I say we need to end ALL campaign contributions or force them to wear nascar style jackets so we can see who owns them
Just when I thought that you and I would never agree on anything. :)
I a little unsure how much of a difference this will make. The limits on contribution to individual candidates are still in place, for now.
And being able to run your own campaign for your favorite politicians thanks to Citizen's United almost makes traditional campaign contributions obsolete. At least for the rich. Especially since you can keep those secret.
As am I. But if you needed any confirmation that nothing was learned from Citizens United, look no further.
The prospects for clean and transparent elections do not look bright. :(
In other news, EPA to allow more water into ocean.
I say we need to end ALL campaign contributions or force them to wear nascar style jackets so we can see who owns them
How could we tell them apart then? They'd all have the same logos.
God save us from ourselves.
I a little unsure how much of a difference this will make. The limits on contribution to individual candidates are still in place, for now.
And being able to run your own campaign for your favorite politicians thanks to Citizen's United almost makes traditional campaign contributions obsolete. At least for the rich. Especially since you can keep those secret.
Not...quite. At least from the analysis I heard, what it allows is greater collaboration between state and federal party committees as well. So where before, money given to GOP Iowa had to be spent on races in Iowa, now they can move money around more freely and focus a whole nation's worth of state parties' money into a single race if they wanted to.
So, a single donor could max out contributions to 50 separate organizations, who then funnel it into one big organization or focus it on several smaller races.
But, again, this is from an early analysis that I heard on local talk radio, so take it with a grain of salt.
The free speech thing is a bit of a stretch. It's simply the freedom, or lack of freedom, to do what you want with your money.
So I should be able to hire a hitman? After all, it's my money.
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . ."
It's absolutely amazing how some people cannot understand those simple words.
But for a fun mental exercise, let's apply the same "contribution limits" to other aspects of the First Amendment, shall we?
Congress passes a law that says "People cannot assemble in groups of 10 or more, and people may only assemble in such groups no more than 13 times per year."
Sounds kinda stupid, doesn't it?
Or, religion: "People may not attend church on any day but even numbered days of the month, and may not attend more than 52 times per year."
Press: "The press may not publish more than 15 pages related to national news in a given day, and may not publish more than 1200 pages of national news in a year."
But somehow, when it comes to speech certain people don't like, it's okay to establish arbitrary limits on speech.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's absolutely amazing how some people cannot understand those simple words.
Its absolutely amazing that you need to focus on that instead of the actual issue at hand: namely that money is not speech. I cannot simply hand a politician cash as a way of saying "nice job"- thats called bribery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its absolutely amazing that you need to focus on that instead of the actual issue at hand: namely that money is not speech. I cannot simply hand a politician cash as a way of saying "nice job"- thats called bribery.
Um . . . no.
Bribery involves exchanging favors for cash.If I give money to a politician, that's perfectly fine and legal.
If I give money to a politician with the expectation that he'll divert some government contracts my way, that's bribery. Huge difference.
And in case you missed it, the Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that money does, indeed, equal speech.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its absolutely amazing that you need to focus on that instead of the actual issue at hand: namely that money is not speech. I cannot simply hand a politician cash as a way of saying "nice job"- thats called bribery.Um . . . no.
Bribery involves exchanging favors for cash.If I give money to a politician, that's perfectly fine and legal.
No its not actually, because the legal assumption is that if you hand a politician money you're trying to get favors out of it. That's why all gifts need to be recorded tracked, and above all limited
And in case you missed it, the Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that money does, indeed, equal speech.
Yes and we can't have people disagreeing with the government now can we.
No its not actually, because the legal assumption is that if you hand a politician money you're trying to get favors out of it. That's why all gifts need to be recorded tracked, and above all limited
And in case you missed it, the Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that money does, indeed, equal speech.Yes and we can't have people disagreeing with the government now can we.
And gifts are tracked. The Court didn't change that rule. However, they cannot be limited, because based on the previous Supreme Court decisions that upheld speech = money, an arbitrary limit cannot be imposed.
Edit to add: And you are free to disagree with the government, me, Paizo, God, your partner. But because of the plain language that exists in this particular instance, you are what is colloquially known as "wrong."
And gifts are tracked. The Court didn't change that rule. However, they cannot be limitedNo its not actually, because the legal assumption is that if you hand a politician money you're trying to get favors out of it. That's why all gifts need to be recorded tracked, and above all limited
And in case you missed it, the Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that money does, indeed, equal speech.Yes and we can't have people disagreeing with the government now can we.
