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.
You really want to compare giving money to a politician or party to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater? If all contributions were made public people would see to it that politicians unduly influenced don't get the vote.
If people cannot get their messages heard, they cannot begin to compete. To do that they need money. When unlimited funding is involved, the guy without the resources has no chance of being heard in the first place.
One quick example, Say I own a major network and charge X dollars to air your message. All of a sudden there is this massive infusion of additional campaign money available. As the owner of the network, I am going to raise my prices up to X plus every extra dollar that I can get.
This means that only the very well funded can afford to pay to be heard.
That is the whole point of the Citizens United ruling.
It was not intended to promote free speech, it was intended to stifle and suppress it... and this my friend, serves to harm the public good.
The Supreme Court evaluated a law in the context of a massive amount of precedent. No matter how much you disagree with the ruling of the Supreme Court, the easiest remedy is to write new law that reflects the Supreme Court's opinion. An amendment is a costly and time-consuming remedy. A new law is much easier and more expedient.
The Supreme Court evaluated a law in the context of a massive amount of precedent. No matter how much you disagree with the ruling of the Supreme Court, the easiest remedy is to write new law that reflects the Supreme Court's opinion. An amendment is a costly and time-consuming remedy. A new law is much easier and more expedient.
Besides, an amendment would require massive positive participation from the same folks whose elections are being sponsored by corporate entities, rendering it an exercise in futility.
The Supreme Court evaluated a law in the context of a massive amount of precedent. No matter how much you disagree with the ruling of the Supreme Court, the easiest remedy is to write new law that reflects the Supreme Court's opinion. An amendment is a costly and time-consuming remedy. A new law is much easier and more expedient.
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.
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.
Why do you think any new law passed will promptly get tossed out by the Supreme Court? Could you cite passages in the Citizens United ruling that would indicate that? While I disagree with some of the reasoning behind this ruling, I think if you read the opinions on this ruling, you would see that the Court, in this instance as in many others, actually provides some guidelines to Congress on how to write a law which achieves their goal but also conforms to the Constitution.
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
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.
"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
I doubt it. People with money have always been able to influence elections. The myriad of laws we have now aren't doing anything to help.
Freedom of speech should be very protected.
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.
When money enters the equation, that freedom of choice no longer exists for the majority of the citizens in this country, because more money = more power and control to steer the country in the direction you wish it to go, which as it is now is run by an oligarch.
Still, asking them to remedy this is like asking the Mafia to reduce the power and control they have, which will never happen.
Were to far gone in one direction to legally change the system to benefit all Americans rather than just the few.
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.
