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.
As per: Buckley v. Valeo, and subsequently: Citizens United v. FEC.
Our entire political system is as dysfunctional as it is because of money. Courts are being politicized. Goldman Sachs is in bed with our legislatures, etc.. If money is equivalent to speech, whoever has the most money can silence the majority (as it is happening now), which is not what democracy should be about.
Article V states there are 2 ways to make a new amendment:
1. Through Congress
2. Call a Constitutional Convention by 2/3 of States (34 total as of now)
Congress won't do it given how dysfunctional it already is. So we need to go (2).
There's already a movement already started to do this called Wolf Pac and I fully support their cause. Discuss... Let's see how many real patriots are there.
You mean like what Hillary did to shut up all the Trump voters?
You mean like what Hillary did to shut up all the Trump voters?
Yes blame whoever you want. Money needs to be out of Washington regardless of party period. Is that not a hard concept to not even politicize? You going to start again with D vs. R?
Citizens United v FEC had NOTHING to do with money in politics; it had everything to do with Hillary Clinton seeking to destroy the 1st Amendment by obtaining legal cover to silence a film critical of her before an election.
Money is, functionally speaking, political speech and it should be sacrosanct.
Are you honestly saying that big-money and the media don't "influence" elections at all?
No. I'm saying that they receive popular credit for possessing a greater level of influence than they actually have. Well-financed candidates who are media favorites usually have an advantage in relation to their competitors, but they don't always prevail. Just as often as not, they lose to candidates with no such advantages. Having more campaign funding and more publicity is not determinative of who wins any given electoral contest.
If big money and the media were universally capable of swaying public opinion to their chosen candidate, we'd have a President Hillary. But they aren't and we don't.
Hillary was immeasurably better financed than Trump, and the news media completely abandoned any pretense of objectivity as they raised their pom-poms in unison to hail their President-in-waiting, Hillary Clinton.
And even with these advantages, she still lost. Granted...she was an abominably bad candidate for a whole host of reasons; a different candidate might have been able to make the financial and publicity advantage pay off in victory. But Hillary herself certainly wasn't able to do it.
Another example of where big money and big media did not succeed in elevating their chosen candidate: the 2012 Texas U.S. Senate primary between David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz. Before the primary, the odds against Ted Cruz that year made those given to Donald Trump in 2016 (99 to 1 against) look favorable. Cruz was a grassroots candidate going up against the sitting Lieutenant Governor, a wealthy candidate with nearly limitless financial backing. Dewhurst's publicity advantage, while not at the same level as Hillary's, was nonetheless decidedly in his favor.
Dewhurst and Cruz finished first and second, respectively, in a primary field of nine GOP candidates. In the subsequent runoff between Cruz and Dewhurst, Cruz won going away 57% to 43%, a result which left seasoned political observers scratching their heads. It wasn't supposed to have happened that way; Dewhurst had political incumbency, greater name recognition and vastly more money. But he still lost to a candidate viewed as far weaker from a resource standpoint.
Money doesn't always do the political trick. Neither does great media publicity. Both are good for a candidate to have, but having both doesn't guarantee victory by any means.
No. I'm saying that they receive popular credit for possessing a greater level of influence than they actually have. Well-financed candidates who are media favorites usually have an advantage in relation to their competitors, but they don't always prevail. Just as often as not, they lose to candidates with no such advantages. Having more campaign funding and more publicity is not determinative of who wins any given electoral contest.
If big money and the media were universally capable of swaying public opinion to their chosen candidate, we'd have a President Hillary. But they aren't and we don't.
Hillary was immeasurably better financed than Trump, and the news media completely abandoned any pretense of objectivity as they raised their pom-poms in unison to hail their President-in-waiting, Hillary Clinton.
And even with these advantages, she still lost. Granted...she was an abominably bad candidate for a whole host of reasons; a different candidate might have been able to make the financial and publicity advantage pay off in victory. But Hillary herself certainly wasn't able to do it.
Another example of where big money and big media did not succeed in elevating their chosen candidate: the 2012 Texas U.S. Senate primary between David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz. Before the primary, the odds against Ted Cruz that year made those given to Donald Trump in 2016 (99 to 1 against) look favorable. Cruz was a grassroots candidate going up against the sitting Lieutenant Governor, a wealthy candidate with nearly limitless financial backing. Dewhurst's publicity advantage, while not at the same level as Hillary's, was nonetheless decidedly in his favor.
Dewhurst and Cruz finished first and second, respectively, in a primary field of nine GOP candidates. In the subsequent runoff between Cruz and Dewhurst, Cruz won going away 57% to 43%, a result which left seasoned political observers scratching their heads. It wasn't supposed to have happened that way; Dewhurst had political incumbency, greater name recognition and vastly more money. But he still lost to a candidate viewed as far weaker from a resource standpoint.
