Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the reasons why Trump is gaining in popularity is because he says, I have my own money, so I won't owe any of my business friends' favors.
If Citizens United was revoked or even further policies were put in place to limit large donations from any individual, corporation, union etc then wouldn't that fix this issue?
Why isn't this question being asked because if XYZ came out and said, "Trump is right about our election process. It requires tons of money to win and politicians go out requesting money from big donors and end up owing favors that sometimes conflicts with campaign promises. However, simply saying I have my own money, doesn't solve the problem. If I became president, I would cap the amount any organization or person can donate." I think they would take a lot of the thunder away from Trump and even get some respect from Independents and moderate Democrats.
One of the reasons why Trump is gaining in popularity is because he says, I have my own money, so I won't owe any of my business friends' favors.
If Citizens United was revoked or even further policies were put in place to limit large donations from any individual, corporation, union etc then wouldn't that fix this issue?
Why isn't this question being asked because if XYZ came out and said, "Trump is right about our election process. It requires tons of money to win and politicians go out requesting money from big donors and end up owing favors that sometimes conflicts with campaign promises. However, simply saying I have my own money, doesn't solve the problem. If I became president, I would cap the amount any organization or person can donate." I think they would take a lot of the thunder away from Trump and even get some respect from Independents and moderate Democrats.
The problem isn`t that someone with a lot of money can buy politicians.
The problem is voters are stupid enough to vote for them.
And it doesn`t really matter what you do to control the money coming in on the front end if politicians cash in after they leave office.
A seat on a corporate board or position as a lobbyist that pays millions for doing next to nothing still serves as an effective bribe if the positions (payoffs) are only given to politicians who do the bidding of the bribe providers while in office.
Like picking up a prostitute standing on the corner, not everything has to be said to be understood.
What you say you will do is not what the law that brought about the Citizen United ruling did. It's amazing how ignorant people are on this subject.
You're right and wrong
SpeechNow created the situation we are in, but Citizens United was the citing on it in the first place. Speechnow wasn't SCOTUS, but the court used Citizens United in determining it.
Citizen's United made it possible to bomb the media air with ads for against a candidate from outside sources right up to the election where I live we had a contested Governor's race, but one side was able to spend almost 3x the other to run ads. Did they contribute to the campaign? No, just a SuperPAC running negative ads against the competitor in large numbers. Wanna guess who won?
SpeechNow created the situation we are in, but Citizens United was the citing on it in the first place. Speechnow wasn't SCOTUS, but the court used Citizens United in determining it.
Citizen's United made it possible to bomb the media air with ads for against a candidate from outside sources right up to the election where I live we had a contested Governor's race, but one side was able to spend almost 3x the other to run ads. Did they contribute to the campaign? No, just a SuperPAC running negative ads against the competitor in large numbers. Wanna guess who won?
How is it fair for a politician to "bomb the airwaves" but not for an individual or group of individuals?
I've used this example many times. I can present it either way.
Candidate A wants to defund Planned Parenthood. He runs ads saying they are selling body parts and if you vote for him he will vote to defund them.
How is it O.K. for that but it's not O.K. for Planned Parenthood to create their own ads presenting their side of the story?
Or for others......Candidate B claims guns are the reason for crimes and if you vote for him, he will push for stricter gun laws but its wrong for say the NRA to present their side of the story?
How is it fair for a politician to "bomb the airwaves" but not for an individual or group of individuals?
I've used this example many times. I can present it either way.
Candidate A wants to defund Planned Parenthood. He runs ads saying they are selling body parts and if you vote for him he will vote to defund them.
How is it O.K. for that but it's not O.K. for Planned Parenthood to create their own ads presenting their side of the story?
Or for others......Candidate B claims guns are the reason for crimes and if you vote for him, he will push for stricter gun laws but its wrong for say the NRA to present their side of the story?
You aren't wrong, like I said.
The issue is a slippery slope, those with money=power
What you and I think are very small compared to the interests of those who have the money to invest in issues. Those who have interests and the will to spend the money to spend in those interests by a large margin (like my State's 3:1 margin) creates an unlevel playing field. In my state the wealthy are conservative but the populace is pretty diverse, conservative policies take center stage because of the buying power. This should concern you, that we live in a society that is really a clip for competing interests of those who can afford to have interests. Or in simpler terms, like we see in the Republican debates a fight between Billionaires at the expense of the common person.
A lot of the companies that have the leverage to spend in large quantities don't have your interests in mind. The largest SuperPAC in our governor's race was based out of state and funded by a family (or brothers) who are energy moguls with no real interest in the State. The slippery slope is that the interests of non-residents who have no interest in the state ultimately prevail. There is no positive outcome from a result like this, and I'm sure my state is just a small piece to the puzzle.
Citizen's United created this political environment.
Last edited by JGMotorsport64; 08-08-2015 at 02:04 AM..
If you allow corporations, unions and even random individuals to donate millions of dollars we will never get real results in Washington. They will always be puppets and it explains why whether we have a Republican in the White House or a Democrat, the end result tends to always be the same.
The issue is a slippery slope, those with money=power
What you and I think are very small compared to the interests of those who have the money to invest in issues. Those who have interests and the will to spend the money to spend in those interests by a large margin (like my State's 3:1 margin) creates an unlevel playing field. In my state the wealthy are conservative but the populace is pretty diverse, conservative policies take center stage because of the buying power. This should concern you, that we live in a society that is really a clip for competing interests of those who can afford to have interests. Or in simpler terms, like we see in the Republican debates a fight between Billionaires at the expense of the common person.
A lot of the companies that have the leverage to spend in large quantities don't have your interests in mind. The largest SuperPAC in our governor's race was based out of state and funded by a family (or brothers) who are energy moguls with no real interest in the State. The slippery slope is that the interests of non-residents who have no interest in the state ultimately prevail. There is no positive outcome from a result like this, and I'm sure my state is just a small piece to the puzzle.
The first amendment does not grant free speech rights to only the poor.
Going after free speech is never the answer. I can be concerned over those with money all day but the answer is not the removal of our first amendment rights.
Want to curtail large donations? Politicians can NOT control our speech but they can the tax structure.
First $5000 in any year is allowed. Anything over $5000 is taxed at 75%.
That isn't going to happen though. Why? They want the money they just don't want speech they can't control.
If you allow corporations, unions and even random individuals to donate millions of dollars we will never get real results in Washington. They will always be puppets and it explains why whether we have a Republican in the White House or a Democrat, the end result tends to always be the same.
The first amendment does not grant free speech rights to only the poor.
Going after free speech is never the answer. I can be concerned over those with money all day but the answer is not the removal of our first amendment rights.
Want to curtail large donations? Politicians can NOT control our speech but they can the tax structure.
First $5000 in any year is allowed. Anything over $5000 is taxed at 75%.
That isn't going to happen though. Why? They want the money they just don't want speech they can't control.
No it doesn't my scenario is pointing out that the wealthy have a greater voice, we should have equal say but it doesn't work out that way.
Your solution isn't bad, I'm not sure where we are disagreeing at yet?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
