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

Most fair minded Americans regardless of ideogy should support this.

(No...I'm not saying Ganny and IT aren't fair minded...most of the time. )

Surveys show that a large majority of American citizens across the political spectrum oppose the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that opened the door to unlimited political spending by global corporations and powerful unions. Yet when asked about the prospect of passing a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision, too many people argue that it would be “too hard,” even “impossible.”

This argument lacks historical perspective. Every step on the path to fulfill the promise of the American Revolution was “too hard,” but Americans did it anyway. Hard, yes; yet constitutional amendments have come in waves during times of challenge — and Supreme Court obstinacy — much like our own.....

The 2014 midterm elections brought even greater concentration of big spenders. Indeed, virtually all political spending now comes from far less than 1 percent of Americans, and increasingly from global corporations using “dark money” entities to obscure the source.

The result of such unbalanced concentrated power in the U.S. system of government is exactly as Madison and other founding fathers feared: failure of effective republican self-government due to powerful factions and corruption.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... rule-them/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

travelinman67 wrote:

Image fail.

BTW, here's a list of Democratic Party promises regarding campaign finance going back to Carter.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... -politics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm confused, did Citizens United give corporations the power to vote, and at the same time, did it give them the power to vote substantially more than an ordinary person (you know, a one-vote/one person person, not those people who vote more than once)?

If we don't like the candidate, and if we don't like them because they get all their money from some big bad corporation (sorry for the redundancy, I know every corporation is big and every corporation is bad, right kalmie?) then vote for someone else. Money follows the winners, it doesn't make them, we're just too lazy of an electorate to pick the right winners.

kalm wrote: Image fail.

No, your anchor is sitting right there.

GannonFan wrote:I'm confused, did Citizens United give corporations the power to vote, and at the same time, did it give them the power to vote substantially more than an ordinary person (you know, a one-vote/one person person, not those people who vote more than once)?

If we don't like the candidate, and if we don't like them because they get all their money from some big bad corporation (sorry for the redundancy, I know every corporation is big and every corporation is bad, right kalmie?) then vote for someone else. Money follows the winners, it doesn't make them, we're just too lazy of an electorate to pick the right winners.

this is one of klam's broken record issues

btw money doesnt always follow the winners of elections

sometimes it follows potential future presidents when they are cabinet appointees

Like I just got through saying on AGS, it's funny that even though we have far more formal education and access to information than people 200 years ago too many base their votes off of 30 second ads on television, and somehow it's the fault of campaign finance laws that democracy is broken.

We get the government we deserve.

GannonFan wrote:I'm confused, did Citizens United give corporations the power to vote, and at the same time, did it give them the power to vote substantially more than an ordinary person (you know, a one-vote/one person person, not those people who vote more than once)?

If we don't like the candidate, and if we don't like them because they get all their money from some big bad corporation (sorry for the redundancy, I know every corporation is big and every corporation is bad, right kalmie?) then vote for someone else. Money follows the winners, it doesn't make them, we're just too lazy of an electorate to pick the right winners.

Corporations can't be evil, Ganny, they're inanimate. They're 100% self interested.

If money doesn't make winners, than why are 90 some % of national elections won by the candidate who raises the most?

And what about those foolish industries and businesses that literally have government relations divisions and spend billions on elections? They must be terrible businessmen. Suckers!

Oh…and money also kills speech.

GannonFan wrote:I'm confused, did Citizens United give corporations the power to vote, and at the same time, did it give them the power to vote substantially more than an ordinary person (you know, a one-vote/one person person, not those people who vote more than once)?

If we don't like the candidate, and if we don't like them because they get all their money from some big bad corporation (sorry for the redundancy, I know every corporation is big and every corporation is bad, right kalmie?) then vote for someone else. Money follows the winners, it doesn't make them, we're just too lazy of an electorate to pick the right winners.

Hmmmm....
Romney doesn't get 48 hours past "Hello I'm Mormon and bat sh!t crazy" without his Billions
His money got him all the way to the doorstep - and had Karl Rove (and team FOX) predicting a LANDSLIDE

Money will get you right to the front door my friend...



But don;t confuse me with giving a f*ck - I'm just making a point

I personally think the Supreme Court got the bottom line right in the Citizen's United decision. I don't know what their rationale was. But I don't think the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to regulate how much money any person or organization or anything else can contribute to political campaigns.

