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 09-15-2010, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,699,239 times
Reputation: 9324

Advertisements

There should be no restrictions on campaign spending. Telling me that I cannot put up a billboard showing my support of a candidate is a restriction on free speech.

The best way to stop elected officials from spending all their time campaigning it to impose one term limits for all offices.

 
Old 09-22-2010, 08:36 AM
 
6,084 posts, read 6,027,469 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
There should be no restrictions on campaign spending. Telling me that I cannot put up a billboard showing my support of a candidate is a restriction on free speech.

The best way to stop elected officials from spending all their time campaigning it to impose one term limits for all offices.
I've got no problems with you having a bumper sticker for your favorite candidate.

But tell me, are you cool with the likes of China, Chavez, and Saudi Arabia buying political influence in the US via campaign contributions and lobbying of our politicians?

Is that what you're saying?
 
Old 09-22-2010, 08:58 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,297,193 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post

The 14th Amendment helped ensure voters have a voice in governance and I feel an Amendment making publicly financed campaigns available (but not necessarily mandatory) at all levels of government would even more help ensure the public interest is being served and public servants can devote the time they would otherwise spend campaigning on governing.

[/indent]
What's the difference in voting power, now, between a natural person and a corporate person?

Anyone want to do the math?
 
Old 09-22-2010, 08:59 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,297,193 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
There should be no restrictions on campaign spending. Telling me that I cannot put up a billboard showing my support of a candidate is a restriction on free speech.

The best way to stop elected officials from spending all their time campaigning it to impose one term limits for all offices.
Spending is voting.
 
Old 09-25-2010, 09:13 AM
 
6,084 posts, read 6,027,469 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
Spending is voting.
ergo, there is a growing movement to change this unfortunate reality.

"On Thursday, the House Committee on Administration passed the Fair Elections Now Act — the bill that we, along with many others, have been pushing for the past two years. With a bit of luck, and a lot more pressure, the managers of the bill believe it could have the votes to pass the House as well. If they're right, and if the Speaker allows the bill to come to the floor, then for the first time in a generation, the House will have ratified fundamental and effective campaign finance reform.

This optimism will surprise many of you. As I've travelled to talk about this issue, the overwhelming attitude of people who want better from our government is that our government is incapable of giving us better. The House ratifying Fair Elections would be the first, and best evidence, this skepticism might be wrong. It would also be a testament to the extraordinary work of organizations like Public Campaign and Common Cause (especially the campaign director, David Donnelly), as well as many others, including MoveOn, the Coffee Party, You Street (as in "not K Street") and many of you. This victory would give American voters an idea worth fighting for. It would be a critical victory, at least if we can gather the final few votes needed in the House. (You can help in that by using our Whip Tool)."
 
Old 09-25-2010, 09:29 AM
 
2,564 posts, read 1,592,999 times
Reputation: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
I have been wondering why Tea Party members and right wingers who have criticized the Prez.for the continued Wall Street bailouts and favoring Wall Street over Main Street have been mostly silent or congratulatory on the SCOTUS ruling last week.

I remember Fox News talking about American patriotism, American sovereignity and independence, going at it alone and not needing the rest of the world and being unAmerican and traitors. Yet even one Justice said foreign corporations have the same rights as American corps....
Tea Partiers are former/current downline Amway distributors


YouTube - Scam=Quixtar=Amway=Alticor-(Part1)
 
Old 09-25-2010, 11:57 AM
 
14,249 posts, read 17,891,722 times
Reputation: 13807
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
This is why we need an amendment for publicly financed campaigns.

"Members of Congress always say they hate having to spend so much time raising money, but nobody questions the accepted wisdom that it's impossible to win without a huge campaign war chest."
Which means that Congress is essentially corrupt.

Corporations, unions, PACs and individuals don't give to campaigns out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because they want something back.
 
Old 09-25-2010, 12:02 PM
 
2,564 posts, read 1,592,999 times
Reputation: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
This chick also thinks we should update our method of disclosure for the 21st century...
smart broad
 
Old 09-25-2010, 12:04 PM
 
2,564 posts, read 1,592,999 times
Reputation: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001 View Post
Which means that Congress is essentially corrupt.

Corporations, unions, PACs and individuals don't give to campaigns out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because they want something back.
ALL special interest campaign contributions have to go...and don't forget FOREIGN PACs too!
 
Old 09-25-2010, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Texas State Fair
8,560 posts, read 11,196,419 times
Reputation: 4257
From the OP...
Quote:
I remember Fox News talking about American patriotism, American sovereignity and independence, going at it alone and not needing the rest of the world and being unAmerican and traitors. Yet even one Justice said foreign corporations have the same rights as American corps.
Reminds me of Hilary Clinton back in '08 campaigning in Silicon Valley stating we needed MORE H1B visas to get more foreign workers into the U.S.

All the while jetting about on the private jet of Vikas Gupta, the Indian businessman who owns technical schools and call centers in the far east (not in the U.S.).
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.

© 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