McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law Shut Down

[Leif]

I was listening to NPR on the way home last night. They had a discusion with, crap i forget the name... but it was on at about 530pm est. But, he was saying how this judgement was a wonderful thing. And that it was great for 'Middle Class America'.

It's great for all of America. When every citizen can participate in the political process by taking the time to campaign, make phone calls, or contribute money, the whole process is transparent, fair, and democratic.

I am struggling with both of these opinions. I am struggling to figure out how this does anything but dilute the opinions of an opposing party.

Buying ads, spending money, or campaigning does not stop the opponents from speaking. This just is not physically or practically possible. Liberals have tried to get conservatives to stop speaking for decades. It clearly hasn't worked.

10 million dollars, in the couple weeks before the election can buy every available spot of time for political TV ads. It would leave nothing for the opposing party.

Even if that make-believe apocalyptic fairy tale were true, the opposing party would not be stopped from spending money. This is like saying that someone having a conversation in Texas is rudely talking over someone in New York. In addition to there being hundreds of television stations, there are also markets such as radio, print, and the internet. Furthermore, if one party did purchase all of the advertising (in free markets, if someone is willing to pay more for the same good, they'll win), the public backlash would be significant.

Lets just say that a company wants to spend that money, but union(s) oppose the action. I really dont think the Unions would be able to raise as much capital as a company who is bent on achieving a certain outcome.

Good thing corporations give to Democrats too! Liberals believe that Wall Street bankers give all their money to Republicans or something. Along with Hollywood, all of Wall Street voted for Obama too.

With campaign finance reform, corporations are silenced, while the unions are free to engage in political sabotage, funneling money through back channels, and criminal activity. On the other hand, the companies who are busy, oh, I don't know, being productive, have no way to influence the political landscape to their advantage. After all, they're just a big group of people who want to spend money. It's no different than Paul the McDonalds burger flipper sending in his donation. 1 person, 10 people, 100 people, 1 million people: they're all the same.

If you do not believe me, look at how much money was spent by the Tobacco companies. How much money was spent by Pharmecudical companies. How much money is spent by Health Care companies. How much money is spent be producers of high fructose corn syrup. How much money is spent by the banking industry.

Why are you complaining that people with money... *big shocker coming*... spend their money?

The one saving grace is that the people of the united states elect their representatives.

People elect representatives.

But one has to recognize how much people opinion changes when faced but advertizements hell bent on convincing the voter to change there mind. Truth be damned.

And, amazingly, people still elect their representatives.

Do they expect private citizens to invest more capital into a politicians campaing to balance the spending of a corporation? I dont think so. Most people refuse to give up ten dollars to help someone struck by an earth quake, and had to have half their foot amputated with unsanitzed scizzors to stave off gang green... these people sure as hell wont be investing in a political candidate.

Are you joking? Suddenly because certain people don't want to contribute to political campaigns (This statement is false, as is the statement about not wanting to help victims of natural disaster. In fact, Americans give more than any other country in the entire world.) we have to stop people who are willing to spend their money on issues that are important to them?

Corporations are people. They are run by people, for people, with money that belongs to people. Just because they have agreed to spend their collective money on a campaign, you want to stop them? Why? How is this different from an individual wanting to give money to their favorite candidate?

While i do not agree with most republican initiatives, i completely agreed with John McCain's approach to this issue.

It's silly to say something like "I don't agree with Republican issues, but John McCain is great." John McCain does not follow most "Republican" issues.

in addition, I do not see how the court can justify reversing 100 years of legal precident when nothing has changed but the political makeup of the court.

I don't know what precedent you're talking about, but the Supreme Court decides the precedent. Not to mention the fact that the first amendment was written over 200 years ago.

[Leif]

oh hey look, more people arguing about government shit that they will never affect directly or indirectly. glad bg could provide the soapbox, get back to your dayjobs, sheep.

Why are you trying to silence debate? Just because you don't care about what happens doesn't mean others shouldn't.

[Xno Kappa]

Don't you guys do it. Don't you dare do it!

[willriker]

It's great for all of America. When every citizen can participate in the political process by taking the time to campaign, make phone calls, or contribute money, the whole process is transparent, fair, and democratic.


Buying ads, spending money, or campaigning does not stop the opponents from speaking. This just is not physically or practically possible. Liberals have tried to get conservatives to stop speaking for decades. It clearly hasn't worked.


Even if that make-believe apocalyptic fairy tale were true, the opposing party would not be stopped from spending money. This is like saying that someone having a conversation in Texas is rudely talking over someone in New York. In addition to there being hundreds of television stations, there are also markets such as radio, print, and the internet. Furthermore, if one party did purchase all of the advertising (in free markets, if someone is willing to pay more for the same good, they'll win), the public backlash would be significant.



Good thing corporations give to Democrats too! Liberals believe that Wall Street bankers give all their money to Republicans or something. Along with Hollywood, all of Wall Street voted for Obama too.

With campaign finance reform, corporations are silenced, while the unions are free to engage in political sabotage, funneling money through back channels, and criminal activity. On the other hand, the companies who are busy, oh, I don't know, being productive, have no way to influence the political landscape to their advantage. After all, they're just a big group of people who want to spend money. It's no different than Paul the McDonalds burger flipper sending in his donation. 1 person, 10 people, 100 people, 1 million people: they're all the same.


Why are you complaining that people with money... *big shocker coming*... spend their money?


People elect representatives.


And, amazingly, people still elect their representatives.


Are you joking? Suddenly because certain people don't want to contribute to political campaigns (This statement is false, as is the statement about not wanting to help victims of natural disaster. In fact, Americans give more than any other country in the entire world.) we have to stop people who are willing to spend their money on issues that are important to them?

Corporations are people. They are run by people, for people, with money that belongs to people. Just because they have agreed to spend their collective money on a campaign, you want to stop them? Why? How is this different from an individual wanting to give money to their favorite candidate?


It's silly to say something like "I don't agree with Republican issues, but John McCain is great." John McCain does not follow most "Republican" issues.


I don't know what precedent you're talking about, but the Supreme Court decides the precedent. Not to mention the fact that the first amendment was written over 200 years ago.

lulz

[Solefald]

But Kuya, how can we be mad at unions about this?

That's the core issue here.

AFL-CIO supported the decision

[Leif]

lulz

All this time, I could just have said "lulz" to everything and won the debate!

[willriker]

All this time, I could just have said "lulz" to everything and won the debate!

Sorry, after reading what you wrote... i thought that you could not possibly be serious.

I honestly thought you were joking, i mean noone can be that ignorant... could they?

I apologize for the confusion on my behalf. I also apologize for not being willing to write the novel it would take to refute everything you just wrote. In lue of that novel i will just present you with a "LULZ". and hope that encourages you to pick up a couple books.

[Leif]

Sorry, after reading what you wrote... i thought that you could not possibly be serious.

I honestly thought you were joking, i mean noone can be that ignorant... could they?

I apologize for the confusion on my behalf. I also apologize for not being willing to write the novel it would take to refute everything you just wrote. In lue of that novel i will just present you with a "LULZ". and hope that encourages you to pick up a couple books.

Respond with an argument or go away.

[Kuya]

lol

[willriker]

lulz

[Leif]

lulz

[Ramses]

This is bad for everybody, stop being so partisan. States that have big unions will be completely bought by those unions. The rest of the states will be completely bought by corporations. What little true democracy the U.S. has left will be all but gone. Welcome fascism.

Comparing this to freedom of speech is dumb. The press is specifically mentioned in the first amendment, but you all have missed the main point anyway. We're talking about electing representitives that run our country. You have to be an american citizen to vote for them. A corporation cannot be considered a single entity like a voting individual because you DO NOT have to be an american citizen to be a CEO or be on the board of a corporation. In essence, you can have an entire board of directors of al qaeda members and they can use the 5 billion dollars in the corporate account to buy elections. That may be considered far fetched, but it is now completely legal. Even if the board didn't consist of terrorists, just all non citizens, do you really want that kind of power given to them to influence the U.S. government?

[Leif]

This is bad for everybody, stop being so partisan. States that have big unions will be completely bought by those unions. The rest of the states will be completely bought by corporations. What little true democracy the U.S. has left will be all but gone. Welcome fascism.

What? Maybe this will all make sense once I finish the rest.

Comparing this to freedom of speech is dumb. The press is specifically mentioned in the first amendment, but you all have missed the main point anyway. We're talking about electing representitives that run our country. You have to be an american citizen to vote for them. A corporation cannot be considered a single entity like a voting individual because you DO NOT have to be an american citizen to be a CEO or be on the board of a corporation. In essence, you can have an entire board of directors of al qaeda members and they can use the 5 billion dollars in the corporate account to buy elections. That may be considered far fetched, but it is now completely legal. Even if the board didn't consist of terrorists, just all non citizens, do you really want that kind of power given to them to influence the U.S. government?

I guess I was wrong.

Corporations are a group of many people. They individually cast votes, individually donate, as well as collectively contribute.

What are you talking about?

[Ramses]

What? Maybe this will all make sense once I finish the rest.



I guess I was wrong.

Corporations are a group of many people. They individually cast votes, individually donate, as well as collectively contribute.

What are you talking about?

Non citizens vote?

[willriker]

and another flaw in leif logic surfaces

[Leif]

Non citizens vote?

What's your point? Non citizens still get to spend money in America.

[willriker]

I believe that he is making a corrolation between how people who are not citizens cannot vote, and how corporations are not citizens either. Corporations, not being citizens, cannot vote. Yet, it is ok for non-citizens to fund political candidates for federal positions... with no cap on how much weight they can put behind a particular candidate.

It would be the equivilant of Toyota's president feeling it would be a prudent move to finance a presidential canditate because the candidate favors lowering import taxes from Japan. And the president of Toyota, sinse the company has significant investment/resources within the USA, can do so with absolutely no limit on how much they can contribute to the campaing.

Do you really want foreing nationals, non-citizens, playing around in your government? They can do this with this courts decision.

[Leif]

Do you really want foreing nationals, non-citizens, playing around in your government? They can do this with this courts decision.

This happens already with both interests in the United States and United States interests elsewhere.

[willriker]

but now it can happen with unlimited amounts of money. Do you want China dictating our foreing policy with its purse strings and more than it is already? You dont see a line needs to be drawn? I'm sorry, but really are rooting for the wrong side on this one.

Like i said im a democrat, through and through, but even i can see a really good idea when i see one. Even if it comes from the republican side of the isle. McCain was right in limiting campaing contributions by corporations.

Hey, why do you think the corporations do not give its employees the money, with the restiction that it must be spent to assist the campaing of a political canditate of the employees own choosing instead? There is most definately a reason for that. And it has nothing to do with how the employees would prefer the company to go.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

What does free speech have to do with campaign donations? I thought this thing overruled the 30 and 60 day requirements and other free speech limitations.