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.
Citizens United is one of the worst things that has ever happened to this country. There should be limitations on campaign contributions. And there should be a light shined on the dark money that is pervasive in both parties. It's ridiculous.
You know, I scoff at people who bandy about hyperbole that "[X] is one of the worst things that has ever happened to this country" but in the case of Citizens United, I actually believe it to be true.
if Pencil Neck tried to pass an amendment giving me million dollars i would be against it.
even if i were for it.
anything that bottom feeder is involved in aint good for America. read the fine print. this will somehow be about advancing democrats and hurting republicans. the man is incapable of a good act.
You know, I scoff at people who bandy about hyperbole that "[X] is one of the worst things that has ever happened to this country" but in the case of Citizens United, I actually believe it to be true.
you do know that CU actually just leveled the playing field right?
Unions were doing what businesses couldn't. CU allowed companies to do what unions do.
personally i would like to see a rule that prevented any organization for candidates. only hard money. with hard limits both for each candidate, and in total for political giving.
with ONLY the candidate being able to campaign on his/her own behalf. I would end 100% of all dark money and all pac spending on candidates
you do know that CU actually just leveled the playing field right?
Unions were doing what businesses couldn't. CU allowed companies to do what unions do.
personally i would like to see a rule that prevented any organization for candidates. only hard money. with hard limits both for each candidate, and in total for political giving.
with ONLY the candidate being able to campaign on his/her own behalf. I would end 100% of all dark money and all pac spending on candidates
I agree with ending all dark money. And the first step to ending 100% of dark money would be a Constitutional Amendment undoing Citizens United, so...
No person or organization shall contribute money, or goods or services in kind, or tangible property to a campaign or candidate for political office, or to a ballot issue or ballot measure who shall not be legally eligible to vote for the candidate or to vote for the ballot issue or ballot measure.
Section 2
Political parties shall disburse monies only within the State in which the campaign funds were raised, donated or accumulated, and shall not transfer monies to other States.
Section 3
Any person who knowingly or willfully commits a violation of this Amendment shall be imprisoned for not less than 10 years and fined not less than 300 percent of the amount of money, goods or services or tangible property transferred or conferred upon the candidate, campaign or ballot measure.
Section 4
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Ahh someone gets it. You either are bound by personhood or not. If so then a crime that carries jail time would require that corporation to complete that time. If that means they shutter for 2 years for a two year term, not my problem.
Its also not my problem if my Plumber goes out of business because he is locked up for tax fraud. That is personhood.
Corporations are not bound by a natural person's life span. The fines they receive for breaking laws just permits them to do a cost analysis of whether the benefit of breaking the law is worth it.
I agree with ending all dark money. And the first step to ending 100% of dark money would be a Constitutional Amendment undoing Citizens United, so...
In other words, the (economic) rent (seeking) is too damm high:
Quote:
Tullock paradox
The Tullock paradox is the apparent paradox, described by Tullock, on the low costs of rent-seeking relative to the gains from rent-seeking.[8][9]
The paradox is that rent-seekers wanting political favors can bribe politicians at a cost much lower than the value of the favor to the rent-seeker. For instance, a rent seeker who hopes to gain a billion dollars from a particular political policy may need to bribe politicians only to the tune of ten million dollars, which is about 1% of the gain to the rent-seeker.. Luigi Zingales frames it by asking, "Why is there so little money in politics?" because a naive model of political bribery and/or campaign spending should result in beneficiaries of government subsidies being willing to spend an amount up to the value of the subsidies themselves, when in fact only a small fraction of that is spent.
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.
