quote:

Well of course. If you make up your own personal definitions, you can "prove" anything you like.

quote:

But that's not the issue. The issue is whether a corporation is a person, and has the same rights to free speech in the sense of influencing elections.

quote:

You acknowledge you get the corporate concern, yet your fear of Congress and Courts is greater than that concern, indicating your greater faith there.

quote:

Then there's the ability currently to pour unlimited money into campaigns anonymously.

I'm not a campaign finance law hawk. It's clear to me that all parties will find what ways they can around any laws.

quote:

But the lack of perfection doesn't mean restraints can't or don't at least mitigate the problem.

quote:

We had limits for years, and no dire consequences as you predict occurred.

quote:

If you like the Amendment but prefer your language, write your Senators.

quote:

But yet again, all the arguments on this are specious. It's not a serious proposal -- it's an election year tactic. The Amendment has no prayer. But the discussion is raised.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

This is the path to tyranny. ANY American of ANY stripe who would be suckered into supporting this assault on freedom should have their right to vote stripped at best, and the ones who love the idea should be taken out behind the chemical sheds and shot as a better option. I'll volunteer for duty on the latter, if needed.

Clear enough?

quote:

This is simply a repetition of your opinions, not engagement in rationale. Clearly stating them doesn't magically make them truth, and certainly doesn't make them convincing.

quote:

And then the addition of your very silly projections about whether you "can/will post," whether anyone wants you to "shut up/go away," whether anyone is "bothered," all of which is nothing but the invention of your defensive, argumentative personality, and none of which has been indicated by anyone on this thread at all. Chill. You'll be a lot less baffled and annoyed. You're fighting a war that only exists in your head.

quote:

May you enjoy your clearly much needed weekend.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

reread you own post." books, radio, television, the internet and more" that stuff is the press not speech.

I repeat (this time with emphasis on the part you missed):

I am, for the purposes of this issue, defining speech as the ability to make your thoughts known to others - whether it is by talking to the person next to you, writing a letter to the editor, posting on an internet message board or making a campaign commercial.

quote:

This amendment would restrict how political money is raised not how it is spent.

Restricting how money is raised is restricting how it is spent. You can't spend it if you can't raise it in the first place.

quote:

Wrong on all counts.

This amendment specifically says it would not in any way restrict speech or the press. It would simply allow Congress and state legislatures to once again regulate campaign fund raising, something they had done for a couple of centuries without issue. For most of the history of the US there was no convoluted series of court rulings equating money to speech and throughout that time the Republic functioned much better. Now after less than 3 decades under this crazy regime the country teeters on the verge of collapse and a great deal of the blame can be traced to this concept. It is past time for it to go away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Wrong on all counts.

This amendment specifically says it would not in any way restrict speech or the press. It would simply allow Congress and state legislatures to once again regulate campaign fund raising, something they had done for a couple of centuries without issue. For most of the history of the US there was no convoluted series of court rulings equating money to speech and throughout that time the Republic functioned much better. Now after less than 3 decades under this crazy regime the country teeters on the verge of collapse and a great deal of the blame can be traced to this concept. It is past time for it to go away.

This is the last time I going to say this ( I hope) because I am getting tired of repeating myself and besides, it is almost cabin time.

If you (Congress) can restrict donations to me (Candidate X) then you can restrict them to the point where I will not be able to buy enough (or any) commercials from the media. It put me at a serious - perhaps crippling - disadvantage if the voters hear mostly (or only) my opponent's message. Yea, sure, if Congress (or some other legislative body) were to try that there would inevitably be court cases. And maybe those court cases will come out in favor of democracy and equality but one thing is certain - those same court cases will drag through years of challenges and will enrich lawyers at the taxpayer's expense.

My god! Is that it? Is that the missing ingredient to this baffling conundrum of people who claim to love democracy and freedom but then balk at a little linguistic safeguarding? Are you and Musicmystery lawyers? Are you hoping to cash in?

Well, I'll give you both the benefit of the doubt for now. For me it still comes down to this: ain't nothin' wrong with a little linguistic safeguarding. I've yet to hear a reasonable response to that. So far all I've heard is it's already in there (iffy) and you can trust the government (very iffy).

Whatever.

Maybe I'll pick this up again on Monday, maybe I won't. It depends on if the entertainment value exceeds the exasperation level.

I wish you peace and prosperity to you and yours as well as a fun and happy weekend,

Marc2b

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Here's a test case:

• Part of the super-weirdness of Arizona politics appears to be the result of the state’s 1998 public financing law, which provided tons of matching funds to unwealthy-but-energetic candidates from the social right at the expense of the pragmatic upper class.

• the traditional Republican elite had lost its place at the head of the political table.

• “I remember having a meeting with some folks I’d call country-club Republicans, and listening to them bemoan the fact that they have no more influence because of the Clean Elections law,” said Rodolfo Espino, a professor at Arizona State University.

• The old order in Arizona has been fuming because it’s been elbowed out of political control by people who are less interested in economic development than arresting illegal immigrants, exposing Barack Obama as a Kenyan and combating the scourge of same-sex marriage.

This read was both hilarious and eye opening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/opinion/collins-the-state-of-arizona.html?_r=0

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Wrong on all counts.

This amendment specifically says it would not in any way restrict speech or the press. It would simply allow Congress and state legislatures to once again regulate campaign fund raising, something they had done for a couple of centuries without issue. For most of the history of the US there was no convoluted series of court rulings equating money to speech and throughout that time the Republic functioned much better. Now after less than 3 decades under this crazy regime the country teeters on the verge of collapse and a great deal of the blame can be traced to this concept. It is past time for it to go away.

This is the last time I going to say this ( I hope) because I am getting tired of repeating myself and besides, it is almost cabin time.

If you (Congress) can restrict donations to me (Candidate X) then you can restrict them to the point where I will not be able to buy enough (or any) commercials from the media. It put me at a serious - perhaps crippling - disadvantage if the voters hear mostly (or only) my opponent's message. Yea, sure, if Congress (or some other legislative body) were to try that there would inevitably be court cases. And maybe those court cases will come out in favor of democracy and equality but one thing is certain - those same court cases will drag through years of challenges and will enrich lawyers at the taxpayer's expense.

My god! Is that it? Is that the missing ingredient to this baffling conundrum of people who claim to love democracy and freedom but then balk at a little linguistic safeguarding? Are you and Musicmystery lawyers? Are you hoping to cash in?

Well, I'll give you both the benefit of the doubt for now. For me it still comes down to this: ain't nothin' wrong with a little linguistic safeguarding. I've yet to hear a reasonable response to that. So far all I've heard is it's already in there (iffy) and you can trust the government (very iffy).

Whatever.

Maybe I'll pick this up again on Monday, maybe I won't. It depends on if the entertainment value exceeds the exasperation level.

I wish you peace and prosperity to you and yours as well as a fun and happy weekend,

Marc2b

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Here's a test case:

• Part of the super-weirdness of Arizona politics appears to be the result of the state’s 1998 public financing law, which provided tons of matching funds to unwealthy-but-energetic candidates from the social right at the expense of the pragmatic upper class.

• the traditional Republican elite had lost its place at the head of the political table.

• “I remember having a meeting with some folks I’d call country-club Republicans, and listening to them bemoan the fact that they have no more influence because of the Clean Elections law,” said Rodolfo Espino, a professor at Arizona State University.

• The old order in Arizona has been fuming because it’s been elbowed out of political control by people who are less interested in economic development than arresting illegal immigrants, exposing Barack Obama as a Kenyan and combating the scourge of same-sex marriage.

This read was both hilarious and eye opening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/opinion/collins-the-state-of-arizona.html?_r=0

Maybe no one was interested, but is anyone concerned that public campaign financing would lead to populist insanity? ^^^^ (AZ)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Here's a test case:

• Part of the super-weirdness of Arizona politics appears to be the result of the state’s 1998 public financing law, which provided tons of matching funds to unwealthy-but-energetic candidates from the social right at the expense of the pragmatic upper class.

• the traditional Republican elite had lost its place at the head of the political table.

• “I remember having a meeting with some folks I’d call country-club Republicans, and listening to them bemoan the fact that they have no more influence because of the Clean Elections law,” said Rodolfo Espino, a professor at Arizona State University.

• The old order in Arizona has been fuming because it’s been elbowed out of political control by people who are less interested in economic development than arresting illegal immigrants, exposing Barack Obama as a Kenyan and combating the scourge of same-sex marriage.

This read was both hilarious and eye opening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/opinion/collins-the-state-of-arizona.html?_r=0

Maybe no one was interested, but is anyone concerned that public campaign financing would lead to populist insanity? ^^^^ (AZ)

Has non publicly financed Republican politics shown any signs of sanity over the last few years?

I think it is a sign of the problem in the Republican base not a problem with public financing.