Follow up: Do you think foreign actors use corporations and unions to influence our politics?
Draining the swamp == restricting corporate & union political spending
2,378 Views |
41 Replies |
Last: 9 days ago by B-1 83
Without a doubt
Yes.
SuperPACs have contributed to the big mess we are in.
Citizens United needs to be overturned.
SuperPACs have contributed to the big mess we are in.
Citizens United needs to be overturned.
So you don't believe in the First Amendment?AtticusMatlock said:
Yes.
SuperPACs have contributed to the big mess we are in.
Citizens United needs to be overturned.
Free speech is the bedrock of this nation. Restricting speech is never the way to go. Act Blue and organisms like it need to be exposed and destroyed for violating the law.
Democrats have no interest in abiding by laws.
Democrats have no interest in abiding by laws.
The ONLY way to take money out of politics is to take power away from the government.
Yeah but nothing like domestic paradisaical bureaucratic libtards > foreign actors. By far.hoopla said:
Follow up: Do you think foreign actors use corporations and unions to influence our politics?
Ellis Wyatt said:
Free speech is the bedrock of this nation. Restricting speech is never the way to go. Act Blue and organisms like it need to be exposed and destroyed for violating the law.
Democrats have no interest in abiding by laws.
speech by organizations == speech by individual citizens
end super pacs and dark money campaign contributions, disallow foreign money from US political campaign contributions, disallow out of state funding for state and local political campaign contributions
end industry and special interest lobbying,
end politicians, bureaucrats, and gov contractors' ability to trade in individual stocks and make all investments and investments by their arms length family members and LLCs and shell companies public,
disallow former politicians and bureaucrats from taking certain industry board, management, and consulting positions for a term of at least a year after leaving government,
term limits for both chambers of congress
make every contract signed and every dollar spent subject to continuous audits and, outside of national security and defense that requires some secrecy, make it very public and transparent
end industry and special interest lobbying,
end politicians, bureaucrats, and gov contractors' ability to trade in individual stocks and make all investments and investments by their arms length family members and LLCs and shell companies public,
disallow former politicians and bureaucrats from taking certain industry board, management, and consulting positions for a term of at least a year after leaving government,
term limits for both chambers of congress
make every contract signed and every dollar spent subject to continuous audits and, outside of national security and defense that requires some secrecy, make it very public and transparent
AtticusMatlock said:
Yes.
SuperPACs have contributed to the big mess we are in.
Citizens United needs to be overturned.
Citizens United paved the way for super PACs and unlimited campaign contributions. The result is **** like Kamala Harris spending over $1.5 billion in less than 3 months to not really say anything in her campaign. - paying celebrities like Oprah and Beyonce millions to tell low IQ useful idiots who to vote for. Crap like Katie Hobbs raising over $20 million to run for gov or Arizona with almost 90% of the funds coming from outside of Arizona. The whole system is broken and begs for corruption that serves interests that aren't of the constituents these politicians are pretending to want to serve.
how did that turn out?oh no said:
Citizens United paved the way for super PACs and unlimited campaign contributions. The result is **** like Kamala Harris spending over $1.5 billion in less than 3 months to not really say anything in her campaign. - paying celebrities like Oprah and Beyonce millions to tell low IQ useful idiots who to vote for.
Organizations are comprised of citizens. But you know this.hoopla said:Ellis Wyatt said:
Free speech is the bedrock of this nation. Restricting speech is never the way to go. Act Blue and organisms like it need to be exposed and destroyed for violating the law.
Democrats have no interest in abiding by laws.
speech by organizations == speech by individual citizens
didn't work this time because she was that terrible, couldn't communicate, and was tied to a disastrous incumbent administration and record as VP, but raising and spending in the billions for campaigning is still wasteful and wrongBMX Bandit said:how did that turn out?oh no said:
Citizens United paved the way for super PACs and unlimited campaign contributions. The result is **** like Kamala Harris spending over $1.5 billion in less than 3 months to not really say anything in her campaign. - paying celebrities like Oprah and Beyonce millions to tell low IQ useful idiots who to vote for.
so are numerous other things protected by the first amendmentQuote:
but raising and spending in the billions for campaigning is still wasteful and wrong
And what would happen if citizens couldn't contribute and PACs couldn't buy airtime. Who would get all the airtime? Who owns all the networks? How much free advertising do they give?oh no said:didn't work this time because she was that terrible, couldn't communicate, and was tied to a disastrous incumbent administration and record as VP, but raising and spending in the billions for campaigning is still wasteful and wrongBMX Bandit said:how did that turn out?oh no said:
Citizens United paved the way for super PACs and unlimited campaign contributions. The result is **** like Kamala Harris spending over $1.5 billion in less than 3 months to not really say anything in her campaign. - paying celebrities like Oprah and Beyonce millions to tell low IQ useful idiots who to vote for.
Not so according to SCOTUS. That was decided in 1978.hoopla said:Ellis Wyatt said:
Free speech is the bedrock of this nation. Restricting speech is never the way to go. Act Blue and organisms like it need to be exposed and destroyed for violating the law.
Democrats have no interest in abiding by laws.
speech by organizations == speech by individual citizens
Citizens are real people, not imaginary constructs, that have limits on their contributions. Organizations can be created out of thin air, as needed, to contribute unlimited amounts. Organization can be comprised on non-citizens. Not sure if you know this.Ellis Wyatt said:Organizations are comprised of citizens. But you know this.hoopla said:Ellis Wyatt said:
Free speech is the bedrock of this nation. Restricting speech is never the way to go. Act Blue and organisms like it need to be exposed and destroyed for violating the law.
Democrats have no interest in abiding by laws.
speech by organizations == speech by individual citizens
first amendment t is written in terms of "speech," not "speakers." nothing in the plain language suggests it was meant to exclude any category of speaker.
Sure, but income and other taxes $&#@ them both.hoopla said:Ellis Wyatt said:
Free speech is the bedrock of this nation. Restricting speech is never the way to go. Act Blue and organisms like it need to be exposed and destroyed for violating the law.
Democrats have no interest in abiding by laws.
speech by organizations == speech by individual citizens
Being in TexAgs jail changes a man……..no, not really
It amazes me how many rightists are up in arms about George Soros while also defending the SCOtUS cases that paved the way for him and other big money donors on both sides (Koch brothers anyone?). Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) collectively dismantled key campaign finance regulations, allowing for all this dark money to buy political influence.
It's free speech if it's your speech, not speech from unlimited laundered taxpayer money parroting talking points, funding shadow governments or threating the loss of funds if you don't submit to certain requests.
Free speech applies to groups of citizens as well as individual citizens. You don't lose your right to speech just because you and someone else cooperate to present a message.
That's the basis of it.
Also, there's no requirement to be a citizen to have free speech protections under the constitution. Within our jurisdiction, it is recognized as a fundamental God given human right, and something we believe all people should have.
Yes, the issue of foreign influence on corporate speech is a problem when it is used to manipulate government policy but in my view, more speech is always preferable to speech restrictions.
The government itself should not be engaged in manipulating freedom of speech or propagandizing the population outside of perhaps patriotic messaging.
That's the basis of it.
Also, there's no requirement to be a citizen to have free speech protections under the constitution. Within our jurisdiction, it is recognized as a fundamental God given human right, and something we believe all people should have.
Yes, the issue of foreign influence on corporate speech is a problem when it is used to manipulate government policy but in my view, more speech is always preferable to speech restrictions.
The government itself should not be engaged in manipulating freedom of speech or propagandizing the population outside of perhaps patriotic messaging.
This is the correct answer.MouthBQ98 said:
in my view, more speech is always preferable to speech restrictions.
we cannot truly defeat government corruption so long as citizens united stands. even then it's nearly impossible, but citizens united opened the floodgate.AtticusMatlock said:
Yes.
SuperPACs have contributed to the big mess we are in.
Citizens United needs to be overturned.
i wish "free speech" didn't mean unlimited campaign contributions to buy elections from anywhere.
Is bribery included in the 1st amendment?Jabin said:So you don't believe in the First Amendment?AtticusMatlock said:
Yes.
SuperPACs have contributed to the big mess we are in.
Citizens United needs to be overturned.
Technically, that's what a campaign donation is.
not even remotely accurate.BTKAG97 said:Is bribery included in the 1st amendment?Jabin said:So you don't believe in the First Amendment?AtticusMatlock said:
Yes.
SuperPACs have contributed to the big mess we are in.
Citizens United needs to be overturned.
Technically, that's what a campaign donation is.
free speech = unlimited campaign contributions is precisely the kind of logic you'd talk yourself into if you stood to benefit from said contributionsoh no said:
i wish "free speech" didn't mean unlimited campaign contributions to buy elections from anywhere.
MouthBQ98 said:
Free speech applies to groups of citizens as well as individual citizens. You don't lose your right to speech just because you and someone else cooperate to present a message.
That's the basis of it.
Also, there's no requirement to be a citizen to have free speech protections under the constitution. Within our jurisdiction, it is recognized as a fundamental God given human right, and something we believe all people should have.
Yes, the issue of foreign influence on corporate speech is a problem when it is used to manipulate government policy but in my view, more speech is always preferable to speech restrictions.
The government itself should not be engaged in manipulating freedom of speech or propagandizing the population outside of perhaps patriotic messaging.
No person would be losing their right to speech by restricting corporate & union political spending. Being imaginary constructs, they are used to bypass restrictions that limit real people. Transparency and contribution limits are effectively useless against them. Contributions are anonymously routed through 501(c)(4) social welfare groups or 501(c)(6) trade associations which then contribute to Super PACs that can raise and spend unlimited amounts influencing elections.
Corporations and unions are often comprised of foreign nationals. Federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any federal, state or local election.
For those that support these "free speech" donations and hate George Soros, how do you reconcile your support while complaining about all the money Soros spends?
Your question makes no sense. Has anyone argued that Soros has no Constitutional right to spend his money on advertising or campaign contributions?TA-OP said:
For those that support these "free speech" donations and hate George Soros, how do you reconcile your support while complaining about all the money Soros spends?
Your response makes no sense, or your being obtuse. There are several posters here that want to put him in jail at the very least.Jabin said:Your question makes no sense. Has anyone argued that Soros has no Constitutional right to spend his money on advertising or campaign contributions?TA-OP said:
For those that support these "free speech" donations and hate George Soros, how do you reconcile your support while complaining about all the money Soros spends?
Put him in jail for what, specifically?TA-OP said:Your response makes no sense, or your being obtuse. There are several posters here that want to put him in jail at the very least.Jabin said:Your question makes no sense. Has anyone argued that Soros has no Constitutional right to spend his money on advertising or campaign contributions?TA-OP said:
For those that support these "free speech" donations and hate George Soros, how do you reconcile your support while complaining about all the money Soros spends?
I support free speech donations and hate George Soros. However, I support his right to spend his money as he sees fit, so long as doing so does not violate any Constitutional law.
No need into violate the first amendment to reign in corruption. Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and return control to the states. That great curtails the ability of Senators to disregard their constituents because they're a lot easier to replace and it greatly reduces the fundraising abilities of the government. Campaigns become far less important as a result. Easiest and most logical answer.
A fearful society is a compliant society. That's why Democrats and criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed. Gun Control is not about guns, it's about control.
Featured Stories
See All
overdog
Our very own Kennedy Smith is now covering the Washington Nationals. She's a former
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
1