"Democracy" Now On Sale To The Highest Bidder

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Fair enough.

I would have hoped for a solution where these contributions would be severaly limited. In all forms.

Your upset that (according to you) only one side can buy elections. I am upset elections can be bought at all.

first off, I dont buy the statment that elections are always bought
We have seen very rich NOT get elected
Romeny comes to mind as does Forbes

Second, elections are bought at some level (it varies from situation to stuation)
NOTHING has or can change that
Laws were put into place and people found ways arond this
third, this ruling is about individuals, not corporations
I do not think people should be limited (lawrocket explained this earlier better than I can)

Forth
I am not upset about anything
I am just expressing my opinions

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

I can always COUNT on Rush proving quality entertainment.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

quade

I can always COUNT on Rush proving quality entertainment.

Another one liner aimed at a poster from a moderator

Got a point?
Or just feeling the need to get a jab in?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

rushmc

Got a point?
Or just feeling the need to get a jab in?

I am not getting a "jab in."
I am just expressing my opinions

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

rushmc

[ In case you missed it, the 40 million we are are talking are recycled tax dollars.

how are these recycled tax dollars, exactly? These are union dues. I sense that if we want to play that game, then all the spare money Forbes had due to preferential tax treatment for investment income is also "recycled tax dollars."

[lawrocket 3]

Is this the kinda thing people are so upset about?

[Url]http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1757801[/url]

Where one ultrawealthy person tries to outspend a few million people who form an organization?

Or, are people upset about the organization that requires a wealthy benefactor spend against it?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

lawrocket

Is this the kinda thing people are so upset about?

[Url]http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1757801[/url]

Where one ultrawealthy person tries to outspend a few million people who form an organization?

Or, are people upset about the organization that requires a wealthy benefactor spend against it?

I can't speak for people.

But, what scares me is the ability for a small group of extremely wealthy people to wield enough power/money to effectively control government.

[rushmc 23]

lawrocket

Is this the kinda thing people are so upset about?

[Url]http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1757801[/url]

Where one ultrawealthy person tries to outspend a few million people who form an organization?

Or, are people upset about the organization that requires a wealthy benefactor spend against it?

I thought your link might be to Mr Doomberg spending 50 Mil of his own money to attack the 2nd Amendment

Oh well, maybe another thread then....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

But, what scares me is the ability for a small group of extremely wealthy people to wield enough power/money to effectively control government.

Soros and Bloomberg have unsuccessfully wielded their power/money to curtail gun rights. They can't match up to millions of voting, dues paying (to multiple orgs) citizens.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Where one ultrawealthy person tries to outspend a few million people who form an organization?

For me, donating to an "issues" organization, whether it be Bloomberg, Soros, or the Kochs, is not the same as donating directly to a candidate. I don't believe people should be allowed to give money (or other valuable things) to a candidate or office holder. That's not speech, that bribery.

- Dan G

[Amazon 7]

DanG

Quote

Where one ultrawealthy person tries to outspend a few million people who form an organization?

For me, donating to an "issues" organization, whether it be Bloomberg, Soros, or the Kochs, is not the same as donating directly to a candidate. I don't believe people should be allowed to give money (or other valuable things) to a candidate or office holder. That's not speech, that bribery.

I seem to remember there was a time when people went to jail for that sort of thing... today it appears to be the norm.

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

Quote

Where one ultrawealthy person tries to outspend a few million people who form an organization?

For me, donating to an "issues" organization, whether it be Bloomberg, Soros, or the Kochs, is not the same as donating directly to a candidate. I don't believe people should be allowed to give money (or other valuable things) to a candidate or office holder. That's not speech, that bribery.

What about a guy like Bloomberg who can pay for his own campaign? Then you end up with only the wealthy.

What about issues organizations donating to candidates? That would seem REALLY strange to let organizations do what people cannot.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Quote

What about a guy like Bloomberg who can pay for his own campaign? Then you end up with only the wealthy.

Tough question. I'm not sure.

Quote

What about issues organizations donating to candidates? That would seem REALLY strange to let organizations do what people cannot.

I don't like anyone giving money to candidates. If the argument is that money is speech, then it should go toward speech: ads, mailings, etc. Paying consultants, throwing fancy dinners, etc. is not speech.

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

DanG

Quote

What about a guy like Bloomberg who can pay for his own campaign? Then you end up with only the wealthy.

Tough question. I'm not sure.

It's not tough - the end result of banning campaign contributions is guaranteeing that only the aristocracy can effectively run for office.

Just as free speech means having to put up with nazi rallies, free speech means dealing with the negatives of campaign finance.

[DanG 1]

Quote

It's not tough - the end result of banning campaign contributions is guaranteeing that only the aristocracy can effectively run for office.

Just as free speech means having to put up with nazi rallies, free speech means dealing with the negatives of campaign finance.

I'm not advocating eliminating campaign donations. Just limiting the size, and restricting how the money can be spent.

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

DanG

Quote

It's not tough - the end result of banning campaign contributions is guaranteeing that only the aristocracy can effectively run for office.

Just as free speech means having to put up with nazi rallies, free speech means dealing with the negatives of campaign finance.

I'm not advocating eliminating campaign donations. Just limiting the size, and restricting how the money can be spent.

that has precisely the same end result.

[DanG 1]

Quote

that has precisely the same end result

Not if you also limit the total amount that can be spent, regardless of source.

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

DanG

Quote

that has precisely the same end result

Not if you also limit the total amount that can be spent, regardless of source.

You can never prevent someone like Romney or Bloomberg (or Kerry) from spending money on himself. All your solution does is increase their power, in the name of decreasing it.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]I don't like anyone giving money to candidates. If the argument is that money is speech, then it should go toward speech: ads, mailings, etc. Paying consultants, throwing fancy dinners, etc. is not speech.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

kelpdiver

***
But, what scares me is the ability for a small group of extremely wealthy people to wield enough power/money to effectively control government.

Soros and Bloomberg have unsuccessfully wielded their power/money to curtail gun rights. They can't match up to millions of voting, dues paying (to multiple orgs) citizens.

That's peanuts and a single issue. You are looking at this too shortsighted.

Plus we are not at a plutocracy just yet. I just see this as another step towards it.

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

******
But, what scares me is the ability for a small group of extremely wealthy people to wield enough power/money to effectively control government.

Soros and Bloomberg have unsuccessfully wielded their power/money to curtail gun rights. They can't match up to millions of voting, dues paying (to multiple orgs) citizens.

That's peanuts and a single issue. You are looking at this too shortsighted.

Plus we are not at a plutocracy just yet. I just see this as another step towards it.

So the hand wringing is over a problem that isn't actually a problem yet, and has plenty of counter examples showing it to not be.

I have a hard time getting too worked up over theoretical problems. This sounds no different from voter fraud.