• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proposition 89

3point14 said:
Do you not view that as preferable to having special interest groups (big business included) giving large campaign donations to both political parties and therefore having sway over policy decisions regardless of who wins the election?
Click to expand...

I do not view artificial restrictions on funding as preferable to having special interest groups giving large campaign donations to both parties and therefore having huge sway.

I want nothing -- nothing standing in the way of freedom of speech, especially the government.

The only thing worse, as evidenced by, oh, I don't know, 10,000 years of human history, than money buying influence is government being able to legally restrict free speech.
 
I don't see why money should be considered a protected form of speech. Consider, for instance, if a person was stabbing people in the face as a form of expression. This would still be illegal, because speech or not, you don't stab people in the face. Governments should not regulate content, but if some medium (such as face-stabbing or money-giving) is inherently harmful, then of course they should be free to ban or regulate it without running into free speech protections. Why is money different from face stabbing?
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
I do not view artificial restrictions on funding as preferable to having special interest groups giving large campaign donations to both parties and therefore having huge sway.

I want nothing -- nothing standing in the way of freedom of speech, especially the government.

The only thing worse, as evidenced by, oh, I don't know, 10,000 years of human history, than money buying influence is government being able to legally restrict free speech.
Click to expand...

YOu are right, we need to simply aution off our governmental positions. Much more dirrect and effective that way.
 
UserGoogol said:
I don't see why money should be considered a protected form of speech. Consider, for instance, if a person was stabbing people in the face as a form of expression. This would still be illegal, because speech or not, you don't stab people in the face. Governments should not regulate content, but if some medium (such as face-stabbing or money-giving) is inherently harmful, then of course they should be free to ban or regulate it without running into free speech protections. Why is money different from face stabbing?
Click to expand...

I guess that's the sticking point. I have a hard time undestanding how someone can argue that money giving is inherently harmful.

Also, money giving isn't a medium, it's every medium. Saying you can't support speech with money is saying you can't speak.

Reality is reality, as unfortunate as that sometimes is. Would it be great if everyone could get their idea across to anyone who wanted to hear it for free? Sure. Can you? No. Someone has to pony up the resources. I feel if you real care about politicians not being swayed by special interests, set up a "anti-special interests special interests" group yourself, finance any politician who refuses special interest money, and vote for politicians who refuse special interest money. There's no reason why you have to take a dollar out of my wallet to finance someone who I might see as a crackpot liar, and I think it's profoundly stupid to take a "cut the tallest blades of grass" approach to create some warped sense of equality.
 
ponderingturtle said:
YOu are right, we need to simply aution off our governmental positions. Much more dirrect and effective that way.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing this is about the 17th strawman argument you've made in this thread alone, and we're still on page 1. Is there a competition going on I wasn't told about?

ETA: Damn you CaptainManacles!
 
3point14 said:
Not being an American, I perhaps have a skewed view of the US political system as favouring those with money over those without when it comes to the election process. (how much does one have to spend to get a shot at being president?)
Click to expand...

Can you all put away your Star War Light Sabers for just one moment and discuss the reality of a blue collar or middle class white collar worker rising to America's highest office? I often wonder if a grade school teacher or truck driver could get very far up the political food chain in America. The closest I can think of is a minister like Jesse Jackson, not that he won, but did not come from money. I guess Carter was a peanut farmer. The best way I can think of for a normal guy to become president is to marry a really rich woman. Just a thought.
 
I have an idea.

Couldn't you require groups paying for advertizing to sign their name?

Let's give an example. Suppose that some beauty spot in Arkansas was found to be rich in oil. We can imagine the conflict.

Then the adverts, under my law, would go like this:

(1) "We should not destroy our outstanding area of natural beauty ... blah blah blah ... this advert was paid for by such-and-such a group, financed exclusively by individual citizens of the state of Arkansas."

(2) "We will not destroy our outstanding area of natural beauty, we will tactfully and sensitively extract the oil and then put everything back how it was and make our state rich in the process ... blah blah blah ... this advert was paid for by such-and-such a group, financed exclusively by individual citizens of the state of Arkansas."

(3) "Drilling for oil will destroy the ecology of Arkansas for ever ... blah blah blah ... this advert was paid for by the Eco-Scare-You Group, financed exclusively by individual citizens of the United States of America."

(4) "Not drilling for oil in the Arkansas beauty spot is the same as surrenderring to terrorists ... blah blah blah ... this advert was paid for by Exxon."

Anyone who took money from corporations, rather than individuals, by whatever roundabout means, would have to credit those corporations for their support in their adverts. Anyone taking money from outside the state, ditto.

Discuss.
 
CaptainManacles said:
I guess that's the sticking point. I have a hard time undestanding how someone can argue that money giving is inherently harmful.

Also, money giving isn't a medium, it's every medium. Saying you can't support speech with money is saying you can't speak.

