MAYDAY.US: Reclaim Democracy

So you see no difference in myself, and others who share my outlook, spending our own money to produce a postcard advocating on behalf of the candidate of our choice and having the candidate produce and distribute a postcard advocating their own election. The two postcards are one and the same in your mind. Do I have that right?

As stated by you in previous posts and paraphrased here for brevity, why do you feel the need to distort and twist the meanings of everything I say to bend them to your own agenda? Sheesh. We're getting awfully close to that same old "ignore" I had in place for you.

Perish the thought, my life wouldn't be complete if you continued to ignore me.

Yes, businesses contribute to federal election campaigns. The reason that they do this is because who is elected has consequences for the business. Look at the coal industry. Do you think they have any use for Obama given he is doing his best to put them out of business? So yes, to the degree permitted under current federal law businesses, executives of businesses, and employees of businesses, are going to make contributions directly to the campaigns of the candidate that they feel best represents them. Why that is a bad thing has yet to be logically explained to me.

PrintSmith wrote: Perish the thought, my life wouldn't be complete if you continued to ignore me.

Yes, businesses contribute to federal election campaigns. The reason that they do this is because who is elected has consequences for the business. Look at the coal industry. Do you think they have any use for Obama given he is doing his best to put them out of business? So yes, to the degree permitted under current federal law businesses, executives of businesses, and employees of businesses, are going to make contributions directly to the campaigns of the candidate that they feel best represents them. Why that is a bad thing has yet to be logically explained to me.

For someone who says "perish the thought, my life wouldn't be complete if you continued to ignore me", you sure do have a penchant for posting responses to anything I post.

As for the rest, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. You see it as being ok that businesses can donate to, and arguably buy, elections. I don't happen to agree with that. If a vast majority of those polled were in agreement with your position, I'd have to necessarily question mine. They are not, so I do not.

Of course it is OK to donate directly to a campaign, subject to reasonable limits to avoid even the appearance of buying a candidate, which I presume is what compromises the graph you earlier provided.

Why, as a taxpaying citizen, should I be compelled to donate to political campaigns via publicly financed elections Z? Shouldn't any contributing I do to the process be of a voluntary nature? Or is it more of the "progressive" idea that people shouldn't govern themselves to the greatest possible extent, but be governed to the greatest possible extent?

ZHawke wrote:
[snip]

You see it as being ok that businesses can donate to, and arguably buy, elections. I don't happen to agree with that. If a vast majority of those polled were in agreement with your position, I'd have to necessarily question mine. They are not, so I do not.

I don't know a lot about Citizens United. How in the world did the Supreme Court rule on a law that benefits GOP campaign financing only? That seems awful unfair to me.

Reverend Revelant wrote:

ZHawke wrote:
[snip]

You see it as being ok that businesses can donate to, and arguably buy, elections. I don't happen to agree with that. If a vast majority of those polled were in agreement with your position, I'd have to necessarily question mine. They are not, so I do not.

I don't know a lot about Citizens United. How in the world did the Supreme Court rule on a law that benefits GOP campaign financing only? That seems awful unfair to me.

Has nothing whatsoever to do specifically with GOP campaign financing. Rather, it has everything to do with unlimited "behind the scenes" (since PrintSmith says there is no such thing as "dark money") being donated without any accountability or disclosure as to which businesses/individuals are making those donations. Democrats and Republicans both benefited from the Citizen's United decision, and it needs to be overturned, in my opinion.

ZHawke wrote:

Reverend Revelant wrote:

ZHawke wrote:
[snip]

You see it as being ok that businesses can donate to, and arguably buy, elections. I don't happen to agree with that. If a vast majority of those polled were in agreement with your position, I'd have to necessarily question mine. They are not, so I do not.

I don't know a lot about Citizens United. How in the world did the Supreme Court rule on a law that benefits GOP campaign financing only? That seems awful unfair to me.

Has nothing whatsoever to do specifically with GOP campaign financing. Rather, it has everything to do with unlimited "behind the scenes" (since PrintSmith says there is no such thing as "dark money") being donated without any accountability or disclosure as to which businesses/individuals are making those donations. Democrats and Republicans both benefited from the Citizen's United decision, and it needs to be overturned, in my opinion.

Ok. Thanks for the clarification. Most of the complaints I've read about CU is from Democrats. I didn't know they benefit from it too. The way they squawk about it, one would think that they never saw a penny from it.

Reverend Revelant wrote: Ok. Thanks for the clarification. Most of the complaints I've read about CU is from Democrats. I didn't know they benefit from it too. The way they squawk about it, one would think that they never saw a penny from it.

I think where they are coming from is their view that Republicans benefit more because they generally support big business which, in turn, supports them. Whether that is right or not is, I believe, in the eye of the beholder.

ZHawke wrote: Has nothing whatsoever to do specifically with GOP campaign financing. Rather, it has everything to do with unlimited "behind the scenes" (since PrintSmith says there is no such thing as "dark money") being donated without any accountability or disclosure as to which businesses/individuals are making those donations. Democrats and Republicans both benefited from the Citizen's United decision, and it needs to be overturned, in my opinion.

You want to give me a vote on how you spend your money Z? Or the ability to pass a law determining how you spend your money? Of course not, yet that is precisely what the Congress tried to do - put their hands on money that belonged to someone else and say that the money couldn't be spent disseminating their political speech. That's whey the law was overturned, because the money not commandeered by the government in taxes belongs to the person to spend in any manner they choose to spend it. Why is personal property, pardon me, personal property that belongs to someone else, such a hard concept to grasp for some?