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.
There is a way to get rid of these folks in congress. VOTE EM OUT. Actually I havn't seen one protestor sign saying that. I wonder why that is?
Of course, but the only options usually are already bought, so it's not quite effective to vote out one in favor of another who will just do the same. PACs are IOU bribes. We need to fix campaign financing so that voters are presented with real candidates, not just those with the richest friends and the most money behind them.
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
depends on the republican...if he/she is a PROGRESSIVE liberal in republican clothes (like bush)...no
my feeling,,, is there should be NO CONTRIBUTIONS what so ever,, not from corps, not from unions, not from individuals....give the two candidate an even amount of taxpayer funded monies, and let them duke it out on THEIR MERITS....not on the liberal "we have better hair" and "we have more money" garbage
I consider myself centrist overall but you'd consider me a left-leaning socialist. I have you on Ignore because I need to consider my health. BUT in this particular instance, you are writing exactly what I've been writing for years.
I'm already sick of the 2012 elections. What the hell are they debating more than one year in advance of the election? The only reason our election cycle now lasts so long is because of the MONEY involved! For some reason, Americans have no problem giving donations in a protracted fight for dominance. It must appeal to our aggressive demeanor or is an explanation for why wrestling is so popular on TV. People give and give and give to this "battle" and somebody somewhere is profiting from it. We are paying for our own brainwashing, our own demise. Then we have those staged conventions which are just puppet shows paid for in large part by TAXPAYER dollars! It's such a freaking scam and has absolutely nothing to do with electing competent leaders.
We need to have the election campaign begin no sooner than 6 months before a national election and 3 months before a state election.
Political parties choose their candidates with their own adherents and determine their choice within the specified time period above. Independent candidates announce their intentions by the specified date as well.
None of the candidates can be excluded from any agreed upon debates or voting documents. Until election day, all candidates and all parties are equal. Candidates must meet only Constitutional requirements and not be subject to any form of discrimination.
Public funding provides an internet warehouse that links to all the candidates websites. Public discussions can take place electronically. Public discussions with candidates would occur based on a widely circulated schedule so people can attend. People without internet access or that require information in other forms can get their documents and forms from the government.
No signs. No banners. No polls. Polls are not for public consumption. Releasing poll information to the public should be criminal. The only thing that should sway a person's choice is the information they acquire from their own research, discussions with others, and participation in actual events. This means the media will not be allowed to guess at anything or push a particular choice.
Travel expenses and office supplies as well as a meager staff will be provided by public funds to be distributed in equal measure to each candidate. No favorites. No private financing--in fact, with the other stipulations above, what could they legally possibly buy that would gain them an advantage?
There, an election cycle devoid of private money. Power to the people. Government by and for the people.
LOL. Yeah abandon congress. It's all their fault. Install a dictator as president and all will be well. As long as he agrees with your ideas I guess. What kind of lunacy is this? And he thinks if he screams and waves his arms around he's right?
There are a LOT of alternatives between a dictator, and a President elected by the convoluted system we have which allows those who contribute nothing to outvote those who pay for everything (a "Tyranny of the Majority" system).
Yet my point still stands. The Supreme Court has made many questional decisions. Your steadfast love for the Supreme Court doesn't make this decision any less contreversial.
Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, you will just have to live with their decision. Political contributions are a protected form of free speech for individuals and corporations alike.
There are a LOT of alternatives between a dictator, and a President elected by the convoluted system we have which allows those who contribute nothing to outvote those who pay for everything (a "Tyranny of the Majority" system).
What is convoluted about the way we elect a President?
The State legislatures determine the Electors. The Electors, by a 50% + 1 majority, determine who will be the next President. If none of the candidates get a 50% + 1 majority of the Electoral College vote, then the House decides who will be the next President.
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
depends on the republican...if he/she is a PROGRESSIVE liberal in republican clothes (like bush)...no
my feeling,,, is there should be NO CONTRIBUTIONS what so ever,, not from corps, not from unions, not from individuals....give the two candidate an even amount of taxpayer funded monies, and let them duke it out on THEIR MERITS....not on the liberal "we have better hair" and "we have more money" garbage
I consider myself centrist overall but you'd consider me a left-leaning socialist. I have you on Ignore because I need to consider my health. BUT in this particular instance, you are writing exactly what I've been writing for years.
I'm already sick of the 2012 elections. What the hell are they debating more than one year in advance of the election? The only reason our election cycle now lasts so long is because of the MONEY involved! For some reason, Americans have no problem giving donations in a protracted fight for dominance. It must appeal to our aggressive demeanor or is an explanation for why wrestling is so popular on TV. People give and give and give to this "battle" and somebody somewhere is profiting from it. We are paying for our own brainwashing, our own demise. Then we have those staged conventions which are just puppet shows paid for in large part by TAXPAYER dollars! It's such a freaking scam and has absolutely nothing to do with electing competent leaders.
We need to have the election campaign begin no sooner than 6 months before a national election and 3 months before a state election.
Political parties choose their candidates with their own adherents and determine their choice within the specified time period above. Independent candidates announce their intentions by the specified date as well.