Reality is reality, as unfortunate as that sometimes is. Would it be great if everyone could get their idea across to anyone who wanted to hear it for free? Sure. Can you? No. Someone has to pony up the resources. I feel if you real care about politicians not being swayed by special interests, set up a "anti-special interests special interests" group yourself, finance any politician who refuses special interest money, and vote for politicians who refuse special interest money. There's no reason why you have to take a dollar out of my wallet to finance someone who I might see as a crackpot liar, and I think it's profoundly stupid to take a "cut the tallest blades of grass" approach to create some warped sense of equality.
Click to expand...


You are so right, the people with the money are always right.
 
steverino said:
Can you all put away your Star War Light Sabers for just one moment and discuss the reality of a blue collar or middle class white collar worker rising to America's highest office? I often wonder if a grade school teacher or truck driver could get very far up the political food chain in America. The closest I can think of is a minister like Jesse Jackson, not that he won, but did not come from money. I guess Carter was a peanut farmer. The best way I can think of for a normal guy to become president is to marry a really rich woman. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

The best way to become president is to choose the right(richest) parents, Bush and Kennedy are examples of this.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Anyone who took money from corporations, rather than individuals, by whatever roundabout means, would have to credit those corporations for their support in their adverts. Anyone taking money from outside the state, ditto.

Discuss.
Click to expand...


Legally corporations are individuals hence you can sue a corporation as an entity
 
ponderingturtle said:
Mycroft said:
Why is that a bad thing?

Big business should have the attention of politicians because the decisions made by big business effects many people.

Further, if the politician knows that the big business is going to contribute both to him and his opponent, that frees the politician to vote against the interests of the big business if he feels he needs to. He knows the business will still contribute to his campaign (though maybe a lesser amount) and that money was never exclusive to him anyway.
Click to expand...

So in other words the K street project and all those lobbiest scandals where really democracy in action?
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can derive that from anything I said.
 
steverino said:
Can you all put away your Star War Light Sabers for just one moment and discuss the reality of a blue collar or middle class white collar worker rising to America's highest office? I often wonder if a grade school teacher or truck driver could get very far up the political food chain in America. The closest I can think of is a minister like Jesse Jackson, not that he won, but did not come from money. I guess Carter was a peanut farmer. The best way I can think of for a normal guy to become president is to marry a really rich woman. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Truman was a lower-middle class haberdasher.

Eisenhower was a middle class general.

Reagan was a middle class actor.
 
I support campaign finance reform so that the amount of money any party or candidate gets from special interest groups is limited to a specific amount that is very low.
I believe that if candidates or parties want money then they should raise funds from their constituency and not special interest groups or corporations. I don't believe Big Oil for instance should be able to given millions to candidates who say Global warming is a hoax for instance.
 
Dr Adequate said:
I have an idea.

Couldn't you require groups paying for advertizing to sign their name?

Let's give an example. Suppose that some beauty spot in Arkansas was found to be rich in oil. We can imagine the conflict.

Then the adverts, under my law, would go like this:

(1) "We should not destroy our outstanding area of natural beauty ... blah blah blah ... this advert was paid for by such-and-such a group, financed exclusively by individual citizens of the state of Arkansas."

(2) "We will not destroy our outstanding area of natural beauty, we will tactfully and sensitively extract the oil and then put everything back how it was and make our state rich in the process ... blah blah blah ... this advert was paid for by such-and-such a group, financed exclusively by individual citizens of the state of Arkansas."

(3) "Drilling for oil will destroy the ecology of Arkansas for ever ... blah blah blah ... this advert was paid for by the Eco-Scare-You Group, financed exclusively by individual citizens of the United States of America."

(4) "Not drilling for oil in the Arkansas beauty spot is the same as surrenderring to terrorists ... blah blah blah ... this advert was paid for by Exxon."

Anyone who took money from corporations, rather than individuals, by whatever roundabout means, would have to credit those corporations for their support in their adverts. Anyone taking money from outside the state, ditto.

Discuss.
Click to expand...
Speaking as a non-expert in this area, I think this won't work because political adverts are rarely paid for directly by an interest group.

Instead, money goes into a political parties coffers (there are a few routes to get it there). The party then pays for the ads.

I might give ten dollars to my favorite political party because I like them overall. Then they use the money in their pot (of which mine is a part) to run an ad on a specific issue advocating a position I oppose:

Save beautiful Arkansas. Don't drill.

Being all for destroying any Arkansian beauty in exchange for three barrels of crud, I get all ticked. Doesn't matter, though. I'm a contributor.

Does that ad have to list me and the 20,000 other contributors?
 
drkitten said:
Truman was a lower-middle class haberdasher.

Eisenhower was a middle class general.

Reagan was a middle class actor.
Click to expand...
Eisenhower was a Lieutenant Colonel when WWII started. His rise through the ranks was remarkable.
 
BPSCG said:
Well, no. Eisenhower was a five-star general. He was the general commanding all the armies in the European theater during WW II.
Click to expand...

And that clearly means he came from the highest social classes, as only the aristocracy is permitted that level of command in this country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom