Jump to content

General Political Thread


Recommended Posts

Isn't what the court saying here is that, essentially, there are ways to implement campaign finance reform, but limiting the overall amount of money an individual can give is not one of them?

 

It what way could campaign finance reform be implemented?  SCOTUS has simply stated that money is speech.  Any person or corporation can use their money for any candidate or political purpose.  In this day it is always the candidate with the most money wins.    

 

Personally we need to take all money out of politics and publicly finance elections.  

 

7 Billion dollars were spent in the 2012 election cycle.  Just think what could be done with 7 billion dollars.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It what way could campaign finance reform be implemented?  SCOTUS has simply stated that money is speech.  Any person or corporation can use their money for any candidate or political purpose.  In this day it is always the candidate with the most money wins.    

 

Personally we need to take all money out of politics and publicly finance elections.  

 

7 Billion dollars were spent in the 2012 election cycle.  Just think what could be done with 7 billion dollars.  

 

I'm not sure it's as cut-and-dry with respect to "the most money wins." Here's an interesting article: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/big-spender-always-wins.html

 

I couldn't find the same info on the 2012 election.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about my political POV?  I am no millionaire, I am unable to give nearly as much money as say Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, or George Soros.  So I can't get promote a candidate with my views.  Just because the rich have the money they are able push their candidates and the agendas they want.  It is a general rule in elections that the candidate with the most money usually wins.  

 

Unlimited contributions gives a huge unbalance of power to the wealthy at the expense of the common person.  My, and 99% of American's voice in the election process has been severely limited.  BTW this not just because the recent SCOTUS ruling, this has been going on for awhile now.  

 

 

our racist, sexist, bigoted, misogynistic founding fathers would be outraged at the status of our campaign finance situation and our elections. 

 

and our constitution was designed to be changed.  it's really tiresome when people's only argument in favor of something is that it is protected by our constitution.  at various times our constitution has protected a lot of really horrible behavior.  

Stick with me on this.  I am not arguing right/wrong, I am arguing constitutional, which is the job of SCOTUS.  

 

Kevin, does limiting campaign contributions limit political speech?  If your answer is no, please explain.  If you answer is yes, explain how that isn't a clear violation of the First Amendment.

 

Atticus, I agree with you completely.  Amend the constitution.  As divided as we've become the last 25 years, I don't see it happening, but it's possible.  Again, I think a possibly constitutional solution would be to say that donors can only donate to elections in their jurisdiction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.  Again, I think a possibly constitutional solution would be to say that donors can only donate to elections in their jurisdiction.

 

But- total devil's advocate here- can't you just call that an infringement on constitutionally guaranteed free speech?  Like the Koch brothers can speak (i.e. donate millions) to candidates in any county, district, or state?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I want to get worked up over this recent SCOTUS ruling, I can't. I don't see it dramatically changing much -- the very wealthy already have the ability to spend ungodly amounts of money influencing politicians and elections through PACs and Super PACs. All this does is allow them to be a little more direct about it.

 

As long as money = speech in the eyes of the court, nothing will change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But- total devil's advocate here- can't you just call that an infringement on constitutionally guaranteed free speech?  Like the Koch brothers can speak (i.e. donate millions) to candidates in any county, district, or state?

t

 

It's not a slam dunk, but it's worth a test.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a fascinating look at how partisanship has completely taken over politics. Not that we weren't aware of it already, but the graphs serve as stark visual reminders of it.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/10/the-ideological-middle-is-dead-in-congress-really-dead/

 

Those graphs are depressing as hell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

GENEVA (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Thursday that Jews in a city in eastern Ukraine had been ordered to register with the authorities, calling the idea intolerable.

"Just in the last couple of days, notices were sent to Jews in one city indicating that they had to identify themselves as Jews ... or suffer the consequences," Kerry told reporters. "This is not just intolerable, it's grotesque."

 

Yikes.

http://www.newsweek.com/kerry-condemns-call-jews-register-ukrainian-city-246656

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...