it? I'm reading from the link you provided and it says: "Congress shall 5 have power to regulate the raising and spending of money 6 and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, 7 including through setting limits on— 8 ‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates 9 for nomination for election to, or for election to, 10 Federal office; and 11 ‘‘(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, 12 in support of, or in opposition to such candidates." Nowhere in there does it say that congress can't give ten million to incumbent Ricky Republican and only ten thousand to challenger Danny Democrat in one election and then turn around and give ten thousand to incumbent Donna Democrat and ten million to challenger Roger Republican in another election. Sure, the amendment makes a big deal about how all this is to "advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes . . . " but it doesn't actually mandate it. By not mandating it, it allow the very opposite to become enshrined in the Constitution. This amendment, as is, is a sure fire road to one party rule. I don't care which party that would be because when it comes to power corrupting, I don't trust the Democrats any more than I trust the Republicans. No. The amendment language is the whole thing which does include: "advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes" The courts would take that into account when evaluating any campaign finance law. And any law like what you are talking about would outrage the people and that is political suicide.

Musicmystery -> RE: is money speech? (9/9/2014 8:39:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You are claiming she's a Republican... [sm=rofl.gif] These "talking points" as you call them, write themselves. Or rather, its the Democrats writing them for the Republicans... Yet again, you prove you're unable to read. I reminded you she's a Bush appointee. That's is. Another Bush screw up. And another Bush Lite continuance.

DomKen -> RE: is money speech? (9/9/2014 8:44:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic This is the path to tyranny. ANY American of ANY stripe who would be suckered into supporting this assault on freedom should have their right to vote stripped at best, and the ones who love the idea should be taken out behind the chemical sheds and shot as a better option. I'll volunteer for duty on the latter, if needed. Clear enough? And there we have it. The fascist doesn't want to surrender power and will kill to keep it and tries to cloak his power grab in undeserved symbolism. Why precisely should Sheldon Adelson have such an outsized influence over US politics? Consider carefully that his money comes from Macao, China. Ever wonder who he is in bed with in order to keep his casino open over there? Just whose interests does he represent?

BamaD -> RE: is money speech? (9/9/2014 8:58:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic This is the path to tyranny. ANY American of ANY stripe who would be suckered into supporting this assault on freedom should have their right to vote stripped at best, and the ones who love the idea should be taken out behind the chemical sheds and shot as a better option. I'll volunteer for duty on the latter, if needed. Clear enough? This is a blatantly pro incumbent concept. The incumbent has tremendous ability to skew things in their favor without spending one dime of "campaign" money.

Marc2b -> RE: is money speech? (9/9/2014 8:59:04 PM)
quote: No. The amendment language is the whole thing which does include: "advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes" The courts would take that into account when evaluating any campaign finance law. And any law like what you are talking about would outrage the people and that is political suicide. You're presuming the courts can be trusted to be fair and objective. That aside, I don't understand why you think "the people" would be outraged at the idea of equality in finance and commercial time. Some people would be against it, sure - those who benefit from the status quo - but why would those who are already locked out of the system be against it? I seriously do not understand what you have against clarity in language.

TheHeretic -> RE: is money speech? (9/9/2014 9:16:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The fascist doesn't want to surrender power Nice to see you putting Harry Reid in his proper uniform, Ken. Of course, of every participant in this forum, you are absolutely the one I would most expect to see parroting the talking points of the totalitarians. You may be a great disappointment to so many people in your life, but you've lived down to my expectations of you nicely.

DomKen -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 2:06:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: No. The amendment language is the whole thing which does include: "advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes" The courts would take that into account when evaluating any campaign finance law. And any law like what you are talking about would outrage the people and that is political suicide. You're presuming the courts can be trusted to be fair and objective. That aside, I don't understand why you think "the people" would be outraged at the idea of equality in finance and commercial time. Some people would be against it, sure - those who benefit from the status quo - but why would those who are already locked out of the system be against it? I seriously do not understand what you have against clarity in language. I have nothing against clarity and the amendment is clear. You are opposing it on specious grounds.

DomKen -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 2:08:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The fascist doesn't want to surrender power Nice to see you putting Harry Reid in his proper uniform, Ken. Of course, of every participant in this forum, you are absolutely the one I would most expect to see parroting the talking points of the totalitarians. You may be a great disappointment to so many people in your life, but you've lived down to my expectations of you nicely. And all you have is rhetoric. You cannot advance a single coherent argument against the amendment and that speaks volumes.

Marc2b -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 4:44:33 AM)
quote: I have nothing against clarity and the amendment is clear. You are opposing it on specious grounds. There is nothing specious about handing congress the power to decide who gets to be heard in an election and who does not. You still have not answered my question. What would prevent congress (or any of the legislative bodies this amendment would empower) from using this amendment to fund the elections of one party and not the other? What language in the amendment specifically prevents this? If you really think this (handing a significant amount of power to a small group of people) isn't really that important a consideration then I guess there is no convincing you at all and we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I shall remain perplexed about it. I remain a supporter of the idea behind the amendment but without some serious tweaking, this amendment does not accomplish that. I do not see how this amendment can improve the current situation but can easily see how it could make matters much worse. Are you certain that you are not so enamored by the thought of the journey that you fail to see where the road leads?

Sanity -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 5:24:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You are claiming she's a Republican... [sm=rofl.gif] These "talking points" as you call them, write themselves. Or rather, its the Democrats writing them for the Republicans... Yet again, you prove you're unable to read. I reminded you she's a Bush appointee. That's is. Another Bush screw up. And another Bush Lite continuance. You call it a screw up, I call it a lesson. Do not elect / appoint leftists for so much as dog catcher, under any circumstances.

cloudboy -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 7:53:50 AM)
One angle that no one's pointing out is how much time elected officials must spend fund-raising. To lessen this burden upon them would seem to be in our own public interest. Don't we want Congress doing their job as opposed to always trying to keep it? Robert Reich in his book, SUPER CAPITALISM, notes that public interest legislation (all legislation not backed by serious monied interests) is all but dead in our governing system. An example he used was environmental legislation. This would be seriously weaker if not for the tourist industries interested and dependent upon clean bodies of water. But for many public interest issues, there is not business money behind it at all. Lastly, the bars of fundraising, ass-kissing, and implied favors owed -- prevents a huge swath a talented Americans from running for office -- because they don't want to sell their souls to run for public office. To me the question is simple -- do we want the monied class always determining who runs for Congress and the Presidency? (The propertied class usually does have pragmatic interests and is not full of crazy, bat-shit, populist rage -- and I suppose that's one advantage of the present system. The USA if it became more populist might become a lot more ugly. Which poison is better? What's the proper balance?)

DomKen -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 10:31:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: I have nothing against clarity and the amendment is clear. You are opposing it on specious grounds. There is nothing specious about handing congress the power to decide who gets to be heard in an election and who does not. You still have not answered my question. What would prevent congress (or any of the legislative bodies this amendment would empower) from using this amendment to fund the elections of one party and not the other? What language in the amendment specifically prevents this? The clear language of the amendment prevents this. You simply handwaved this away when it was pointed out to you three separate times.

hot4bondage -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 10:33:30 AM)
Good point about candidates spending too much time fund-raising. I hate to think of all the good people who will never run for office because of all the begging and ass-kissing. On the other hand, I don't see how having enough money to reach a large audience is a compelling reason to limit free speech. Hasn't history taught us that the best way to combat "bad speech" is with more speech? Yes, the candidate with more money tends to have an advantage. Couldn't the same be said for the taller candidate? Or the one with a better haircut? Electability can be based on all sorts of things that don't have anything to do with being the best choice.

Musicmystery -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 10:38:31 AM)
At issue is the reach of corporations as "people" having rights in elections. Those "people" can dominate politics and power. The Amendment is DOA, and everyone knows it. The point is putting Citizens United on the issues list for the midterm elections. And whatever anyone's views -- it's a valid issue, even if you're for corporate personhood. Such an interpretation is a sharp legal shift from our historical understanding. And it's center stage in the Senate because control of the Senate is what this midterm election is about.

Aylee -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 11:10:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: I have nothing against clarity and the amendment is clear. You are opposing it on specious grounds. There is nothing specious about handing congress the power to decide who gets to be heard in an election and who does not. You still have not answered my question. What would prevent congress (or any of the legislative bodies this amendment would empower) from using this amendment to fund the elections of one party and not the other? What language in the amendment specifically prevents this? If you really think this (handing a significant amount of power to a small group of people) isn't really that important a consideration then I guess there is no convincing you at all and we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I shall remain perplexed about it. I remain a supporter of the idea behind the amendment but without some serious tweaking, this amendment does not accomplish that. I do not see how this amendment can improve the current situation but can easily see how it could make matters much worse. Are you certain that you are not so enamored by the thought of the journey that you fail to see where the road leads? DomKen does not understand the "Law of Unintended Consequences."

Aylee -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 11:14:22 AM)
I will note, an upside to this is that it has pissed of Harry Reid again. Now that is a man full of hate. http://washingtonexaminer.com/harry-reid-is-mad-that-republicans-didnt-obstruct-his-bill/article/2553066

Musicmystery -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 11:17:25 AM)
Yup. He got played.

Marc2b -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 11:30:28 AM)
quote: The clear language of the amendment prevents this. You simply handwaved this away when it was pointed out to you three separate times. Nothing has been pointed out once much less three times. Where is the clear language that you talk about? It is NOT the sentence that goes: "To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes..." All that sentence does is tell us the purpose behind the amendment, in other words, what the amendment is for. In no way does it tells us how this will be accomplished. Next we come to the part that presumably tells us how the amendment will acomplish its stated goals: "Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on - (1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and (2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates." Congress is given power to decide how money is raised and how it is spent but nowhere in there does it mandate fairness in the allocation of such. Nowhere does it say that Congress can't favor some candidates over others. You can relay upon the courts to protect you if you want but I am a little more dubious about trusting the same court system that gave us Citizens United in the first place. You are being willfully blind on this and I don't understand why.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125