No.
Donations to their political campaigns are not tracked (you give to the superpac, which has no accountability on source but not expense, and they give to the pac. which traces source) and now have fewer limits. Giving gifts to a politician is still bribery and still illegal.
If you don't see the difference, that's the point.
And gifts are tracked. The Court didn't change that rule. However, they cannot be limited
No.
Donations to their political campaigns are not tracked and now have fewer limits. Giving gifts to a politician is still bribery and still illegal.
If you don't see the difference, that's the point.
I can go online and see who gave money to which politician.
So, once again, you're wrong.
Furthermore, gifts are not bribery. Gifts are given all the time. I suppose you've never heard of Christmas?
Gifts given with the expectation of illicit favors are bribery.
Which is why donations are tracked, because if I give you money and then you do something to benefit me, law enforcement can start the process to see if that gift was in fact not a gift, but a bribe.
I can go online and see who gave money to which politician.
So, once again, you're wrong.
No, I'm not. The donations you're talking about are chump change. They're not most of the money in politics. You can see where SOME of the money comes from, but only a little of it.
The real money is in superpacs and pacs, not to the politician. That money is untraceable and unlimited, that's the problem.
By your logic, i should be able to gift a senator a million dollars because my money says "Good job"... and yet I can't. Why is that?
Right.
But bribery has a specific definition. Gifts do not, and never have, equaled bribery.
And yes, there are limits on what "gifts" can be given. I have that in the business world as well. I cannot accept gifts from my vendors that have a value over $25 unless it's classified as SWAG (Stuff We All Get). Why? Because it may appear to be a bribe.
And Wolfie, PACs do have to list who they give money to.
But bribery has a specific definition. Gifts do not, and never have, equaled bribery.
Don't dodge the question. Again, if money =s speech. I can tell my politician "Nice job" verbally, in the news paper, or on TV, why can I not say "nice job" with a million dollars in cash? Until you can answer that your position is beyond unfounded.
And yes, there are limits on what "gifts" can be given. I have that in the business world as well. I cannot accept gifts from my vendors that have a value over $25 unless it's classified as SWAG (Stuff We All Get). Why? Because it may appear to be a bribe.
Your employer is not bound by the limits on the federal government.
And Wolfie, PACs do have to list who they give money to.
They give it to commercial production companies to make commercials for their candidates.
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . ."
It's absolutely amazing how some people cannot understand those simple words.
But for a fun mental exercise, let's apply the same "contribution limits" to other aspects of the First Amendment, shall we?
Congress passes a law that says "People cannot assemble in groups of 10 or more, and people may only assemble in such groups no more than 13 times per year."
Sounds kinda stupid, doesn't it?
Or, religion: "People may not attend church on any day but even numbered days of the month, and may not attend more than 52 times per year."
Press: "The press may not publish more than 15 pages related to national news in a given day, and may not publish more than 1200 pages of national news in a year."
But somehow, when it comes to speech certain people don't like, it's okay to establish arbitrary limits on speech.
You know what else it doesn't say? "You may only say 100 words an hour." You're straw manning. No one is limiting the amount people are allowed to speak, in fact campaign finance laws are about ensuring everyone gets a turn to speak. It also doesn't say, "Only rich people are allowed to have assemblies or churches." But that's what is happening to speech.
Oh, but there is that bit about how we won't prohibit the free exercise of religion, and yet if you are into human sacrifice, you don't get a special pass. Right to bear arms doesn't equal right to nuclear weapons. Rights have limits and responsibilities. That is not the same as infringing or abridging them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . ."
It's absolutely amazing how some people cannot understand those simple words.
Money != speech.
(though it's unsurprising to see you towing the party line).
Don't dodge the question. Again, if money =s speech. I can tell my politician "Nice job" verbally, in the news paper, or on TV, why can I not say "nice job" with a million dollars in cash? Until you can answer that your position is beyond unfounded.
Because given the responsibility we give to our elected officials over our lives, it's easier to say "avoid the appearance of corruption."
Those laws remain unchanged.
Your employer is not bound by the limits on the federal government.
Correct. But if I wish to remain employed, I need to abide by those rules.
They give it to commercial production companies to make commercials for their candidates.
And they have to list the politicians they give it to directly.
