OT- Congratulations to Bradley grad Mike Unes!

[Da Coach]

We have our lovely Supreme Court, which earlier this year upended almost a century's worth of campaign finance law, to thank for this! See the terrible decision on Citizens United v Federal Election Commission! :badgrin: smh

Please...this is called free speech. It is guaranteed by the 1st amendment.
And this Citizens United case does not really apply to this election we are talking about. The big money came from the state parties, which has always been legal.

 

[tornado]

special interests and Soros-types have always funnelled $$ to the causes of their choice -- so why is it objectionable when it happens on both sides of the aisle?

 

[houstontxbrave]

special interests and Soros-types have always funnelled $$ to the causes of their choice -- so why is it objectionable when it happens on both sides of the aisle?

Just because it has always happened does not mean it is right. If the candidate receives money from a 3rd party are they going to be more attentive to the interests of that money or to the individuals who they represent?

Term limits, and campaign contributions must be limited and controled for anything to get done politically in this country.

 

[tornado]

I don't mind what rules they use to limit things -- but make it even for both sides..

One of the most fundamental rights we have in America is the right to spend our money as we see fit or to give it to whomever we want to give it to --
I cannot imagine the federal government can or even wants to try to reign in that freedom.

Money essentially represents what we have worked for...it is basically a unit of productivity -- the more you work the more money you get.
There has always been and always will be a jealousy some have that others have more or spend more money - especially if it goes to causes that individual doesn't support.

 

[houstontxbrave]

I don't mind what rules they use to limit things -- but make it even for both sides..

One of the most fundamental rights we have in America is the right to spend our money as we see fit or to give it to whomever we want to give it to --
I cannot imagine the federal government can or even wants to try to reign in that freedom.

Money essentially represents what we have worked for...it is basically a unit of productivity -- the more you work the more money you get.
There has always been and always will be a jealousy some have that others have more or spend more money - especially if it goes to causes that indivisdual doesn't support.
The mature way of dealing with it is NOT to covet -- but just let others have or do what they want with their money, instead -- the jealous or covetous way of dealing with it is object loudly and try to pass a law and outlaw your neighbor's free choices.
Even if you inherit it or receive it from someone else, then somewhere - someone had to work for it -- because nobody just prints their own money.
...so if I can't give my money to a candidate, then am I also barred from working for that candidate?

Do you also believe it is fair to have foreign controled companies donating sums of money to candidates?

I just think our political system and its candidates was not intended to be decided by which candiate could raise the most money. And it certainly was not intended for votes and support given preference to those who dontated the most money to an election campaign.

Apparently this Smith guy had no issues with voting side by side with Madigan on many issues. If that is true, was he voting with Madigan because that is what he knew was best for those he represented or was he voting with Madigan because Madigan is the head figure in his party and Smith's financial backing was contingent on his relationship with Madigan IE party money?

It is a horrible cycle that is allowed. 16 years to vote apparently not for what is best for your community but to retain your job. How would have this Mr Smith's attitude towards his election and respondsibilites been if his term was limited to 6 years?

Term limits are imposed on the President of this country but for most all other elected its unlimited.

 

[Da Coach]

Do you also believe it is fair to have foreign controled companies donating sums of money to candidates?

I, along with most Americans would have no problem with limits on foreign money. But it would have to be applied equally. Until the Citizens United case, there was an inherant unfairness in the previous law that restricted some private donations, but allowed massive, unlimited donations by unions, who force their members to contribute to causes even if they do not agree with them.

 

[Beninator]

Please...this is called free speech. It is guaranteed by the 1st amendment.
And this Citizens United case does not really apply to this election we are talking about. The big money came from the state parties, which has always been legal.

Since you seem to agree with the ruling, which I believe is one of the worst rulings ever by a US Supreme Court, do you think that a corporation should have the same rights as an individual? smh

 

[Da Coach]

Yes. The 1st amendment of our constitution says-

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If you want to change this, then you'll have to amend the constitution.

 

[houstontxbrave]

I, along with most Americans would have no problem with limits on foreign money. But it would have to be applied equally. Until the Citizens United case, there was an inherant unfairness in the previous law that restricted some private donations, but allowed massive, unlimited donations by unions, who force their members to contribute to causes even if they do not agree with them.

Why should a foreign owned company be allowed to even give one penny to a campaign for election in the United States?

I do not believe a foreign owned company should be able to give but I agree there needs to be limits to donations from US owned companies along with US citizens.

But I think term limits and zero access from lobbiest is most important.

 

[dogsrus]

That's so wrong, it's just so wrong....:lol:

I'm glad the sarcasm was caught.....didn't really have a "dog" in this fight but I DO believe that commercial hurt Smith. JMHO.

 

[Beninator]

Yes. The 1st amendment of our constitution says-

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If you want to change this, then you'll have to amend the constitution.

hmmm.. I assume this is in reference to my statement. Corporations contribute a lot to our society, but they are not members of it. Corporations can not vote or run for office! Why do conservatives think that we must have secrecy in regards to who is contributing money to our campaigns? It's very silly!

As Justice Stephens stated in his dissenting opinion:
"At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. "

But as I have said in the past, a person such as Theodore Roosevelt as great as he was, could not be a Republican in today's GOP!:badgrin:

 

[Da Coach]

Why are Democrats so concerned now about foreign money? There is not a single bit of evidence that the Republicans received or spent a single dime of foreign money on this election. Even liberal news outlets condemned Obama's attempts to imply that there was, when there wasn't.

