Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Political Donation Cap

  1. -11
    Tetragrammaton's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2006
    Posts:
    9,527
    vCash:
    2220
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by phinfan3411 View Post
    I happen to think eliminating the money in politics would help considerably, the parties would then be the final drawback.

    Good to have you back.
    Money takes different avenues. If we cut off campaign finance donations, the money will flow in elsewhere. There is still lobbying, there is still corporate mobilization of employees, there is still bad news organizations, there is still an uninformed populace. Until any politician seriously cares about climate change, it does not matter anyway.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -12
    SkapePhin's Avatar
    Brady Slayer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    19,131
    vCash:
    21095
    Loc:
    Washington DC
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I wonder how much they paid the judges...

    I think I am done with elections because its pretty much pointless. All the candidates are bought and serve the interests of their corporate masters, not the people of the United States of America. I might just continue voting third party, but it doesn't really move the needle.

    Maybe we can form a kickstarter campaign to buy our own politicians?
    Quote Quote  

  3. -13
    phinfan3411's Avatar
    pofo mofo

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    2,620
    vCash:
    3735
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Tetragrammaton View Post
    Money takes different avenues. If we cut off campaign finance donations, the money will flow in elsewhere. There is still lobbying, there is still corporate mobilization of employees, there is still bad news organizations, there is still an uninformed populace. Until any politician seriously cares about climate change, it does not matter anyway.
    Maybe you could answer this, because I have always grouped campaign finance reform with the lobbyists. If all campaign money HAD to be public money...would that not make them taking money from lobbyists illegal ?

    Now, I have a few ideas beyond that, but he money (bribes) they take now are campaign donations, are they not? In my dream world no more...can't use your own money either, just a set public amount for every election.

    Basically if campaign finance did not remove lobbyists there is no real reason to even do it, most people know that is the biggest thing wrong with American Politics today. People can argue over semantics all day, I have never said both parties are EXACTLY the same, there are slight differences. For instance, if the republicans tackled hc reform it wouldn't look EXACTLY like Obamacare...it would include tort reform and leave out pre existing conditions. I guess if I were a douche, I would say: see...the parties aren't the same! Except they basically are, and they are inherently corrupt, and we need a big change, and people need to stop cheering for a side like its their favorite football team.

    I also have a problem with there even being parties, as a rule those elected are smarter than the general population,and they use the party system to divide us, and stay in power, I see it everyday in every political post in every forum...enough already.
    Last edited by phinfan3411; 04-03-2014 at 06:14 AM.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -14
    Tetragrammaton's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2006
    Posts:
    9,527
    vCash:
    2220
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by phinfan3411 View Post
    Maybe you could answer this, because I have always grouped campaign finance reform with the lobbyists. If all campaign money HAD to be public money...would that not make them taking money from lobbyists illegal ?

    Now, I have a few ideas beyond that, but he money (bribes) they take now are campaign donations, are they not? In my dream world no more...can't use your own money either, just a set public amount for every election.

    Basically if campaign finance did not remove lobbyists there is no real reason to even do it, most people know that is the biggest thing wrong with American Politics today. People can argue over semantics all day, I have never said both parties are EXACTLY the same, there are slight differences. For instance, if the republicans tackled hc reform it wouldn't look EXACTLY like Obamacare...it would include tort reform and leave out pre existing conditions. I guess if I were a douche, I would say: see...the parties aren't the same! Except they basically are, and they are inherently corrupt, and we need a big change, and people need to stop cheering for a side like its their favorite football team.

    I also have a problem with there even being parties, as a rule those elected are smarter than the general population,and they use the party system to divide us, and stay in power, I see it everyday in every political post in every forum...enough already.
    Lobbying has more methods of influencing politics than direct money to candidates. They tend to represent large voting blocs, and their endorsement of candidates can swing elections. If we saw a year where the NRA became so fed up with Republicans that they endorsed Democrats, as seismic shift in the electorate would occur. A similar example would be if the National Organization for Women or the NAACP reversed their longstanding support of Democrats. When you throw in a media system that more and more resembles the blatantly partisan newspapers of the early twentieth century, there are other mobilizations of voters to occur.

