quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/starbucks-ceo-says-100-businesses-withhold-campaign-donations-155827913.html

Maybe everyone should... and just let them use federal funds. If nothing else, it would eliminate a year's worth of negative ads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

yup

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Donating to causes that advertise ones political view is the same as free speech, especially in this age of mass media

Even for business owners

SOMEONE is going to get their message out, even if its just those already in power from their bully pulpits

Or FOX News, or Keith Overman (so long as the government allows).

When the government gets even deeper into the business of limiting political speech thats definitely not a good thing

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I would not equate money with free speech or they would be interchangeable words. And of course that gives certain factions freer speech and much more volumn.

Money and favor should be stripped from politics.

If Joe Blow and Co wants to support say Romney, they can put up a fuckin yard sign just like everybody else.

And yammer the fuck away on a street corner, that I dont give the glimmer of a fuck about.

But that is the alpha and omega of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Donating to causes that advertise ones political view is the same as free speech, especially in this age of mass media

Even for business owners

SOMEONE is going to get their message out, even if its just those already in power from their bully pulpits

Or FOX News, or Keith Overman (so long as the government allows).

When the government gets even deeper into the business of limiting political speech thats definitely not a good thing

Property is NOT speech. At no time either at the constitutional convention or in the federalist papers was there any reference let alone civil legal foundation that proclaimed...property (money) as free-speech [sic] for anybody. Calling it 'political speech' would make Orwell and Goering proud.

ALL speech is 'political' in so far as any govt. would restrict or censure it.

This is the right-wing fascists court's idea of as Orwell put it...'changing the meaning of words.' Soon as the courts having now proclaimed money as speech and that corporations [sic] are people...we are talking the constitutional foundation for capitalist fascism, pure, simple and without remorse.

After all...their money is now constitutionally protected power. Just what do you think that power will do ? As Lincoln warned...'to play upon the prejudices of the people' and it is working just fine thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Where did anyone write that property is speech

Keep it real, Stalin

And whether you like it or not money is advertising, and advertising is speech

The courts simply ruled with reality as opposed to your far left newspeak bs

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Donating to causes that advertise ones political view is the same as free speech, especially in this age of mass media

Even for business owners

SOMEONE is going to get their message out, even if its just those already in power from their bully pulpits

Or FOX News, or Keith Overman (so long as the government allows).

When the government gets even deeper into the business of limiting political speech thats definitely not a good thing

Property is NOT speech. At no time either at the constitutional convention or in the federalist papers was there any reference let alone civil legal foundation that proclaimed...property (money) as free-speech [sic] for anybody. Calling it 'political speech' would make Orwell and Goering proud.

ALL speech is 'political' in so far as any govt. would restrict or censure it.

This is the right-wing fascists court's idea of as Orwell put it...'changing the meaning of words.' Soon as the courts having now proclaimed money as speech and that corporations [sic] are people...we are talking the constitutional foundation for capitalist fascism, pure, simple and without remorse.

After all...their money is now constitutionally protected power. Just what do you think that power will do ? As Lincoln warned...'to play upon the prejudices of the people' and it is working just fine thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/starbucks-ceo-says-100-businesses-withhold-campaign-donations-155827913.html

Maybe everyone should... and just let them use federal funds. If nothing else, it would eliminate a year's worth of negative ads.

Except that's not the principle that is motivating them.

They are basically using it as blackmail to achieve what they want.

Personally, I'm just fine with this tactic for this situation. Although I wouldn't call it blackmail per se, because none of these corporations is obligated to donate. And those seeking donations will just have to go elsewhere.

Which brings up a larger point about the influence of wealthy contributors and corporations on government policy.

I just read this earlier:

Obama sees political opportunity in debt crisis

At his first event Monday Obama addressed some 140 guests at the home of developer R. Donahue "Don" Peebles and Katrina Peebles with tickets priced at $15,000 per family to benefit the Obama Victory Fund.

We really need to get some serious campaign finance reform passed.  Unfortunately, the ones who would have to pass it are the ones benefiting from it.

But the amount of money spent on campaigns has gone beyond ridiculous.

Most of that money comes from wealthy donors and corporations who expect something in return, and they end up getting it at the expense of everyone else.

I couldn't agree more. It really is ridiculous and out of hand. During the last election there were commercial breaks on t.v. that were filled with campaign ads and nothing else! If that happens again, I'm turning off my t.v. for the duration. I can see most of what I want (in terms of t.v. shows) online anyhow. ;) What's worse, most of the ads are about sticking it to their opponent. If I could vote, (I'm not a citizen), the one who gains my attention is the one who can talk about their own attributes and what their plans are if they get elected, rather than point out the deficits they see in their opponent(s).

quote:

Is it too much to ask for our candidates to NOT be in the pockets of big corporations?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Yes, and it is obvious...obvious much too obvious I guess for someone reaching for a justification to the capitalist fascism money can buy. Property can be sold for money, stock is property, bonds are property. Understand now ? No you don't. You are a a plutocrat, govt. of the dollar by the dollar and for the dollar.

Money is obviously an object, like beer and whiskey who for many was their currency. Simple, speech is free...not purchased.

quote:

You seriously prefer that only politicians and the media elite have a voice?

quote:


The bigger problem that I have with your Stalinist approach to the leftists "free speech problem" isnt just this particular proposal to end to free speech by businessmen, its the general encroachment by government on all of our rights, with this being just one front.