Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-23-2011, 04:07 PM
 
1,233 posts, read 1,220,471 times
Reputation: 452

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
you want to make some sort of lengthy federal finance law regulation into a Constitutional amendment? Maybe we can add the McCain/Feingold law, which infringes on freedom of speech rights.
Make it simple.

No one person, party, or organization shall contribute more than 500 .U.S. dollars to any U.S. federal political campaign.

The congress shall allow for an increase in this amount as adjusted for the rate of inflation and no more.

No one person, party or organization shall contribute more than 5000 U.S. dollars in total during any one federal election campaign cycle.

Any and all campaign contributions in excess of $500 as adjusted for the rate of inflation shall be reported and published for public review as established by the congress.

This is just off of the top of my head to make a point.

It can be done without complication.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2011, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,293 posts, read 20,794,909 times
Reputation: 9330
Quote:
Originally Posted by J746NEW View Post
Freedom to choose should also be protected, especially when it comes to the citizens of a country having an equal say who they wish to elect as their potential leaders..
Last time I checked we all only get one vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 04:11 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,293 posts, read 20,794,909 times
Reputation: 9330
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2 View Post

It can be done without complication.

No it can't. You cannot limit free speech here.

So are you also going to limit how many doors I can knock on to ask people to support my favorite candidate?

Are you going to limit how many phone calls I can make to support my favorite candidate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Inland Levy County, FL
8,806 posts, read 6,129,300 times
Reputation: 2950
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2 View Post
I had to look up Snarky.

Any new law passed will promptly get tossed out by the Supremely Courted.

It would only serve to further delay what is actually needed do to the Citizens United ruling.

The only other viable option available is a change of person(s) on the Court itself, via Impeachment or by other vehicle.
So if they toss it b/c it's not Constitutional, what makes you think a change to the actual Constitution will be Constitutional? Again, I am not following your logic here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 04:19 PM
 
1,233 posts, read 1,220,471 times
Reputation: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
No it can't. You cannot limit free speech here.

So are you also going to limit how many doors I can knock on to ask people to support my favorite candidate?

Are you going to limit how many phone calls I can make to support my favorite candidate?
No. Go knock away. Make your calls. Use the net.

However if you pay to set up a phone bank, or you pay to hire posters, that is different. That would fall under the finance limits.

I am saying that you cannot extra send money to campaigns and to the pols.

As they say the devil is in the details, but do not B.S. me that all of this cannot be worked out.

Only a fool would support the Citizens United ruling, and a dangerous fool at that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 04:20 PM
 
1,233 posts, read 1,220,471 times
Reputation: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821 View Post
So if they toss it b/c it's not Constitutional, what makes you think a change to the actual Constitution will be Constitutional? Again, I am not following your logic here.
Snarky!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 04:26 PM
 
1,233 posts, read 1,220,471 times
Reputation: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by einsteinsghost View Post
"there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity…the power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.”
- james madison

"in this point of the case the question is distinctly presented whether the people of the united states are to govern through representatives chosen by their unbiased suffrages [votes] or whether the money and power of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions."
- andrew jackson

"i am more than ever convinced of the dangers to which the free and unbiased exercise of political opinion - the only sure foundation and safeguard of republican government - would be exposed by any further increase of the already overgrown influence of corporate authorities."
- martin van buren

"as a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
- abraham lincoln

"as we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters."
- grover cleveland

"behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."
- theodore roosevelt


they were right.
Primo!


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ted-ruling.php

Last edited by oldtimer2; 03-23-2011 at 04:27 PM.. Reason: Add
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Inland Levy County, FL
8,806 posts, read 6,129,300 times
Reputation: 2950
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2 View Post
Snarky!
That was not me being snarky, I was posing a legitimate question. I seriously am not understanding your logic here. Why can't you just answer the question instead of giving BS answers?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 04:43 PM
 
2,514 posts, read 1,991,029 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2 View Post
I believe that we need a constitutional amendment limiting the size of campaign contributions from any and all sources.

I also believe that all contributions should have to be reported and open for public review, at least those contributions made above $500.00 or so per person or group.

I think that this could go a long ways toward eliminating the corrupting influences of our political institutions and laws by special interest groups.

What say you?

1) Yep

2) Nope

3) No change

4) I got a better idea
No what we need is someone to stand up to the plutocracy and say enough is enough. We need a party that is dedicated to serving the needs on the little person but not at the expense of the big person. We need fare government. Enough of lets got ours and dam(b) the consequences. We need responsible government. We also need to get the banks out of the governing business and we probably need to get the government into the banking business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 04:52 PM
 
1,233 posts, read 1,220,471 times
Reputation: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821 View Post
That was not me being snarky, I was posing a legitimate question. I seriously am not understanding your logic here. Why can't you just answer the question instead of giving BS answers?


Nothing wrong with a play on humor.

Watcha wanna know?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:45 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top