Corportations, Unions, and Politics

If the board disappeared from view for an hour, it is just because we changed our provider of domain name services. Look for the all-new eye95.com, coming soon. This board will become a subfeature of that site.

We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration will allow you to join in the discussion which is amazingly free of personal rancor and trolls!

We are currently looking for posters from both the left and the right who have a demonstrated capacity to discuss fervently without letting personalities get in the way. Is that you? We need more staff.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Corportations, Unions, and Politics
Topic Started: Jan 22 2010, 09:40 AM (416 Views)
Post #1 Jan 22 2010, 09:40 AM	eye95
I was deeply concerned by yesterday's ruling allowing corporations to make unlimited donations to political candidates. I could just see GE buying President Obama another term. I was concerned until I found out that the scratch-the-surface reporting of this story flat-out misrepresented the ruling! The Court did not rule that corporations and unions could give any money to campaigns. They still are not allowed to do so. And, that is good. What they are allowed them to do (as they should be) is to buy commercial time, make movies, put up billboards, and generally exercise free speech in support of (or in opposition to) candidates. The case that brought this issue to the forefront was an anti-Hillary Clinton movie that the Federal Election Commission saw as an illegal in-kind contribution to...well, it's kind of hard to say who. So many people were running at the time, just another reason that the FEC ruling was moronic. The main reason that the Court should have (and did) strike down the ruling (and the portions of campaign finance reform that seemed to justify it) was that it inhibited political free speech. Any corporation or union should be able to openly support a candidate while not giving the candidate money that would appear to be (and likely would be) a bribe. Let me reiterate how I believe campaign finance reform should work. People, corporations, unions, PACs, non-profits, and any other entity should be able to exercise free speech in support of or in opposition to any candidate or cause, and spend as much money as they choose in doing so. People (only people) should be able to directly help the candidate of their choice by making unlimited contributions. To avoid bribery, complete and immediate disclosure of every cent that is donated, together with detailed identifying personal information of the donor, should be posted on the Internet. Trust the American people to properly use their judgment when George Soros gives millions to President Obama's reelection campaign. Enforcement would be easy. Failure to properly report any donation would result in a fine equal to twice the donation assessed jointly and severally to the candidate, the campaign, and the officer in the campaign responsible for the reporting. The law should require the most extreme care in reporting, so that "oops" would not be a defense. If the contribution was made, and it was not posted on the Internet within the time limits prescribed, the fine would be immediately assessed. Period. The key to campaign finance reform is sunshine, the world's most amazing natural bleach.	Administrator Posts: 2,647 Group: Editor-in-Chief Member #1 Joined: December 11, 2005



Post #2 Jan 23 2010, 09:04 AM	eye95
President Obams says of this ruling, "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest." I can: restricting free speech. Or, how about the government determining who can spend how much in support of which candidates? Politicians in Washington have already demonstrated an incredible arrogance in thinking that they know better than we do, ignoring the will of the people, thinking themselves invincible politically. Allowing them control over campaign spending just might make them right about their political invincibility.	Administrator Posts: 2,647 Group: Editor-in-Chief Member #1 Joined: December 11, 2005



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »