APP - Defend Citizens United

and liberals are still blaming only corporations. truly amazing how blind they are.

let us say that only individuals can donate. chinese communist can easily give money to individuals who can then give money to politicians. i find it hilarious that the liberals are using commies as the bogey man for this sound decision.
 
The APP thread topic here is "Defend Citizens United" and that has been adequately done, and not refuted. For about the past page, all I am seeing is more hyperbolic rhetoric, plugs for more liberal propaganda outlets, and backhanded insults of people you disagree with. I thought this board was supposed to "stay above the fray" in the discussion of the topic, and not devolve into this sort of thing, but apparently not.
 
Yurt said:
and liberals are still blaming only corporations. truly amazing how blind they are.

let us say that only individuals can donate. chinese communist can easily give money to individuals who can then give money to politicians. i find it hilarious that the liberals are using commies as the bogey man for this sound decision.
Click to expand...

Or... let's say we pass a law that says only 'individuals' can donate or spend money on political advertising. The very first order of business, in light of the new law, would be to disband the DNC and RNC, because these are not 'individuals' but rather 'groups' just like corporations. As we work our way down the list, labor and trade unions, political action committees, 527s, 503(C)s, PETA, NOW, etc... all neutered, as far as political voices go. Finally, we will arrive at the point where only individual persons are allowed to have a political voice. THEN... it gets a lot like George Orwell's 1984.
 
Mudhut...

One tool to ensure that illegal foreign contributions do not influence US elections is the DISCLOSE Act. That bill, which was blocked by Republicans in 2010 and is likely to suffer the same fate again this year...

why don't 'conservatives' want to disclose where their campaign funds come from? Because the party is backed by the communist bogey men and other international groups and individuals that you don't think are real.

This is an international corporate coup d'etat meant to turn America into a 3rd world country and to deliberately drive down our standard of living by sucking the wealth to the top.
 
Dixie said:
Or... let's say we pass a law that says only 'individuals' can donate or spend money on political advertising. The very first order of business, in light of the new law, would be to disband the DNC and RNC, because these are not 'individuals' but rather 'groups' just like corporations. As we work our way down the list, labor and trade unions, political action committees, 527s, 503(C)s, PETA, NOW, etc... all neutered, as far as political voices go. Finally, we will arrive at the point where only individual persons are allowed to have a political voice. THEN... it gets a lot like George Orwell's 1984.
Click to expand...

that has been my point all along. although, we don't need to disband them, rather, not allow them to give any money to politicians or advertisements about politics.
 
Crashk said:
Mudhut...

One tool to ensure that illegal foreign contributions do not influence US elections is the DISCLOSE Act. That bill, which was blocked by Republicans in 2010 and is likely to suffer the same fate again this year...

why don't 'conservatives' want to disclose where their campaign funds come from? Because the party is backed by the communist bogey men and other international groups and individuals that you don't think are real.

This is an international corporate coup d'etat meant to turn America into a 3rd world country and to deliberately drive down our standard of living by sucking the wealth to the top.
Click to expand...

Since this has been mentioned a couple of times, it is worth addressing. In light of Citizens, the Democrats introduced a new bill, which would have excluded labor unions and special interests, but would have included such groups and internet bloggers and political websites. This is why it was opposed by Republicans, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the ACLU. ....YES.... THE ACLU!
 
Regulation proponents decried equating money with speech while striking down expenditure limits. They rightly predicted this would lead to endless fundraising. Regulation opponents condemned the contribution limits, which, in their view, allowed government to trample speech rights.

But a decision made in the name of protecting speech rights actually did the opposite. Now it’s the people with the most money who can speak longest and loudest.

Here are just two among many problems that were created.

First, limits on spending are not limits on pure expression. If I limit the amount of money you can spend, you can still speak — if at a lower volume. If I limit whether you can say something, then I’ve limited your speech. Don’t pretend these are the same.

Second, unlimited spending, far from protecting speech rights, actually harms them. For example, if a group debates in that town square and only one has a microphone, that’s the person heard. Others may be screaming, but they’re no match.

It’s also true in the political marketplace. We overwhelmingly hear those who amplify their views by spending money. It hurts the ability of the rest of us (candidates and public) to present our views. We are, in effect, drowned out by money.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77647.html#ixzz1yRyBxY00


What I get from all of this is 'to hell with the country as long as my party wins, and I don't care if Iranians, Saudis or Chinese pour billions into our elections.' Our elections are supposed to be about America not enriching some foreign corporation.
 
Yurt said:
that has been my point all along. although, we don't need to disband them, rather, not allow them to give any money to politicians or advertisements about politics.
Click to expand...

You've been arguing AGAINST this for three days. Not allowing them to give money or advertise, is the same as denying them free speech.
 
Crashk said:
Regulation proponents decried equating money with speech while striking down expenditure limits. They rightly predicted this would lead to endless fundraising. Regulation opponents condemned the contribution limits, which, in their view, allowed government to trample speech rights.

But a decision made in the name of protecting speech rights actually did the opposite. Now it’s the people with the most money who can speak longest and loudest.

Here are just two among many problems that were created.

First, limits on spending are not limits on pure expression. If I limit the amount of money you can spend, you can still speak — if at a lower volume. If I limit whether you can say something, then I’ve limited your speech. Don’t pretend these are the same.

Second, unlimited spending, far from protecting speech rights, actually harms them. For example, if a group debates in that town square and only one has a microphone, that’s the person heard. Others may be screaming, but they’re no match.

It’s also true in the political marketplace. We overwhelmingly hear those who amplify their views by spending money. It hurts the ability of the rest of us (candidates and public) to present our views. We are, in effect, drowned out by money.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77647.html#ixzz1yRyBxY00


What I get from all of this is 'to hell with the country as long as my party wins, and I don't care if Iranians, Saudis or Chinese pour billions into our elections.' Our elections are supposed to be about America not enriching some foreign corporation.
Click to expand...

So I take it you are completely okay with eliminating influence from unions and special interest groups like NOW and PETA, those groups can no longer make political contributions of any kind, or express themselves in any way political, which would be construed as a 'political advertisement' for or against any candidate? And we can also apply this to HuffPo and MoveOn and ThinkProgress, Micheal Moore "Documentaries," etc.? You need to think about all your little propaganda outlets, who are devoting enormous amounts of money to politics at this time... they all go bye-bye if we start eliminating influence by groups and only allowing individuals to contribute. I can't believe you'd be alright with that... I don't think you've thought it through completely.
 
Dixie said:
You've been arguing AGAINST this for three days. Not allowing them to give money or advertise, is the same as denying them free speech.
Click to expand...

you haven't read my arguments then. i've been arguing for it, but if they want to be against it, then against all. see post 43.
 
Dixie said:
So I take it you are completely okay with eliminating influence from unions and special interest groups like NOW and PETA, those groups can no longer make political contributions of any kind, or express themselves in any way political, which would be construed as a 'political advertisement' for or against any candidate? And we can also apply this to HuffPo and MoveOn and ThinkProgress, Micheal Moore "Documentaries," etc.? You need to think about all your little propaganda outlets, who are devoting enormous amounts of money to politics at this time... they all go bye-bye if we start eliminating influence by groups and only allowing individuals to contribute. I can't believe you'd be alright with that... I don't think you've thought it through completely.
Click to expand...

Funny, the groups you mention are all American groups, not one chinese industrialist, russian mobster or Saudi prince among them. When laws are passed to stop the slush money coming in to our election process I say so be it. Besides the amounts the left gets from your example is a pittance compared to the billions received by the right from the Mormon church, Saudis, Iranians and the Chinese. Your party is bought and sold by foreign interests and you won't admit it, or cant admit it.
 
Crashk said:
Funny, the groups you mention are all American groups, not one chinese industrialist, russian mobster or Saudi prince among them. When laws are passed to stop the slush money coming in to our election process I say so be it. Besides the amounts the left gets from your example is a pittance compared to the billions received by the right from the Mormon church, Saudis, Iranians and the Chinese. Your party is bought and sold by foreign interests and you won't admit it, or cant admit it.
Click to expand...

so there are no american corporations?
 
Crashk said:
Funny, the groups you mention are all American groups, not one chinese industrialist, russian mobster or Saudi prince among them. When laws are passed to stop the slush money coming in to our election process I say so be it. Besides the amounts the left gets from your example is a pittance compared to the billions received by the right from the Mormon church, Saudis, Iranians and the Chinese. Your party is bought and sold by foreign interests and you won't admit it, or cant admit it.
Click to expand...

Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S.

It's already the law, so I guess you can shut up now, huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top