Court strikes down key part of campaign finance reformUPDATE

From MSNBC

Well, seems now corporations (and unions) can contribute so-called "soft money" to campaigns once again. My dwindling faith in the American political system is now dead. One only hopes the Supreme Court can do the right thing and restore this provision which is vital to getting rid of corrupting influence in politics.

So the court should block speech?

For the umpteenth time, money is not speech, money should not be equated as speech. If the high court upholds this direct attack on democracy, then the rich of America will have more speaking power than registered voters.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

For the umpteenth time, money is not speech, money should not be equated as speech. If the high court upholds this direct attack on democracy, then the rich of America will have more speaking power than registered voters.

It is not a direct attack on democracy. Not voting is. If you think that your elected representive is currupt, vote him out. The rich and orginized will always have more speeking power. Do you think the members of the NRA are rich? No. They orginize and pool their resources. What about the members of the Coal Miners Union, they''re not rich.

money is not speech, money should not be equated as speech.

Also, there''re no firm rulings as to whether coporations are protected under free speech. Have a look at the Nike case that will be going before the Supreme Court for an example, so that argument doesn''t really hold water yet.

However, I like how those against campaign finance reform (can''t tell whether you are or not, Ulairi) have managed to manipulate the debate to being about free speech.

"Elysium" wrote:
money is not speech, money should not be equated as speech.

Also, there''re no firm rulings as to whether coporations are protected under free speech. Have a look at the Nike case that will be going before the Supreme Court for an example, so that argument doesn''t really hold water yet.

However, I like how those against campaign finance reform (can''t tell whether you are or not, Ulairi) have managed to manipulate the debate to being about free speech.

I''m not against reform but I am against this reform. I don''t believe in something bad is better than nothing.

Ulairi, equating what is the moral equivalent of a bribe as free speech is a tremendously slippery slope. I could punch someones teeth out and claim I was exercising my right to free speech and maybe get away with it.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Ulairi, equating what is the moral equivalent of a bribe as free speech is a tremendously slippery slope. I could punch someones teeth out and claim I was exercising my right to free speech and maybe get away with it.

Bribes are already against the law.

"Elysium" wrote:
money is not speech, money should not be equated as speech.

Also, there''re no firm rulings as to whether coporations are protected under free speech. Have a look at the Nike case that will be going before the Supreme Court for an example, so that argument doesn''t really hold water yet.

I can agree with this whole heartedly. Corporations have all the rights of a person, without the consequences. I don''t think they have a right to free speech, or any other constiutional guarantee. Now a person, they can contribute money if they want, but a corporation getting it''s ""say"" is just ludicrous. Let the CEO''s speak in public, and say what they have to say, don''t hide behind a corporate banner.

I dont think campaign contributions are the problem, I think its the fact that the politicians are listening to them. Vote the corrupt bastards out, and keep doing it until someone listens. Talk to your representative, write them, email them, schedule appointments with them, but don''t blame people with money for doing the same. Politicans do listen if you talk. I use the Eff Action center to write my congressman, and he always replies with physical mail. Sometimes his replies are useless, but they are at least being read by somebody in his office.

Basically I think almost any problem in the current US political system can be accounted to voter apathy, and we should fix that before we go doing things like that. Money wouldnt be a problem for a politician if Americans educated themselves about the canidates, instead of voting based on flashy commercials.
</rant off>

With the exception of a select few, there is nothing to study about any of the candidates. They all tell you what you want to hear or the party line.

Few have conviction anymore. Bush has his in particular areas. A Democrat cant beat him without at least as much conviction and a easily understood communication/conveyance of it.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

From MSNBC

Well, seems now corporations (and unions) can contribute so-called ""soft money"" to campaigns once again. My dwindling faith in the American political system is now dead. One only hopes the Supreme Court can do the right thing and restore this provision which is vital to getting rid of corrupting influence in politics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13845-2003May4.html

Doesn''t matter if they give money or not, PACS will find a way to get it done, and while I disagree strongly with the system, to say I have lost any faith in it is to go ahead and bury a hole in the ground to stick my head in.

Besides, is there anything more dangerous than AARP? My god, how many automobile deaths can these old folks cause before something gets done? Screw the guns, take away driver''s licenses!

"Yomm" wrote:

Besides, is there anything more dangerous than AARP? My god, how many automobile deaths can these old folks cause before something gets done? Screw the guns, take away driver''s licenses!

I shall hateth myself in the morning, but I partially kinda sorta agree slightly with Yomm. Guns have (arguably) some protection under the Constitution, but motorized vehicles don''t, since they were invented long after the Bill of Rights was drafted. Of course, some moron could claim that somehow their usage of a gas-guzzling, grossly-oversized, penis substitute of a SUV is a form of freedom of speech. Oh wait, you meant licenses. Yes, well, knowing how fast Congress and the DMV work...

Besides, is there anything more dangerous than AARP?

The NRA? HMOs?

it''s not Monday unless I needle Yomm just a little bit. Besides, with RatBoy breaking ranks like that, I''ve got to work double time!

In my opinion there should be no campaign contributions from anyone. Each party should be given a government allocated amount of money to run their campaign on, or perhaps allow corporations to contribute to a general pool of money that will be divied up among the candidates. Of course these steps will not work by themselves but would be a good basis to expand upon.

I don''t believe this problem is related to voter apathy at all. It goes way beyond simply getting the politician elected. The fact is it doesn''t matter who you vote for, they had some kind of backing and they are thereby positively biased toward the entity that did the backing. The system as it stands now breeds corruption in the government, and definately needs to be fixed. Of course with supreme court justice''s affiliated with political parties the hope for reform is dim at best.

You know, if every tax payer checked off that $5 contribution to political campaigns box on their returns, the money would be enough to fund everybody''s campaign for the elections of that year. No soft money, no hard money, no suitcases of money when nobody is looking.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

You know, if every tax payer checked off that $5 contribution to political campaigns box on their returns, the money would be enough to fund everybody''s campaign for the elections of that year. No soft money, no hard money, no suitcases of money when nobody is looking.

I do not want to fund a persons campaign that I do not agree with. There is nothing wrong with groups made up of like-minded people in the political process.

In principle, yes. In practice, like-minded groups who have more money and spend that money on their chosen causes eclipse those who don''t have the money. That''s why groups like big business, religious organizations, unions, and Hollywood are such influential players in politics while groups like consumer activists and game developers have almost no say in government. Then there''s the rest of us who really have no say unless we side with the majority in an election. Oh wait...

I do not want to fund a persons campaign that I do not agree with.

There is a method to his madness. You are not supporting candidates whom you may have issues with. You are supporting the process that will make sure that person you arent willing to support does not have more exposure than the candidate you follow.

The big problem is who decides who''s a legitimate candidate?

Who decides how many candidates to include?

Is this system for all elections, President through county representative? The PTA?

There is nothing wrong with groups made up of like-minded people in the political process.

No but there is something wrong with politicians being heavily influenced by these groups through campaign contributions.

The big problem is who decides who''s a legitimate candidate?

Who decides how many candidates to include?

Is this system for all elections, President through county representative? The PTA?

There are many issues here to deal with obviously, but I am sure they could be worked out with a bit of effort.

From Yahoo/AP

Finally, some sanity.