None of the candidates can be excluded from any agreed upon debates or voting documents. Until election day, all candidates and all parties are equal. Candidates must meet only Constitutional requirements and not be subject to any form of discrimination.
Public funding provides an internet warehouse that links to all the candidates websites. Public discussions can take place electronically. Public discussions with candidates would occur based on a widely circulated schedule so people can attend. People without internet access or that require information in other forms can get their documents and forms from the government.
No signs. No banners. No polls. Polls are not for public consumption. Releasing poll information to the public should be criminal. The only thing that should sway a person's choice is the information they acquire from their own research, discussions with others, and participation in actual events. This means the media will not be allowed to guess at anything or push a particular choice.
Travel expenses and office supplies as well as a meager staff will be provided by public funds to be distributed in equal measure to each candidate. No favorites. No private financing--in fact, with the other stipulations above, what could they legally possibly buy that would gain them an advantage?
There, an election cycle devoid of private money. Power to the people. Government by and for the people.
National campaigns have been getting longer because the various States want to be the first to hold their primaries and continue setting back their dates. In the 2008 General Election several States had their primaries in January, even more in February, of 2008. This year there are at least two States looking to move their primary dates to December 2011. As a result, campaigns must begin a full six months before the first State primary.
How about we force every State to hold their primaries on the exact same day. Like the first Tuesday in August, for example. Then campaigns would begin in February in the same year as the General Election, not the year before. The nominees for each party will be known a full 90 days prior to the General Election (which is the maximum memory capacity for the average voter), giving the candidates time to compete and debate.
Corrporations are people. So sayeth the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 1 (2010).
It is the fascists who seek to suppress my rights. That would be you, not the corporations.
You might want to try that quote again. Thomas Jefferson was not the "Father of the Constitution," in fact he had absolutely nothing to do with the construction or ratification of that document. Thomas Jefferson was in France at the time.
Really..... nothing to do with the construction?
Jefferson, as a delegate to the second Continental Congress; worked drafting of the Declaration of Independence, June-July 1776
Thomas Jefferson received a copy of the Constitution in November, 1787, while living in France. Beginning on the second page of a letter to James Madison dated December 20, 1787, Jefferson expressed his opinions on the new Constitution, including his belief that a Bill of Rights was needed.
Jefferson sent his own draft of a constitution to the Constitutional Convention and parts of his draft can be seen in the final document.
The similarities between Jefferson's draft constitution and the federal Constitution can sometimes be striking. Like the delegates at the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson argued, "Legislation shall be exercised by two separate houses, to wit a house of Representatives, and a house of Senators." Like them he wrote, "The house of Representatives shall be composed of persons chosen by the people." He said the senators should "be appointed by the house of Representatives," and this, too, is similar to the United States Constitution, which originally provided that "the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof"—only with the Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, did the people begin to elect their senators directly. And in insisting that "all persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution," he anticipated not only the First Amendment but Article 16 of George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights: "All men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion."
Obviously, Thomas Jefferson had quite a lot of input to the construction of the Constitution.
The Constitution was a collaborative effort of several people and while I never said he was THE father of the Constitution he was definitely a father of the constitution.
Jefferson, as a delegate to the second Continental Congress; worked drafting of the Declaration of Independence, June-July 1776
Thomas Jefferson received a copy of the Constitution in November, 1787, while living in France. Beginning on the second page of a letter to James Madison dated December 20, 1787, Jefferson expressed his opinions on the new Constitution, including his belief that a Bill of Rights was needed.
Jefferson sent his own draft of a constitution to the Constitutional Convention and parts of his draft can be seen in the final document.
The similarities between Jefferson's draft constitution and the federal Constitution can sometimes be striking. Like the delegates at the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson argued, "Legislation shall be exercised by two separate houses, to wit a house of Representatives, and a house of Senators." Like them he wrote, "The house of Representatives shall be composed of persons chosen by the people." He said the senators should "be appointed by the house of Representatives," and this, too, is similar to the United States Constitution, which originally provided that "the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof"—only with the Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, did the people begin to elect their senators directly. And in insisting that "all persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution," he anticipated not only the First Amendment but Article 16 of George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights: "All men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion."
Obviously, Thomas Jefferson had quite a lot of input to the construction of the Constitution.
The Constitution was a collaborative effort of several people and while I never said he was THE father of the Constitution he was definitely a father of the constitution.
His quote stands.
The US Constitution was completed by September 1787 and ratified in June 1789 without any input from Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson did not even participate in the Federalist Papers. In fact, when Jefferson received a copy of the US Constitution he was not pleased. Upon ratification several States had proposed amendments to the US Constitution as a condition to their ratification. Virginia alone proposed over twenty amendments, New York proposed even more. In the end, three years after ratification, ten amendments were added in 1791 and called "The Bill of Rights."
Insisting that Jefferson had anything to do with the construction or ratification of the US Constitution is sheer ignorance, nothing less.
you either didn't watch the video, or are too brainwashed to realize that Capitalism isn't working like it should...
Capitalism is working just fine. The issue you have is with the [Free] Market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
Money has always been part of politics, particularly in the US, and it always will be part of politics.
That's a failed argument. That would be like saying people have always murdered, people always will murder, so we should do away with laws against murder and accept it as the normal course of society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflight
Where is the outrage over people like Obama taking corporate money?
There is none. And voters can express their outrage by simply refusing to acknowledge the existence of any political candidate that accepts money from corporations, unions, PACs, or Special Interests and not vote for them.
That would take courage and discipline, and the American people are severely challenged in both categories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
They're outraged over both sides taking corporate money...
I'm not seeing it. I see them yelling at the prostitute, but not the "John."
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
How about publicly funded elections, or strict limits on contributions?
That fails. Candidates need to be heard, even "fringe" candidates (one man's "fringe" candidate is another man's "centrist" candidate).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMe
Why limit your outrage to corporate money? Why not union money? Why not trial lawyer money? Why not all special interest money masquerading as public interest groups?
You should eliminate it all. It's a government of the people, by the people for the people, not a government of the corporations, by the PACs, unions and Special Interest groups for the Trial Lawyer's Association and American Hospital Association.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
Money has always been part of politics. There is no escaping that reality. According to the Supreme Court, it is indeed protected speech. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. _ (2010).
You can alter the reality. Supreme Court rulings are only temporary, like their rulings on slavery and segregation.
Those cases were not argued correctly. I could have done a better job. My dog Marko could have done a better job.
In fact, I would suggest that those cases were presented by both sides in such a manner as to achieve the end result granted by the Court.
In other words, those were sham trials as both sides were seeking the same identical outcome (which they got).
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
money is not a freedom of SPEACH
If that were true, then the extent of your "free speech" would be tied to the amount of wealth you have, which is a scary thought, considering so few have any wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
First, you are not "influencing the law of the land" you are contributing to a politicians campaign or advocating for a particular ideology by giving money to a PAC. How is that wrong?
Because you're influencing the laws that are enacted.
People want GMO/Franken Food labeling, but Money says there will be none and what labeling that does exist will be deceptive, fraudulent and misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
That's why the way to fix it is a constitutional amendment.
I have repeated suggested exactly that, for reasons that should be more than obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the constitution--not to just pull rulings out of their sleeves. When problems like this come up, we've amended it in the past--27 different times.
There is no veto of an Amendment and no judicial review.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
The only way we can come together is when we stop playing partisan politics. We need to all agree that the federal government IS the problem, and we need a whole less of it. The federal government has too much power, and they are abusing it with ease.
I think the key to your survival as a country is the de-evolution of government-formerly-known-as-the-federal-government back to constitutional basics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
Congress could propose a constitutional amendment, if they were so inclined.
And they will never be inclined so long as those with a disproportionate amount of, um, "Free Speech" are waving money, favors and gifts in their faces.
I have repeatedly advocated a constitutional amendment, and I have repeatedly stated that if people are waiting for Congress to do it, then nothing will happen very slowly for a very long time.
It will take 34 States to initiate the action or call for a Convention, and since State legislators are climbing the political ladder trying to get to Washington, the will no do it for the same reasons Congress won't.
So it will take 34 States to create a referendum/ballot measure to create a Convention and 38 State to ratify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
However, nobody has ever proposed altering any of the original Bill of Rights and been elected to public office.
I'm not proposing an alteration of the Bill of Rights either.
I'm merely saying you need a Constitutional Amendment that says only those people who are eligible to vote in an election may contribute to a political campaign or to a campaign ballot issue.
Since corporations, companies, PACs, unions and Special Interest Groups are not eligible to vote, they cannot contribute, in the same way that my laptop computer is not eligible to vote, so my laptop computer cannot contribute.
In the meantime, States can start enforcing their sovereignty under the 9th and 10th Amendments.
That's right, people and corporations and PACs and unions and Special Interest Groups in California have no legal right to contribute to the election campaigns or campaign ballot issues in Indiana.
When people in Indiana (and other States) grow spines and gonads, they'll find their lives will suddenly improve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
I think you will find it more difficult than you realize to fundamentally change the First Amendment by restricting the right of the people.
No one's rights are being restricted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
Corporations are not people. They are artificial entities, and do not deserve the rights of a citizen.
Corporations are over-represented. The interests of a corporation are represented by the share-holders, the employees, the board members, the staff, management, and all of the presidents, vice-presidents and chief officers.
In other words, a corporation gets more than one vote to cast in any election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
Corrporations are people. So sayeth the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 1 (2010).
Yes and at one time Blacks weren't people, or were only 3/5 of a person.
What's your point?
As I have pointed out, the case was argued badly. Throw some money my way, I'll file suit and the Supreme Court will be reversing its decision and eating its words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Man
Glitch, is that the same Supreme Court that upheld slavery and segregation? We all love the Supreme Court and what they do to protect our rights, but sometimes they are too wrong.
And it's easy to be wrong when the case is so poorly presented and argued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, you will just have to live with their decision. Political contributions are a protected form of free speech for individuals and corporations alike.
Well then we'll just have to enact an Amendment that bars corporations from contributing.
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.
