Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday issued an emergency halt to the matching-funds portion of Arizona's publicly funded Clean Elections program, throwing Arizona's hotly contested gubernatorial Republican primary into chaos.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... z0qODLXSBC" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This blocks Arizona's VOTER-APPROVED matching system designed to limit corruption.

A Bunch of Wealthy Republicans sued.

Freedom of Speech sucks doesn't it, dback?

Baldy wrote:Freedom of Speech sucks doesn't it, dback?

Buying elections suck.

I am all for 100% public financed elections - only way to restore the Republic.

dbackjon wrote:

Baldy wrote:Freedom of Speech sucks doesn't it, dback?

I am all for 100% public financed elections...

Big surprise there.
Let's turn our free election process into another government welfare system.

Baldy wrote: Let's turn our free election process into another government welfare system.

Better than a corporatocracy.

dbackjon wrote:

Baldy wrote:Freedom of Speech sucks doesn't it, dback?

Buying elections suck.

I am all for 100% public financed elections - only way to restore the Republic.

Count me out on that one - I've chosen not to tick off the box on my tax return approving $3 (or whatever it is) to be put into a public fund for elections and I'll continue to do so forever. If people want to run for office, go out and find the money. And Obama showed, you don't need to rely solely on corporations or lobbyists to do it - the amount of money he took in from tiny internet donations from everyday Americans shows that you can get money if your message is good enough to attract the money. Granted, he still got other money beyond that, but obviously the grassroot fundraising was significant. No reason for any government to have to level the playing field when politicians can already do that with messages that resonate.

For that reason, I have no problem with the SCOTUS likely overturning this law in Arizona. Someone is penalized (by means of the government giving their opponents money) if they do a good job of raising money. I see no reason why John McCain should've been given more money from the government just because Obama was far more successful at fundraising (I know it's a federal example versus just a state law, but the point remains) - money tends to flow towards those with better messages. I'd rather we not try to artificially interfere with that process.

Without public financing they will be telling us lies with money they got on their own. With public financing they will be telling us lies with our money. I prefer neither but given those two choices I will settle on the former.

Money = speech

Corporations = people

What a crock of shit.

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Buying elections suck.

I am all for 100% public financed elections - only way to restore the Republic.

Count me out on that one - I've chosen not to tick off the box on my tax return approving $3 (or whatever it is) to be put into a public fund for elections and I'll continue to do so forever. If people want to run for office, go out and find the money. And Obama showed, you don't need to rely solely on corporations or lobbyists to do it - the amount of money he took in from tiny internet donations from everyday Americans shows that you can get money if your message is good enough to attract the money. Granted, he still got other money beyond that, but obviously the grassroot fundraising was significant. No reason for any government to have to level the playing field when politicians can already do that with messages that resonate.

For that reason, I have no problem with the SCOTUS likely overturning this law in Arizona. Someone is penalized (by means of the government giving their opponents money) if they do a good job of raising money. I see no reason why John McCain should've been given more money from the government just because Obama was far more successful at fundraising (I know it's a federal example versus just a state law, but the point remains) - money tends to flow towards those with better messages. I'd rather we not try to artificially interfere with that process.

Obama is tied down to interests that have funded his campaign just like any other major politician. He got close to a million dollars from Goldman Sachs Employees, about $700,000 from Citigroup, $800,000 from Microsoft, and he has gotten a lot of money from trial lawyers.

I'm sorry, but the age of high-powered super-expensive campaigns have screwed up our country. And it's not just corporations, it's unions, certain sectors of the economy, and organizations like AIPAC. I don't know if public elections is the right idea, though. I'd cap the amount of money that could be spent on a campaign, and cap it pretty low. With the internet alone the average American today has far more means of making an informed vote than the average American did before electronic communications of any kind existed.

And that free-speech argument is a crock of s***. If some Richie Rich wants to affect an eleciton, let him start a blog or stand on a street corner with a sign. The 1st amendment says nothing about the right to fund campaigns. And I thought the liberal judges were the only ones who invented rights that didn't exist in the constitution...

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Baldy wrote: Let's turn our free election process into another government welfare system.

Better than a corporatocracy.

I see you have been drinking kalm's Kool-Aid.
Sorry, that boogeyman doesn't exist.

Ivytalk's oft-repeated theory: unlimited private election spending, coupled with full disclosure.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Baldy wrote: Let's turn our free election process into another government welfare system.

Better than a corporatocracy.

Corporatocracy sucks, but subsidizing your opinion is worse.

Ivytalk is correct. More free speech is the only cure!

native wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Better than a corporatocracy.

Corporatocracy sucks, but subsidizing your opinion is worse.

Ivytalk is correct. More free speech is the only cure!

No sir, according to Chairman Obama, we have too much information.

dbackjon wrote:I am all for 100% public financed elections - only way to restore the Republic.

If the people of the State voted for it I don't think the Supreme Court should be involved but it's a stupid law. Public financed elections establishes a mechanism for government control of elections. It puts government in position to manipulate them. It is not, in the long term, a good idea.

JohnStOnge wrote:

dbackjon wrote:I am all for 100% public financed elections - only way to restore the Republic.

If the people of the State voted for it I don't think the Supreme Court should be involved but it's a stupid law. Public financed elections establishes a mechanism for government control of elections. It puts government in position to manipulate them. It is not, in the long term, a good idea.

Government already is in position to manipulate them. Who counts the votes?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
If the people of the State voted for it I don't think the Supreme Court should be involved but it's a stupid law. Public financed elections establishes a mechanism for government control of elections. It puts government in position to manipulate them. It is not, in the long term, a good idea.

Government already is in position to manipulate them. Who counts the votes?

Diebold

dbackjon wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Government already is in position to manipulate them. Who counts the votes?

Diebold

Haha. Excellent point. ... wait... this isn't funny at all.

Ivytalk wrote:Ivytalk's oft-repeated theory: unlimited private election spending, coupled with full disclosure.

Absolutely right - the best way to do it. Spend what you want, be absolutely clear about where all the money came from. That's the perfect system!

Ivytalk wrote:Ivytalk's oft-repeated theory: unlimited private election spending, coupled with full disclosure.

Recently heard a recommendation that all politicians should wear something akin to nascar uniforms--with all appropriate corporate sponser logos. I like!

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Baldy wrote: Let's turn our free election process into another government welfare system.

Better than a corporatocracy.

So, the $64 million the unions have contributed to Moonbeam Brown and his 527's this year makes them a corporation?



Oh, yeah. My bad. I forgot...

...they already own Chrysler and GM.