    Are you going to make it illegal for ex-Congressmen to take jobs in industries they once had committee oversight over? Many would say that is an abuse of power. Are you going to forbid large companies from encouraging their employees to vote for a particular candidate? Are we going to adopt European-style laws that penalize politicians or media for lying publicly? All of these ideas that people throw around for creating fairness in politics are admirable, but also unworkable and full of loopholes. Given how party-centric voters have become, it is not wise to think that anything would change anyway. Online forums are not a great indicator of true political motivation; there are lifelong Democrats and lifelong Republicans and they pass it on to their children through parenting, community, income, race, and so many other factors. Political behavior is more scientific than people would like to believe, which is why Nate Silver has embarrassed the traditional media narratives in his election forecasting. You will always have a two-party system as long as you have a winner-take-all election system. If a voter wants more than anything to see Hillary Clinton lose in 2016, it is a wasted vote to go Green, Libertarian, or anything else. The most logical solution is to vote for the Republican, even if you disagree with his other views. If we had proportional voting, we could see this change, but since the two-party system needs to vote for it to change, it will never happen. In 2009 I told that SnakeOilSeller guy that Obama would receive over 300 electoral votes in his re-election campaign, and he acted like it was the most ludicrous statement. However, observable political behavior was an obvious indicator of what was going to happen. When citizens vote on 2016, the media will likely try so say it is a referendum on Obama through Hillary Clinton or whatever candidate the Democrats select. In reality, however, it will be an election based on expected financial outcomes versus real output. If things are as good or better than people expect, the Democrat wins. If things are worse than people expect, the Republican wins. The short-term memory of the populace is why they keep electing these people. Voters unhappy with Obama forget that Bush was a terrible President, and voters satisfied with Obama forget that many of the awful things he has done were similar to what the guy they disliked had done. It is not going to change.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -15
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,076
    vCash:
    6807
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by JTC111 View Post
    Why is it a big assumption? All the Clinton/Obama picks voted against this miserable anti-democratic decision.
    SC picks don't always do what they were chosen to do. Also you are assuming that Kerry would have had the same 2 picks. And what happens if Kerry sucked a$$ and got voted out after 1 term and another GOP douchebag becomes president in 08 till now. Too many variables in this.





    "Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
    Quote Quote  

  6. -16
    NY8123's Avatar
    Sophisticated Redneck

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2008
    Posts:
    11,660
    vCash:
    4959
    Loc:
    out in the Ding Weeds
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Worst ****ing decision to come out of the courts in years. Horrible, just horrible.
    Peace and Humptiness Forever


    Quote Quote  

  7. -17
    JTC111's Avatar
    Lookin' for Lee Ho Fooks

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2012
    Posts:
    2,417
    vCash:
    18378
    Loc:
    Kings Park, NY
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    SC picks don't always do what they were chosen to do.
    That's true, although if you look at history, I'm pretty sure the only examples of judges moving far afield of their pre-SC positions are ones that moved to the left (Earl Warren and William Brennan being two that come to mind. I've never read an account of anyone selected to the SC that went from being liberal to being conservative. So again, I feel reasonably certain that if not for the Bush defeating Kerry and serving two terms, yesterday's decision and the Citizens United decision go the other way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    Also you are assuming that Kerry would have had the same 2 picks. And what happens if Kerry sucked a$$ and got voted out after 1 term and another GOP douchebag becomes president in 08 till now. Too many variables in this.
    The quote from you I'm disputing is "BIG ASSUMPTION to say Kerry's picks would have choose otherwise." My point is Kerry's picks for the court likely wouldn't have sided with yesterday's majority and it's not really a "big assumption" to believe so. Had Kerry served only one term and been replaced by a republican, the picks made by that republican would not have been "Kerry's picks."
    Jim

    "A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation."


    Not even their mothers can tell them apart.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -18
    LANGER72's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2006
    Posts:
    8,189
    vCash:
    23342
    Loc:
    Munchkin Land / Emerald C
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Taking the money out of politics is the only way this nation can survive going forward. I believe a cap would have been a needed regulation to ensure a even playing field.
    Our election process is being bought and paid for by the Saudi's, Soros's, and Murdock's of the world.
    The bought and paid for elected leaders today are bastardizing the political system and the principles that founded this nation.
    Just waiting for the next thing to be outraged about.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act
    By JamesBW43 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 12:54 PM
  2. Supreme Court strikes down Chicago handgun ban
    By phinfan3411 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-18-2010, 09:40 AM
  3. Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash
    By Dolphan7 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 01-28-2010, 11:01 PM
  4. Supreme Court strikes down death penalty for rape of child.
    By Tetragrammaton in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-26-2008, 12:29 AM
  5. The US Supreme Court
    By The_Dark_Knight in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-15-2005, 04:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •