|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 20, 2010 8:21:46 GMT -8
When the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend whatever they want on elections, some wondered how much would change.
Now it's clear how much trouble we're in as a nation. This week it came out that top corporate lobbying groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove's American Crossroads organization have committed more than $200 million to try to buy this year's elections.
As Joe Biden would say, this is a Big Fugging Deal.
When the reality hits the American public, there will be hell to pay.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 20, 2010 11:35:26 GMT -8
When the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend whatever they want on elections, some wondered how much would change. Now it's clear how much trouble we're in as a nation. This week it came out that top corporate lobbying groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove's American Crossroads organization have committed more than $200 million to try to buy this year's elections. As Joe Biden would say, this is a Big Fugging Deal. When the reality hits the American public, there will be hell to pay. I hope so. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 20, 2010 13:32:28 GMT -8
When the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend whatever they want on elections, some wondered how much would change. Now it's clear how much trouble we're in as a nation. This week it came out that top corporate lobbying groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove's American Crossroads organization have committed more than $200 million to try to buy this year's elections. As Joe Biden would say, this is a Big Fugging Deal. When the reality hits the American public, there will be hell to pay. I hope so. Me too. tinyurl.com/yj6sene |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 20, 2010 13:55:43 GMT -8
Glad we agree. I wonder if a simple fix like if you can not vote you can not make contributions would work?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 20, 2010 14:11:19 GMT -8
according to your article, the Democrats have accumulated a total of 23 Million. Yet, we already know the Republicans have amassed 200 Million. Nearly nine times as much. Yep, it is a BFD. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 20, 2010 14:24:17 GMT -8
McCain Feingold spawned loop-holes to the tune of 10s to 100s of millions. Ask George Soros and Tom Delay. People with a dog in the fight will not just sit by and do nothing because some idiot in Washington thinks they can shut down free-speech to protect their incumbency.
Besides, free speech is the American way. If people get pissed, they will get involved and donate to their favorite corporation with a megaphone that spouts their point of view. The concept that there too much free speech is idiocy.
Now the Democrats are pushing the DISCLOSE Law that codifies a loop hole for the Unions and the NRA. Can you spell "sweetheart deal" (Unions) and "buy-off" (NRA)?
Allow all political speech or none of it....and it will never be none of it (hopefully).
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 20, 2010 15:07:40 GMT -8
Glad we agree. I wonder if a simple fix like if you can not vote you can not make contributions would work? Count me in if it includes unions.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 20, 2010 15:54:08 GMT -8
This is really too hard to think of a way to be effective. There are so many ways to get around any barriers to contributing. It might even be seen as trying to suppress free speech. Maybe for the unions, you could make it so union cash would need to be audited and political activity that did not line up with union membership desires would somehow be banned.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 20, 2010 16:05:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 20, 2010 20:18:23 GMT -8
Glad we agree. I wonder if a simple fix like if you can not vote you can not make contributions would work? Count me in if it includes unions. Sure. If you can't vote. you can't donate. This would mean no organization could make contributions. I'm talkin people here. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 21, 2010 13:45:03 GMT -8
Count me in if it includes unions. Sure. If you can't vote. you can't donate. This would mean no organization could make contributions. I'm talkin people here. Sounds fair to me! But should they be able to buy airtime on their own, deliver their own message, without donating to a party or candidate? I'm not sure about that. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 21, 2010 18:51:28 GMT -8
Sure. If you can't vote. you can't donate. This would mean no organization could make contributions. I'm talkin people here. Sounds fair to me! But should they be able to buy airtime on their own, deliver their own message, without donating to a party or candidate? I'm not sure about that. As one who really hates all of the nasty political advertising for weeks and weeks before a general election, I think all political advertising should be banned from network television. That would probably cut down on the suicide rate and the spousal abuse rates. All candidates should be allowed to debate each other and post advertising on special channels set aside for public viewing for those people who want to know more about the candidates. There would be no need for a candidate to spend any money whatsoever for radio and television advertising. Mailing campaign advertising would still be allowed, but should have a maximum limit on expense so that both candidates could get their message out, but not buy an election. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 22, 2010 7:21:15 GMT -8
When the companies that own ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, FOX, MSNBC, CNBC, HBO, Headline News, Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report, USA Today, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Talk Radio, Salon, Huffington Post, Daily KOZ, Red State.com, Big Government.com etc., stop spending millions and millions giving their perspective on the politics of the day with lies of omission, editorials, pushing and spiking particular stories, skewed artistic content (Comics, plot lines, etc.) and everything else that is not a direct paid advertisement, that is when I'll say we could have a general stand down at some point during the campaign. But since that will never happen - no way.
