How to Sweep Dark Money Out of Politics

Werbung:
The majority opinion in Citizens United takes up 57 pages, but it's pretty efficiently boiled down as follows: (1) Money is speech; (2) corporations are people; (3) therefore, under the First Amendment, the government can't stop corporations from spending money on politics pretty much however they choose.

the SCOTUS declared money=free speech
the SCOTUS declared corps are people
if we are to have equal protection, #3 is required.

what we had with these cheesy campaign finance laws was anything but equal protection.

yes, lets do make money not = free speech, problem solved. but pols will never pursue that.
 
yes, lets do make money not = free speech, problem solved. but pols will never pursue that.
Shall we also ban people from volunteering their time to work on campaigns?

This idea that money is the problem is bass ackwards... If there were no prostitutes, there would be no Johns offering them money. The money is not the problem, it's the fact that we allow these people to sell themselves, that's the problem, yet you want to blame the Johns or their money, which are merely a symptom and not the actual disease.
 
It takes traveling, organization, exposure and advertising yourself to run for office. How can you do that without money?
 
It takes traveling, organization, exposure and advertising yourself to run for office. How can you do that without money?

you publish a platform and let the media report it. thats what you should be running on, thats all that matters. it need not take travel, organization, exposure or advertising. those are somewhat recent developments.
 
you publish a platform and let the media report it. thats what you should be running on, thats all that matters. it need not take travel, organization, exposure or advertising. those are somewhat recent developments.

The worst thing you can do on a campaign is let your opponent (or someone else) define you. Letting the media define you is probably worse than letting your opponent.
 
The worst thing you can do on a campaign is let your opponent (or someone else) define you. Letting the media define you is probably worse than letting your opponent.

if you publish your platform, you define yourself. if there is no advertising your opponent can't define you (draw a contrast but thats OK). themedia will do what it wishes but truth prevails.
 
Shall we also ban people from volunteering their time to work on campaigns?
Hell no, but we do need to limit the value of contributions to a political campaign to an amount that makes millionaires not the only important contributors to a campaign. If a millionaire wants to man the phone at his candidate's campaign headquarters, I think we should encourage it, but not his renting that campaign headquarters for his candidate.
 
The worst thing you can do on a campaign is let your opponent (or someone else) define you. Letting the media define you is probably worse than letting your opponent.

Yes, but this only applies to conservatives and Republicans. The media defined BO as the smartest most articulate candidate ever to run for the office and millions of Americans bought the lie. And, look what we got...lies and more lies...while millions of Americans suffer from his deluded leadership.
 
Yes, but this only applies to conservatives and Republicans. The media defined BO as the smartest most articulate candidate ever to run for the office and millions of Americans bought the lie. And, look what we got...lies and more lies...while millions of Americans suffer from his deluded leadership.
Not my quote - sorry
 
Werbung:
It takes traveling, organization, exposure and advertising yourself to run for office. How can you do that without money?
Before the "Citizens United" decision, politicians ran their campaigns fine with only limited donations from corporations and the super-wealthy.
I would like to see us return to that era.
 
Back
Top