To bad the supreme court ruled you can't set a limit on money spent to campaign

We could clearly stop all of the under handed campaign donations if we could set a limit that each candidate can spend on advertising. As far as debates, c-span would be a good option and mainstream stations could rebroadcast them. (Presidential election). In order for this change it would have to be past by congress. What chance of that is there?

I am beginning to think we would be better off without political parties. We should vote for a candidate based on their ideas and experience.

In fact it bothers me that c-span dividers callers by party affiliation. I am tired of being pigeoned holed into a category.

 

In the Citizens United case, the SC ruled that political money is speech and therefore protected. Congress should amend the Constitution to correct this, and Bernie was pushing this, but the Republicans certainly have no interest cutting off unlimited spending by corporations, for political purposes.

Therein lies another change needed: Corporations are not people but they are protected as such. Other countries have written laws specifying that a person is a living human, and not a company. But not here! The idea is that corporations are really groups of people who have rights. But the actions of a corporation may not represent the political interests of some or most of the shareholders, so the logic clearly fails. What's more, a corporation cannot be put into prison. Only individuals can. So arguably, corporations as people have rights superior to actual people.

In short, corporations are super citizens with rights superior to yours. And Republicans sure as heck don't want to change that!

 

It should also be noted that as ruled by the SC, the more money you have, the more free speech you can have.

 

C-Span is part of the corrupt liberal media now

It was great when Brian Lamb was in charge

But not anymore

 

You're right that Republicans have no interest in amending the First Amendment in order to make it more restrictive and to limit it's reach. I'm sorry you find free speech such an irritant, but don't worry, the ACLU is abandoning the First Amendment so eventually, everyone on the left will join you in limiting our traditional freedoms.

In Citizen's United, the court ruled that the government couldn't ban the showing of a political movie before an election. The government argued that it could ban movies and when challenged from the bench, argued that it could ban books too.

So you are on the side of the government huh?

 

Citizens wasn’t about candidate campaign donations. It was about not limiting political speech.

 

Agreed

 

a few questions....

Why should the left's beasts of burden, American businesses (who "didn't build that"), not have a political voice? Big Labor has a voice...Big Labor funnels billions of dollars to the left's political campaigns, politicians and initiatives...but leftists are incensed that businesses (and taxpayers...who pay Big Labor represented government workers' salaries) have had their rightful voice restored.

Corporate personhood is a legal fiction that has been around for over a century. Without it, who do you or your survivors sue when you are injured or killed by a corporation's faulty product or delivery driver? John the CEO? Sarah the CFO? Board members? employees? the insurance company?..okay....who is the insurance company insuring?

and why is it such a terrible idea for like-minded people to commingle their money to produce politically-based messages and purchase expensive media time to air them? I mean, leftists get billions worth of free airtime...Legacy/Left Media broadcasts their narratives all over the Fruited Plains free of charge...but a pro-2nd Amendment group should be prohibited from buying airtime? really?

and isn't it weird that groups shouldn't be able to broadcast their political voices far and wide in a country where leftists have divided everyone into either a 'protected group' or 'oppressor group'?

and what about Hollywood's myriad awards shows? (one of which my very progressive brother produces). These rich, beloved entertainers are given free, nationally broadcast platforms from which to spew their love or hate for political proposals, policies and politicians, but it's OUTRAGEOUS that a right-wing super PAC can spend a few dollars on a political ad...

the truth is, the Citizens United ruling somewhat leveled the playing field, and THAT'S why leftists hate it.

 

those questions are rhetorical, by the way. for obvious reasons.

 

Ruled? Oh you mean upheld free speech. Got it. The vocabulary changes so often now a days.

 

Can any of you name one political contest that was changed because of Citizens United?

Please list the people who would have won if it didn't exist.

We will wait.

 

The Democrats, of couse, are no different.

Talk to the Supreme court. Good luck.

The Democrats, of course, are no different.

 

I do "vote for a candidate based on their ideas and experience."

I don't vote for a candidate because of how much campaign contributions they received.

Hillary outspent Trump by almost double and she still lost.

 

You forgot to include in your argument the super citizens aka labor unions both public and private who actually benefit much more from CU. Corporations basically contribute to both sides. Labor unions do not.

BTW corporate officers and other employees can be put into prison. Your argument clearly fails.

 

It's true, politicians love money but they need votes. Corporations can't vote, all they can do is donate money, same as those of us that can also vote.

I say the people have the advantage, as long as they pull their head out of their backside and pay attention to the votes in Congress.

 

The stupidity. If you have a law that touches on something so politically partisan, it's very likely going to end up getting selectively enforced. That will then almost inevitably lead to an unfair balance in the election system.

Not only that but the court is right in this particular instance. The line between political campaign spending and free speech is a blurry one. It starts down a slippery slope when you start telling people how much money they can pay to distribute their message in the press.

No, the current system isn't completely fair and has inherent problems, but what you're talking about falls into the category of policing the politicians. Wouldn't that be nice? The problem however then becomes who's going to police the police? The point is someone ultimately has to be at the top and held accountable, and it's not an easy fix.

You can't simply legislate your way out of all the problems that inherently arise out of a political structure.

 

I agree its too bad the Supreme Court decided the wealthy can buy elections. Or that they can block non-felons from voting.

Jim Crow was not as awesome as they think it was.

 

Money doesn't vote, the people vote.

 

That’s ridiculous.

 

You think Jim Crow was a good idea? Or that allowing the wealthy to spend huge sums of money on election is a good idea? Or both.

People who have a constitutional right to vote have been excluded from voting. There is no real doubt of that. The only question is if you think that is a good or bad idea.

 

The logic fails from the moment one considers group rights, there is no such thing. Worse is that a corporation is nothing more than a paper created fiction. So to claim corporations have the same protected rights as human beings is beyond absurd. Clearly this was the Supremes gone berserk with their "interpretation" insanity.

 

Name one person who has been excluded from voting in the 2016 elections.

 

Coporations are people, and money is free speech!

So the elderly,sick,disabled,children, who have no money, have no voice!

How ****ed up is that?

 

What corporations spend the most on political speech ?? What labor unions spend the most on political speech ??

Money is not necessary for speech. But regardless the elderly have plenty of money and are advocates for the sick, disabled, and young.

 

You may be doing just fine.............Its a problem, so I think you should open your eyes!

Over 25 million Americans aged 60+ are economically insecure—living at or below 250% of the federal poverty level (FPL) ($29,425 per year for a single person). These older adults struggle with rising housing and health care bills, inadequate nutrition, lack of access to transportation, diminished savings, and job loss.
https://www.ncoa.org/news/resources-for-reporters/get-the-facts/economic-security-facts/