One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Supreme Court strikes down overall limit on campaign giving
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 next>>
Apr 2, 2014 13:35:26   #
OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!
 
Woo Hoo! Another win for the first Amendment!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/2/supreme-court-strikes-down-limit-campaign-giving/

| Reply
Apr 2, 2014 14:07:33   #
BoJester
 
Simply means kluckers and baggers will try to buy more elections






| Reply
Apr 2, 2014 14:40:57   #
OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!
 
BoJester wrote:
Simply means kluckers and baggers will try to buy more elections


Yeah, like you libtards don't buy elections. Or, vote more than once, or register dead people, or bus illegal immigrants to the polls, etc. etc.

| Reply
Apr 2, 2014 14:53:50   #
BoJester
 
conservatards on display






OldSchool wrote:
Yeah, like you libtards don't buy elections. Or, vote more than once, or register dead people, or bus illegal immigrants to the polls, etc. etc.

| Reply
Apr 2, 2014 19:07:13   #
OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!
 
BoJester wrote:
conservatards on display


Libtard on display.

| Reply
Apr 2, 2014 19:09:14   #
BoJester
 
conservatard klucking teabagger on display



OldSchool wrote:
Libtard on display.

| Reply
Apr 2, 2014 19:12:59   #
OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!
 
BoJester wrote:
conservatard klucking teabagger on display


Juvenile libtard on display...still awaiting puberty.

| Reply
Apr 2, 2014 19:14:07   #
BoJester
 
klucking conservatard teabagger waiting for his testicles to drop





OldSchool wrote:
Juvenile libtard on display...still awaiting puberty.

| Reply
Apr 2, 2014 20:37:08   #
CDM Loc: Florida
 
BoJester wrote:
Simply means kluckers and baggers will try to buy more elections


So this ruling works only in favor of conservatives? Is that the way you read it? You mean liberals are excluded from buying votes under this ruling? Is that what you are saying?

Please clarify; how does this only work for one side and not the other? Can you articulate that?

Your turn...

| Reply
Apr 2, 2014 23:47:14   #
OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!
 
CDM wrote:
So this ruling works only in favor of conservatives? Is that the way you read it? You mean liberals are excluded from buying votes under this ruling? Is that what you are saying?

Please clarify; how does this only work for one side and not the other? Can you articulate that?

Your turn...


Don't expect old Bo to clarify, or articulate anything...he is all mouth, no substance.

| Reply
Apr 3, 2014 00:20:03   #
Viral
 
Children, children. Please settle down.

While I support the notion of reinforcing the right to free speech, enabling elections (or rather furthering as the case may be) to be bought and sold is a poor policy.

If I'm understanding the ruling correctly, it affects overall campaign contributions. So, if I had a crap-ton of money, and I wanted a new political party... let's say the Martian Party to rule this nation, I could fund each candidate (with a max of 2.6K per candidate) of this new party that I could afford to, or I could give any amount I wish to the Martian Political party and/or any PACs that agreed with my beliefs.

It doesn't sit right with me that my large amounts of money in essence means I have more free political speech than someone that has the same amount of wheelbarrows of money as me, but theirs are full of pennies. At the same time, I can see how being stifled from funding each individual I want would come off as... restrictive.

Can't wait for the smattering of negative campaigns aids paid for by Joe Schmoe PAC.

| Reply
Apr 3, 2014 07:41:41   #
CDM Loc: Florida
 
Viral wrote:
Children, children. Please settle down.

While I support the notion of reinforcing the right to free speech, enabling elections (or rather furthering as the case may be) to be bought and sold is a poor policy.

If I'm understanding the ruling correctly, it affects overall campaign contributions. So, if I had a crap-ton of money, and I wanted a new political party... let's say the Martian Party to rule this nation, I could fund each candidate (with a max of 2.6K per candidate) of this new party that I could afford to, or I could give any amount I wish to the Martian Political party and/or any PACs that agreed with my beliefs.

It doesn't sit right with me that my large amounts of money in essence means I have more free political speech than someone that has the same amount of wheelbarrows of money as me, but theirs are full of pennies. At the same time, I can see how being stifled from funding each individual I want would come off as... restrictive.

Can't wait for the smattering of negative campaigns aids paid for by Joe Schmoe PAC.
Children, children. Please settle down. br br Wh... (show quote)


Mitt Romney had unlimited funding and lost. Ergo funding is not guarateed win. Also, funnling huge amounts to any given campaign is not new; it's broken into lesser chunks and funneled through a number of individual sources. Now it will simply take a more direct route.

This notwithstanding, I was reacting to the bovine stupidity that such a ruling, be it good or bad for the system, favors one political party over another; bestows unfair advantage when it is clearly non-descriminatory.

| Reply
Apr 3, 2014 08:01:37   #
CDM Loc: Florida
 
OldSchool wrote:
Don't expect old Bo to clarify, or articulate anything...he is all mouth, no substance.


I would generaly ignore this moron. Sometimes though one just snaps...know what I mean? It's kind of like Chinese water torture; except with Democrats and other communists it's a constant, ceasless, infinate stream of hatred and stupidity impinging the middle of ones forehead. At times it's enough to drive even the patient, thoughtful man to the brink of choking the living s**t out of one of them, like therapy...Know what I mean..?

| Reply
Apr 3, 2014 08:33:39   #
Viral
 
CDM wrote:
Mitt Romney had unlimited funding and lost. Ergo funding is not guarateed win. Also, funnling huge amounts to any given campaign is not new; it's broken into lesser chunks and funneled through a number of individual sources. Now it will simply take a more direct route.

This notwithstanding, I was reacting to the bovine stupidity that such a ruling, be it good or bad for the system, favors one political party over another; bestows unfair advantage when it is clearly non-descriminatory.


It won't necessarily take a more direct route. The individual cap is still in place, but as far as I can tell party and PACs have no cap (please correct me if I'm wrong here). And since corporations are people now, this allows for companies to fund entire campaigns.

This strikes me as another step towards rule by corporation.

| Reply
Apr 3, 2014 08:48:10   #
bobgssc
 
CDM wrote:
So this ruling works only in favor of conservatives? Is that the way you read it? You mean liberals are excluded from buying votes under this ruling? Is that what you are saying?

Please clarify; how does this only work for one side and not the other? Can you articulate that?

Your turn...


What this actually does is favor special interest groups and take the politicians further from the hands of "John Q Public" since they'll know where their "bread is buttered".

| Reply
Page: 1 2 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.