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.
How the heck did they lose when they can & have continued to give huge piles of undisclosed cash to politicians in exchange for access & influence?
You are really struggling, that would be illegal. All money gave to candidates are limited and must be accounted for.
Quote:
That large 'rent seeking' sign is still prominently displayed, the only transparency in sight.
Take the sign down. It's entirely up to you. It's been asked over and over, how much are you getting for your vote? Those like yourself do not care how much your candidate has been bought off, all you care is that the other guy doesn't win.
You are really struggling, that would be illegal. All money gave to candidates are limited and must be accounted for.
The SC decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision said political spending is protected under the First Amendment. This meant corporations & unions could spend unlimited amounts of money on political influence as long as it was done independently of a party or candidate.
The result has been a deluge of cash poured into so-called super PACs – particularly single-candidate PACs, or political action committees – which are only nominally independent from the candidates they support.
The legal protections for corporations mean much of this spending (AKA 'dark money') never has to be publicly disclosed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Take the sign down. It's entirely up to you. It's been asked over and over, how much are you getting for your vote? Those like yourself do not care how much your candidate has been bought off, all you care is that the other guy doesn't win.
What the heck words are you seeking to put in my mouth? Same for actions falsely attributed.
How much am I getting for my vote? That is literally defining the argument. $1 does not equal 1 vote.
'Money is speech' & 'Corporations are people' are simply rhetorical devices to prop up the misguided theories behind the Supreme Court's ruling on campaign finance reform. I don't think I'm able to make this any simpler.
The SC decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, said political spending is protected under the First Amendment. This meant corporations & unions could spend unlimited amounts of money on political influence as long as it was done independently of a party or candidate.
WHICH IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID.
Quote:
The result has been a deluge of cash poured into so-called super PACs – particularly single-candidate PACs, or political action committees – which are only nominally independent from the candidates they support.
The legal protections for corporations mean much of this spending (AKA 'dark money') never has to be publicly disclosed.
Yes it has to be disclosed. Who donated it doesn't have to be disclosed.
Quote:
What the heck words are you seeking to put in my mouth? Same for the actions falsely attributed.
How much am I getting for my vote? That is literally defining the argument. $1 does not equal 1 vote.
1 vote makes a bigger difference than $1 million dollars.
Quote:
'Money is speech' & 'Corporations are people' are simply rhetorical devices to prop up the misguided theories behind the Supreme Court's ruling on campaign finance reform. I don't think I'm able to make this any simpler.
If the law had addressed corporations and corporations only there likely would not have been a lawsuit. While still likely unconstitutional no corporation would have likely wanted the publicity. The ACLU did not sign on to the lawsuit to protect corporate money. They signed on to protect the free speech rights of the people. The "corporate" argument was a small part of the lawsuit.
It's really easy, don't vote for politicians that do not do what you want.
The GOP reaps what they sow. I don't care if the GOP takes the nuclear option, I think they will regret it later. What they did with the Merrick Garland nomination and frankly eight years of GOP lockstep actions warrants being treated in kind. As a Dem, I don't mind seeing this one bit. Maybe Gorsuch will pass, maybe he won't but the GOP needs to expect they will be treated the same way they treated Dems the last eight years. No apologies.
I don't know why you people don't learn history! There has been a long-standing tradition against consideration of a judicial nomination in an election year. This isn't something the GOP just made up! The Democrats know this. But they are playing on the ignorance of people for political purposes, and you have become a tool for spreading this idea that this was some kind of precedent.
Obviously, you don't do any research, nor do you even read any commentary other than what comes from the purveyors of "fake news," the so-called 'journalists' at CNN, CBS, MSNBC, et al. If you did, you would know that this is not the precedent they claim it to be.
Here is an illustration of the concept in action, video here as well:
Quote:
Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court has not revealed a great deal about the nominee. Gorsuch has proved adept at avoiding substantive answers, citing his commitment to impartiality as reason to remain silent on important issues. But Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse rattled Gorsuch with a series of increasingly tough questions about corruption, corporate spending, and Citizens United. Noting that outside groups are spending millions of dollars urging Gorsuch’s confirmation—and previously spent millions attacking Judge Merrick Garland—Whitehouse brought up Philip F. Anschutz, a secretive billionaire with ties to Gorsuch. He then asked Gorsuch about the constitutionality disclosure requirements for political contributions and expenditures. Gorsuch refused to answer directly, of course, but the resulting colloquy is quite fascinating.
Hoist upon their own petty petard were the Dems. Boy, was Drunken Joe Biden's face red in 2016 when he saw his own rule, whereby he proclaimed that the Senate Judiciary Committee would not consider any Supreme Court nominations in the 1992 election year, turned against his own party. This rule was specifically invoked by the GOP majority at the time of Garland's nomination.
Clearly Drunken Joe Biden did not foresee any situation in which this could come back to bite the Dems on the butt, although anybody whose IQ exceeds their shoe size could have seen it coming.
Nonsense.
Biden made a speech, nothing more.
There was, and is, no "rule."
However, what we do have now is actual precedent for the nuclear option.
Are you going to feel so smug when that is used against your party?
I don't know why you people don't learn history! There has been a long-standing tradition against consideration of a judicial nomination in an election year.
No there hasn't.
Quote:
This isn't something the GOP just made up! The Democrats know this. But they are playing on the ignorance of people for political purposes, and you have become a tool for spreading this idea that this was some kind of precedent.
Obviously, you don't do any research, nor do you even read any commentary other than what comes from the purveyors of "fake news," the so-called 'journalists' at CNN, CBS, MSNBC, et al. If you did, you would know that this is not the precedent they claim it to be.
Did Biden's words come back to bite him? Yes it did but there is no long standing tradition here. The (D)'s will gain power again. It's inevitable. As one pointed out earlier, there will be nothing to stop them from adding 4 new justices now like FDR wanted.
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.