Money doesn't always do the political trick. Neither does great media publicity. Both are good for a candidate to have, but having both doesn't guarantee victory by any means.
I will agree with you that money does not equal election victories, however it does have a sizable influence over elected officials where, over the past decades has consistently made the political climate worse and worse. If money controls all elected officials, then they're just puppets acting out a show by the guys who owns all of them and therefore owns us no matter what us citizens do to vote. That's a bigger issue than saying because you can't contribute direct causation to x event, doesn't mean it's not doing anything behind the scenes and therefore nothing should be done about it.
Having more campaign funding and more publicity is not determinative of who wins any given electoral contest.
If I was a betting man, I would say there is likely a 95% probability that whoever gets the most money and/or media-coverage will win a given election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milton Miteybad
If big money and the media were universally capable of swaying public opinion to their chosen candidate, we'd have a President Hillary. But they aren't and we don't.
I never said that big-money and the media can make us believe anything. But everyone knows that public-opinion is heavily molded by the media, as well as by universities, among other things.
It is called "propaganda".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milton Miteybad
And even with these advantages, she still lost.
Lets pretend that Donald Trump had no money, and the media ignored him, would he be president?
No one honestly believes that if candidate-A gets $10 million, and candidate-B gets $20 million, that candidate-B will always win. But we know that the money does give him a huge advantage.
I think you trivialize how much influence the media actually has.
Democracies are controlled by "information". Thus those who control information, control democracy.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-10-2017 at 02:38 PM..
As per: Buckley v. Valeo, and subsequently: Citizens United v. FEC.
Our entire political system is as dysfunctional as it is because of money. Courts are being politicized. Goldman Sachs is in bed with our legislatures, etc.. If money is equivalent to speech, whoever has the most money can silence the majority (as it is happening now), which is not what democracy should be about.
Article V states there are 2 ways to make a new amendment:
1. Through Congress
2. Call a Constitutional Convention by 2/3 of States (34 total as of now)
Congress won't do it given how dysfunctional it already is. So we need to go (2).
There's already a movement already started to do this called Wolf Pac and I fully support their cause. Discuss... Let's see how many real patriots are there.
The only amendment I would except is one that says:
Only those persons eligible to vote for a candidate or ballot initiative may donate money to that candidate or ballot initiative.
Lets pretend that Donald Trump had no money, and the media ignored him, would he be president?
Hard to say, since Trump was quite well-known by the public prior to the campaign. The absence of money and name recognition would generally make for longer odds for any given candidate, but as we have seen, it is not necessarily a harbinger of electoral doom.
By the same token, Hillary had the full-throated, enthusiastic support of the media and an unquestioned financial advantage, and she did not prevail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by man4857
I will agree with you that money does not equal election victories, however it does have a sizable influence over elected officials where, over the past decades has consistently made the political climate worse and worse. If money controls all elected officials, then they're just puppets acting out a show by the guys who owns all of them and therefore owns us no matter what us citizens do to vote. That's a bigger issue than saying because you can't contribute direct causation to x event, doesn't mean it's not doing anything behind the scenes and therefore nothing should be done about it.
I'm afraid that die is already cast. We have decided, rightly or wrongly, that for-profit corporations are going to be taxpayers just as individuals are, and that decision was cast in stone long ago. If we are going to place the same responsibilities on corporations, then it follows that we have to accord them the same rights as individuals, one of which is the right to speak out on issues of interest to them, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
It's the "taxation vs. representation" thing...if you are expected to pay taxes, then you should have the right to address the government on issues of interest. Now, if we were to decide that for-profit corporations are non-taxable entities, then we might be able to make the case that corporations shouldn't be permitted to lobby their representatives to influence legislation. But to remove their constitutional rights of free speech via lobbying while still expecting them to serve as taxpayers without a voice in government?
That (among a few other things) was what that little revolutionary tiff with King George III of Great Britain in 1776 was all about.
Hard to say, since Trump was quite well-known by the public prior to the campaign. The absence of money and name recognition would generally make for longer odds for any given candidate, but as we have seen, it is not necessarily a harbinger of electoral doom.
You know as well as I, that if Donald Trump wasn't a billionaire, who owned tons of businesses, who had huge name recognition because of the money/businesses he had, and who has his own private jet, and who, as one of his selling points, claimed he would self-finance his own campaign, run the country like a business, and not take any money from donors/superpacs, that Donald Trump never would have stood a chance.
You seem to think that since money doesn't guarantee a victory, that it isn't a major problem.
You know money is a problem. And you know that the media is a problem.
I'm not here to have a debate about whether corporations should have freedom of speech. I don't really care.
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.
