Campaign Reform - Page 4

WickedLou9 · 10-17-2006, 01:27 PM

Corporations can't cast a vote though. only people can vote.

WickedLou9 · 10-17-2006, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Oh, I should also say that reading some of Scalia's opinions on the issue has been what's taken me to being completely pro-campaign finance reform to questioning how we should approach money in politics.

He's a very persuasive person.

He's an evil genius.

WickedLou9 · 10-17-2006, 01:30 PM

What if Iran started running campaign ads endorsing a specific candidate?
Much like a corporation, Iran is an interested party that would like a specific candidate to win. They can not vote however so they would then try and influence the voters in the US with vast resources, running commercials on TV and in print.

How is that different than Walmart using it's equally vast resources to influence the electorate? Walmart can't vote in an election.

DosEquis · 10-17-2006, 01:46 PM

Corporations should not be allowed to contribute, as a company, to any compaign. Those individuals who are employed or running that corporation can donate their personal money, which I feel should be limited to $1,000 per person per campaign. They should also limited to donating $1,000 to each party in general.

Lobbyists should not be allowed to take any representative on a trip, buy them lunch, or buy them anything. If the representative feels he needs to travel to really understand the point of view the lobbyist is trying to make than he needs to cover it on his own dime. If they do lunch, they pay for their own meals.

This does not erode any free speech rights. This would level the playing field. Right now my voice counts for nothing. The lobbyist who can donate 200,000 to a compaign will get a vote that represents his view. I write a letter in to Lee Terry, he has a secretary reply talking points, and it gets ignored.

The current system of campaign finance has promoted and converted our country to corporate fascism. They buy their votes that suite their needs and give kick backs later. Whether its 200k to a campaign or political party, or a fancy pants job with the company after they leave government. It is called the revolving door and it is our system of legal corruption. It is on the top five list of things that need to be fixed immediately.

imind · 10-17-2006, 01:51 PM

free speeach has its limits, and i think if it could be demonstrated that a candidate with more money has a better chance of winning, a general fund to be pooled for each candidate to pull from, the amount depending on the hierchal prominence of the office, would be a good idea.

this in no way limits one's ability to forward any candidate they want, as speaking for a candidate is not limited to monetary donations.

WickedLou9 · 10-17-2006, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by imind

free speeach has its limits, and i think if it could be demonstrated that a candidate with more money has a better chance of winning, a general fund to be pooled for each candidate to pull from, the amount depending on the hierchal prominence of the office, would be a good idea.

this in no way limits one's ability to forward any candidate they want, as speaking for a candidate is not limited to monetary donations.

Excatly. and I would even argue that if someone has enough money, they can step on your right to free speach by effectivly drowning you out thereby infringing upon your right to free speech.

hsmith · 10-17-2006, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by imind

free speeach has its limits, and i think if it could be demonstrated that a candidate with more money has a better chance of winning, a general fund to be pooled for each candidate to pull from, the amount depending on the hierchal prominence of the office, would be a good idea.

this in no way limits one's ability to forward any candidate they want, as speaking for a candidate is not limited to monetary donations.

There is no limit to free speech. "yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater" is a horrible example and is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.

WickedLou9 · 10-17-2006, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

There is no limit to free speech. "yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater" is a horrible example and is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.

The limit to free speech is that once your free speech infringes on the rights of others, your right to free speech ends. Fairly simple. There absolutly is a limit on free speech. Infact there are many many limits on it.
You can not incite a riot, you can not commit perjury, you can not slander or comit libel. You can not threaten someone verbally or in writing. etc. etc. etc.

hsmith · 10-17-2006, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The limit to free speech is that once your free speech infringes on the rights of others, your right to free speech ends. Fairly simple. There absolutly is a limit on free speech. Infact there are many many limits on it.
You can not incite a riot, you can not commit perjury, you can not slander or comit libel. You can not threaten someone verbally or in writing. etc. etc. etc.

Once you create qualifiers to what is free speech you no longer have free speech.

There is no reason you shouldn't be allowed to start a riot. If it turns violent and there is damage you would be held liable.

Perjury? You are agreeing that what you are saying is fact. That isn't "free speech"

Slander and libel are worthless anyway as they are difficult if not impossible to prove. If we didn't have those laws we would be more suspect to believing what others say.

Threaten someone? Be prepared for them to defend themselves.

You can say what you want, be prepared to back it up.

WickedLou9 · 10-17-2006, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

Once you create qualifiers to what is free speech you no longer have free speech.

There is no reason you shouldn't be allowed to start a riot. If it turns violent and there is damage you would be held liable.

Perjury? You are agreeing that what you are saying is fact. That isn't "free speech"

Slander and libel are worthless anyway as they are difficult if not impossible to prove. If we didn't have those laws we would be more suspect to believing what others say.

Threaten someone? Be prepared for them to defend themselves.

You can say what you want, be prepared to back it up.

That's not how it works in this country.

hsmith · 10-17-2006, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That's not how it works in this country.

what a great debate

WickedLou9 · 10-17-2006, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

what a great debate

You are arguing something that is a falsehood. How can I argue with that?

you: " there are no limits on free speech"

That statement is false. What do you want me to say? Maybe you think there should be no limits, but that is another story.

hsmith · 10-17-2006, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

You are arguing something that is a falsehood. How can I argue with that?

you: " there are no limits on free speech"

That statement is false. What do you want me to say? Maybe you think there should be no limits, but that is another story.

Then you can't claim there is such a thing as freedom of speech.

WickedLou9 · 10-17-2006, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

Then you can't claim there is such a thing as freedom of speech.

Sure I can. All of our freedoms are guranteed by the constitution. That means that if someone else is infriging upon your rights, even if it is by exerciing thier right to free speech, then they can be prevented from doing so. You can exercise your rights all you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. This has been a basic tenant of our democracy from the beginning.

imind · 10-17-2006, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Sure I can. All of our freedoms are guranteed by the constitution. That means that if someone else is infriging upon your rights, even if it is by exerciing thier right to free speech, then they can be prevented from doing so. You can exercise your rights all you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. This has been a basic tenant of our democracy from the beginning.

winnar! 'majority rules' blows.

KatKanPlay · 10-17-2006, 06:31 PM

Again I ask ....
Where in the constitution or the Bill of Rights does a corporation gain citizenship equal to that of human beings. Why does a corporation have a right to freedom of speech if that is translated to; A corporation has the right to donate an unlimited amount of funds to any given politician in exchange for a congressional vote that benefits the corporation at the sacrifice of human citizens?

KatKanPlay · 10-17-2006, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Corporations can't cast a vote though. only people can vote.

No, but they can buy them. Im not sure I understand why this is exceptable.

KatKanPlay · 10-17-2006, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

And who makes the decisions for the corporation ? PEOPLE

That doesnt cut it. A corporation is it own entity. The people that work for a corporation are nothing more than the current operators of its system. No 1 person can say "I AM" the corporation.

kinggovernor · 10-17-2006, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

He's an evil genius.

the greatest legal scholar I have ever read

kinggovernor · 10-17-2006, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Corporations should not be allowed to contribute, as a company, to any compaign. Those individuals who are employed or running that corporation can donate their personal money, which I feel should be limited to $1,000 per person per campaign. They should also limited to donating $1,000 to each party in general.

Lobbyists should not be allowed to take any representative on a trip, buy them lunch, or buy them anything. If the representative feels he needs to travel to really understand the point of view the lobbyist is trying to make than he needs to cover it on his own dime. If they do lunch, they pay for their own meals.

This does not erode any free speech rights. This would level the playing field. Right now my voice counts for nothing. The lobbyist who can donate 200,000 to a compaign will get a vote that represents his view. I write a letter in to Lee Terry, he has a secretary reply talking points, and it gets ignored.

The current system of campaign finance has promoted and converted our country to corporate fascism. They buy their votes that suite their needs and give kick backs later. Whether its 200k to a campaign or political party, or a fancy pants job with the company after they leave government. It is called the revolving door and it is our system of legal corruption. It is on the top five list of things that need to be fixed immediately.

why $1,000? It costs much more than that to run a campaign.