Then there is the advantage of government funded Franking Privileges, government paid junkets for incumbents, etc. Why give the incumbent a significant structural advantage?
Just spare us about trying to squelch one type of political speech versus another.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 22, 2010 9:43:46 GMT -8
When the companies that own ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, FOX, MSNBC, CNBC, HBO, Headline News, Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report, USA Today, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Talk Radio, Salon, Huffington Post, Daily KOZ, Red State.com, Big Government.com etc., stop spending millions and millions giving their perspective on the politics of the day with lies of omission, editorials, pushing and spiking particular stories, skewed artistic content (Comics, plot lines, etc.) and everything else that is not a direct paid advertisement, that is when I'll say we could have a general stand down at some point during the campaign. But since that will never happen - no way. Then there is the advantage of government funded Franking Privileges, government paid junkets for incumbents, etc. Why give the incumbent a significant structural advantage? Just spare us about trying to squelch one type of political speech versus another. People will watch what they wanna watch and do what they wanna do. I hate political advertisements. We should be spared from that kind of Sheet on most of the major network channels. When it comes to watching biases news reporting, I get my news from the Internet. I gave up watching network news programs years ago. On rare occasion will will turn to the news, like after an earthquake. If it is in the evening and nightly network news is on, I will turn to CBS because being a Born Again Liberal, I like the Communist Broadcasting System. They have more detail than Fox which really should be the NBN (Nazi Broadcast Network) |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 22, 2010 15:35:57 GMT -8
When the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend whatever they want on elections, some wondered how much would change. Now it's clear how much trouble we're in as a nation. This week it came out that top corporate lobbying groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove's American Crossroads organization have committed more than $200 million to try to buy this year's elections. As Joe Biden would say, this is a Big Fugging Deal. When the reality hits the American public, there will be hell to pay. If the government didn't pass so many laws that either hurt or helped business, business wouldn't care so much. Take BP. They stand to make billions on Cap and Trade. So they have invested millions in creating environmental groups, lobbying, directly advertising about clean energy, and funding politicians who wanted to cap and tax. If the government wasn't inclined to pass the law in such a way that it would make many companies and individuals really rich, BP would be sitting on the sidelines twiddling their thumbs. The politicians know how to pass laws that really hurt and really help. They do it do get the desired result. Money into the game. We need a government that just creates a level playing field and doesn't pick winners and losers. That is how you get money out of elections. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 22, 2010 16:02:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 22, 2010 16:04:02 GMT -8
When the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend whatever they want on elections, some wondered how much would change. Now it's clear how much trouble we're in as a nation. This week it came out that top corporate lobbying groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove's American Crossroads organization have committed more than $200 million to try to buy this year's elections. As Joe Biden would say, this is a Big Fugging Deal. When the reality hits the American public, there will be hell to pay. If the government didn't pass so many laws that either hurt or helped business, business wouldn't care so much. Take BP. They stand to make billions on Cap and Trade. So they have invested millions in creating environmental groups, lobbying, directly advertising about clean energy, and funding politicians who wanted to cap and tax. If the government wasn't inclined to pass the law in such a way that it would make many companies and individuals really rich, BP would be sitting on the sidelines twiddling their thumbs. The politicians know how to pass laws that really hurt and really help. They do it do get the desired result. Money into the game. We need a government that just creates a level playing field and doesn't pick winners and losers. That is how you get money out of elections. I think Cap and Tax died today! Too many folks see it as a huge tax increase and doing no good for enviornment. The faulty or shakey science is also a factor. |
|
