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 09-25-2010, 06:17 PM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,018,998 times
Reputation: 1916

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tofurkey View Post
From the OP...
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.).
The "we" meaning her campaign contributors of Silicon Valley.

Now mind you, I am not suggesting these people are necessarily evil or hate middle income and working Americans, its just that the game is rigged in a certain way.

Unless we have some kind of finance reform, Main Street and Wall Street and other areas of corporate America will drift further and further away.

Campaign finance reform is one tool among many that can be used to help make sure Main Street has more representation in governance.

 
Old 09-29-2010, 06:00 PM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,018,998 times
Reputation: 1916
Even Bill O'Reily is in agreement(see 5:50), public office should not be up for sale to the highest bidder, neither foreign nor domestic.

"After Jon Stewart's widely publicized appearance on Bill O'Reilly's show last week, O'Reilly came to "The Daily Show" Monday night for a rematch.

The two also agreed that there is far too much corruption in both media and politics."
 
Old 09-29-2010, 06:11 PM
 
Location: Midwest
38,496 posts, read 25,724,336 times
Reputation: 10789
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
What moron would vote no? They must be joking. Since the question is a no brainer, I must assume that they even less than no brains.

A moron who has been brainwashed by Fox News.
 
Old 09-30-2010, 08:57 AM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,018,998 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
A moron who has been brainwashed by Fox News.
Funny thing is even lobbyists understand and agree that the one of the ways to reduce corruption is to have campaign finance reform.

"The solution, Williams said, is to end the practice of lavish fundraisers, in which these corporations and interest groups write large checks to finance political campaigns, and to switch to a system of federally-financed elections. If each taxpayer paid just four dollars more, he said, every lawmaker and the president would have $1 million per election cycle to spend on publicity."
 
Old 10-06-2010, 09:09 PM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,018,998 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
Funny thing is even lobbyists understand and agree that the one of the ways to reduce corruption is to have campaign finance reform.

"The solution, Williams said, is to end the practice of lavish fundraisers, in which these corporations and interest groups write large checks to finance political campaigns, and to switch to a system of federally-financed elections. If each taxpayer paid just four dollars more, he said, every lawmaker and the president would have $1 million per election cycle to spend on publicity."
Not just lobbyists but the politicians themselves admit, that Main Street no longer has much representation in government.

Even the businesses in the politician's constituency may not have much representation.

Its time to make public servants, once again public servants.

We need an amendment to make sure our politicians are 1st and foremost beholden to the actual people that make up their constituencies.

"The game is money. I got to get the money to heck with constituents, I gotta get contributors.

That's right. We didn't go home on the weekends. We tried to get out Thursday afternoon or night or at least early Friday morning to go to the West Coast for fundraisers. That's why Hollywood and that's why Wall Street has got that much influence. I'm not going to South Carolina. They got no money for a Democrat. I have to travel all over the country. "
 
Old 10-29-2010, 11:38 AM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,018,998 times
Reputation: 1916
Good news for those that love democracy and the legacy the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us.

"Free Speech for People is a nationwide organization calling for and working for a constitutional amendment. And the Constitution provides for that process under Article V of the Constitution. It’s been used twenty-seven times before. It’s how women got the right to vote. It’s how African Americans got the right to vote. It’s how we got due process applied to the states. It’s how we made our democracy, in many ways, is through the amendment process.

And now we’re called upon to do it again, with what the Supreme Court did in Citizens United, is essentially tell the people that, look, you know that corporate power is a problem, you know that corporate money is dominating our elections, our judiciaries, our legislatures, but there’s nothing you can do about it. If that’s true, as Bill Moyers and Bob Edgar and others have said on this show and elsewhere, we have a very serious problem with democracy in this country and a real question about whether we, as a democracy and a republic, will survive as a government of the people, rather than as a plutocracy. So, Free Speech for People is committed to overturning Citizens United and reversing that decision and having the American people, of all different political persuasions, come together to say to the Court, "Actually, yes, we can regulate corporate power in our elections and elsewhere. Yes, we can do that. And the way we do that is through a constitutional amendment."
 
Old 03-02-2011, 10:06 AM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,018,998 times
Reputation: 1916
Another movement pushing for a constitutional amendment to undone that horrible Citizens United multi-national sellout.

"A recent poll by Hart Research found that 85 percent of Americans say corporations have too much influence on our democracy.

In the 2010 case known as Citizens United v. F.E.C. - the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend as much money as they want from their corporate coffers to influence election outcomes. The corporations say it's free speech, but there's nothing free about it. If corporations - say Exxon, which made $30 billion last year - spend even a tiny percentage of their profits on influencing election outcomes, they can dwarf the contributions from real live citizens (that's you and me), skewing election results to favor their own interests. Which, let's face it, aren't always the same as the interests of workers, families and the environment.

A constitutional amendment won't solve all the problems with corporate influence of our democracy, but it is a great place to start. If the Citizens United decision stands unchallenged, elections will be no more than auctions, with political offices available to the highest bidder, and unavailable to those who prioritize public - rather than corporate - interests."
 
Old 01-08-2012, 12:04 PM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,018,998 times
Reputation: 1916
Excellent interview by Lawrence Lessig.

I don't see how those that are always yelling about states' rights are not discussing some of the issues Lessig brings up?

"Well, the framers looked at the amending process, and they asked a question, which, you know, originally was just basically Congress got to propose amendmentswhat if Congress is the problem? And they added to the amendment the ability for states to call for a convention that itself gets to propose amendments, and those amendments then to have to be ratified like any other amendment. And the reality is how—despite how hard this is to imagine, the only way we’re going to get this system changed is to change it from the outside. And the only outside mechanism we have is the mechanism of a convention.

So, 34 states need to be ratified—need to ratify a call for a convention. And I think the movement has got to go to those states and work them, legislature by legislature, to get them to recognize the need for a convention. Now, the interesting politics of this is, people can call for a convention for any purpose.

So there’s already a strong conservative movement to push for a convention for balanced budget objectives or to limit the national debt. And I think that all of these proposals need to be considered in the context of a convention. But I think, unfortunately, the only option we have for intervening to fix this corrupted system is the only option the framers gave us, which is outsiders organizing to fix the problem in Washington."
 
Old 01-08-2012, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,327,324 times
Reputation: 8672
Yes, there should be publicly televised debates. As part of the broadband use of the networks, they must all air it. So much air time for every candidate for advertising as well. Keep everyone on an equal playing field.

However, this would favor the incumbent as the President and high position congressmen get free air time, where other candidates may not from the media.
 
Old 01-08-2012, 12:21 PM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,018,998 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Yes, there should be publicly televised debates. As part of the broadband use of the networks, they must all air it. So much air time for every candidate for advertising as well. Keep everyone on an equal playing field.

However, this would favor the incumbent as the President and high position congressmen get free air time, where other candidates may not from the media.

Personally I favor having a Constitutional Amendment setting up a system for publically financed campaigns but leaving the details to the states to iron out.

But the public has to be made aware of the problem before we can discussing and debating any possible remedies to Citizens United.
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.


Closed Thread


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