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.
I specifically asserted that both sides use dark money. I don't want this thread to become a partisan snipefest.
Not suggesting it does so. Simply saying that while this is definitely a problem, the media is doing this a disservice by not looking at both sides when reporting on this. I too believe that this type of money should be disallowed. Of course, I would go one step further and say that all private monies should be disallowed. I question if this would indeed go against the recent SCOTUS decision. If I understand correctly, SCOTUS based their decision on the law having different rules for corporations versus individuals. However, if no one is allowed (corporations and individuals), would that also go against this latest decision?
Super pacs do not have to disclose individual donors. That is why they can not coordinate or donate to candidates. They do have to.
It IS YOUR business. It involves buying and selling political influence. If you don't care, then why are you even participating in this thread. To try and convince the rest of us that we shouldn't care about the integrity of the election process?? Because nothing will ever convince me that we shouldn't care about this process.
It IS YOUR business. It involves buying and selling political influence.
As I've noted only if you allow it.
Quote:
If you don't care, then why are you even participating in this thread. To try and convince the rest of us that we shouldn't care about the integrity of the election process?? Because nothing will ever convince me that we shouldn't care about this process.
I care about it. Its why I refuse to vote for politicians that routinely lie to me. If you refuse to do that don't go asking for laws that curtail the rights of others.
Not suggesting it does so. Simply saying that while this is definitely a problem, the media is doing this a disservice by not looking at both sides when reporting on this. I too believe that this type of money should be disallowed. Of course, I would go one step further and say that all private monies should be disallowed. I question if this would indeed go against the recent SCOTUS decision. If I understand correctly, SCOTUS based their decision on the law having different rules for corporations versus individuals. However, if no one is allowed (corporations and individuals), would that also go against this latest decision?
The problem is that the Citizens United decision and the McCutcheon decision both were based on the premise that political donations are free speech. Citizens eliminated the distinction between private individuals and corporations. McCutcheon eliminated spending limits because SCOTUS determined that you can't place arbitrary limits on free speech, like spending limits.
I care about it. Its why I refuse to vote for politicians that routinely lie to me. If you refuse to do that don't go asking for laws that curtail the rights of others.
As you've noted---"only if you allow it". I'm advocating not allowing it. And you are arguing against me.
If I'm following your logic, you believe that money = votes. If money = votes, you support government that is wholly owned by persons unknown to its citizens.
Do you support this kind of shadow bribery for all politicians, or just certain ones?
The problem is that the Citizens United decision and the McCutcheon decision both were based on the premise that political donations are free speech. Citizens eliminated the distinction between private individuals and corporations. McCutcheon eliminated spending limits because SCOTUS determined that you can't place arbitrary limits on free speech, like spending limits.
That's a tough one because on one hand, I can see the justification for the SCOTUS decision. On the other hand, I really wish we could get out of this campaigning as soon as they're elected thing. I'll have to think on this one. This 'dark money' is one tiny facet of a larger problem.
As you've noted---"only if you allow it". I'm advocating not allowing it. And you are arguing against me.
No you allow the politician to continue to vote against your beliefs when you vote for him again.
I dunno.....maybe you have this misdirected fantasy that if money was removed that all of a sudden all politicians would see things just as you do.
It is a fantasy. Remove the money and nothing changes.
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.
