PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/index.php)
-   Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Free Speech Extends to Campaign Contributions (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=353056)

MTI 04-02-2014 04:50 PM
Free Speech Extends to Campaign Contributions
 
WASHINGTON: Supreme Court says political donors can spread wealth much more widely - Nation Wires - MiamiHerald.com

In what amounted to a 5-4 decision, the court’s conservatives declared that the aggregate contribution limits imposed four decades ago violated the First Amendment’s free-speech protections. Though individual donations may still be limited, the ruling frees donors to spread their wealth across as many candidates as they can find.
Personally, I agree that the caps were unconstitutional. Next step, eliminating the secrecy of where the money is coming from. Freedom of speech is not absolute.

kerry 04-02-2014 05:25 PM
Probably would be simpler if we just proportioned votes to wealth. Poor get 1. Millionaires get 1000. Billionaires get 10,000.

t walgamuth 04-02-2014 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerry (Post 3310933)
Probably would be simpler if we just proportioned votes to wealth. Poor get 1. Millionaires get 1000. Billionaires get 10,000.
This is pretty close to that. A sad day for the country.

Botnst 04-02-2014 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTI (Post 3310926)
WASHINGTON: Supreme Court says political donors can spread wealth much more widely - Nation Wires - MiamiHerald.com

In what amounted to a 5-4 decision, the court’s conservatives declared that the aggregate contribution limits imposed four decades ago violated the First Amendment’s free-speech protections. Though individual donations may still be limited, the ruling frees donors to spread their wealth across as many candidates as they can find.
Personally, I agree that the caps were unconstitutional. Next step, eliminating the secrecy of where the money is coming from. Freedom of speech is not absolute.
I couldn't agree more.

davidmash 04-02-2014 07:00 PM
I would like to see private funds removed from elections entirely. I'd rather it be publicly funded, campaigns limited to 6-8 weeks and call it a day.

I do not see how the electorate is served by spending somewhere around $1b just for the office of president.

INSIDIOUS 04-02-2014 09:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTI (Post 3310926)
...minus quoted stuff ... Personally, I agree that the caps were unconstitutional. Next step, eliminating the secrecy of where the money is coming from. Freedom of speech is not absolute.
That is it. No hiding. If you want to stand up and speak we need to know who you are. Free to speak, but not be anonymous about it.

t walgamuth 04-02-2014 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INSIDIOUS (Post 3310999)
That is it. No hiding. If you want to stand up and speak we need to know who you are. Free to speak, but not be anonymous about it.
Yep.

Botnst 04-03-2014 08:22 AM
Has anybody ever seen the government fund anything over which they did not eventually exert some measure of control?

sloride 04-03-2014 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidmash (Post 3310964)
I would like to see private funds removed from elections entirely. I'd rather it be publicly funded, campaigns limited to 6-8 weeks and call it a day.

I do not see how the electorate is served by spending somewhere around $1b just for the office of president.
How many billions of tax payer money is used to buy votes. You seem OK with that.

MTI 04-03-2014 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 3311100)
Has anybody ever seen the government fund anything over which they did not eventually exert some measure of control?
Candidates that accept public money are under regulations. Note that Obama and Romney both decided to say "thanks, but no thanks" to public funding. Public funding tends to be the major source for third party and unaffiliated candidates.

MS Fowler 04-03-2014 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 3311041)
Yep.
Another issue of such clarity that we all agree. That is just short of astounding!

Dudesky 04-03-2014 01:08 PM
Soros bought the WH for Obama so whats the beef?

So the conservative 'faction' of the Supreme Court affirms Obama's mantra of spreading the wealth and the left is jacked.....LOL

Priceless

MTI 04-03-2014 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudesky (Post 3311174)
Soros bought the WH for Obama so whats the beef?
And what happened in the last campaign? Despite all the GOP funding and the candidate's own deep pockets, both raised over a Billion through private contributions.

So yes, what is the beef?

Dudesky 04-03-2014 01:17 PM
Obama - Let's spread the wealth....left..........http://greatbuys.net/forum/Smileys/c.../happy-102.gif

Scotus - Let's spread the wealth....left.......http://greatbuys.net/forum/Smileys/classic/crybaby.gif

davidmash 04-03-2014 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sloride (Post 3311105)
How many billions of tax payer money is used to buy votes. You seem OK with that.


I don't follow.

INSIDIOUS 04-05-2014 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 3311100)
Has anybody ever seen the government fund anything over which they did not eventually exert some measure of control?
What control do they exert after they mail your social security check?

MS Fowler 04-05-2014 06:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INSIDIOUS (Post 3312163)
What control do they exert after they mail your social security check?
They tell me how much I can earn and if I exceed that paltry limit, they take back the SS $1 for $1> They "allow" me to earn about $11,000. I think I got 2 or 3 months' payments last year. Big Whoop. I had counted on that SS to help cover the 1/3 cut in wages I experienced. I have been paying other peoples' SS for almost 50 years, but they deny me mine.
Way too much control.

INSIDIOUS 04-05-2014 07:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Fowler (Post 3312217)
They tell me how much I can earn and if I exceed that paltry limit, they take back the SS $1 for $1> They "allow" me to earn about $11,000. I think I got 2 or 3 months' payments last year. Big Whoop. I had counted on that SS to help cover the 1/3 cut in wages I experienced. I have been paying other peoples' SS for almost 50 years, but they deny me mine.
Way too much control.
And, back to my question ...
Quote:
What control do they exert after they mail your social security check?

Hatterasguy 04-06-2014 02:52 PM
They will never make campaign money public, than you would be able to see who was buying the election!

Botnst 04-06-2014 05:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INSIDIOUS (Post 3312163)
What control do they exert after they mail your social security check?
Is it your opinion that there really is such thing as a free lunch?

Social Security is not free nor is it optional. Nor is its solvency assured at the current rate of disbursement.

Government at work.

MS Fowler 04-06-2014 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatterasguy (Post 3312489)
They will never make campaign money public, than you would be able to see who was buying the election!
Then WE have to find a way to make THEM do it. Are we smart enough to make transparency happen?

Pooka 04-06-2014 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerry (Post 3310933)
Probably would be simpler if we just proportioned votes to wealth. Poor get 1. Millionaires get 1000. Billionaires get 10,000.
H. L. Hunt always said that was the way it should be and tried to get the laws passed to make it so.

Hatterasguy 04-06-2014 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Fowler (Post 3312572)
Then WE have to find a way to make THEM do it. Are we smart enough to make transparency happen?
Considering low voter turn out no.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website