Money out of politics

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
that is taken care of by ensuring everybody running for a position gets the same amount of air time.

As I pointed out earlier, that results in a multiplicity of candidates who wouldn't otherwise run, and who have no chance of winning. More money is spent, and we know not much about who is running.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
It is a simple concept. Most (i mean not just americans) agree that when politicians have so little accountability anyway, the last thing we need is to allow wealthy groups to give them campaign money (and so much at that). Politicians have admitted time and time again that their main goal is to get reelected , that they have to devote time each day not to ...[text shortened]... nors on the phone and ask for more money.


Is there anyone who thinks money is free speech?

The Constitution of the U.S., the Bill of Rights and all the amendments apply to people. I'm a birther. I want just one corporation to display a ligitimate birth certificate. The Citizens's United SCOTUS decision was a disaster and I believe, not Constitutionally legitimate. It is quite interesting to see how dark money has actually destroyed the GOP.

Originally posted by Phranny
The Constitution of the U.S., the Bill of Rights and all the amendments apply to people. I'm a birther. I want just one corporation to display a ligitimate birth certificate. The Citizens's United SCOTUS decision was a disaster and I believe, not Constitutionally legitimate. It is quite interesting to see how dark money has actually destroyed the GOP.

Are not both the Democratic party and the Republican party corporations? Is their existence and ability to spend money on politics illegitimate?

Originally posted by normbenign
As I pointed out earlier, that results in a multiplicity of candidates who wouldn't otherwise run, and who have no chance of winning. More money is spent, and we know not much about who is running.

everyone running gets the same amount of air time.

read that sentence again, maybe you will realize how it doesn't in any way lead to the nonsense you just said. try harder.

Originally posted by normbenign
So the Dutch vote blindly.

Yep - after all, without informative TV commercials, how could someone ever cast an informed vote?

Originally posted by Wajoma
So you're stating as categorically untrue his claim that he is not beholden to donors.

All I am stating is that he is accepting donations and they make up a significant part of his election coffers.

Originally posted by normbenign
Are not both the Democratic party and the Republican party corporations? Is their existence and ability to spend money on politics illegitimate?

Citizens United stated that corporations are people and therefor can spend money on politics like people. many U.S. corporations have foreign subsidiaries. Besides letting unlimited amounts of money into politics, it has allowed "dark" foreign funds to also enter and influence U.S. politics which is actually in violation of Federal law.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
All I am stating is that he is accepting donations and they make up a significant part of his election coffers.

I'm feeling kinda sorry for you here, this election the big winner in limiting the size of donations would be Trump. You need to cling on to something no matter what, a bit like d64s pedantry about the Australian anthem.

Originally posted by Wajoma
I'm feeling kinda sorry for you here, this election the big winner in limiting the size of donations would be Trump. You need to cling on to something no matter what, a bit like d64s pedantry about the Australian anthem.

After WW2 a lot fewer people were killed in Europe. Obviously a ban on murder was no longer needed.

Originally posted by Wajoma
I'm feeling kinda sorry for you here, this election the big winner in limiting the size of donations would be Trump.

Please provide evidence that donations to Trump are smaller than to any other candidate.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please provide evidence that donations to Trump are smaller than to any other candidate.

Google: 'Trump campaign funding', or: 'Top donors data for Donald trump.'

You'll find that limiting the size of campaign donations will effect Trump the least, therefore giving a greater advantage than what he has now, leading me to suspect those that are advocates for these policies are actually undercover, closet Trump fans and supporters, are you one too?

Originally posted by Phranny
Citizens United stated that corporations are people and therefor can spend money on politics like people. many U.S. corporations have foreign subsidiaries. Besides letting unlimited amounts of money into politics, it has allowed "dark" foreign funds to also enter and influence U.S. politics which is actually in violation of Federal law.

That sidesteps my question. I'll answer yours after you answer mine.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The laws of the US don't specify any educational requirement for voting. That includes owning at Television. Why do you ask. You are aware that you can view TV on your computer, over the internet.

Originally posted by whodey
All we need to do is find politicians who are angels, pure as the wind driven snow.

You know, like Bernie.

Walla! Problem solved.

Walla? Really?