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)
View Poll Results: Would you support an Amendment for publicly financed campaigns?
Yes, I would. 29 63.04%
No, I wouldn't. 17 36.96%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-24-2010, 01:15 PM
 
6,084 posts, read 6,038,491 times
Reputation: 1916

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Its too bad that the congress didn't see the need for Eleventh Amendment to the constitution as proposed by Jefferson/Madison. May be the trickle down to the politicians era had already begun, influencing the final vote on it.
And just what was the proposal?

 
Old 03-24-2010, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,800,296 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
And just what was the proposal?
One of the many links
 
Old 04-18-2010, 03:48 PM
 
6,084 posts, read 6,038,491 times
Reputation: 1916
We may get public finance reform after all.

"In an essay shortly following the Citizens United ruling, Lessig praised the Fair Elections proposal as a means for providing "an immediate balance to the deluge of corporate funding that this next election will now see. More importantly, it will give candidates a way to fight that deluge without themselves becoming even more dependent upon private, special interest funding. No other reform -- including reforms that try effectively to reverse Citizens United -- could be as important just now. No other reform should distract us from pushing strongly to get Congress to pass this statute now."

Those crafting the Schumer-Van Hollen bill will tell you that the Fair Elections Act has no chance of making it to the president's desk at this juncture. Nevertheless, Congressman John Larson, its House-side sponsor and Chairman of the House Democratic caucus, may propose it as an amendment. With 141 co-sponsors in the House, it's hardly a pipe dream. The problem is in the Senate, where it has but 10 co-sponsors (a list that is noteably lacking Schumer's name).

Malbin is the co-author of a paradigm-shifting report published this year -- "Reform in an Age of Networked Campaigns" -- that advocates "activating the many" instead of "focusing on attempts to further restrict the wealthy few." The authors put faith in the notion that "if enough people come into the system at the low end there may be less reason to worry about the top."
 
Old 04-18-2010, 08:45 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,681,693 times
Reputation: 9980
It's Socialism
 
Old 07-15-2010, 11:52 AM
 
6,084 posts, read 6,038,491 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
It's Socialism
Yes, I completely agree with you.

Corporate socialism is rampant throughout the United States.

But luckily, we still have guys like Fritz around to wake people up to this.

This is the dire straits we're in:

"All coming in from China is not from China but from Corporate America's off-shored production. And Congress is not dumb. It's smart. It's doing exactly what Corporate America or the business leadership of the United States wants. Wall Street, the big banks, Corporate America, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the business leadership of the United States, want Congress to do nothing to stop the profits from off-shoring jobs or trade.Wall Street and Corporate America are against jobs or producing anything in the United States because it makes a bigger profit off-shoring.

Wall Street and Corporate America furnish the contributions, so you please the business leadership by being for "free trade" and doing nothing. When the people get the message from the media that globalization is nothing more than a trade war with production looking for a cheaper country to produce and the President and Congress are keeping us AWOL in this war, that's when we will start creating jobs and protecting our economy."


And here's a remedy.

"Twenty years ago, I proposed a Joint Resolution to amend the Constitution authorizing Congress to regulate and control spending in Federal campaigns. Even the Governors' Conference asked that my amendment include state elections, which it did. My amendment received a bi-partisan majority vote in 1988 and 1993, but not the necessary 67 or 2/3rd majority vote necessary for a Joint Resolution.

By the turn of the century, the cancer in politics had metastasized so that in my last three years in the Senate, terminating in 2005, no Joint Resolution was called for consideration. The senators knew they had an advantage with a six-year office amidst the lobbyists and fundraising and didn't want to be caught voting against a Resolution limiting spending. Now the Supreme Court has authorized Corporate America in Citizens United to control elections, and all the suggested remedies continue to bait the Supreme Court. Congress needs to return to its roots of 1971 and 1974. A simple Constitutional amendment "authorizing Congress to regulate or control spending in Federal elections" will make whatever Congressional Act count. The Congress can allow corporations to participate or not; permit public financing or not; limit the time for campaigns or not."
 
Old 07-29-2010, 04:27 PM
 
6,084 posts, read 6,038,491 times
Reputation: 1916
As long as politicians have a forced dependency on foreign multi-nationals due to record breaking million dollar races, we will continue to have more bail outs and explosions.

"But even as BP's reputation suffers -- through more disclosures of cost-cutting measures that endangered the lives of the workers on the rig that are the subject of a federal criminal investigations and amid new revelations about the company's role in lobbying the British government to release Libyan prisoners including the Lockerbie bomber -- at least 20 members of Congress appear to be keeping money the company has contributed to them since December 2009."
 
Old 08-29-2010, 03:59 PM
 
6,084 posts, read 6,038,491 times
Reputation: 1916
Are Americans really cool with political office for sale to the highest bidder?

How does this make our government any different than a high priced hooker?

"We have a problem in this country, as you and I have discussed over the years, of millionaires and billionaires substantially peopling our political process. I mean, several years ago, I know that 40 percent of the US Senate were millionaires, when less than one percent of the country are millionaires. I think those numbers are higher. I haven’t seen the latest numbers. But it could be as high as 50 or more percent now, just in the Senate alone. So, what is—what we’re seeing increasingly over these years, in a multi-year spread, is the increasing activity of outside groups that are influencing elections and self-funded candidates who basically have enough money to build up name recognition and to enter the public fray. And it’s very hard for an ordinary person, who may be immensely qualified, but not personally wealthy, to enter the political realm. And so, a lot of these elections are a reflection of that. In the McCain race, my understanding is he outspent his opponent, who was well known and has been around, but I think he outspent him, you know, seven or eight to one, at least, something like that, and a huge advantage financially. So, incumbents always generally win, and folks who have money, spend the most money, generally win. That’s as old as time itself, and it continues. There are a few interesting wrinkles, as we were just discussing. "
 
Old 09-02-2010, 10:39 AM
 
6,084 posts, read 6,038,491 times
Reputation: 1916
At last, finally the TRUE VOICE of the heartland of America is making itself heard.

The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter if you're black or white or left and right.

You're either part of the oligarchy or you're not.

And they have no qualms about reducing small businesses, farmers along with any and everyone not a part of their clique into serfdom and.or extinction.

Glad to hear Rural America, not letting cultist, lunatic fringe, media disc jockeys misrepresent them and drag their name through the mud.

Its about time Rural America.

"When candidates have to raise millions of dollars just to run a competitive campaign, they're going to turn to wealthy donors, and the voice of the everyday American isn't going to be heard. It's time we take the "for sale" sign off the Capitol lawn. We can't afford the price we're paying for corporate-sponsored government.

When Washington makes decisions regarding their lives, they are not the people getting meetings with lawmakers. Instead, corporate lobbyists come to collect on prior donations made. And the end result means working people suffer from legislative decisions that benefit the rich.

The only way to make Congress accountable to working Americans is to have Fair Elections, where a coal miner's voice can be heard as clearly as the owner of that mine. We need to put elections back in the hands of ordinary Americans."
 
Old 09-15-2010, 08:03 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,310,529 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
Yes, I completely agree with you.

Corporate socialism is rampant throughout the United States.

"Now the Supreme Court has authorized Corporate America in Citizens United to control elections, and all the suggested remedies continue to bait the Supreme Court. Congress needs to return to its roots of 1971 and 1974. A simple Constitutional amendment "authorizing Congress to regulate or control spending in Federal elections" will make whatever Congressional Act count. The Congress can allow corporations to participate or not; permit public financing or not; limit the time for campaigns or not."[/b]
First, the general public, even Republicans, need to be able to distinguish between natural persons and corporate persons.

Then, Congress needs to know the difference.

Then, Congress needs to pass affirmation action favoring natural persons, starting with a natural person's right to vote and finance campaigns - but not corporate persons.

Corporate persons need to be treated as the second class citizens they are.

Corporate lobbyists need to be restricted to one natural person per corporation and be paid a Congressionally set annual salary set at the annual rate of the average of all the corporate persons' salaries under the CEO and the board of directors of its corporation.
 
Old 09-15-2010, 08:12 PM
 
6,084 posts, read 6,038,491 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
First, the general public, even Republicans, need to be able to distinguish between natural persons and corporate persons.

Then, Congress needs to know the difference.

Then, Congress needs to pass affirmation action favoring natural persons, starting with a natural person's right to vote and finance campaigns - but not corporate persons.

Corporate persons need to be treated as the second class citizens they are.

Corporate lobbyists need to be restricted to one natural person per corporation and be paid a Congressionally set annual salary set at the annual rate of the average of all the corporate persons' salaries under the CEO and the board of directors of its corporation.
Yeah the public definitely needs to be better informed.

Corporations are nothing more than a money making tool.

They are legal fictions, no different than Daffy Duck or Woody Woodpecker.

Its as ridiculous to give Yosemite Sam rights as it is for BP & Golman Sachs.

The people that cry and scream they know so much about the Founding Fathers need to stop swooning over the revisionist history of chalkboard scribbling lunatic emos.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
That's exactly what some of our Founding Fathers wanted.

"Jefferson and Madison proposed an 11th Amendment to the Constitution that would "ban monopolies in commerce," making it illegal for corporations to own other corporations, banning them from giving money to politicians or trying to influence elections in any way, restricting corporations to a single business purpose, limiting the lifetime of a corporation to something roughly similar to that of productive humans (20 to 40 years back then), and requiring that the first purpose for which all corporations were created be "to serve the public good."
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:04 AM.

© 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