Were the Democrats concerned about foreign money back in the mid 1990's and early 2000's when massive amounts of foreign money was raised by the Clintons and by Al Gore?
Remember when Al Gore acknowledged it was wrong, but that they could not be held accountable because, as Al Gore said, "there is no controllling legal authority"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/op030797.htm

Do the names of Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, John Huang, James Riady, Maria Hsia, Ted Sieong, and the Los Angeles Buddist Monks ring a bell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Trie#Yah_Lin_.22Charlie.22_Trie_and_Wang_Jun

Millions were given to the Democrats, most of which was never returned even after Clinton & Gore admitted it was illegal money. And in return, high-level US missile guidance defense secrets were given away to China by the Clinton administration.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/29/25139.shtml

and btw, here is an example of Obama himself, along with a bunch of other democrats, taking money from a man named Hassan Nemazee, an Iranian foreign national, who was later convicted of fraud. He was a former campaign finance chairman for Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.
If this had happened to a republican, we would have heard about it forever from the media.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26510.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/hassan-nemazee-prominent_n_506031.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/21/hassan-nemazee-democratic_0_n_294054.html

 

[tornado]

..do you think that a corporation should have the same rights as an individual? smh

isn't a corporation just a group of people? Why can't a group of people have the same rights as anyone else? If not, then where do you draw the line...a group of Girl Scouts, a family of four people who contribute, or any small group who gives a dollar to a politician...are these also banned or have different constitutional rights because they are not single individuals?

 

[houstontxbrave]

isn't a corporation just a group of people? Why can't a group of people have the same rights as anyone else? If not, then where do you draw the line...a group of Girl Scouts, a family of four people who contribute, or any small group who gives a dollar to a politician...are these also banned or have different constitutional rights because they are not single individuals?

Then what is the difference between the Union and the Corporation? If you say the Corporation is made up of individuals, arent Unions?

Wasnt it said that the limitations needed to go both ways?

So from what you have written a Union should not have any limitations same as a Corporation because they are both made up of individuals..right?

So essentially no contribution limitiations on anyone its just throw money and the richest person (special interest) wins.

So in the end the money wins out and the policy and ideals of that money is what dictates decisions. The losers are well everyone, and often including those individuals within the Corporations and Unions.

 

[Beninator]

isn't a corporation just a group of people? Why can't a group of people have the same rights as anyone else? If not, then where do you draw the line...a group of Girl Scouts, a family of four people who contribute, or any small group who gives a dollar to a politician...are these also banned or have different constitutional rights because they are not single individuals?

A group of people with deep deep pockets when it comes to the election funding process. Why should we have overturned almost 100 years of election laws? For example, in 2008, 70.8% of all political contributions came from corporations. Contributions should be much higher this time around. Now that is a lot of girl scout cookies!;-)

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/blio.php?cycle=2008

 

[Da Coach]

It sounds like we agree. There isn't much difference. But unions have always been considered different from corporations and allowed to give unlimited donations. The Citizens United case simply leveled the playing field.

 

[Da Coach]

A group of people with deep deep pockets when it comes to the election funding process. Why should we have overturned almost 100 years of election laws? For example, in 2008, 70.8% of all political contributions came from corporations. Contributions should be much higher this time around. Now that is a lot of girl scout cookies!;-)

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/blio.php?cycle=2008

Funny that you would post that link as an example.
According to their statistics, business donations favored Democrats over Republicans 54% to 46%.
But Labor donations favored Democrats 92% to 8% for Republicans.
So who is trying to influence the elections more? And which party appears to benefit more?
In the case of labor donations it is overwhelmingly slanted.

 

[houstontxbrave]

It sounds like we agree. There isn't much difference. But unions have always been considered different from corporations and allowed to give unlimited donations. The Citizens United case simply leveled the playing field.

Throw money and more money and more money. Let anyone and everyone give as much as they want. Without regard for where this money comes from just get it.

It was not right with the Unions, it is not right with the Corporations and the leveling of "the playing field" decison.

Having candidates (votes) bought regardless of where the vote was bought from I dont believe is what was the idea when the idea of United States citizens voting and deciding on representation was established.

Being ok with this is just sad.

 

[amckillip]

Funny that you would post that link as an example.
According to their statistics, business donations favored Democrats over Republicans 54% to 46%.
But Labor donations favored Democrats 92% to 8% for Republicans.
So who is trying to influence the elections more? And which party appears to benefit more?
In the case of labor donations it is overwhelmingly slanted.

This based on the 2008 elections. The corporate rate was very similar to the general election vote for Obama vs. McCain, and coporation favored McCain more than the general populous. I'm at work in between meetings so I unfortunately cannot find the source, but I recall that the combined wealth of all the unions in the US would place them about 200 or so on the Fortune 500, that means there are 200 corporations with more money than every single union combined, comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Da Coach]

This based on the 2008 elections. The corporate rate was very similar to the general election vote for Obama vs. McCain, and coporation favored McCain more than the general populous. I'm at work in between meetings so I unfortunately cannot find the source, but I recall that the combined wealth of all the unions in the US would place them about 200 or so on the Fortune 500, that means there are 200 corporations with more money than every single union combined, comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.

Here is a list of the top donors for the 2008 election-
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/topcontribs.php?cycle=2008

Your argument is a non-sequitur- Regardless of where any unions might place on the Fortune 500 list, what matters is how much money they donate, and who they donate it to.

Note that there are unions at slots 8,20,26,29,30,32,38,41,42,44,45,and 51. That's at least 12 different unions among the top 51 donors.
And note who the top donors (business or unions) give money to- predominately the Democrats- 23 of the top 50 are listed as strongly or solidly Democratic, while only 1 of the top 50 donors is listed as either solidly or strongly Republican.
45 of the top 100 are Democratic, while only 4 are Republican.

Again, I am fine with any restrictions placed on donations. But lets apply them equally, and it should include union donations, too.