Op-Ed by Governor BRIAN SCHWEITZER (taxes, professionals, law)

[RedJacket]

IN Montana’s frontier days, we learned a hard lesson about money in politics, one that’s shaped our campaign-finance laws for a century and made our political system one of the country’s most transparent.

Those laws, and our political way of life, are now being threatened by the Supreme Court — which is why I recently signed a petition for a federal constitutional amendment to ban corporate money from all elections.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/op...s.html?_r=1&hp

One governor that Get's It. Good for him.

[MTSilvertip]

Or as the Supreme Court has already found, just because you join a group doesn't mean you loose your first amendment rights.
king brian the lesser is on his way out and can't run again for 12 years because we were smart enough to enact term limits. As he is loosing power he is now pandering to the national party looking for another job.

A for profit corporation that pays taxes should not be treaded differently from a non-profit corporation like sierra club or earth first, or a union, that don't pay taxes, so why should a group of business professionals have fewer rights than the people who already have lots of political power?

The Montana Amendment was put in place because of the corruption of the Copper Kings in the late 1800's, but times change.

When that amendment was put in place, the legislature, not the voters, were the ones that chose the US Senators from each state. Now the voters do.

By the definition used by king brian the lesser, (our not so esteamed resident of the governors mansion), any group of people with similar views and intrests should be banned from participating in elections unless they have the proper political views or do it as individuals, not as groups.

So rodeo clubs, quilting clubs, eco-nut groups, unions, animal rights organizations, or yes businesses would have no say in any legislation that effects them, only as individual particiapants. If one can't speak, then none should.

Demonizing business to further a political agenda and slant the playing field in the favor of specific special intrests is blatent discrimination against the citizens who comprise the body politic as a whole and deprives certain members of their voice.

While I am no fan of politics or the manipulation done by intrest groups of all sides, by the same token, you cannot pick and choose which ones will have a voice and which ones won't.

Equality under the law means EVERYBODY gets to play.

[montygarlic]

Originally Posted by MTSilvertip

Or as the Supreme Court has already found, just because you join a group doesn't mean you loose your first amendment rights.
king brian the lesser is on his way out and can't run again for 12 years because we were smart enough to enact term limits. As he is loosing power he is now pandering to the national party looking for another job.

A for profit corporation that pays taxes should not be treaded differently from a non-profit corporation like sierra club or earth first, or a union, that don't pay taxes, so why should a group of business professionals have fewer rights than the people who already have lots of political power?

The Montana Amendment was put in place because of the corruption of the Copper Kings in the late 1800's, but times change.

When that amendment was put in place, the legislature, not the voters, were the ones that chose the US Senators from each state. Now the voters do.

By the definition used by king brian the lesser, (our not so esteamed resident of the governors mansion), any group of people with similar views and intrests should be banned from participating in elections unless they have the proper political views or do it as individuals, not as groups.

So rodeo clubs, quilting clubs, eco-nut groups, unions, animal rights organizations, or yes businesses would have no say in any legislation that effects them, only as individual particiapants. If one can't speak, then none should.

Demonizing business to further a political agenda and slant the playing field in the favor of specific special intrests is blatent discrimination against the citizens who comprise the body politic as a whole and deprives certain members of their voice.

While I am no fan of politics or the manipulation done by intrest groups of all sides, by the same token, you cannot pick and choose which ones will have a voice and which ones won't.

Equality under the law means EVERYBODY gets to play.

The site won't let me give you any more 'Kudos' to your rating, Silvertip, but I wish to say how emphatically I agree with you. This notion that "all corporations are evil" is nonsense, and the idea the "all non-profits, unions and PACs are good things" has to be fixed.

I'll go along with no corporate donations, just as soon as all the union, non-profit and PAC donations are also denied. Level the playing field anyway you like, just make sure it IS level.

As for Prince Brian - don't even get me started on that self-serving, up-staging prevaricator ....

mg

[Walter Greenspan]

Originally Posted by RedJacket

Those laws, and our political way of life, are now being threatened by the Supreme Court — which is why I recently signed a petition for a federal constitutional amendment to ban corporate money from all elections.

RedJacket, would you also sign a petition for a federal constitutional amendment to ban union money from all elections?

[RedJacket]

Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan

RedJacket, would you also sign a petition for a federal constitutional amendment to ban union money from all elections?

Yep. If it were up to me only individuals would be able to donate to political candidates and there would be a limit to what each person could contribute.

Otherwise, give each candidate X amount of tax dollars and let 'em go at it.

[Geo Roam]

Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan

RedJacket, would you also sign a petition for a federal constitutional amendment to ban union money from all elections?

[Geo Roam]

Well said MT.

[Threerun]

You have to have parity across the board. If you let one entity donate, then ALL should be able to donate. If you restrict one class, you restrict them ALL.

However I do believe there should be some ultimate transparency in the donations, especially from organized sources so that people, the CITIZENS, can see which special purpose or industries are donating to whom, as that certainly does reflect to some degree the individual receiving said donations.

I have a right to know if the candidate I am interested in is actually being heavily financed by special interests or lobbyists. What irks me is the underlying skirting of campaign finance disclosure on both sides of the poitical spectrum.