Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SC Deals A Blow To Campaign Finance Reform  
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 978 times:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/25/campaign.finance/index.html

Here come the hate ads again.  Yeah sure

I think the Supreme Court made the wrong move with this one. Maybe I'm just idealistic, but elections are already so full of lobbyist crap, do we really need more of it? Just let the candidates do their thing; I don't need corporation X to tell me how much they hate candidate Y.

One more reason the two party system sucks - if there were five people running, you couldn't support one by attacking another.

Thoughts?

-Mir


7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
4 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 969 times:

You're missing the fact that this is as much a victory for unions and non-profits as for business. In reality, it's just the SC applying the constitution. This is what John Roberts had to say:

"Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues also may be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

What part of this do you take issue with?

Quoting Mir (Thread starter):
One more reason the two party system sucks

Connect the dots please, this makes no sense to me.

Quoting Mir (Thread starter):
if there were five people running, you couldn't support one by attacking another.

Just like we don't see attacks against the other candidates in a primary with 8-10 people running, supposedly with similar views since they're members of the same party. Right.



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 962 times:

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 1):
Just like we don't see attacks against the other candidates in a primary with 8-10 people running, supposedly with similar views since they're members of the same party. Right.

If some company runs an attack ad against a candidate in a primary, it can't be assumed that that company supports any specific candidate out of the other 7-9. Obviously, they do support one (or more), but the question of which ones is unknown. If, for example, Pepsi runs an attack ad against the GOP candidate in a presidential election, it's pretty obvious that they support the Democratic candidate. Thus, Pepsi is in essence donating an ad for that candidate through a loophole in the laws. The same could be said for any election with two main candidates, be it within the same party or not.

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 1):
You're missing the fact that this is as much a victory for unions and non-profits as for business.

I know it's a victory for them. It's a victory for all the special interest groups. Thing is, I'd like to see less of their influence in the political system.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 961 times:

The SC didn't go nearly far enough in my opinion. They should have declared they were smoking crack earlier and completely overturned the prior decision and the Feingold McCain act along with it.

User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 958 times:

I find it tremendously troubling that some of the very same people that constantly attack the Bush administration for restricting the purported "freedoms" and "civil rights" that terrorist and enemy combatants purportedly have OPENLY advocate restriction on the fundamental freedom of political speech held by American citizens. Why shouldn't I be able to advocate FOR or AGAINST any political candidate or any political issue when I want. The reality of modern life is that one often needs to spend money in order to get that message across. So if you restrict the ability to spend money, you are restricting the message.

You've got Senators advocating limitations on talk radio, you've got members of Congress advocating limits on campaign ads and you've got civil rights groups advocating freedoms for people who have been caught red handed seeking to harm our country. WTF???


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Another Body Blow To The GOP (Tan D. Nguyen) posted Thu Oct 19 2006 23:53:28 by TedTAce
Kerry To Campaign During RNC! Unbelievable posted Sun Aug 29 2004 04:32:41 by Luisca
Korean Presidential Election 02: Big Blow To US posted Thu Dec 19 2002 19:48:22 by Bigo747
Spinal Tap To Reform posted Wed Apr 25 2007 20:04:30 by EK20
Campaign Scare Tactics Stoop To A New Low posted Mon Oct 23 2006 04:15:15 by Cba
Germany To Finance Submarines To Israel... posted Sun Jan 29 2006 14:28:46 by Beaucaire
Police About To "blow Up" Impala In DC posted Fri Oct 21 2005 18:47:26 by Cptkrell
I Want To Blow Up My Computer Hard Drive posted Wed Mar 2 2005 05:55:08 by Cptkrell
Dean To End Campaign posted Wed Feb 18 2004 16:47:48 by B757300
'Intellectuals' Launch Campaign To Defend Cuba posted Fri May 2 2003 09:02:15 by Jcs17