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.
As per: Buckley v. Valeo, and subsequently: Citizens United v. FEC.
Our entire political system is as dysfunctional as it is because of money. Courts are being politicized. Goldman Sachs is in bed with our legislatures, etc.. If money is equivalent to speech, whoever has the most money can silence the majority (as it is happening now), which is not what democracy should be about.
Article V states there are 2 ways to make a new amendment:
1. Through Congress
2. Call a Constitutional Convention by 2/3 of States (34 total as of now)
Congress won't do it given how dysfunctional it already is. So we need to go (2).
There's already a movement already started to do this called Wolf Pac and I fully support their cause. Discuss... Let's see how many real patriots are there.
Fully agreed. Money corrupts everything. Big money controls everything.
It'll take one hell of a uphill fight to do it in 34 states who a majority opposed this sort of motion. I read on the Wiki page for Wolf PAC, they've already got 5 states to pass it, and 2 dozen more that bills have died in the state legislatures.
Fully agreed. Money corrupts everything. Big money controls everything.
Money is the problem, but money isn't only limited to political donations.
Without sounding too conspiratorial, keep in mind that it is the media which controls public opinion.
When people complain about political donations, they're really complaining about money used for political advertisements(IE commercials, billboards, signs, organized rallies, etc).
One of the complaints when Donald Trump ran for president, was that the media gave him too much "free airtime". They said that the coverage he got was worth billions.
And what they really meant was, if the media hadn't given him so much airtime, he wouldn't have received the Republican nomination.
Furthermore, it isn't as if the media isn't themselves guided by money. The media companies are multinational corporations worth billions of dollars. And they get their money, from other people with money(IE other corporations). Generally, advertisers/sponsors. But lets keep in mind that advertising dollars are not a good example of "democracy".
When a company advertises, it is aimed at people who themselves have money to spend. Most advertising is aimed at young middle-class people.
So when people complain about money in politics, remember that the corruption of money is everywhere. And all you're doing when you try to take money out of politics, is hand more power to the media.
In democracy, the power to vote is worth far less than the ability to influence. Someone like Bill O'Reilly can influence tens of millions of voters.
Whoever is in a position to influence, and especially those who can place those people in positions of influence, will always hold the real power. And there is really nothing you can do about it.
Money is the problem, but money isn't only limited to political donations.
Without sounding too conspiratorial, keep in mind that it is the media which controls public opinion.
When people complain about political donations, they're really complaining about money used for political advertisements(IE commercials, billboards, signs, organized rallies, etc).
One of the complaints when Donald Trump ran for president, was that the media gave him too much "free airtime". They said that the coverage he got was worth billions.
And what they really meant was, if the media hadn't given him so much airtime, he wouldn't have received the Republican nomination.
Furthermore, it isn't as if the media isn't themselves guided by money. The media companies are multinational corporations worth billions of dollars. And they get their money, from other people with money(IE other corporations). Generally, advertisers/sponsors. But lets keep in mind that advertising dollars are not a good example of "democracy".
When a company advertises, it is aimed at people who themselves have money to spend. Most advertising is aimed at young middle-class people.
So when people complain about money in politics, remember that the corruption of money is everywhere. And all you're doing when you try to take money out of politics, is hand more power to the media.
In democracy, the power to vote is worth far less than the ability to influence. Someone like Bill O'Reilly can influence tens of millions of voters.
Whoever is in a position to influence, and especially those who can place those people in positions of influence, will always hold the real power. And there is really nothing you can do about it.
I agree with the media influencing opinion. I think the big giant media corporations should be subject to the same anti-trust laws that Teddy Roosevelt was known to do. We can break up big media and their power to influence will be less.
However I think the generally speaking, media will only report to advance their own interests, which is at the root of the issue I think and why I believe in my OP is necessary to have publicly funded elections. If you break up all the special interests (de-organizing an organization essentially), they have less power.
Citizens United v FEC had NOTHING to do with money in politics; it had everything to do with Hillary Clinton seeking to destroy the 1st Amendment by obtaining legal cover to silence a film critical of her before an election.
Money is, functionally speaking, political speech and it should be sacrosanct.
I agree with the media influencing opinion. I think the big giant media corporations should be subject to the same anti-trust laws that Teddy Roosevelt was known to do. We can break up big media and their power to influence will be less.
However I think the generally speaking, media will only report to advance their own interests, which is at the root of the issue I think and why I believe in my OP is necessary to have publicly funded elections. If you break up all the special interests (de-organizing an organization essentially), they have less power.
The problem is a conflict-of-interest which is primarily derived from "class". A lot of people refer to the media as the "elites" or "media elites". Which I never really liked that term, because when I hear the word elite, I think good things.
When you say they are "advancing their own interests". We need to understand that the interests of some CEO of a media company, even relatively small ones, have little in common with the interests of the average American.
Even the smallest media companies are worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and often have annual revenues in the tens of millions. Bill O'Reilly's annual salary from Fox News is $18 million a year.
The interests of someone making millions a year, or who has tens of millions in investments/assets, will always be substantially different than someone living in poverty.
The media, even if they often seem to want to stir up trouble, are actually "anti-revolutionary". They may want to push the country this way or that way, but they don't want radical changes. The media is timid, because their livelihoods and positions depend on maintaining more-or-less the status quo.
Rich people have too much to lose. So as long as rich people continue to run the country, they will always keep the country mostly "in the middle". They are a moderating influence on the country.
If you could actually remove money entirely from politics, and decentralize the media like you want, the country would be torn apart.
Citizens United v FEC had NOTHING to do with money in politics; it had everything to do with Hillary Clinton seeking to destroy the 1st Amendment by obtaining legal cover to silence a film critical of her before an election.
Money is, functionally speaking, political speech and it should be sacrosanct.
Absolutely. And a corporation is a group of of people who have come together for some common business purpose. Why should some people (and, indeed, the left were never going after media corporations who "give" candidates many millions of dollars worth of campaign help in the form of endorsements, editorials of support, etc.) have diminished speech rights simply because they are part of a group and happen to have money? That sounds very un-American to me.
Money is, functionally speaking, political speech and it should be sacrosanct.
What we have now, is a government run by businesses, for the benefit of businesses, to maximize the profits of those businesses.
Basically, the majority of businesses(or really, an aggregate of the most-profitable businesses), rule this country.
As long as a majority of the money in this country is getting what they want, nothing is ever going to change.
Also, as long as the majority of the money in this country, is able to design a system to maximize their profits, then you will also maximize economic growth.
The only issue here, is that economic growth doesn't necessarily mean happiness, health, well-being, freedom, morality, etc.
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.
