• 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.

Definitely Not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super PAC

Perknose

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co...012/colbert-super-pac---mitt-romney-attack-ad

Bringing the lulz while bringing the truth about the ridiculous "wink-wink" cynicism of Super Pacs.

That this truth has to be brought home by a Comedy Channel program, well, that joke is on us.

Laugh through the tears, America -- corporations are people, money is speech, up is down, Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court justice, and that despicable little piglet propagandist Karl "Big Lie" Rove wields more actual power and influence than many of our duly elected officials. 🙁
 
Unions have been allowed to use money as free speech, and have been classified as US Persons, for a long time. Why have you not been railing against them?
 
EagleKeeper said:
Looks like the comedians have determined who they are afraid of
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous.

They're obviously having fun w\ the fact that the status quo candidate is a complete idiot.

If you would vote for Romney having seen all of the issues he's flip flopped on, you're likely an idiot as well. Judging by the amount of donations Romney has gotten from fake businesses and corporations, some powerful, rich people want him to be president.
 
EagleKeeper said:
Looks like the comedians have determined who they are afraid of
Click to expand...

Romeny is beside his real point.

Colbert is nailing a point about what our excreable laws allow a SuperPAC to do with, wink wink, "no coordination" between the candidate they're slandering a rival for and that candidate (Colbert himself in this instance) himself.

Listen to the whole thing . . . or at least listen from minute 3 through minute 4.
 
Did you guys realize that before 1974 there were no limits, at all, on campaign contributions?

I wasn't aware of that.

But now since the 1974 rules have been partially rolled back, somehow it's the source of all our problems.

While I don't like it one bit (money in politics), I must wonder if it's really as big a problem as we make out.

Fern
 
Fern said:
Did you guys realize that before 1974 there were no limits, at all, on campaign contributions?

I wasn't aware of that.

But now since the 1974 rules have been partially rolled back, somehow it's the source of all our problems.

While I don't like it one bit (money in politics), I must wonder if it's really as big a problem as we make out.

Fern
Click to expand...

Yet it has gotten much, much worse. Culturally we are now all about infotainment and the soundbite. Was not true back then. Likely the legal restrictions were not as important as they are now.

It's a matter of opinion how big a problem it is now, but just look at the effect that PAC spending has had on these primaries. Gingrich's momentum was all but destroyed by it in Iowa, and look at the nonsense that is the Bain "documentary" from Gingrich. It's apparently having some effect so far as Gingrich is once again moving up in the polls, last I checked.
 
Perknose said:
That this truth has to be brought home by a Comedy Channel program, well, that joke is on us.
Click to expand...

Indeed - Colbert and South Park offer the most blunt, "this is how it really is" views on current events out there....sad, but also usually hilarious.
 
Fern said:
Did you guys realize that before 1974 there were no limits, at all, on campaign contributions?

I wasn't aware of that.

But now since the 1974 rules have been partially rolled back, somehow it's the source of all our problems.

While I don't like it one bit (money in politics), I must wonder if it's really as big a problem as we make out.

Fern
Click to expand...

That was before Reaganomics, and before the income & wealth of the political donor class went into orbit.

What you offer wasn't really the truth, anyway-

This first effort at wide-ranging reform resulted in the Tillman Act of 1907. Named for its sponsor, South Carolina Senator Ben Tillman, the Tillman Act prohibited corporations and nationally chartered (interstate) banks from making direct financial contributions to federal candidates. However, weak enforcement mechanisms made the Act ineffective. Disclosure requirements and spending limits for House and Senate candidates followed in 1910 and 1911. General contribution limits were enacted in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act (1925). An amendment to the Hatch Act of 1939 set an annual ceiling of $3 million for political parties' campaign expenditures and $5,000 for individual campaign contributions. The Smith-Connally Act (1943) and Taft-Hartley Act (1947) extended the corporate ban to labor unions.
Click to expand...

Much of that was swept away in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States

With Citizens United, we've come around full circle to the campaign finances of the McKinley era, much to the delight of the far Right...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top