• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Campaign Finance Reform bill passes

If Bush signs this as promised with no caveats, it will be the first thing since his 9/11 decisions (and his second, otherwise) that I fully agree with.

Anybody disagree with this bill? And why?

If Bush signs this into law, I will have lost all respect for him and will not vote for him in a re-election bid.

This bill, if signed into law, violates the First Amendment, in 30+ decisions of the Supreme Court.
 
dangit, i wanted to post this 🙂 its kinda ironic, cause we just had a test on monday over this stuff in my ap government class (soft money, hard money, PACs, etc), and now its all been changed. We have to do a summary of an article from politics that applies to what we're studying in class..so i picked this one 🙂
 
The more years go by the selective people seem to get about the constitution. Pretty soon the constitution will only be remembered in history books, the government seems to have no need for it anymore. 🙁
 
Maybe I'm being a little too idealistic, but why should money speak louder than the people's vote? For all practical purposes, why should the first amendment naturally favor large corporations instead of individuals? How is that what the authors intended?

People always talk about how washington's controlled not by the vote, but by being bought by the lobbyists. Is this not a first step in changing that?
 


<< This will NEVER stand....If they do this, we might as well change our country name to China II.... >>


Last I heard the Chinese never got to vote in their leaders. So what exactly are you pushing for?
 


<< Maybe I'm being a little too idealistic, but why should money speak louder than the people's vote? For all practical purposes, why should the first amendment naturally favor large corporations instead of individuals? How is that what the authors intended? >>



How does a large corporation affect how you vote? If a large corporation gives money to a candidate you know about it and can base your decision on that information. Why do you want to protect your rights while stepping on the rights of others?
 


<< giving money from whomever to whomever= bribery >>



If it was under the table I would agree but it?s not. Just because some Americans are to stupid to vote doesn?t mean you have to take their rights away.
 


<<

<< Maybe I'm being a little too idealistic, but why should money speak louder than the people's vote? For all practical purposes, why should the first amendment naturally favor large corporations instead of individuals? How is that what the authors intended? >>



How does a large corporation affect how you vote? If a large corporation gives money to a candidate you know about it and can base your decision on that information. Why do you want to protect your rights while stepping on the rights of others? >>



Okay, I'll bite. A large corporation can influence what actions a politician takes, much more than my vote, which by the time he's in office, means very little in comparison. Therefore making it comparably useless.

If the people in a corporation wish to exert their rights and freedoms, they ought to do it with the vote, instead of collective bribery. But of course, we all know thats the inefficient way of doing things if you got the money.

IMO the rights and freedoms of an individual or a collective ends when and where it begins to violate that of another, that is atleast the spirit of the system, correct?
 
It's about time! The only parts with which I disagree are that they raised the limit on donations to candidates, and (unless they undid this part), they made it take effect after the next election, so they get to stuff their coffers once more before that well dries up.
 
I can see myself liking this legislation because I think money spent by special interests distort the democratic process. Election time always brings these 30 second special interest-funded commercials full of slander and lies against various candidates. Blech.
 
so they get to stuff their coffers once more before that well dries up.

Sorry to break this to you but the legal eagles in both parties are already working on using the loopholes they both know are there, this is mainly an incumbent protection act, and the dems are hopping it will work in their favour in the long run. The republicans are just cowards their afraid if they don't vote for it the dems will call them bad names, and sorry to say but this includes Bush!:disgust:
 
For those who are still against this bill, the only reason I've heard so far is the first amendment issue.

Exactly whose first amendment rights would this bill be violating?
 


<< I can see myself liking this legislation because I think money spent by special interests distort the democratic process. Election time always brings these 30 second special interest-funded commercials full of slander and lies against various candidates. Blech. >>



That is only true because your fellow Americans are generally a bunch of dullards, and that's being kind. If the typical voter actually paid attention and put a little thought into their vote, special interest money would be effectively neutered. As it is now, far too many people base their whole political education on those 30-second spots. IMHO, with the great privilege of voting comes the responsibility of educating yourself before voting, but few people do that these days. The basic truth is, the current flaws in the process are generally the fault of the general public's ignorance, sloth, and/or apathy. Blaming PAC's, 'hard' money, 'soft' money, etc., is just a smoke screen.

I'm with Kilgor and the others who believe this 'campaign finance reform' is anything but reform, and is in violation of the Constitution. Can't wait for the Court to strike it down.
 


<< For those who are still against this bill, the only reason I've heard so far is the first amendment issue.

Exactly whose first amendment rights would this bill be violating? >>



From a Washington Post description of the bill:

In another key provision, aimed at curbing thinly-veiled attack ads by outside groups, the bill curbs issue ads that target specific candidates just before elections. It bars use of soft money money from corporate, union and non-profit advocacy groups for such ads within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary. These interests could set up political action committees to raise regulated cash for such advertising.

It's pretty clear that in curbing political issue ads, the bill violates free speech provisions. If the First Amendment wasn't written to protect political speech, what speech was it meant to protect? So, to answer your question, the bill would be violating everyone's First Amendment rights. :disgust:
 
For those who are still against this bill, the only reason I've heard so far is the first amendment issue.

Like that's a minor issue.


Exactly whose first amendment rights would this bill be violating?

Everybodys, or is it alright if it only violates the peoples rights that you don't agree with. I hate to mention this but people who run corporations are Americans to, remember one persons special interest is anothers just cause.
 


<< For those who are still against this bill, the only reason I've heard so far is the first amendment issue. >>



Let's not worry about the US Constitution now. Our freedoms are going down, down, down. And people like you wanna go down with it. I for one am not happy about it.
 


<< It's pretty clear that in curbing political issue ads, the bill violates free speech provisions. If the First Amendment wasn't written to protect political speech, what speech was it meant to protect? So, to answer your question, the bill would be violating everyone's First Amendment rights. :disgust: >>


The first amendment doesn't guarantee the platform or venue, only the right to free speech. Each one of us can buy a 30 second spot if we got the money.

As for your political free speech, you're referring specifically to the wants of big corporations, ie tax credits, pollution credits, oil drilling, whatever. Free speech really ought to apply to individuals only, and if individuals that aren't operating within the interests of a collective corporation, they can still do whatever they want, right?

But like I said, if you got the money, you don't have to do it the slow, inefficient way the rest of us chose to make our voices heard: the vote. You can go straight to the decision makers...

You claim this is free speech?
 
I hate to mention this but people who run corporations are Americans to, remember one persons special interest is anothers just cause.

And as Americans they have a right to give just as much as every other American $2K (now $3K). I don't want to bust your bubble but corporations are not people. They do not have rights as citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top