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.
A neutral reading of the Constitution probably does prohibit limiting political donations.
And the Constitution probably does need to change so that it no longer says that.
But there are so many problems with the American system, that would hardly change anything. We would have been better off going with a parliament in my opinion.
A neutral reading of the Constitution probably does prohibit limiting political donations.
And the Constitution probably does need to change so that it no longer says that.
But there are so many problems with the American system, that would hardly change anything. We would have been better off going with a parliament in my opinion.
The Constitution was loosely worded because the 18th-century framers couldn't conceive of corporations and their immense power in our lives. The law treats corporations as "people" in certain instances and so this gives corporate conservatives grounds for giving them the "rights" of humans. Strange though - they don't have the same "responsibilities".
The solution is to change the wording from "person" to "natural person" so that it defines a human being, which is what is proposed by pro-democracy activists. Then each "natural person" who makes up the corporate structure has his "inalienable rights", while the corporation itself becomes what it really is - a charter written on paper.
You can't kill a corporation, send it to prison or to war. Corporations get away with crimes which "natural persons" go to prison for. The most punishment any corporation can receive is a fine - usually a slap on the wrist because of its special status. This results in a strange combination of personhood and non-personhood. Any potential fine is incorporated into the business model as part of the natural overhead, so there is little real penalty. It can adopt a status of "personhood" when it wants, and "non-personhood" also when it wants. No citizen can do this.
When Big Oil pollutes the environment or Big Banks tank the economy, nobody goes to jail. The "natural persons" involved are instead told to mend their ways, clean up after themselves (which never happens thoroughly), or are given taxpayer bailouts - even including bonuses.
This is a situation the founding fathers could not foresee. https://movetoamend.org/
What is this incoherent blather?
So even though Citizens United is a great threat to democracy, you won't sign up to repeal it due to some other little hissy fit you have with the "liberal" media.
And if the mainstream media is so liberal, why don't Americans know about Bernie Sanders? If the media was as "liberal" as Fox is right-wing, he, and lots of other such "leftist" causes, would be out front every day.
Y'all righties need to get a grip on reality.
If your reading comprehension was above 3rd grade, we could have a civil discussion. I take it back -- I will try reasoning with you -- current SCOTUS ruling is about the individuals donating to political candidates, not corporations donating. So go look in the mirror for incoherent blathering.
Since when did the US Constitution become a right-wing extremist position? And you, same-old same-old drones that have supported dictatorial regimes since 5000 years ago, Leninism included -- since when did you become "progressive" and "reasonable"?
Political process is so heavily tainted by the ruling politicians, aka incumbents, corporations, Marxist Media serenading like cool and cutting edge, unions -- that's not even funny.
Tilting the heavily-loaded field back toward the individuals, albeit the rich -- it's not even close to starting leveling the playing field.
Go get a grip on your dronism first, if that's possible, get educated first, lose the naivite, learn that you are digging your own grave -- then come back here and restrain spewing your OWS dogma.
The Constitution was loosely worded because the 18th-century framers couldn't conceive of corporations and their immense power in our lives. The law treats corporations as "people" in certain instances and so this gives corporate conservatives grounds for giving them the "rights" of humans. Strange though - they don't have the same "responsibilities".
The solution is to change the wording from "person" to "natural person" so that it defines a human being, which is what is proposed by pro-democracy activists. Then each "natural person" who makes up the corporate structure has his "inalienable rights", while the corporation itself becomes what it really is - a charter written on paper.
You can't kill a corporation, send it to prison or to war. Corporations get away with crimes which "natural persons" go to prison for. The most punishment any corporation can receive is a fine - usually a slap on the wrist because of its special status. This results in a strange combination of personhood and non-personhood. Any potential fine is incorporated into the business model as part of the natural overhead, so there is little real penalty. It can adopt a status of "personhood" when it wants, and "non-personhood" also when it wants. No citizen can do this.
When Big Oil pollutes the environment or Big Banks tank the economy, nobody goes to jail. The "natural persons" involved are instead told to mend their ways, clean up after themselves (which never happens thoroughly), or are given taxpayer bailouts - even including bonuses.
This is a situation the founding fathers could not foresee.
I don't think there were corporations involved in this case. It was about spending caps on individuals I think, (I haven't read the opinion.)
If your reading comprehension was above 3rd grade, we could have a civil discussion. I take it back -- I will try reasoning with you -- current SCOTUS ruling is about the individuals donating to political candidates, not corporations donating. So go look in the mirror for incoherent blathering.
Since when did the US Constitution become a right-wing extremist position? And you, same-old same-old drones that have supported dictatorial regimes since 5000 years ago, Leninism included -- since when did you become "progressive" and "reasonable"?
Political process is so heavily tainted by the ruling politicians, aka incumbents, corporations, Marxist Media serenading like cool and cutting edge, unions -- that's not even funny.
Tilting the heavily-loaded field back toward the individuals, albeit the rich -- it's not even close to starting leveling the playing field.
Go get a grip on your dronism first, if that's possible, get educated first, lose the naivite, learn that you are digging your own grave -- then come back here and restrain spewing your OWS dogma.
Oh the hated OWS, Lenin, Marx, unions - still fodder for old white conservative hissy fits.
You are saying it is not about freeing up contributions from any entity? I am talking about Citizens United as well as the more recent ruling. How can you conservative "patriots" rationalize your support for these worse-than-autocratic rulings? Please explain why you think plutocracy is good for America. Although I have asked, no right-winger has explained this yet.
Okay, let us say money is speech. Fine, even if I assume that is true, the reality is that this just means the rich have a bullhorn so loud that no one can hear me speak. Justice Stevens' dissent in Citizens United focused on this point, and I find very little disagreement on that issue.
If a dollar is a vote, then we have no democracy. If a dollar is speech, free speech is meaningless for 98% of the population. The reality is that unfettered capitalism is completely incompatible with democracy, and this decision just drives the point home.
Oh the hated OWS, Lenin, Marx, unions - still fodder for old white conservative hissy fits.
There are plenty of young non-Marxists, me included. You seem to have the basic elements of modus operandi of Leninism, including race-baiting, ridiculing the opponent, "unmasking of enemy", populist slogans, intolerance, hatred and despise of others who call you out of your dogmatic BS.
Your mindset was the cancer our forefathers ran away from -- and embrace individual liberty, freedom from an all-domineering Govt, rigged political process, and perpetual and rotten ruling elite.
SCOTUS ruling allows many Americans, INDIVIDUAL citizens to donate to as many candidates they choose, without exceeding the $ amount limit. More and more of the "rich" happen to donate to Democrats, anyways, but I digress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
Oh the hated OWS, Lenin, Marx, unions - still fodder for old white conservative hissy fits.
You are saying it is not about freeing up contributions from any entity?
The premise of your question is wrong -- it is not freeing up contributions -- go read the decision first. Even go to Huffington Post, but at least go read it first.
How can you conservative "patriots" rationalize your support for these worse-than-autocratic rulings?
SCOTUS ruling is a worse-than autocratic ruling? Do you understand what "autocratic" means? Do you know how this term is used in a historical / political context? The premise of your question is still wrong and misapplied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
Please explain why you think plutocracy is good for America.
Plutocracy? Yes, we have plutocracy. This decision in fact attacks this plutocracy. Let's go over it:
The ruling elite, politicians have become the plutocracy. This decision opens up a new channel of political influence -- it challenges the current channels, which have inbred our plutocratic rulers. This ruling opens an alternative to the status quo, which the plutocracy loathes to get disturbed.
It allows start-up politicians to compete better with incumbent politicians, GOP or Dems, who are our de-facto plutocracy.
Why are the "liberals" "progressives" all up in arms -- because it is them who this status quo works better for.
Don't you "libs" want change? This is a change, and a lot more will be coming your way.
How many of you actually read the decision and dissent? Many on here are regurgitating talking points.
This decision still keeps individual limits in place. It just means that instead of giving $100 to 9 campaigns, you can give $100 to 10 campaigns/committees (or as many as you want). But, you still can't give $101 to any individual campaign or committee. Does this give some wealthy people more political influence? Sure. But it doesn't automatically give them the ability to buy off congressmen. So many left-leaning news outlets and blogs haven't made this distinction at all, despite the fact that it's critically important.
If I'm a billionaire, I can't just donate $1 million to a political candidate. For that matter, I can't even donate $1 million to several candidates or committees and have them funnel it to the candidate I want. Why? Because there are limits on how much I can donate to candidates and PACs, Further, there are limits on what they can donate to other candidates and organizations (so only a small portion of what I donate would make it to the chosen candidate). And oh yeah, it's ILLEGAL to instruct or even imply that my donated funds should be funneled to someone else.
Both sides on the court recognize that freedom of speech includes the freedom to spend money. To say otherwise is as ridiculous as saying you have the freedom to say that literacy is good, but you don't necessarily have the freedom to volunteer at reading programs. This has been established by the court. As Roberts said, it's not the government's business to regulate how many people you can donate to any more than it is to say that a newspaper can only endorse x number of candidates.
There are plenty of young non-Marxists, me included. You seem to have the basic elements of modus operandi of Leninism, including race-baiting, ridiculing the opponent, "unmasking of enemy", populist slogans, intolerance, hatred and despise of others who call you out of your dogmatic BS.
Your mindset was the cancer our forefathers ran away from -- and embrace individual liberty, freedom from an all-domineering Govt, rigged political process, and perpetual and rotten ruling elite.
SCOTUS ruling allows many Americans, INDIVIDUAL citizens to donate to as many candidates they choose, without exceeding the $ amount limit. More and more of the "rich" happen to donate to Democrats, anyways, but I digress.
The premise of your question is wrong -- it is not freeing up contributions -- go read the decision first. Even go to Huffington Post, but at least go read it first.
Wrong - I am pro-democracy and our forefathers ran away from an authoritarian plutocracy which American neocon-servatives yearn to recreate here for their own benefit. That's what Citizens United is all about thanks to an activist right-wing republicon Supreme Court. Money as "free speech"?? Laughable - and I'm pretty sure your activist SCOTUS knows it. Money is property and nothing more!
The plutocratic mentality is never dead and is always working under the radar for leverage with our government. They got a nice boost with Citizens United.
The idle rich have both time and money on their hands to lobby Congress for favors, a perk the ordinary citizen doesn't have. For instance, con-servatives love the fact that the wealthy get personal audiences with our congressmen whom they know must grovel for monetary support, and corporations can virtually author their own legislation. A middle-class wage earner won't get past the door. Rightists call this "economic freedom" and they sniff at the prospect of publicly-financed elections.
Here's the truth you don't want people to know. Tom Perkins' big idea: The rich should get more votes - Feb. 14, 2014 Tom Perkins, The Rich Already Own Congress. Why Should They Be The Only Ones To Vote | Zwinglius Redivivus
Quote: Tom Perkins, the Silicon Valley billionaire, has risked further controversy by saying the rich should be given more votes than the less well off.
The guy openly and smugly admits to what con-servatives are really thinking. This is just the tip of the iceberg of such views, and I'm pretty sure this guy speaks for the rest of you.
It's all about the "more worthy" running things, y'know. You disagree?
The rulings allow dark money in our elections, how can you support non-disclosure?
Since you decide to go on an emotional "commie socialist" hissy-fit, and Fox "News" does the same, that is pretty typical of a dittoheads imo. Sorry, but RW dittoheads are a peeve of mine since I am not "socialist" at all.
I still need for you to explain why con-servatives prefer plutocracy over democracy or why it is better for America. Allowing more money into politics does not "even things up" and that is a self-serving rightist lie.
Surely you can explain your own beliefs.
Last edited by detwahDJ; 04-06-2014 at 12:13 PM..
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.
