ALF Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 True but this is our best chance in years and probably for years to come to get change - maybe through Supreme Court appointments or by using the bully pulpit to encourage an Article V Convention to get money out of politics. Very good point , I did not consider that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 You mean that you'd like to advance the fascist agenda of limiting free speech, as the spending of money on elections is nothing more than the exercise of free speech; and given that it's political speech, there is no more important kind of speech. The truth is that there are different mediums for speech, and those mediums have different costs associated with them. I've made this point here before, but it bears repeating: A television add is a type of speech, just as newspaper print is, as is holding a sign over your head on the State House lawn. The fact that each medium has different associated costs does not make any one of them less valid as protected speech than the others. Nor does the inability of some, many, or even most members of our society to afford using some of those mediums invalidate them. To your point, Jeb had the most money this cycle and went no where... Still, it's also the buying of the government which has a real affect on the system that is anti-republican Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 To your point, Jeb had the most money this cycle and went no where... Still, it's also the buying of the government which has a real affect on the system that is anti-republican It's not "buying the government", it's using speech to make your position more well and widely heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 It's not "buying the government", it's using speech to make your position more well and widely heard. Yes, paying politicians money so they can keep their jobs is a free speech issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Yes, paying politicians money so they can keep their jobs is a free speech issue You do this crap intentionally, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Yes, paying politicians money so they can keep their jobs is a free speech issue It's a protection on political speech, which is the most important type of free speech there is in a free country. Again: A television add is a type of speech, just as newspaper print is, as is holding a sign over your head on the State House lawn. The fact that each medium has different associated costs does not make any one of them less valid as protected speech than the others. Nor does the inability of some, many, or even most members of our society to afford using some of those mediums invalidate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 You do this crap intentionally, don't you? You almost have to hope so. Otherwise, you have to wonder how he hasn't died in some tragic spork accident yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 It's a protection on political speech, which is the most important type of free speech there is in a free country. Again: A television add is a type of speech, just as newspaper print is, as is holding a sign over your head on the State House lawn. The fact that each medium has different associated costs does not make any one of them less valid as protected speech than the others. Nor does the inability of some, many, or even most members of our society to afford using some of those mediums invalidate them. And we have limits on other types of speech, I don't think its the end of the world to have campaign finance laws to try and level the playing field a little. No one is saying you can't buy ads, but you seriously can't tell me that the money isn't buying these politicians to a point, can you? You do this crap intentionally, don't you? No way you can explain your problem with that statement. You just are not smart enough to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 You almost have to hope so. Otherwise, you have to wonder how he hasn't died in some tragic spork accident yet. The day is young.... No way you can explain your problem with that statement. You just are not smart enough to My only problem is trying to make any sense out of the garbled mass of syllables that you attempt to pass off as discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 The day is young.... My only problem is trying to make any sense out of the garbled mass of syllables that you attempt to pass off as discussion. No, it was pretty easy for anyone with any level of reading comprehension above the fourth grade to get. Politicians getting cash from people for elections might expect something in return. Does the phrase "quid pro quo" mean anything to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 And we have limits on other types of speech, I don't think its the end of the world to have campaign finance laws to try and level the playing field a little. No one is saying you can't buy ads, but you seriously can't tell me that the money isn't buying these politicians to a point, can you? List limits on other types of speech, and then explain those limits, and how they would relate in this situation, since you invoked them. As to the rest, again, political speech is the most important type of speech in a free society. Government limiting political speech is antithetical to a free society with any claim to a republican foundation. No, it was pretty easy for anyone with any level of reading comprehension above the fourth grade to get. Politicians getting cash from people for elections might expect something in return. Does the phrase "quid pro quo" mean anything to you? This is a reasonable argument, but you've approached it the wrong way. Your argument is that government corruption and influence is a commodity that can be bought, so we should level the playing field making sure all people and special interests can equally purchase the corruption and influence. The proper position, as it is the only way to solve the problem, is to limit what government is permitted to do. If there is no corruption and influence to purchase, no one will be able to buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 “Recent weeks have seen a large, simultaneous anti-Bernie Sanders effort by Democratic media. This movement is an attempt to ensure that a specific establishment, corporate candidate receive her scheduled coronation.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Behold! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 No, it was pretty easy for anyone with any level of reading comprehension above the fourth grade to get. Politicians getting cash from people for elections might expect something in return. Does the phrase "quid pro quo" mean anything to you? We were speaking of campaign contributions, and the case against limiting them. You've been implying that campaign contributions are tantamount to bribery, but it's illegal for candidates to use that money in any personal capacity - it can only be used to pay staffers, produce ads, buy air time, or any other campaign-related expenditures. They are not allowed to keep any of it for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Self serving alert ! I prefer this photograph, as it was taken by my daughter, working for Disney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 We were speaking of campaign contributions, and the case against limiting them. You've been implying that campaign contributions are tantamount to bribery, but it's illegal for candidates to use that money in any personal capacity - it can only be used to pay staffers, produce ads, buy air time, or any other campaign-related expenditures. They are not allowed to keep any of it for themselves. He's not completely wrong, he's simply making an argument in favor of government corruption and influence peddling, only seeking to spread out who can purchase it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 He's not completely wrong, he's simply making an argument in favor of government corruption and influence peddling, only seeking to spread out who can purchase it. It sounded a lot to me like he's equating lobbyists and campaign donors, and I'm long past attempting to divine the intent of his 'ruminations'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 What happens to campaign donations that are on deposit after an elected official retires from office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 No, it was pretty easy for anyone with any level of reading comprehension above the fourth grade to get. Politicians getting cash from people for elections might expect something in return. Does the phrase "quid pro quo" mean anything to you? So, politicians receiving donations should expect to get something in return for receiving those donations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 So, politicians receiving donations should expect to get something in return for receiving those donations? No, I wrote that wrong. Should be those giving donations should expect something in return. Doesn't always happen, but only a fool would think it doesn't have a role to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts