Procu... you didn't respond to my last question. I was just sure, given
the boldness of your statement, that you must have the chapter and verse about
Founding Father support for political contributions as speech right at hand.
per CHS 85 1:21 p.m. July 26, 2012Its been said there are two types
of republicans; millionaires and suckers.
@ RedShirt 7/26 3:22pSo? Switzerland, the Caymans, Bermuda, etc are
charities?People like Mitt donate to the Sierra Club, Amnesty
International, Greenpeace? Really!?
Re: "If we don't pass this [anti-free-speech] amendment, political
money will eventually destroy our representative democracy."If
we ever DO pass such an amendment, leftist political thought will have already
destroyed our representative democracy.Suggesting that the rich, or
conservatives, or ANY segment of American society should be muzzled, forcibly
outed, or in any way controlled politically is nothing more than a liberal scam
to exercise political control over public discourse.Thankfully, at
least 5 justices of the Supreme Court still recognize that.
procuradorfiscal said:"Suggesting that conservatives can buy elections
by disseminating valid, timely, important information is not just false,
it's insulting to Americans."Say's the Birther guysSay's the Obama's a muslim guySay's the Obamas a
communist guyYes, your quite "right" False information is
insulting to Americans. Now if conservatives felt the same way they would
turn off rush & sean and join the rest of the country in reality.
procuradorfiscal will never understand this, but campaign contribution
disclosure is nothing but a band aid. With Citizens United the Supreme court in
its (un)wisdom has declared that such contributions are a form of speech and
therefore protected by the Constitution. I seriously doubt that the framers
were thinking of money when they discussed freedom of speech, but since the
Supreme Court has 5/4 decided that it is, then the only solution is a
constitutional amendment. If we don't pass this amendment, political money
will eventually destroy our representative democracy.Procuradorfiscal could you cite us with some of those "anonymous(ly)"
statements from the founders you mention who support of the notion that money is
speech and that the constitution protects and guarantees the right of
billionaires to gave candidates an advantage by funding their campaigns? And, do
you think for a second that there is not a price to be paid, quid pro quo, for
that financial support?
Re: ". . . it has become paramount that the public at least know where the
recent, huge influx of money is coming from . . . to make informed decisions on
the veracity . . . ."Why?If the ad's content is
true, who cares where it came from? And, if it's not, it's more
important to oppose the idea, than to politically or pecuniarily punish its
proponent.This is nothing more than another liberal scam attacking
free speech.Since the days of our Revolution, countless Americans,
including Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, and many others spoke
out anonymously against evils of their day, often to protect pecuniary interests
from ethically-challenged opponents, who would use monetary clout to unfairly
squelch valid political dissent.Like modern liberals are doing today
to Chick-fil-A's president, Dan Cathy, though they have politically --
sometimes even statutorily -- insulated their own supporters in Big Labor, Big
Academe, and Big Government from similar attack.Suggesting that
conservatives can buy elections by disseminating valid, timely, important
information is not just false, it's insulting to Americans.
To "CHS 85" what about the hollywood elites that would all sleep with
Obama if given the chance? Doesn't it bother you that the rich left
wingers keep getting richer and richer while getting the poor to do their dirty
work? You realize that the rich conservatives are the ones who donate to
charities that help the poor while your liberal buddies donate to the local
opera and ballet companies, assuming they donate anything at all.
Esquire,Those businessmen who benefited by government contracts - were
they not required under the contracts to provide goods and/or services? Was
there not a competative bid process?I would direct you to the
SIGTARP reports to congress issued every quarter, wherein the SIGTARP reports on
the status of TARP. the last three reports have shown that the treasury will
MAKE money on the bank bailout. The collapse of wall street was
facilitaed by the clinton administration's refusal to regulate derivatives
when first proposed in 1997 - the head of the SEC at the time has since
apologized for what he recongizes as a grave mistake.the bailout of
the housing market (fannie and freddie) will never be recovered and was brought
about by barney frank. Barney destroyed what had been a well-functioning
secondary market.you got a FHA or VA mortgage? those are the only
ones subsidized or guaranteed by the federal government.I am not
saying there is no benefit derived from the federal government. I think the CPP
portion of TARP did more to stabilize our economy than anything since (the
porkulus was a joke), but are you saying witch hunts on political foes are OK?
I find it very interesting how the rich and powerful have such influence over
people. To watch the ultr-rich get the right-wing middle-class and lower-class
do their bidding is amazing. They can sit back, rake in their billions off the
backs of the workers and overseas investments and get others to defend them.
What a racket.
If disclosure and transparency is what we really want lets include all
organizations (not just companies and people) and volunteer time as well. Lets
be totally transparent, and further lets place protections into the legislation
that penalizes a sitting government from using the information for "enemies
list" activities by that government on people and organizations. Like if
there is a single instance of an extra audit, pulled contract, leaked government
information, etc., then the incumbent would be eligible for re-election.
@ lost in DC, at a recent political event, Romney was surrounded by businessmen
who had, upon investigation, received a variety of benefits from the government,
including contracts, subsidized loans, etc. I had a recent exchange with a
mortgage company guy who was ranting out the government. I pointed out that he
had made his money on making loans subsidized or guaranteed by the government,
or used a secondary market set up by the government, and which is further
subsidized by tax deductions and credits. Bankers? Bailed out by the
government. Wall Street? Bailed out by the government. Defense contractors?
Government money. Small business? SBA and other programs that make it
possible. The list goes on and on. SO, yeah, I know connecting the dots is hard
for some, but reality dictates it.
JThompson: "Why does the left continuously try to take away our rights?
Yesterday, they wanted to destroy our right to keep and bear arms. Today they
want to limit speech!"Oh please. What rights have
you lost? Be specific. Who has silenced you? Who has come to take your
guns?Seriously - make a rational argument for anonymous corporate
donations to political campaigns. I ask you to defend that.
While Utah Mormons associate Gadiantons to merely "Democrats",The real Gadiantons - who are only about gain, $$$, and controlling and
managing the power - play both parties for fools.This is how mony of
"even the very elect" are being decieved and lulled away into Gadianton
corruption.Selling our birth-right for a mess of pottage...
Excellent letter. The right of free speech and the alleged right to
*anonymously* finance massive propaganda campaigns shielded by corporate
entities is something else.
Honesty?Since when has Uncle Orrin shown much honesty?Citizens United is just one more way that ALEC and the Greedy Old Party will
use to try to take American backward.
Making side runs against our Constitutional right to speak, either from our own
mouth, or from the mouths of those we pay to speak for us, is despicable. Why
does the left continuously try to take away our rights? Yesterday, they wanted
to destroy our right to keep and bear arms. Today they want to limit speech!Is their candidate so void of value that the only way they can win is to
keep the opposition from stating the truth about Obama's
"accomplishments"?If they're concerned about the money
that WE individuals pay to organization to speak for us, why don't they
open their wallets and pay an organization to speak for them; but that would go
against their grain. They want the "rich guy" to pay for everything -
including their diatribes against that "rich guy".
80% of all Super-Pac donations have come from just 200 people. These people
expect to get a lot of value for their money, and they don't want us to
know who they are.
Esquire,you're just too funny! government largess for Romney
supporters? really? Vague insinuations intended to smear is the PERFECT
description of both your posts.And why should we expect an honesty
requirement from the SCOTUS that upheld Obamacare and shot down the stolen valor
Many of the Romney donors complain about government, yet are recipients of
government largesse. They know government handouts for them will increase with
Romney. And he has shown he has no backbone to resist and to do what's
right. Star Bright, you write fiction. Vague insinuations intended to smear.
Have you seen what has happened to 8 of the donors to Romney's campaign?
Have you seen what is happening to the Idaho man who gave Romney money? If we
had an honest administration instead of a president who can use the IRA and the
justice department to discourage people from donating to his opponent.
I've read on sites where people are concerned about domating to Romney but
are doing it anyway, because of the power of this government!
Of course the GOP hates the Disclose Act.Where's the fun in
buying the government if everyone can see you doing it?
Think Gadianton Robbers.