Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

[Designer99]

Let's forget the sheeple here for a minute. I don't know you from Adam but what little I do know about you, you seem to be an intelligent person. (I'm being serious here). Name any one politician in this country that can better represent you and your interests than you can? I would hope your answer to this is no one. Nobody can better represent my interests than I can. You, I, and the guy down the streets interests aren't 100% the same yet we are only sending 1 person to represent us. How can 1 person represent the different interests of thousands, if not millions?

Totally agree. I guess it's just easier for meetings to have one voice instead of 100 voices from a given representation

Back to the sheeple thing for a minute. Why do you deserve more liberty than they do? Why should you or I be given more personal responsibility than they are? Yes, I do believe in survival of the fittest to a degree. But I'm sure you will find out that the sheeple will whip themselves in to shape rather quickly if they were forced to take care of themselves instead of abdicating their freedom to others.

I'm just thinking that if tomorrow, we drop the current system and go with a survival of fittest / work for yourself system, there's is a massive sheeple population problem that will have to be dealt with in the transition time. Believe me, I'd love to go to a system where people were held more accountable and less lazy.

For instance, inner-cities would have a really hard time transitioning to a system like this. They would eat each other alive, if they didn't shoot each other first.

Here's another issue: Who takes care of the highways and roads? Do we all chip in, or do we all have to pay the guy that owns the road to use it?

 

[Designer99]

And there are some who have beliefs that fall on both sides of center who don't have a label and don't wish for one. Not one we give ourselves nor one given to us.

Well said. Thank you.

 

[henktermaat]

Totally agree. I guess it's just easier for meetings to have one voice instead of 100 voices from a given representation


I'm just thinking that if tomorrow, we drop the current system and go with a survival of fittest / work for yourself system, there's is a massive sheeple population problem that will have to be dealt with in the transition time. Believe me, I'd love to go to a system where people were held more accountable and less lazy.

For instance, inner-cities would have a really hard time transitioning to a system like this. They would eat each other alive, if they didn't shoot each other first.

Here's another issue: Who takes care of the highways and roads? Do we all chip in, or do we all have to pay the guy that owns the road to use it?

We'd never be able to do it instantly, in one day.

I think it could be done, gradually, in planned steps, over a set period of time. The roads would be taken care of like a city fire department. Each group of folks would handle their own area... just like counties and states.

 

[Designer99]

What if my county had awesome paved roads and the county next to me didn't maintain there's and had crappy gravel roads. Or what if the county next to me couldn't afford to maintain their roads?

We'd never be able to do it instantly, in one day.

I think it could be done, gradually, in planned steps, over a set period of time. The roads would be taken care of like a city fire department. Each group of folks would handle their own area... just like counties and states.

 

[henktermaat]

What if my county had awesome paved roads and the county next to me didn't maintain there's and had crappy gravel roads. Or what if the county next to me couldn't afford to maintain their roads?

There's always going to be inequality. Some people just won't try as hard as others.

 

[hornadylnl]

What if my county had awesome paved roads and the county next to me didn't maintain there's and had crappy gravel roads. Or what if the county next to me couldn't afford to maintain their roads?

That's the way it is now. My county has terrible roads and is a running joke in our area. You can travel just about any road from another county into mine and there will be a sign that says "x county maintenance ends" and the road goes to crap instantly. That neighboring county has many times the tax base to support their roads than my county does. But my last property taxes were less than $200 for the year. It's a trade off that I'm willing to live with.

 

[hornadylnl]

I think the problem is that we've had the idea of a large bureaucratic central government so ingrained in us that we forget that 99% of the responsibilities our federal government currently has used to be taken car of at the local level or by the citizens themselves.

 

[henktermaat]

I think the problem is that we've had the idea of a large bureaucratic central government so ingrained in us that we forget that 99% of the responsibilities our federal government currently has used to be taken car of at the local level or by the citizens themselves.

I agree... this is why I'm so excited now that it seems like the 10A is getting around again. (hey, I can hope)

 

[hornadylnl]

I agree... this is why I'm so excited now that it seems like the 10A is getting around again. (hey, I can hope)

Hate to tell you but this I think the cancer has spread to the lymph nodes already and on to the rest of the body. We know what the cure is but aren't allowed to administer it.

 

[Fletch]

What if my county had awesome paved roads and the county next to me didn't maintain there's and had crappy gravel roads. Or what if the county next to me couldn't afford to maintain their roads?

Ever driven the border between Michigan and Ohio? It's the same thing, just on a different scale.

 

[printcraft]

What if my county had awesome paved roads and the county next to me didn't maintain there's and had crappy gravel roads. Or what if the county next to me couldn't afford to maintain their roads?

4x4

 

[IrishSon of Liberty]

How can 1 person represent the different interests of thousands, if not millions?

That's the basis of a republic; the foundation on which this country was established.


Sorry to join the debate late, but it's been a great read thus far.

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, I side with Defender in this argument. Let me ask this simple question: Why are politicians spending millions, upon millions of dollars to be elected to a position which pays $250,000 per year? Answer = POWER!!!

I don't know what the answer is, but debate is the key. Should each politician receive $100K, a website, and a select number of debates in which to campaign? Personally, I'm tired of watching the campaign adds run twelve months a year and falling under a barrage of infomercials leading up to an election. This nonsense and excess spending must be reigned in, and it should start at the campaign level. I'm just saying....

 

[rambone]

I'd just like to remind everyone that the supreme court ruling overturned the Congressional attempt to ban political movies, and by their own admission, books as well.

That trumps all other aspects of this case. It simply was unconstitutional.

 

[Designer99]

See that's the trick.

They tie two issues together into one ruling that should not be together.

Of course political movies and books shouldn't be band. But in the same ruling, they have allowed Corporations to have more power and influence over our government.

Two different issues jammed together and pushed through.

I'd just like to remind everyone that the supreme court ruling overturned the Congressional attempt to ban political movies, and by their own admission, books as well.

That trumps all other aspects of this case. It simply was unconstitutional.

 

[dross]

I'd just like to remind everyone that the supreme court ruling overturned the Congressional attempt to ban political movies, and by their own admission, books as well.

That trumps all other aspects of this case. It simply was unconstitutional.

No, apparently the most pertinent part of the ruling is that the court, while ruling on a 1st Amendment case, didn't also decide to rule on whether corporations are to be considered a legal entity with some of the characteristics of an individual. Apparently they are supposed to hear a case about one thing, then decide to use it to right any of the pet project "wrongs" that the case even remotely touches, AND they are not supposed to consider the constitutionality of the issue, just whether or not the country will go to hell in a handbasket if they don't step in and right all the perceived wrongs, whether or not those wrongs are barely on the periphery of the case being heard.

Tyrants.

 

[rambone]

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I'm certainly no expert on these affairs but IMO , anytime the ability to buy votes is made easier , it's a bad thing .

 

[dross]

I'm certainly no expert on these affairs but IMO , anytime the ability to buy votes is made easier , it's a bad thing .

Yes, buying votes is a bad thing. And free speech is a good thing.

If I buy a billboard that persuades people to vote a certain way, am I "buying" votes?

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm certainly no expert on these affairs but IMO , anytime the ability to buy votes is made easier , it's a bad thing .

I've given the solution already. Take away the need to buy the votes.

All this is is a protection racket being run by our government and politicians. Either businesses and corporations pony up money to the campaigns or they face outrageous regulations, taxes, etc. You know, just like how the Mafia operates only this is legal.