The W
Views: 97612225
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.7.14 1646
The W - Current Events & Politics - Campaign Finance Upheld
This thread has 13 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.64
Pages: 1
(1618 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (9 total)
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 707 days
Last activity: 23 hours
#1 Posted on
I find this to be one of the more frightening decisions recently by our beloved SCOTUS. I've got no problem with limiting soft money because I really don't think that money equals speech as some claim. But, based on the stories currently out, I've got a real problem with limiting political ads by interest groups. Political speech isn't protected speech? I'm really looking forward to reading this decision.

Tim

You might want a link. http://www.cnn.com/ 2003/LAW/12/10/scotus.campaign.finance.ap/ index.html



"Verhoeven's _Starship Troopers_: Based on the back cover of the book by Robert Heinlein."
Promote this thread!
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 4 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.56
First, I am a liberal Democrat and I need to be up front. I am against any limits on campaign financing, even the ones before this latest mess. Whether we like it or not money = speech today. The government has no place in this other than insuring accuracy and truth in advertising. Do candidates with the most money often win? Well of course they do. Should the government be telling who they can give to and how much? Never. However, we should require full disclosure of who and how much. If you want to pass rules regarding access and insure all candidates get some airtime, fine. But I consider this medling a violation of the Bill of Rights.

Of course, I am also opposed to term limits of any kind. It violates the spirit of a democracy. If the people choose to elect Clinton or Reagan 10 times, that is there right. We need to omprove the literacy and knowledge of the voters, if we do that then finance reform and term limits wouldn't be necessary.



Perception is reality
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1177 days
Last activity: 974 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Another example of the Consitution of the United States being pissed on. I can't believe that SCOTUS did this. This one should have been cut and dry and they dropped the ball.

The Incumbency Protection Act rides again...



The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business.
- Andrew Mellon
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 80 days
Last activity: 2 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.52
While I agree with Dr. Dirt, money = speech these days (and besides, if it is MY money, I should be able to do whatever I want with it), I can see how people can argue the other way, since it is speech in an indirect way.

However, I just can't see how the Supreme Court upheld the advertising part of the rules, as I see that directly tied to free speech (and the very free speech that the Constitution is suppose to protect, political free speech).



Everything that is wrong in this world can be blamed on Freddie Prinze Jr.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1224 days
Last activity: 23 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.56
You know... I have no problem limiting how money is contributed- I am not one of those that feels money=speech. But the AD restrictions- that is the killer for me. A private citizen is not allowed to buy an ad prior to an election expressing a political belief? Dangerous.... You can argue night and day about the money=speech connection, but The ad ban is clearly limiting speech- political at that, and exactly what the First Ammendment was intended to protect.

The Republicans screwed up BIG time letting this one through... and Bush SIGNING the thing? I guess it really is the politicians versus the sap voters after all....

(edited by Pool-Boy on 10.12.03 1111)


Still on the Shelf- Every Tuesday
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 4 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.56
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    You know... I have no problem limiting how money is contributed- I am not one of those that feels money=speech. But the AD restrictions- that is the killer for me. A private citizen is not allowed to buy an ad prior to an election expressing a political belief? Dangerous.... You can argue night and day about the money=speech connection, but The ad ban is clearly limiting speech- political at that, and exactly what the First Ammendment was intended to protect.

    The Republicans screwed up BIG time letting this one through... and Bush SIGNING the thing? I guess it really is the politicians versus the sap voters after all....

    (edited by Pool-Boy on 10.12.03 1111)


The Republicans didn't screw up at all. This is what they wanted. When will all the strong Bush and Republican party supporters quit talking about them being the party of the people and for protecting our rights? Conservatves are no different than the Libs. They believe in free speech as long as it doesn't contradict them too much. Remember that if you critcize the war you are unamerican? I do.

Pool-Boy, we can say it isn't all we want but for federal office in particular, MONEY = SPEECH. Mostly because the voting public and the press tend to be very lazy. It doesn't have to be that way but it is.



Perception is reality
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.53
I tend to skew toward personal liberty, - but, it seems to me that we have a problem. First, we limit what an individual can give to a political candidate. I don't agree with that at all. But then (prior to McCain) we allowed unlimited individual giving to a political party or a pac or other political agency, obstentiously not representing a particular party.

I agree with Sen. McCain (and it pains me to agree with him on much of anything) that this is what allows the political machines and bad politicians to prosper.

Let's say I am Joe Boo, candidate for US Representative from Cleveland, running on the VooDoo party platform. And I am a great speaker and fundraiser and have raised the same amount as Pete Peterson and Joe Jacoby, my Republican and Democrat opponents.

But the Parties and draw in money from all over the US and advertise for their candidates. Even if the person who gave never heard of pete or joe. That sucks. I'd much rather see only monies personally handed to a candidate be used in a campaign. That way they gotta touch it and thank people for it.

I dunno. I guess I am against it. But I hate the PACs.



We'll be back as soon as order is restored.....
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3741 days
Last activity: 2807 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00
Scilea's dissent was brilliant, you all should take a peak when you have a chance.



www.smarkschoice.com
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 4 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.56
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    I tend to skew toward personal liberty, - but, it seems to me that we have a problem. First, we limit what an individual can give to a political candidate. I don't agree with that at all. But then (prior to McCain) we allowed unlimited individual giving to a political party or a pac or other political agency, obstentiously not representing a particular party.

    I agree with Sen. McCain (and it pains me to agree with him on much of anything) that this is what allows the political machines and bad politicians to prosper.

    Let's say I am Joe Boo, candidate for US Representative from Cleveland, running on the VooDoo party platform. And I am a great speaker and fundraiser and have raised the same amount as Pete Peterson and Joe Jacoby, my Republican and Democrat opponents.

    But the Parties and draw in money from all over the US and advertise for their candidates. Even if the person who gave never heard of pete or joe. That sucks. I'd much rather see only monies personally handed to a candidate be used in a campaign. That way they gotta touch it and thank people for it.

    I dunno. I guess I am against it. But I hate the PACs.


AWA, we the people allow these crap to prosper. We can take it back any time we choose but won't as long as most of us are content to be fat, dumb, and happy.



Perception is reality
Thread rated: 5.64
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: John F'in Kerry
Next thread: So....
Previous thread: It's pretty close to official now
(1618 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
McCain has no confidence in Rummy, either, although he's not calling for his head. Somehow that comments seems like a backhand from ol' John. Norm Coleman also vocalized concerns with Rumsfeld's performance in the aftermath of the Q&A session.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Campaign Finance UpheldRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.113 seconds.