You know what else it doesn't say? "You may only say 100 words an hour." You're straw manning. No one is limiting the amount people are allowed to speak, in fact campaign finance laws are about ensuring everyone gets a turn to speak. It also doesn't say, "Only rich people are allowed to have assemblies or churches." But that's what is happening to speech.Oh, but there is that bit about how we won't prohibit the free exercise of religion, and yet if you are into human sacrifice, you don't get a special pass. Right to bear arms doesn't equal right to nuclear weapons. Rights have limits and responsibilities. That is not the same as infringing or abridging them.
Not 'straw manning.' Illustrating how absurd the position is.
And you can contribute to whomever you wish. If you're upset that someone who has made better life decisions can contribute more, that's an issue of envy, and I can't help you.
As for the free exercise of religion, you're right that human sacrifice is banned. Because that infringes on one's right to life. Similarly, you don't get to yell "fire" in a crowded theater because it could very likely injure someone.
Right to bear arms doesn't mean nuclear weapons, correct. But I can own 264 pistols, 93 rifles, and 32 shotguns. A curious student might wonder why that is, instead of "strawmanning." Here's hint: You can cause considerable damage to innocents' life and property even when using it correctly. Which is why you also don't have a CDL without special certification.
You know what else it doesn't say? "You may only say 100 words an hour." You're straw manning. No one is limiting the amount people are allowed to speak, in fact campaign finance laws are about ensuring everyone gets a turn to speak. It also doesn't say, "Only rich people are allowed to have assemblies or churches." But that's what is happening to speech.Oh, but there is that bit about how we won't prohibit the free exercise of religion, and yet if you are into human sacrifice, you don't get a special pass. Right to bear arms doesn't equal right to nuclear weapons. Rights have limits and responsibilities. That is not the same as infringing or abridging them.
Not 'straw manning.' Illustrating how absurd the position is.
And you can contribute to whomever you wish. If you're upset that someone who has made better life decisions can contribute more, that's an issue of envy, and I can't help you.
As for the free exercise of religion, you're right that human sacrifice is banned. Because that infringes on one's right to life. Similarly, you don't get to yell "fire" in a crowded theater because it could very likely injure someone.
Right to bear arms doesn't mean nuclear weapons, correct. But I can own 264 pistols, 93 rifles, and 32 shotguns. A curious student might wonder why that is, instead of "strawmanning." Here's hint: You can cause considerable damage to innocents' life and property even when using it correctly. Which is why you also don't have a CDL without special certification.
I've never seen a better example of cognitive dissonance is my life.
Making up an "absurd" example to "Illustrate how absurd the position is." is what a straw man is.
If you count genetic, geographic, and temporal accidents as better life decisions, I guess you have a point. But that's a really weird definition of life decision. You don't get to yell fire in a crowded building for exactly the same reason we shouldn't have unlimited campaign spending. It's dangerous.
You can cause considerable damage to innocents' life and property by buying elections too. Which is you we had campaign finance laws.
[
Money != speech.(though it's unsurprising to see you towing the party line).
I'm assuming you mean "does not equal."
In which case, you're at odds with multiple decisions from the Supreme Court.
Might want to take it up with them instead of continuing the conversation here.
And why shouldn't money = speech? I need money to buy a billboard, or hire a sky-writer. I need money to take out advertisements in newspapers, magazines, and television. My ability to reach people is directly related to the amount of money I spend, whether it's for marketing my newest product that you can't live without or a electing Joe L. instead of Rick D.
FYI, the largest doner in elections? ActBlue. The second largest? American Federation of State County and Municpal Employees. Of the top 15 donor groups, 11 tilt to the left, while none tilt to the right. Nine are labor unions.
Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
The Center for Responsive Politics tilts over to the left, in case you were going to complain about the data source.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I need money to buy a billboard, or hire a sky-writer. I need money to take out advertisements in newspapers, magazines, and television. My ability to reach people is directly related to the amount of money I spend, whether it's for marketing my newest product that you can't live without or a electing Joe L. instead of Rick D.
You keep pointing out why this is bad, but you're saying it like it's good....
Funny thing about being a liberal, I can say excessive campaign spending is bad, even if liberals are benefitting more from it.
If you count genetic, geographic, and temporal accidents as better life decisions, I guess you have a point. But that's a really weird definition of life decision. You don't get to yell fire in a crowded building for exactly the same reason we shouldn't have unlimited...
Let's see . . . instead of partying in college, I focused on studying. Instead of going out drinking every night, I stayed home to game.
