Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Repukes First Order of Business - Get More $$ into Politics

Repukes First Order of Business - Get More $$ into Politics

+2
boards of FL
Sal
6 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Sal

Sal

Best government money can buy, Ma ....

A provision tucked deep inside the $1.1 trillion spending bill filed by Republicans on Tuesday night would dramatically increase the amount of money a single rich donor could give to national party committees each year — from $97,200 to as much as $777,600.

The provision, inserted as a rider only hours before it was filed, would mark a further erosion of campaign cash restrictions. They’ve been whittled away by recent federal court rulings, most notably the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/budget-rider-would-expand-party-cash-113459.html#ixzz3LWzWWZFi

boards of FL

boards of FL

You really can't make this stuff up.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/liberals-conservatives-gripe-1-1t-213552819.html


Let's ease regulations on too-big-to-fail banks again while also making it easier to inject even more money into politics.

Can any forum republicans defend this rationale?

Guest


Guest

Agreed... we can't allow private individuals to spend their money as they please. This is amerika god dammit.

psst... it would be perfectly constitutional to limit govt and the politicians. Don't tell anyone.

KarlRove

KarlRove

Uh..... The Congress is still half Dems for a few weeks.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:Agreed... we can't allow private individuals to spend their money as they please. This is amerika god dammit.

psst... it would be perfectly constitutional to limit govt and the politicians. Don't tell anyone.


Put the college freshman ideology aside for a second and lets look at the real world.  Does an increase of money in politics produce better outcomes?

Guest


Guest

You can limit candidates, their funds, politicians, their associate national committees, and the govt itself to restrict the money they may accept from citizens... that separates private money without restricting their ability to pool for "free speech".

The problem is that everyone wants to limit private citizens... that's fundamentally and constitutionally flawed.

Campaign reform should most importantly separate the monied interests and lobby from the govt processes.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:You can limit candidates, their funds, politicians, their associate national committees, and the govt itself to restrict the money they may accept from citizens... that separates private money without restricting their ability to pool for "free speech".

The problem is that everyone wants to limit private citizens... that's fundamentally and constitutionally flawed.

Campaign reform should most importantly separate the monied interests and lobby from the govt processes.


The question was simple and about real world outcomes, not ideology.

As the level of spending in politics increases, does that push us towards optimums that benefit society as a whole, or does that push us towards optimums that benefit special interests?

Sal

Sal

boards of FL wrote:


The question was simple and about real world outcomes, not ideology.  


And, that is where glibertarianism consistently fails.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
boards of FL wrote:


The question was simple and about real world outcomes, not ideology.  


And, that is where glibertarianism consistently fails.

Limiting govt accomplishes the same effect... does it not? We want to limit monied access... right?

You leftists seem awfully threatened by limiting govt and holding them accountable. Even if it is your interest.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Sal wrote:
boards of FL wrote:


The question was simple and about real world outcomes, not ideology.  


And, that is where glibertarianism consistently fails.


He's really good at communicating the most basic of all ideologies: libertarianism. Government is bad.

Beyond that, he has absolutely nothing to say. Literally.

Guest


Guest

Just wow... lol. We have an incestuous relationship between monied interests and govt/politicians that we both don't like.

You want to limit the private sector... while limiting govt would accomplish the same thing... and actually do it better.

I'm sure this sounds like an alien language to you... but I don't think it can be made any simpler.

The problem is that politician and govt don't want limits on their actions... they prefer to limit private citizens.

Like good statists do.

gatorfan



Sal wrote:Best government money can buy, Ma ....

A provision tucked deep inside the $1.1 trillion spending bill filed by Republicans on Tuesday night would dramatically increase the amount of money a single rich donor could give to national party committees each year — from $97,200 to as much as $777,600.

The provision, inserted as a rider only hours before it was filed, would mark a further erosion of campaign cash restrictions. They’ve been whittled away by recent federal court rulings, most notably the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/budget-rider-would-expand-party-cash-113459.html#ixzz3LWzWWZFi

Nice misleading thread title. Your linked article doesn't say who inserted the provision - that is obviously supported by some on both sides, including Reid - "Reid’s office told POLITICO he would not oppose the expanded contribution limits."

Read the first line again, slowly. It says the spending bill was filed by Republicans, not that they inserted the provision, although I'm not saying when it all comes to light they didn't. However given Reids support it could just as easily been on the D side in the House - they do whisper to each other you know.

Regardless of who initiated this latest scam there is too much money in politics and not just at the National level. It takes big money to get elected and that unfortunate fact eliminates MANY potential candidates who might actually want to do what they are elected to do.

Term limits and campaign finance reform should be demanded by every eligible voter.

I've made that comment to the elected boneheads in my District. Have you?

Sal

Sal

gatorfan wrote:

Nice misleading thread title. Your linked article doesn't say who inserted the provision - that is obviously supported by some on both sides, including Reid - "Reid’s office told POLITICO he would not oppose the expanded contribution limits."

Read the first line again, slowly. It says the spending bill was filed by Republicans, not that they inserted the provision, although I'm not saying when it all comes to light they didn't. However given Reids support it could just as easily been on the D side in the House - they do whisper to each other you know.

Well, Mitch McConnell has been quite vocal about pushing for these changes for quite some time now, so if you pay attention, it's pretty clear where the impetus for this is originating.

He needs it to counter the influence of super PACs like Crossroads GPS and regain some semblance of control on his party.

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:

Like good statists do.


One trick pony ....

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

PkrBum wrote:Agreed... we can't allow private individuals to spend their money as they please. This is amerika god dammit.

psst... it would be perfectly constitutional to limit govt and the politicians. Don't tell anyone.

You are a complete dumbass.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

KarlRove wrote:Uh..... The Congress is still half Dems for a few weeks.

Meaning what?

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Sal wrote:
gatorfan wrote:

Nice misleading thread title. Your linked article doesn't say who inserted the provision - that is obviously supported by some on both sides, including Reid - "Reid’s office told POLITICO he would not oppose the expanded contribution limits."

Read the first line again, slowly. It says the spending bill was filed by Republicans, not that they inserted the provision, although I'm not saying when it all comes to light they didn't. However given Reids support it could just as easily been on the D side in the House - they do whisper to each other you know.

Well, Mitch McConnell has been quite vocal about pushing for these changes for quite some time now, so if you pay attention, it's pretty clear where the impetus for this is originating.

He needs it to counter the influence of super PACs like Crossroads GPS and regain some semblance of control on his party.

The other culprit was Jeb Hensarling. Reid is just trying to get the spending bill passed. So far the opposition to the ridiculous Wall Street deregulation and increases in campaign spending are all coming from the GOP, as would be expected.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger




Screw Amerika Inc.! Corporate control of our Government through Campaign Financing.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Repukes First Order of Business - Get More $$ into Politics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum