rushmc 18
Recommended Posts
DanG 1
QuoteA candidate without money has a message that isn't heard or read because it costs money to get that message out. Period.
So now only candidates who can gather the most money will be heard.
Goodbye third parties. Goodbye new ideas. Goodbye America.
- Dan G
quade***BTW
My side in not the republican side
My side is the side of the people
Big government is not an advocate of the people in general
Why do you think that is? Is it because thousands of people with similar views gather together to sing one song or is it possibly because there are one or two people who can afford a much larger sound system and can drown them out?
Kinda like the PA system at Shea drowning out the screaming Beatles fans?
Perhaps it's a lot like music. Who has really noticed McCartney's bassline in "Something?" I think it's brilliant. It fits. But it is nothing more than support for the song as a whole.
You've got Metallica playing with orchestral backing. Sure, the person sitting second violin is drowned out. But not really - the role is subtle but real. Otherwise she wouldn't be there playing second violin.
Why is the left all about shutting people up? How things have changed...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
rushmc 18
There is another way of looking at it
With the law as it was, the most well healed incumbents had the advatange
That is why the law was enacted anyway IMO
I think this makes it easier for a third party canidate
And remember, this was about individual total contributions within a two year election cycle, not corporate donations
With the law as it was, the most well healed incumbents had the advatange
That is why the law was enacted anyway IMO
I think this makes it easier for a third party canidate
And remember, this was about individual total contributions within a two year election cycle, not corporate donations
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
DanGQuoteA candidate without money has a message that isn't heard or read because it costs money to get that message out. Period.
So now only candidates who can gather the most money will be heard.
Nope. The candidates who gather money will be heard. Those with the most money may have louder voices. But sure as hell, there will be a lot more messages getting out.
Because now all it takes is Soros supporting the Green Party to cut checks for all kinds of candidates. And guess what? There's a loud voice. The libertarians - shut out because they don't have enough people to compete with capped donations - can have some wealthy donor give money to lots of people.
[Quote]Goodbye third parties. Goodbye new ideas. Goodbye America.
I disagree wholeheartedly. People who have been shut out of the system because it stacks the deck in favor of the establishment can now have a big voice.
It's a matter of perspective. But it's amazing how much people will say once the gag has been removed.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
DanG
Money != speech
The SC has ruled otherwise for 40 years now.
And let's keep in mind that today's announcement changes little. Only 2 years ago one single person contributed 15M to Newt and 30 to Romney, and 90M overall. But with SuperPacs, these donations could be made anonymously. So long as we have transparency in data/amount/who, I'm quite happy with the call.
rushmc 18
quadeLet the suckage begin!
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-sheldon-adelson-suck-up-fest/360028/
I will call your Sheldon Adelson and raise you one George Soros
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
DanG 1
QuoteSo long as we have transparency in data/amount/who, I'm quite happy with the call
Maybe I'm misinformed, but I didn't think this ruling required any transparency.
- Dan G
rhaig 0
DanGQuoteNot according to 5 Supreme Court Justices
You're right. I heartily disagree with them.
The next time someone gets busted for trying to buy drugs or prostitutes, they should just say that they were engaging in speech, and are protected by the 1st Amendment.
And that will make for either a very interesting judicial decision, or a very humorous one.
--
Rob
Rob
DanG 1
QuoteI disagree wholeheartedly. People who have been shut out of the system because it stacks the deck in favor of the establishment can now have a big voice.
I think the establishment will just have a bigger voice.
And in the end this isn't just about the ads or appearances the candidate can buy. It's also about the disproportionate influence the big donors have over the candidate. That's the "speech" I'm most worried about.
And you never responded to my question about bribery. What the difference, in your mind, between a $2M campaign donation and a $2M bribe?
- Dan G
rhaig 0
quade***Tell me, is there any more powerful lobby than labor unions? (sic)
Unfortunately, the way the laws are currently structured, there's no way to tell! The unions have to state how much they contribute because they are beholding to their members. Billionaires don't have to tell anyone. They can funnel as much money as they want into 501(c)s (because "corporations are people") and they don't have to have their names sullied, but now with this, there isn't any legal reason to even do that.
so this is the "you can't prove your assertion, so therefore my unprovable assertion is more valid" argument.
--
Rob
Rob
rhaig 0
Amazon
Cool, now we can refer to those who worship their oligarchs Sheldon suckers as well as Koch suckers.
it doesn't have the same ring to it.
--
Rob
Rob
SkyDekker 1,138
It also means that an ever smaller group of extremely wealthy individuals get significantly more power/speech.
Those arguing about Democratic or Republican miss the point in my opinion.
Those arguing about Democratic or Republican miss the point in my opinion.
DanGQuoteA candidate without money has a message that isn't heard or read because it costs money to get that message out. Period.
So now only candidates who can gather the most money will be heard.
Goodbye third parties. Goodbye new ideas. Goodbye America.
Was the third party here in the first place?
Again, your complaints were just as valid last week.
Personally, I'm sticking to the core principle that the only response to bad speech (be it racist, or Republican) is more speech, not less speech. That's the 1st Amendment.
DanG 1
QuoteWas the third party here in the first place?
Again, your complaints were just as valid last week.
No, sadly. This ruling will make it even harder for non-established parties to be heard, IMO.
QuotePersonally, I'm sticking to the core principle that the only response to bad speech (be it racist, or Republican) is more speech, not less speech. That's the 1st Amendment.
That's a great principle. But continued rulings that money = speech just mean that "more speech" means "more money". The only way to counter bad "speech", is to spend more money. I don't think that's what the Framers had in mind.
- Dan G
DanGThe only way to counter bad "speech", is to spend more money.
You place a great deal of reliance on this particular belief, without actually proving it to be true.
MoveOn is a counterexample. Or perhaps that fact the the GOP has been largely losing of late.
DanG
If you truly believe that, then you are hopelessly naive. Should all bribery laws been struck down? What's the difference between campaign money, and bribery money? In your world, there doesn't appear to be any.
Who's being naive now Dan? I don't see any difference.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
rehmwa 2
SkyDekkerThose arguing about Democratic or Republican miss the point in my opinion.
this ^
there are very partisan/very rich fanatics on both sides of the aisle that are thrilled with the ability to "de facto" bribe their favorites
with another possible revenue stream, all politicians are the winners -.
.
.
.
.
unless they are honest
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Amazon 7
DanGQuoteI disagree wholeheartedly. People who have been shut out of the system because it stacks the deck in favor of the establishment can now have a big voice.
I think the establishment will just have a bigger voice.
And in the end this isn't just about the ads or appearances the candidate can buy. It's also about the disproportionate influence the big donors have over the candidate. That's the "speech" I'm most worried about.
And you never responded to my question about bribery. What the difference, in your mind, between a $2M campaign donation and a $2M bribe?
I would be good with EVERY voter contribution being limited to ONE United States Postal Service STAMP. ( Its a cobnstitutional thing)
Everything else.... would be known as BRIBERY ( which is what it is) and dealt with accordingly.
Lobbyists.. go home.... Rich guys.. use your stamp wisely.
DanG 1
QuoteWho's being naive now Dan? I don't see any difference.
I don't think I follow your point.
- Dan G
DanG 1
QuoteYou place a great deal of reliance on this particular belief, without actually proving it to be true.
What evidence would you like? There are many articles about the explosion in "soft money" in recent elections. Can I prove that the donor who gave $2M to Candidate X got more consideration than the donor who gave $10? No, I sure can't. I guess it's all on the up and up!
- Dan G
DanGQuoteYou place a great deal of reliance on this particular belief, without actually proving it to be true.
What evidence would you like? There are many articles about the explosion in "soft money" in recent elections. Can I prove that the donor who gave $2M to Candidate X got more consideration than the donor who gave $10? No, I sure can't. I guess it's all on the up and up!
uh, any? You're throwing the statement around as a given, it's not asking too much to see a proof for it.
Money helps get exposure, it does not get votes. Ross Perot, Michael Huffington are two recent examples. I already mentioned MoveOn - the reality of today is it is much easiest to cheaply spread a message than it has ever been. You can only polish a turd so far. Ideas still matter. And thanks to the DVR, fewer people watch those expensive TV ads anyway.
When I think of billionnaire types that like to throw their money around in politics, I can think of many on the GOP side, and only Soros on the Democrat side. (Bloomberg could be cited, but he's hard to place. And an asshole). But if money is all you need, then where are the results? Why did Rove's Crossroads SuperPac get demolished as a joke in the 2012 elections?
So yes, I'd like to see much better evidence for your assertion. Even though I still frankly don't care - I support all speech, good and bad. Freedom isn't free of costs and negatives, be it speech or gun rights. Losing those rights is worse.
Why do you think that is? Is it because thousands of people with similar views gather together to sing one song or is it possibly because there are one or two people who can afford a much larger sound system and can drown them out?
Well, the democrats have has that sound system advantage for years
Now it will change
You act like this is something new
Its not
One side is just loosing its advantage
And you are parroting their views IMO
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites