• 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.

Clean Money Campaign Reform....edit: WATCH THE VIDEO

C

conjur

No Lifer
http://www.caclean.org/materials/watch.php
An inspiring 14 minute video narrated by Bill Moyers. It features llively testimonials by Clean Money candidates in Arizona and Maine and assessments of how well Clean Elections works by campaign finance reform experts and activists.
Click to expand...
"The results in Arizona and Maine stunned the experts." -- Bill Moyers

This opened up elections to many more choices as people from various races and social standings entered races. No contributions accepted from private donors. Only a set amount of contributions from precincts. Voluntary spending limits. No personal money used.

These races in Maine and Arizona have been run solely using public funds and eliminates the quid pro quo from corporate lobbyist groups.

Corporations cannot vote. Why should they be allowed to contribute to campaign contributions? We're supposed to be a government by the people and for the people.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.caclean.org/materials/watch.php
An inspiring 14 minute video narrated by Bill Moyers. It features llively testimonials by Clean Money candidates in Arizona and Maine and assessments of how well Clean Elections works by campaign finance reform experts and activists.
Click to expand...
"The results in Arizona and Maine stunned the experts." -- Bill Moyers

This opened up elections to many more choices as people from various races and social standings entered races. No contributions accepted from private donors. Only a set amount of contributions from precincts. Voluntary spending limits. No personal money used.

These races in Maine and Arizona have been run solely using public funds and eliminates the quid pro quo from corporate lobbyist groups.

Corporations cannot vote. Why should they be allowed to contribute to campaign contributions? We're supposed to be a government by the people and for the people.
Click to expand...


You quyote Bill Moyers!!! The dean of the far left. Just what we need, take away my right to support my candidate through contributions. Yeah, right, governent by the people...
 
Jesus Christ. Bill Moyers was a narrator and is FAR from the dean of the far left. Watch the video and LEARN SOME FACTS!
 
Why is it scary? Because it removes corporate interests and most of the corruption from the election process?

Also, there's no way you've seen the video. It's 14 minutes long and you posted 8 min. after I created the thread.
 
All told, a record $3 billion poured into federal campaigns during the last election. An estimated 55 percent went to Bush and GOP candidates for Congress -- and $696 million of that came from corporations and wealthy executives eager to underwrite the Republicans' hands-off approach to business.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/

In 2000, 9 of the top 10 donors donated to the Democrats.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/browse.html

Regardless, CEOs ARE people and they can do what they like with their money.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Why is it scary? Because it removes corporate interests and most of the corruption from the election process?

Also, there's no way you've seen the video. It's 14 minutes long and you posted 8 min. after I created the thread.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. I counted 1 Republican in the video, the rest democrats. It purports public funding and not privatye. Giovernment has no business funding candidates for office. That is the business of the people.
 
The Supreme Court has held, forgive me for not having a citation, that money from indivuduals is a form of free speech. I will not give away my part of the 1st amendment to the government. If I do not like what my resenator is doing re special interests, then I vote them out.

I do not need any goverm=nent funding an approved list of candidates.

It is scary becasue this is a first step to having the government DECIDE who gets to run for office. Then, where is our choice???
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Jesus Christ. Bill Moyers was a narrator and is FAR from the dean of the far left. Watch the video and LEARN SOME FACTS!
Click to expand...

The only facts which matter to me are these:

Amendment I
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.

I agree with the ACLU on close to nothing, but they are right to conclude that most attempts at "campaign finance reform" unconstitutionally abridge free speech. With campaign 'reform', the proposed cures have been far worse than the disease. The gov't has been regulating campaign finance issues since the early post-Watergate 70's, and yet the problem's gotten worse, not better. Usually you're one to protest the expansion of gov't powers at the expense of civil liberties; I'd stick with that principle here.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Why is it scary? Because it removes corporate interests and most of the corruption from the election process?

Also, there's no way you've seen the video. It's 14 minutes long and you posted 8 min. after I created the thread.
Click to expand...

Also, I already knew about this organization and some of its background. There was a news piece on it some time ago.