Instead of having illict relations with strangers I barely knew, I said "probably better stay away from disease-ridden people."None of those are genetic, geographic, or temporal accidents.
And you can yell fire in a crowded theater if, in fact, there is a fire. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire.
You keep pointing out why this is bad, but you're saying it like it's good....
Funny thing about being a liberal, I can say excessive campaign spending is bad, even if liberals are benefitting more from it.
Why is it bad? I didn't say it was bad. I think maybe your train of thought skipped a station.
It's not like campaign contributions "avoid the appearance of corruption."
Yes, it's true we live in an imperfect world.
But all those contributions are tracked. Both before the Court's decision as well as after.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it bad? I didn't say it was bad. I think maybe your train of thought skipped a station.
You keep pointing out why this is bad, but you're saying it like it's good....
Funny thing about being a liberal, I can say excessive campaign spending is bad, even if liberals are benefitting more from it.
No, yours did
but you're saying it like it's good....
Let's see . . . instead of partying in college, I focused on studying. Instead of going out drinking every night, I stayed home to game.
Instead of having illict relations with strangers I barely knew, I said "probably better stay away from disease-ridden people."None of those are genetic, geographic, or temporal accidents.
Just getting to go to college is a factor of being in a family wealthy enough to send you or being in a state that works to send people to college. You're so privileged you don't even see it.
I also didn't know you had STD vision. Most people don't though. That's another privilege you have.
Are you saying it's impossible for a bad upbringing beyond your control to influence your ability to make good decisions as an adult?
Let's see.... instead of partying in college, some people were working two jobs to help support their younger siblings. Instead of drinking every night, they committed suicide to die from depression. Instead of having illicit relations they were prostituted by their guardians.
Those are all beyond their control. And they impact their ability to maintain free speech in a world dominated by wealthy corporations.
So, let's say Rich McGrafty gets elected to the Senate. A month after he takes office, the CEO of UberCorp donates $50K to Sen. McGrafty's re-election campaign... for an election that will occur in six years. Mr. UberCorp says, "We like you! Good job so far!"
Every six months or so, Mr. UberCorp donates another $50K to McGrafty's campaign. "Nice job, McGrafty!"
Three years (and $300K) later, legislation is before the Senate that could have a significant impact on UberCorp's business model. Mr. UberCorp drops by McGrafty's office and says, "You know, we would really like you to vote this way on the legislation."
Mr. UberCorp didn't offer a bribe. He didn't make a threat. But McGrafty now has a pretty good idea that his $50K every six months from UberCorp will be going away if he doesn't vote in UberCorp's favor.
That's the kind of influence today's Supreme Court ruling allows.
Just getting to go to college is a factor of being in a family wealthy enough to send you or being in a state that works to send people to college. You're so privileged you don't even see it.I also didn't know you had STD vision. Most people don't though. That's another privilege you have.
Are you saying it's impossible for a bad upbringing beyond your control to influence your ability to make good decisions as an adult?
Let's see.... instead of partying in college, some people were working two jobs to help support their younger siblings. Instead of drinking every night, they committed suicide to die from depression. Instead of having illicit relations they were prostituted by their guardians.
Those are all beyond their control. And they impact their ability to maintain free speech in a world dominated by wealthy corporations.
I worked through college. I went to college because even as a teenager, I could see that working at the local fast food joint wasn't going to provide me the life I wanted. So I wasn't born stupid. Most people aren't.
Bad upbringing does not prevent you from making good decisions as an adult. Our current president didn't have the best childhood, and he seems to have done pretty well for himself. Bill Clinton was raised by a single mom, and he did pretty well for himself.
If you choose to be a victim of your circumstances, I can't help you.
So, let's say Rich McGrafty gets elected to the Senate. A month after he takes office, the CEO of UberCorp donates $50K to Sen. McGrafty's re-election campaign... for an election that will occur in six years. Mr. UberCorp says, "We like you! Good job so far!"
Every six months or so, Mr. UberCorp donates another $50K to McGrafty's campaign. "Nice job, McGrafty!"
Three years (and $300K) later, legislation is before the Senate that could have a significant impact on UberCorp's business model. Mr. UberCorp drops by McGrafty's office and says, "You know, we would really like you to vote this way on the legislation."
Mr. UberCorp didn't offer a bribe. He didn't make a threat. But McGrafty now has a pretty good idea that his $50K every six months from UberCorp will be going away if he doesn't vote in UberCorp's favor.