However, I do think the Supreme Court gets it wrong a lot and if it were up to me I would not focus on trying to correct the situation by amending the Constitution to try to respond to what the Supreme Court does on a case by case basis. I would focus on amending the Constitution to reduce the Judiciary's level of power. There are different paths to take for doing that.

One would be to allow the other branches of government to over rule Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution. Have a mechanism whereby the other branches, after a decision, say "your reading of the Constitution was incorrect and you must reconsider the case given the correct interpretation as follows..."

I don't see anything wrong with that. The Court is supposed to be deciding cases given what legislation and Constitutional language require. I don't think they're the branch of government that should have the final word on what those things require. Congress makes the law. The branch that makes the law is the one that should have the final word on what it requires. Ultimately, the Supreme Court should not be the final word to begin with. And we should amend the Constitution to get rid of the paradigm that's evolved by which its assumed that role. It gave the role to itself. No reason we shouldn't nix its usurpation.

JohnStOnge wrote:The branch that makes the law is the one that should have the final word on what it requires.

But, who checks Congress? Without a Constitutional check they would have unlimited power. They could do absolutely whatever they wanted. The Constitution would be worthless as it would be completely rewritten whenever a new party came to power. No, scratch that. There would only be one party. It'd be ripe for a dictatorship.

I'm assuming you don't think the President should have the Constitutional check on laws passed by Congress. That would be even more of a clusterfuck and we might as well just go back to a monarchy.

I know you hate SCOTUS... but, you should think about the alternatives.

Chizzang wrote:

GannonFan wrote:I'm confused, did Citizens United give corporations the power to vote, and at the same time, did it give them the power to vote substantially more than an ordinary person (you know, a one-vote/one person person, not those people who vote more than once)?

If we don't like the candidate, and if we don't like them because they get all their money from some big bad corporation (sorry for the redundancy, I know every corporation is big and every corporation is bad, right kalmie?) then vote for someone else. Money follows the winners, it doesn't make them, we're just too lazy of an electorate to pick the right winners.

Hmmmm....
Romney doesn't get 48 hours past "Hello I'm Mormon and bat sh!t crazy" without his Billions
His money got him all the way to the doorstep - and had Karl Rove (and team FOX) predicting a LANDSLIDE

Money will get you right to the front door my friend...



But don;t confuse me with giving a f*ck - I'm just making a point

Wrong. A week before the election, Rove predicted a close Romney win, not a landslide.
"My prediction: Sometime after the cock crows on the morning of Nov. 7, Mitt Romney will be declared America's 45th president. Let's call it 51%-48%, with Mr. Romney carrying at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 0229096046" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
51% to 48%, 279-259 is hardly a landslide

I'll never forget Rove refusing to call Ohio for Obama like a petulant little child. Just glorious stuff.

And, Rove may not have predicted a landslide - but, plenty on Fox did.

--------------------------------------------------------------

You are such a lazy piece of shit, BDK.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fox+news+election+predictions+2012" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



edit: you must have actually googled it yourself and edited your post.

Skjellyfetti wrote:You are such a lazy piece of shit, BDK.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fox+news+election+predictions+2012" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



edit: you must have actually googled it yourself and edited your post.

I caught that too.

Skjellyfetti wrote:You are such a lazy piece of ****, BDK.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fox+news+election+predictions+2012" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



edit: you must have actually googled it yourself and edited your post.

My response was to the claim that Rove predicted a landslide. I was correct by saying that isn't true by pointing out that Rove predicted a week before 51%/48%, at least 279/259 electoral, not a landslide by anyone definition.

The one I tried to delete was I asked:
Who at FNC predicted a landslide by either using the word "landslide" or predicted by a true landslide at least 5% margin & 350 electoral. I then went and looked it up, found the answer, and deleted my question.
Dick Morris and Gingrich used the word "landslide" Gingrich said 300+ electoral, 53% (which would mean at least +6%). If you want to include 300+ a landslide then you can throw in Michael Barone as he predicted 315-223.

But it wasn't just guys at FNC. Also had guys on CNBC, MSNBC, and ABC saying the same.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11 ... ll-happen/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BDKJMU wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:You are such a lazy piece of ****, BDK.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fox+news+election+predictions+2012" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



edit: you must have actually googled it yourself and edited your post.

My response was to the claim that Rove predicted a landslide. I was correct by saying that isn't true by pointing out that Rove predicted a week before 51%/48%, at least 279/259 electoral, not a landslide by anyone definition.

The one I tried to delete was I asked:
Who at FNC predicted a landslide by either using the word "landslide" or predicted by a true landslide at least 5% margin & 350 electoral. I then went and looked it up, found the answer, and deleted my question.
Dick Morris and Gingrich used the word "landslide" Gingrich said 300+ electoral, 53% (which would mean at least +6%). If you want to include 300+ a landslide then you can throw in Michael Barone as he predicted 315-223.

But it wasn't just guys at FNC. Also had guys on CNBC, MSNBC, and ABC saying the same.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11 ... ll-happen/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sure...

GannonFan wrote:I'm confused, did Citizens United give corporations the power to vote, and at the same time, did it give them the power to vote substantially more than an ordinary person (you know, a one-vote/one person person, not those people who vote more than once)?

If we don't like the candidate, and if we don't like them because they get all their money from some big bad corporation (sorry for the redundancy, I know every corporation is big and every corporation is bad, right kalmie?) then vote for someone else. Money follows the winners, it doesn't make them, we're just too lazy of an electorate to pick the right winners.

You're not understanding the problem. At all. And, it's not a Democrat vs. Republican thing. It's at the heart of the problem with both parties and as a person that loves to flash around the "independent" label, I would think you would be able to see this.

The problem isn't money deciding elections. Hell, most of the big corporations donate to both campaigns. They're hedging their bets.

The problem is that the winner of the election - whether Democrat or Republican - is beholden to these big money contributors. Lobbyists LITERALLY write the bills. That is insane.


Also, most of these corporations are government contractors. It's hard to think of a major corporation that isn't a government contractor. I know you and others aren't very fond of government spending... but, these political donations are why those who are elected give a reach around with the pork barrel spending. THAT'S why it makes sense for these corporations to shell out piles of money. Not because a Republican or a Democrat is going to be that much more beneficial to them from a pure political or ideological angle. They have bargaining power for more than they spend on political donations for government contracts.

Look at major govermnet contractors' donations in 2014. It's split almost down the middle. And relatively small donations compared to the massive size of their contracts.

Lockheed Martin:

House
Total to Democrats: $938,000
Total to Republicans: $1,350,250

Senate
Total to Democrats: $173,500
Total to Republicans: $168,000

Received: $44,114,358,506.35 in federal contracts

Northrop Grumman:

House
Total to Democrats: $944,550
Total to Republicans: $1,268,645

Senate
Total to Democrats: $147,950
Total to Republicans: $166,741

Received: $9,996,020,880.37 in federal contracts



The problem isn't that the corporations are partisan. In the vast majority of cases they aren't - and the large corporations are very bipartisan in their donations... intentionally so. The problem is that they write themselves fat checks and their lobbyists write (and oftentimes literally write) the legislation.



edit: and, not only is their spending bipartisan. a quick browse looks like they give between $1-10,000 to ALL incumbents. They give to everyone... and a few non-incumbents who they think might win.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:The branch that makes the law is the one that should have the final word on what it requires.

But, who checks Congress? Without a Constitutional check they would have unlimited power. They could do absolutely whatever they wanted. The Constitution would be worthless as it would be completely rewritten whenever a new party came to power. No, scratch that. There would only be one party. It'd be ripe for a dictatorship.

I'm assuming you don't think the President should have the Constitutional check on laws passed by Congress. That would be even more of a **** and we might as well just go back to a monarchy.

I know you hate SCOTUS... but, you should think about the alternatives.

Wow.

So you DO understand the separation of powers- your noncriticisms of the current President's end runs on Congress notwithstanding.

CID1990 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
But, who checks Congress? Without a Constitutional check they would have unlimited power. They could do absolutely whatever they wanted. The Constitution would be worthless as it would be completely rewritten whenever a new party came to power. No, scratch that. There would only be one party. It'd be ripe for a dictatorship.

I'm assuming you don't think the President should have the Constitutional check on laws passed by Congress. That would be even more of a **** and we might as well just go back to a monarchy.

I know you hate SCOTUS... but, you should think about the alternatives.

Wow.

So you DO understand the separation of powers- your noncriticisms of the current President's end runs on Congress notwithstanding.

Let's be fair to lubejob...
When you got the guy's dick in your mouth, it's kinda hard to criticize.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

GannonFan wrote:I'm confused, did Citizens United give corporations the power to vote, and at the same time, did it give them the power to vote substantially more than an ordinary person (you know, a one-vote/one person person, not those people who vote more than once)?