It's basically an organization that is trying to hand-tie Republicans becasue democrats are getting the stuffings beat out of them on fund raising.
 
Originally posted by: zendari
All told, a record $3 billion poured into federal campaigns during the last election. An estimated 55 percent went to Bush and GOP candidates for Congress -- and $696 million of that came from corporations and wealthy executives eager to underwrite the Republicans' hands-off approach to business.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/

In 2000, 9 of the top 10 donors donated to the Democrats.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/browse.html

Regardless, CEOs ARE people and they can do what they like with their money.
Click to expand...

Of course they'd love to give millions. Trouble is, individuals are limited to $2,000. Kinda sucks when you want people like DeLay to remove regulations to make it easier to make money, eh?
 
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: conjur
Jesus Christ. Bill Moyers was a narrator and is FAR from the dean of the far left. Watch the video and LEARN SOME FACTS!
Click to expand...
The only facts which matter to me are these:

Amendment I
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.

I agree with the ACLU on close to nothing, but they are right to conclude that most attempts at "campaign finance reform" unconstitutionally abridge free speech. With campaign 'reform', the proposed cures have been far worse than the disease. The gov't has been regulating campaign finance issues since the early post-Watergate 70's, and yet the problem's gotten worse, not better. Usually you're one to protest the expansion of gov't powers at the expense of civil liberties; I'd stick with that principle here.
Click to expand...
That would be fine and dandy if that "free speech" wasn't being abused by corporate interests. Or, are you trying to say there is no corruption in campaign financing?
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: conjur
Jesus Christ. Bill Moyers was a narrator and is FAR from the dean of the far left. Watch the video and LEARN SOME FACTS!
Click to expand...
The only facts which matter to me are these:

Amendment I
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.

I agree with the ACLU on close to nothing, but they are right to conclude that most attempts at "campaign finance reform" unconstitutionally abridge free speech. With campaign 'reform', the proposed cures have been far worse than the disease. The gov't has been regulating campaign finance issues since the early post-Watergate 70's, and yet the problem's gotten worse, not better. Usually you're one to protest the expansion of gov't powers at the expense of civil liberties; I'd stick with that principle here.
Click to expand...
That would be fine and dandy if that "free speech" wasn't being abused by corporate interests. Or, are you trying to say there is no corruption in campaign financing?
Click to expand...

I make no exceptions for free speech. Corruption is everywhere if that is all you wnat to see. But many corporations do wonderful things for their communities, ours having several major corporations that are pouring millions into foundations and community development programs.

There is no profit motive for them to do that. But it is important for any business to be a good neighbor and most corporations are just that. The few exceptions like enron give many other a bad name.

MoveOn.org has given liberals a terrible name. Yet, moveon hopefully is not the rule, but an exception like Enron. there are bad apples on bioth sides. But many more that are good.
 
The government directly funding canidates? Who decides who gets to be a canidate? If the person isn't "approved" first they can't run? What about write-ins? A person doesn't "offically" sign up and forgos the pre-approved money, can he still campaign, as a write-in canidate? Wouldn't be on the ballot, but people could write it in. Or would those votes be thrown out, or would they be arrested?

very bad idea.

Do you want to stop organizations like moveon.org?
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: conjur
Jesus Christ. Bill Moyers was a narrator and is FAR from the dean of the far left. Watch the video and LEARN SOME FACTS!
Click to expand...
The only facts which matter to me are these:

Amendment I
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.

I agree with the ACLU on close to nothing, but they are right to conclude that most attempts at "campaign finance reform" unconstitutionally abridge free speech. With campaign 'reform', the proposed cures have been far worse than the disease. The gov't has been regulating campaign finance issues since the early post-Watergate 70's, and yet the problem's gotten worse, not better. Usually you're one to protest the expansion of gov't powers at the expense of civil liberties; I'd stick with that principle here.
Click to expand...
That would be fine and dandy if that "free speech" wasn't being abused by corporate interests. Or, are you trying to say there is no corruption in campaign financing?
Click to expand...

"Abuse" is just a code word for free speech you don't like. Only slander and libel are abuse and unconstitutional; the rest should be unmolested by the gov't. You and I may not like Mein Kampf but that doesn't mean a bookseller doesn't have the right to carry it. I'm not saying there's no corruption in the election process; of course there is. Power itself is generally inherently corrupting, and those seeking it tend to be corrupted by it. However, freedom involves taking the bad with the good. Who was that black civil rights lawyer who defended before the Supreme Court the right of American Nazis to stage a march? Morris Dees, maybe? Now that was a man who understood principle.
 
:roll:

Yeah...corruption is free speech I don't like. Get a clue. Allowing books like Mein Kampf to be published is not corruption.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
:roll:

Yeah...corruption is free speech I don't like. Get a clue. Allowing books like Mein Kampf to be published is not corruption.
Click to expand...

And who appointed you to judge these things? I don't think allowing corporations, individuals, PAC's, whoever to run ads is corruption either. If a message is not false, it should not be banned.
 
I'm not talking about 3rd party organizations running ads. I'm talking about direct campaign donations to candidates.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
I'm not talking about 3rd party organizations running ads. I'm talking about direct campaign donations to candidates.
Click to expand...

Makes no difference to me, as long as it's disclosed. Freedom of association/freedom of speech; both are equally important. I don't even accept limits on donations, as long as they're disclosed publicly (there's no Constitutional right to anonymous speech, just free speech). Let a candidate's donors become a campaign issue - don't you think if a candidate got $1 million from the NRA, voters favoring gun control are going to react to that? If a candidate accepted money from the KKK, would he/she get anyone's vote?
 
Originally posted by: conjur
I'm not talking about 3rd party organizations running ads. I'm talking about direct campaign donations to candidates.
Click to expand...


So instead of donating money to the canidate, people would just send money to an organization that supports that canidate.

Organizations could and would just let people specfiy where they want their money spent. I could see the same orgs then "hiring" canidates to appear in paid advertisments to support that very canidate.

And it would be legal, cause the money was NOT donated to the canidate. Canidate was paid for services rendered. And political commericals still get on the air.

laws like that won't remove money from politics.


edited for missing "not"
 
Conjur, I don't see how your suggestion solves the corruption problem without restricting free speech. Corrupt politicians will just allow businesses and people to advertise on their behalf and still give them political favors. It seems to me like another solution involving the expansion of government would be ineffective in doing what its supporters advertise.
 
And the 'reforms' so far have only made the problem worse, not better. By limiting the amount of contributions, candidates are forced to whore themselves out to even more special interests in order to assemble a campaign fund. The typical Congress member fundraises year around, both during election years and in off years. Further 'reforms' are akin to killing the patient to cure the cancer.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Then explain how this has worked in Arizona and Maine? Has no one watched the video?
Click to expand...

I perused the site, but skipped the video. Maybe later. I'll have to grant the Arizona plan this - it appears to be optional, not compulsory. A candidate can opt for public-funding, with corresponding limits and regulation, or opt for the private route. I have no constitutional issues with that; it's a good plan, from what I saw. On the federal level, I see no Sect. 8 authority for Congress to fund elections, but my strict constructionist views on Congressional spending authority are a whole other thread.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: zendari
All told, a record $3 billion poured into federal campaigns during the last election. An estimated 55 percent went to Bush and GOP candidates for Congress -- and $696 million of that came from corporations and wealthy executives eager to underwrite the Republicans' hands-off approach to business.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/

In 2000, 9 of the top 10 donors donated to the Democrats.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/browse.html

Regardless, CEOs ARE people and they can do what they like with their money.
Click to expand...

Of course they'd love to give millions. Trouble is, individuals are limited to $2,000. Kinda sucks when you want people like DeLay to remove regulations to make it easier to make money, eh?
Click to expand...

You unfairly pin this on the Republicans when the Democrats are also using similar funding.

The system might work diferently in Maine and Arizona, but I see nothing to suggest it is better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top