Mir
Topic Author
Posts: 19107
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

SC Deals A Blow To Campaign Finance Reform

Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:20 pm

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
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: SC Deals A Blow To Campaign Finance Reform

Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:21 pm

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?
 
Mir
Topic Author
Posts: 19107
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: SC Deals A Blow To Campaign Finance Reform

Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:06 am

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
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: SC Deals A Blow To Campaign Finance Reform

Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:09 am

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.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: SC Deals A Blow To Campaign Finance Reform

Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:17 am

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???
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: L410Turbolet, salttee, Yahoo [Bot] and 12 guests