That's the kind of influence today's Supreme Court ruling allows.
Um . . . no.
Today's ruling means Mr. UberCorp can donate up the the legal maximum ($2600, I think), to as many candidates as he wants. Instead of being limited to an annual limit of (I think) $126k, he can donate $126001 total and not be in violation of the law.
Actual numbers may be slightly off. I'm sure someone else will come along and correct me.
Mr. Ubercorp was in violation of the law as soon as he donated the $50k, and McGrafty was in violation for accepting it, both on Tuesday and today.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just getting to go to college is a factor of being in a family wealthy enough to send you or being in a state that works to send people to college. You're so privileged you don't even see it.I also didn't know you had STD vision. Most people don't though. That's another privilege you have.
Are you saying it's impossible for a bad upbringing beyond your control to influence your ability to make good decisions as an adult?
Let's see.... instead of partying in college, some people were working two jobs to help support their younger siblings. Instead of drinking every night, they committed suicide to die from depression. Instead of having illicit relations they were prostituted by their guardians.
Those are all beyond their control. And they impact their ability to maintain free speech in a world dominated by wealthy corporations.
I worked through college. I went to college because even as a teenager, I could see that working at the local fast food joint wasn't going to provide me the life I wanted. So I wasn't born stupid. Most people aren't.
Bad upbringing does not prevent you from making good decisions as an adult. Our current president didn't have the best childhood, and he seems to have done pretty well for himself. Bill Clinton was raised by a single mom, and he did pretty well for himself.
If you choose to be a victim of your circumstances, I can't help you.
I also worked while in college. I don't know how old you are, but the concept of actually working yourself through college is dead now. You weren't born stupid. Were you born in a house where your parents neglected you and pimped you out? Were you born in a house where your father beat your mother? Were you born in a house where your father wasn't home because he was in prison? Were you raised in a foster home? My wife was adopted after her biological mother tried to kill her. Her adoptive parents physically, mentally, and sexually abused her. She could easily have ended up dead or drug addicted or in prison or whatever. She didn't. But does that mean I should look at every abused foster child and say, "Hey my wife came out ok so if you don't it's YOUR fault! Loser!" Hell no. Because bad upbringing doesn't prevent you from making good decisions, but it sure as s%$$ makes a difference. If you don't think so, why don't you let meth addicts raise your kids and we'll find out. No? Ok then.
Second verse! Same as the first!
I also worked while in college. I don't know how old you are, but the concept of actually working yourself through college is dead now. You weren't born stupid. Were you born in a house where your parents neglected you and pimped you out? Were you born in a house where your father beat your mother? Were you born in a house where your father wasn't home because he was in prison? Were you raised in a foster home? My wife was adopted after her biological mother tried to kill her. Her adoptive parents physically, mentally, and sexually abused her. She...
In-state tuition, right now in my state, costs $8000/year. That's only out of the realm of possibility for people who are too lazy to work. $8/hr x 20hrs/week x 50 weeks per year = $8000
I won't let meth-addicts raise my kids because that would be a bad decision on my part, wouldn't it?
Would your wife's life have turned out better if none of those things happened? Sure. But she might not be married to you, and that would be worse, right?
None of that has any impact on her right, under the law, to speak freely, or to give her money to whomever she wants. If she doesn't think her own little amount of money can do a good job, she can give it to another organization to speak for her.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In-state tuition, right now in my state, costs $8000/year. That's only out of the realm of possibility for people who are too lazy to work. $8/hr x 20hrs/week x 50 weeks per year = $8000.
$8,000 x 70% after tax = 5,600. $8,000 + 3% inflation = $8,240 year 2, $8,487 year 3, $8,741 year 4 = $33,469. $5,600/year x 4 years = $22,400. Working gets you only 2/3 of what you need to cover tuition alone.
Not including books, fees, meals, transportation, rent, etc.
$8,000 x 70% after tax = 5,600. $8,000 + 3% inflation = $8,240 year 2, $8,487 year 3, $8,741 year 4 = $33,469. $5,600/year x 4 years = $22,400. Working gets you only 2/3 of what you need to cover tuition alone.
Not including books, fees, meals, transportation, rent, etc.
You can work more during summers.
Heck, you could work more than 20 hours a week.You could get a job for more than $8/hr.
The figure I quoted included fees and estimated book cost.
Completely doable.