- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Tea Party fumes over campaign finance. Should there be any limits?
Posted on 12/12/14 at 8:24 am
Posted on 12/12/14 at 8:24 am
Politico: Tea party fumes over campaign finance plan
My question: If money = speech (and it does), how can you limit campaign contributions at all? How are you not violating the 1st Amendment when you limit campaign contributions?
Why do you hate free speech, Ken?
Many Democrats hate this too, BTW.
quote:
The provision would increase the amount of money a single donor could give to national party committees each year from $97,200 to as much as $777,600 by allowing them to set up different funds for certain expenses. The change would be a huge boost for party committees that have faced steep challenges in recent years from well-funded outside groups.
My question: If money = speech (and it does), how can you limit campaign contributions at all? How are you not violating the 1st Amendment when you limit campaign contributions?
quote:
The same conservative activists have long advocated for looser campaign finance laws, but they argue the language of the rider in the 1,600-page bill gives the establishment wing an unfair advantage by tweaking the law specifically for donations to party committees.
“Conservatives support the First Amendment and believe there should be no limits on political speech,” said Ken Cuccinelli, president of the Senate Conservatives Fund. “Unfortunately, the new limits included in the omnibus only increase political speech for party insiders while silencing the majority of Americans who are fed up with Washington.”
Why do you hate free speech, Ken?
Many Democrats hate this too, BTW.
13
Posted on 12/12/14 at 8:25 am to a want
Troll on, sweet diamond.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 8:32 am to a want
quote:
Many Democrats hate this too, BTW.
No they don't. Dems love to limit contributions from corporations. They have little problems with special interests and unions (they particularly enjoy the irony of unions, with the force of law, extracting money from Republican blue collar workers to fund Democrat campaigns and candidates) giving unlimited money.
Don't even try to pretend that Dems don't love that money for campaigns, brah.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 8:32 am to a want
quote:
My question: If money = speech (and it does), how can you limit campaign contributions at all? How are you not violating the 1st Amendment when you limit campaign contributions?
I like to hear SCOTUS answer these questions.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 8:33 am to a want
Most fellow Dems I know are against the PAC's giving tons of money to attack a candidate, but I remember that those were first used by the Dems to get Kerry into office.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 8:37 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Don't even try to pretend that Dems don't love that money for campaigns, brah.
It's not my intent to make this a partisan issue. Some Ds & Rs like it, some Ds & Rs don't.
IMO, $ in politics is pretty much ruining the country... or at least the amount of $ involved today. I'm interested in others' opinions.
It seems like we're well on our way to a plutocracy.
This post was edited on 12/12/14 at 8:40 am
Posted on 12/12/14 at 8:37 am to a want
It's not up to the government to decide how much money I can or can't give a candidate.
With that said, OMNIBUS is beyond awful. And very, very sad.
With that said, OMNIBUS is beyond awful. And very, very sad.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 8:46 am to a want
quote:IMO there should be no limits whatsoever, but it should be 100% transparent.
IMO, $ in politics is pretty much ruining the country... or at least the amount of $ involved today. I'm interested in others' opinions.
If I contribute to a candidate, PAC, or political cause, that contribution should be 100% accessible to the public. Likewise PACs contributions should be published, tallied, and publicly accessible to the last penny..
Posted on 12/12/14 at 8:47 am to a want
quote:
It seems like we're well on our way to a plutocracy.
We've always been a plutocracy - occasionally the mob gets their way. I don't like the corrupting influence, either, but it's an unfortunate price of liberty. Collective expression of speech is a real thing.
The ACLU can do it. The NRA can do it. Unions, oil companies, etc. It should balance out in the end and, ultimately, it is we who still hold the vote.
I understand your point. And I do believe the intent of the rider was to give the national Republican party a greater ability to fight the Tea Party in primaries.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 9:02 am to a want
Pass a law saying no person nor entity may donate more than $1,000 to political campaigns or organizations in any fiscal year without facing a hefty tax penalty.
It will never get passed, but if it did it would nip that shite in the bud with the quickness.
An idea I have been toying with would be to limit sitting politicians from any campaigning (including fund raising) except for themselves and only once they have officially declared. Still trying to foresee what some of the ramifications of that would be yes, I know it would never get passed but I can dream :p)
It will never get passed, but if it did it would nip that shite in the bud with the quickness.
An idea I have been toying with would be to limit sitting politicians from any campaigning (including fund raising) except for themselves and only once they have officially declared. Still trying to foresee what some of the ramifications of that would be yes, I know it would never get passed but I can dream :p)
Posted on 12/12/14 at 9:03 am to a want
quote:
If money = speech (and it does), how can you limit campaign contributions at all?
there is a difference in giving a political candidate/party money and contributing to a private body/entity
now i'm not saying i agree with it, but the candidate/party agrees to the rules and is part of a bigger regulatory scheme. compare this with, say, crossroads, which is completely separate from any party or candidate, who is running ads it desires. THAT is why those contributions are considered "speech"
Posted on 12/12/14 at 9:10 am to a want
quote:why do Dems hate a balanced budget?
a want
in reality, that really is all they're asking for...to balance the nation's checkbook
Posted on 12/12/14 at 9:13 am to lsuroadie
quote:
in reality, that really is all they're asking for...to balance the nation's checkbook
yeah, no...that's not what they're asking for at all.
I'm on board for a balanced budget, though.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 9:20 am to a want
quote:
I'm on board for a balanced budget, though.
The only way to do this is the penny plan (or some variation), unfortunately. Nobody is going to budge on entitlements, defense spending, other pork, etc. So, everybody is going to have to take 1 penny on the dollar less - or 2 pennies, or however, many until the sheet is balanced.
We can at least put the whole "revenue" problem to bed, as we are experiencing historically high revenues and still running a deficit - agreed?
Posted on 12/12/14 at 9:22 am to a want
quote:Actually it is.
yeah, no...that's not what they're asking for at all.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 9:37 am to a want
quote:
It seems like we're well on our way to a plutocracy.
we are way passed that. we have been a plutocracy for 20+ years, maybe 40.
we despreately need campaign finance reform.
My suggestion is instead of limiting contributions, you limit names. You can contribute as much as you want but the recipient would be unable to know who contributed it.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 9:46 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
The only way to do this is the penny plan (or some variation), unfortunately. Nobody is going to budge on entitlements, defense spending, other pork, etc. So, everybody is going to have to take 1 penny on the dollar less - or 2 pennies, or however, many until the sheet is balanced.
I'm not familiar with the the penny plan. What is it??
I think the solution will have to be one big all-encompasing deal. Everybody is going to have to feel the pain. Defense, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, ACA, all government departments, safety net, etc... I think in a presidential year a candidate could get the public behind him and maybe pass something in the first 100 days of his/her admin. Something like cutting .75% per year for 10 years...or something similar for every department in government. That's a start at least. Phasing it in is key. Obvioulsy bigger cuts could/would need to happen too.
As far as revenue: I don't like paying taxes either. I'd just like to pay for what we buy. I would like for taxes to increase/decrease based on federal spending...that's the best way to force congress to limit spending.
It's definitely a hard problem though.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 9:47 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
You can contribute as much as you want but the recipient would be unable to know who contributed it.
Tough to implement but I like it.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 9:53 am to SlowFlowPro
Slight off topic but tangential question:
If a corporation's primary responsibility is the shareholder, how can anyone view corporate contributions to a political campaign as anything other than corruption...or an attempt to corrupt?
If a corporation's primary responsibility is the shareholder, how can anyone view corporate contributions to a political campaign as anything other than corruption...or an attempt to corrupt?
Posted on 12/12/14 at 10:00 am to a want
quote:Assuming one party supports the corporation and the other plans to disadvantage it, political contribution is akin to fiduciary responsibility.
If a corporation's primary responsibility is the shareholder, how can anyone view corporate contributions to a political campaign
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News