McCutcheon v. FEC

[GannonFan]

I think you need a better congressperson - I don't contribute a dime in terms of campaign funds and I can meet with my congressperson. I didn't realize politicians out west were so unapproachable.

Yes, and I'm sure you can impact their vote.

One man by himself will likely not impact a vote. Get a lot more than one man all syaing the same thing and yes, that can impact a vote. Strength in numbers.

[kalm]

Yes, and I'm sure you can impact their vote.

One man by himself will likely not impact a vote. Get a lot more than one man all syaing the same thing and yes, that can impact a vote. Strength in numbers.

Unless that one man has enough money.

[GannonFan]

One man by himself will likely not impact a vote. Get a lot more than one man all syaing the same thing and yes, that can impact a vote. Strength in numbers.

Unless that one man has enough money.

And enough support of the electorate to support that money.

Again, why do you hate democracy? Power to the people, man!

[kalm]

Unless that one man has enough money.

And enough support of the electorate to support that money.

Again, why do you hate democracy? Power to the people, man!

1) We are not a democracy. We are a constitutionally limited democratic republic

2) Someone needs to buy you and your activist conk judges a dictionary.

de·moc·ra·cy [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2.
a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3.
a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4.
political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5.
the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

[Ivytalk]

I'll tell you what: Justice Breyer's stated preference in his dissent for "collective speech" over individual free speech rights should send shivers up the spine of any First Amendment purist.

kalm, I'll be happy to send you free of charge my once-perused copy of Breyer's Active Liberty. Scarier than anything Stephen King ever wrote. You "living Constitution" types would love it. (Full disclosure: I got my copy for free at an ABA meeting several years ago. Cheap at twice the price.)

[GannonFan]

And enough support of the electorate to support that money.

Again, why do you hate democracy? Power to the people, man!

1) We are not a democracy. We are a constitutionally limited democratic republic

2) Someone needs to buy you and your activist conk judges a dictionary.

de·moc·ra·cy [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2.
a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3.
a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4.
political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5.
the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

Really, you're reply to what I said was to instead break out the dictionary and get picky on exactly how to characterize the type of government we have, and pretty much rehash what all of know (yes, we know it's not a pure democracy - way to reach back to 4th grade civics on that one, kalmie!).

And at the end of the day, money doesn't buy votes, that is, votes that matter, like who gets elected or not. We should be focusing more on the message and policy of what lawmakers actually do, and voting them in or out based on that, than the money they collect.

And yes, Ivy's right, Breyer almost went full whacky with the collective speech argument. He has some good arguments at times, but yesterday was not his shining moment.

[Ivytalk]

The biggest vote-buyers are not the Koch Brothers, George Soros or similar wealthy eccentrics. They are Democratic officeholders who shower the low-cranium sheeple with bennies and freebies and make permanent Donks out of them.

[kalm]

1) We are not a democracy. We are a constitutionally limited democratic republic

2) Someone needs to buy you and your activist conk judges a dictionary.


2.
a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3.
a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4.
political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5.
the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

Really, you're reply to what I said was to instead break out the dictionary and get picky on exactly how to characterize the type of government we have, and pretty much rehash what all of know (yes, we know it's not a pure democracy - way to reach back to 4th grade civics on that one, kalmie!).

And at the end of the day, money doesn't buy votes, that is, votes that matter, like who gets elected or not. We should be focusing more on the message and policy of what lawmakers actually do, and voting them in or out based on that, than the money they collect.

And yes, Ivy's right, Breyer almost went full whacky with the collective speech argument. He has some good arguments at times, but yesterday was not his shining moment.

Money buys votes 90% of the time.

I have an acquaintance who's a political operative working on a campaign for a local state rep position. His candidate is a businessman running on the platform of job creation. He has a new project that will bring 100's of well paying jobs to the area. The candidate is willing to take a hit on the project as are his partners to get it off the ground but the union won't budge off its high wage demands. The candidate is considering going non-union while his campaign manager is pulling his hair out over the potential loss of union "support". He doesn't really care about the votes the union can bring out but their lack of financial support would most likely decide the election.

Reality.

[Pwns]

It seems even kalm's blood has a boiling point.

[dbackjon]

The biggest vote-buyers are not the Koch Brothers, George Soros or similar wealthy eccentrics. They are Republocrat officeholders who shower the corporations, farmers, ranchers, etc with bennies and freebies

FTFY

[kalm]

The biggest vote-buyers are not the Koch Brothers, George Soros or similar wealthy eccentrics. They are Democratic officeholders who shower the low-cranium sheeple with bennies and freebies and make permanent Donks out of them.

What percentage of welfare recipients vote?

[kalm]

It seems even kalm's blood has a boiling point.

Nah...I'm as cool as the other side of the pillow. I enjoy politics but I don't take it all that seriously. It's more entertainment than anything else.

That being said, anyone with half a brain realizes campaign finance is a major cog in the wheel.

[houndawg]

It seems even kalm's blood has a boiling point.

Nah...I'm as cool as the other side of the pillow. I enjoy politics but I don't take it all that seriously. It's more entertainment than anything else.

That being said, anyone with half a brain realizes campaign finance is a major cog in the wheel.

Why bother going through the hassle of getting elected if you can't get your snout in the trough and fatten up with the rest of the pigs?

[JohnStOnge]

5 Conks voted to allow a flood of cash
4 Patriotic Democrats voted to keep the limits.




Republicans - can't win on ideas, have to steal.

Ok. So what do you point to in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power to say that an individual can't contribute as much as they want to a political campaign?

The "idea" thing is easy. We have a situation in which the Federal government has gotten way out of control is has gone WAY beyond it's Constitutional limits in NUMEROUS areas. This thing with the Federal Government telling people how much they can given to campaigns of candidates of their choice is one of them.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, if only people who knew what the hell is going on around them were allowed to vote the Democrats would have no shot. And the Democratic Party political experts know that.

[kalm]

5 Conks voted to allow a flood of cash
4 Patriotic Democrats voted to keep the limits.




Republicans - can't win on ideas, have to steal.

Ok. So what do you point to in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power to say that an individual can't contribute as much as they want to a political campaign?

The "idea" thing is easy. We have a situation in which the Federal government has gotten way out of control is has gone WAY beyond it's Constitutional limits in NUMEROUS areas. This thing with the Federal Government telling people how much they can given to campaigns of candidates of their choice is one of them.

It's right next to the part where it says corporations are people and money is speech.

[kalm]

BTW, if only people who knew what the hell is going on around them were allowed to vote the Democrats would have no shot. And the Democratic Party political experts know that.

True...but do you think they'd vote Republican instead?

[YoUDeeMan]

The biggest vote-buyers are not the Koch Brothers, George Soros or similar wealthy eccentrics. They are Democratic officeholders who shower the low-cranium sheeple with bennies and freebies and make permanent Donks out of them.

Troof!

[YoUDeeMan]

The biggest vote-buyers are not the Koch Brothers, George Soros or similar wealthy eccentrics. They are Democratic officeholders who shower the low-cranium sheeple with bennies and freebies and make permanent Donks out of them.

What percentage of welfare recipients vote?

Whatever the actual number is, it is that number too many.

[YoUDeeMan]

Really, you're reply to what I said was to instead break out the dictionary and get picky on exactly how to characterize the type of government we have, and pretty much rehash what all of know (yes, we know it's not a pure democracy - way to reach back to 4th grade civics on that one, kalmie!).

And at the end of the day, money doesn't buy votes, that is, votes that matter, like who gets elected or not. We should be focusing more on the message and policy of what lawmakers actually do, and voting them in or out based on that, than the money they collect.

And yes, Ivy's right, Breyer almost went full whacky with the collective speech argument. He has some good arguments at times, but yesterday was not his shining moment.

Money buys votes 90% of the time.