If we don't like the candidate, and if we don't like them because they get all their money from some big bad corporation (sorry for the redundancy, I know every corporation is big and every corporation is bad, right kalmie?) then vote for someone else. Money follows the winners, it doesn't make them, we're just too lazy of an electorate to pick the right winners.

You're not understanding the problem. At all. And, it's not a Democrat vs. Republican thing. It's at the heart of the problem with both parties and as a person that loves to flash around the "independent" label, I would think you would be able to see this.

The problem isn't money deciding elections. Hell, most of the big corporations donate to both campaigns. They're hedging their bets.

The problem is that the winner of the election - whether Democrat or Republican - is beholden to these big money contributors. Lobbyists LITERALLY write the bills. That is insane.


Also, most of these corporations are government contractors. It's hard to think of a major corporation that isn't a government contractor. I know you and others aren't very fond of government spending... but, these political donations are why those who are elected give a reach around with the pork barrel spending. THAT'S why it makes sense for these corporations to shell out piles of money. Not because a Republican or a Democrat is going to be that much more beneficial to them from a pure political or ideological angle. They have bargaining power for more than they spend on political donations for government contracts.

Look at major govermnet contractors' donations in 2014. It's split almost down the middle. And relatively small donations compared to the massive size of their contracts.

Lockheed Martin:

House
Total to Democrats: $938,000
Total to Republicans: $1,350,250

Senate
Total to Democrats: $173,500
Total to Republicans: $168,000

Received: $44,114,358,506.35 in federal contracts

Northrop Grumman:

House
Total to Democrats: $944,550
Total to Republicans: $1,268,645

Senate
Total to Democrats: $147,950
Total to Republicans: $166,741

Received: $9,996,020,880.37 in federal contracts



The problem isn't that the corporations are partisan. In the vast majority of cases they aren't - and the large corporations are very bipartisan in their donations... intentionally so. The problem is that they write themselves fat checks and their lobbyists write (and oftentimes literally write) the legislation.



edit: and, not only is their spending bipartisan. a quick browse looks like they give between $1-10,000 to ALL incumbents. They give to everyone... and a few non-incumbents who they think might win.

You almost make it sound as though campaign finance is a company investment from which they expect a return.

What's next? Suggesting that SEC fines are not really viewed as a deterrent but rather just the cost of doing business?

BDKJMU wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:You are such a lazy piece of ****, BDK.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fox+news+election+predictions+2012" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



edit: you must have actually googled it yourself and edited your post.

My response was to the claim that Rove predicted a landslide. I was correct by saying that isn't true by pointing out that Rove predicted a week before 51%/48%, at least 279/259 electoral, not a landslide by anyone definition.

The one I tried to delete was I asked:
Who at FNC predicted a landslide by either using the word "landslide" or predicted by a true landslide at least 5% margin & 350 electoral. I then went and looked it up, found the answer, and deleted my question.
Dick Morris and Gingrich used the word "landslide" Gingrich said 300+ electoral, 53% (which would mean at least +6%). If you want to include 300+ a landslide then you can throw in Michael Barone as he predicted 315-223.

But it wasn't just guys at FNC. Also had guys on CNBC, MSNBC, and ABC saying the same.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11 ... ll-happen/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just moveon. You're only making it worse.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I'll never forget Rove refusing to call Ohio for Obama like a petulant little child. Just glorious stuff.

And, Rove may not have predicted a landslide - but, plenty on Fox did.

That was beautiful to watch. Cost his crowd millions because somehow the donks got their hands on the voting machines after the fix was in and refixed the election.



We need to switch over to a Parliamentarian form of government.

A somewhat interesting idea that might minimize oligarchical influence through a market based solution

(If you read the comments section it was first floated by Ivytalk's buddy Larry Lessig. Progressives and Tea Partiers unite!)

So the problem isn’t that we’re spending too much on politics. Instead, it’s two problems: we’re spending way too little, and what money there is is coming from far too few people.

That’s why it’s good news to see “The Tea Party Case Against Mega-Donors” by John Pudner, in which Pudner advocates “giving average citizens a $200 tax credit for their small campaign contribution to the candidate of their choice.” Pudner is president of the Take Back Our Republic Action Fund, which tries “to advance campaign finance reform that empowers voters and encourages higher voter turnout aris[ing] from a conservative, market-based political philosophy.”

A longtime campaign consultant, Pudner was a top strategist for Rep. Dave Brat, who beat then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the 2014 Republican primary.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... ce-reform/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;