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 04-02-2014, 03:57 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,772,387 times
Reputation: 6509

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
You keep on saying, "change the Constitution", when the Constitution doesn't need to be changed. Nothing in the Constitution says that "spending money" is the same as "free speech". NOTHING.

And you are citing the First Amendment and its intention to protect the minority from the majority, without recognizing what that really means. It's a protection of those without power from those with power. The idea that rich people don't have power and that they need to be protected, is a strange idea that the GOP has taken hold of. Don't tax rich people! Let rich people buy elections! Protect the rich!

The rich are already protected. By their money. The rich already have influence. Via their money. The reason that the phrase, "the rich and powerful" exists is because they go together. Money is power. Money also corrupts. Money has already corrupted our political process. And the Constitution does not promote that corruption.
Freedom of speech doesn't only apply to speech now does it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-02-2014, 03:58 PM
 
79,902 posts, read 43,892,008 times
Reputation: 17184
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
You keep on saying, "change the Constitution", when the Constitution doesn't need to be changed. Nothing in the Constitution says that "spending money" is the same as "free speech". NOTHING.

And you are citing the First Amendment and its intention to protect the minority from the majority, without recognizing what that really means. It's a protection of those without power from those with power. The idea that rich people don't have power and that they need to be protected, is a strange idea that the GOP has taken hold of. Don't tax rich people! Let rich people buy elections! Protect the rich!

The rich are already protected. By their money. The rich already have influence. Via their money. The reason that the phrase, "the rich and powerful" exists is because they go together. Money is power. Money also corrupts. Money has already corrupted our political process. And the Constitution does not promote that corruption.
Adelson spent $100 million to get Romney elected and lost. How did his money "protect" his interest?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 04:01 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,732,328 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Freedom of speech doesn't only apply to speech now does it?
Trying to get in through the back door?

The Constitution does not equate spending money with freedom of speech.

The First Amendment does not extend to buying and selling political influence.

And the Bill of Rights were to protect those with less power from those with more power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 04:04 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,772,387 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Trying to get in through the back door?

The Constitution does not equate spending money with freedom of speech.

The First Amendment does not extend to buying and selling political influence.

And the Bill of Rights were to protect those with less power from those with more power.
Free speech is free expression, giving money is a form of expression. And the BOR is to protect the minority from the majority.

Anyways, even if we banned campaign Contrabutions then the only people who run for office would be the independently wealthy, since they could finance their run. Is that what you really want?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 04:05 PM
 
241 posts, read 171,434 times
Reputation: 84
The SC just took away the ballot box from regular Americans and have given it to whoever is rich enough to either get themselves elected or get a candidate elected. Good ole corporatism! Eh the sooner this corrupt system is torn apart the better now the wool will be ripped from many people's eyes and they can and will see that the rich are buying candidates. This system is FOR the rich BY the rich and paid for by the RICH. Ballot box gone. I say about time personally...it wasn't working anyways. That only leaves 1 box to use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 04:07 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,732,328 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Adelson spent $100 million to get Romney elected and lost. How did his money "protect" his interest?
Smoke and mirrors?

If two people are competing for one position, someone always loses. The question is, what did Adelson get for his money? Because he didn't contribute $100 million to Romney's campaign. He spread the money around. And if he's willing to spend money during the next election cycle, it's because he got something of value from it before. People like Soros, the Kochs, the Waltons, the Gates, they perceive that they are getting something back from their political activities. That's why they do it. The problem is that the average Joe Schlub and his lone vote become footnotes to the campaign, while the issues are defined by the big spenders. That's a corruption of the process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 04:11 PM
 
79,902 posts, read 43,892,008 times
Reputation: 17184
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Smoke and mirrors?

If two people are competing for one position, someone always loses. The question is, what did Adelson get for his money?
So tell me, what did he get?

Quote:
Because he didn't contribute $100 million to Romney's campaign. He spread the money around. And if he's willing to spend money during the next election cycle, it's because he got something of value from it before. People like Soros, the Kochs, the Waltons, the Gates, they perceive that they are getting something back from their political activities. That's why they do it. The problem is that the average Joe Schlub and his lone vote become footnotes to the campaign, while the issues are defined by the big spenders. That's a corruption of the process.
In the last Florida special election the Democrats far out spent the Republicans. They still lost. What did those who donated money get for their money?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,796,413 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Solid spin effort.

You can yell all you want.

But restrictions on political donations are not Unconstitutional, since such restrictions serve to prevent corruption of the political process. In a Republic, deeper pockets do not entitle a person to more influence in the government.
They are unconstitutional. The fact is life ain't fair. My 100 dollar contributions are more than many can afford.

Sometimes slippery slope arguments are valid. One court decision often leads to another that expands on the previous one. I do not want government limiting political speech. It is a dangerous path to start heading down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Where it's cold in winter.
1,074 posts, read 753,663 times
Reputation: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Trying to get in through the back door?

The Constitution does not equate spending money with freedom of speech.

The First Amendment does not extend to buying and selling political influence.

And the Bill of Rights were to protect those with less power from those with more power.
Donating to political action committees, or to a candidate campaign certainly does equate to freedom of speech. For example, I feel that the 'Tea Party' speaks for me. I like what the 'Tea Party' stands for. Therefore my donations to a 'Tea Party' group are my voice of approval.

This is not "buying and selling political influence." That would be bribery. Bribery is not what is taking place when one donates to a cause. You may like groups like "Greenpeace." Would you consider a donation to "Greenpeace" a bribe? I doubt it. You are not receiving any direct benefit from your donation.

The Bill of Rights was to do nothing of the sort. I think you need to take a course on the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Where it's cold in winter.
1,074 posts, read 753,663 times
Reputation: 241
Definitely good news, and their reasoning made perfect sense. Until Watergate, there were no limitations, and I think the founders would be pleased that those limitations have been removed.
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.

© 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