I have an acquaintance who's a political operative working on a campaign for a local state rep position. His candidate is a businessman running on the platform of job creation. He has a new project that will bring 100's of well paying jobs to the area. The candidate is willing to take a hit on the project as are his partners to get it off the ground but the union won't budge off its high wage demands. The candidate is considering going non-union while his campaign manager is pulling his hair out over the potential loss of union "support". He doesn't really care about the votes the union can bring out but their lack of financial support would most likely decide the election.

Reality.

If your friend was really brinigng in the jobs, then the idiots should vote for him...except those idiots probably won't be getting the jobs, and he won't be getting the office, because the idiots aren't bright enough to figure any of that out.

[kalm]

Money buys votes 90% of the time.

I have an acquaintance who's a political operative working on a campaign for a local state rep position. His candidate is a businessman running on the platform of job creation. He has a new project that will bring 100's of well paying jobs to the area. The candidate is willing to take a hit on the project as are his partners to get it off the ground but the union won't budge off its high wage demands. The candidate is considering going non-union while his campaign manager is pulling his hair out over the potential loss of union "support". He doesn't really care about the votes the union can bring out but their lack of financial support would most likely decide the election.

Reality.

If your friend was really brinigng in the jobs, then the idiots should vote for him...except those idiots probably won't be getting the jobs, and he won't be getting the office, because the idiots aren't bright enough to figure any of that out.

He's running as Dem in a highly conk district. The conundrum is he needs the union dollars to win. Those dollars are more meaningful than ideas or performance. That's exactly the crux of the issue.

McCutcheon makes this an even greater reality on a national level. Campaigns should be about ideas.

[UNI88]

If your friend was really brinigng in the jobs, then the idiots should vote for him...except those idiots probably won't be getting the jobs, and he won't be getting the office, because the idiots aren't bright enough to figure any of that out.

He's running as Dem in a highly conk district. The conundrum is he needs the union dollars to win. Those dollars are more meaningful than ideas or performance. That's exactly the crux of the issue.

McCutcheon makes this an even greater reality on a national level. Campaigns should be about ideas.

Um ... ideas are good but qualifications should be important too.

[kalm]

He's running as Dem in a highly conk district. The conundrum is he needs the union dollars to win. Those dollars are more meaningful than ideas or performance. That's exactly the crux of the issue.

McCutcheon makes this an even greater reality on a national level. Campaigns should be about ideas.

Um ... ideas are good but qualifications should be important too.

Yep and qualifications also < money.

[GannonFan]

He's running as Dem in a highly conk district. The conundrum is he needs the union dollars to win. Those dollars are more meaningful than ideas or performance. That's exactly the crux of the issue.

McCutcheon makes this an even greater reality on a national level. Campaigns should be about ideas.

Um ... ideas are good but qualifications should be important too.

Money follows the good ideas and the good qualifications. Just because the winner ends up a lot of time being the person with the most money doesn't mean they had the most money to start. It just means that people like to back a winner. It's like a chicken and egg thing. Take Obama for instance - he built his brand up to the point that prior to running for President, he became such an attractive candidate that money then rolled in. He didn't win because he had the most money, he won because he made himself so electable, especially compared to his opponents, that the money was smart and shifted towards the winning side.

The ideas and the qualifications are what matters most - the money part is just for people without the ideas and the qualifications to have something to whine about during their concession speech.

[kalm]

Um ... ideas are good but qualifications should be important too.

Money follows the good ideas and the good qualifications. Just because the winner ends up a lot of time being the person with the most money doesn't mean they had the most money to start. It just means that people like to back a winner. It's like a chicken and egg thing. Take Obama for instance - he built his brand up to the point that prior to running for President, he became such an attractive candidate that money then rolled in. He didn't win because he had the most money, he won because he made himself so electable, especially compared to his opponents, that the money was smart and shifted towards the winning side.

The ideas and the qualifications are what matters most - the money part is just for people without the ideas and the qualifications to have something to whine about during their concession speech.

How utopic.