The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Citizens United and the Senate Judiciary

  1. #1
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,747

    Default Citizens United and the Senate Judiciary

    The Senate Judiciary is in support of overturning Citizens United.

    In my book, a good move in lessening the influence of Special Interest buying influence from politicians.

    Special Interest can still buy politicians via Lobbying. However, they won't be able to hide behind Super Pacs that have become notorious for spreading lies and false information on the opposition.

    If the campaign money isn't coming directly from the voters, there is a very good chance the Politician has been bought by Special Interest! And, corporations are not people!

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/180605...itizens-united#

    One small step in returning the power to The People.
    It's such a shame that in the USA, defending Liberty has become such a heroic deed.

  2. #2
    Senior Member IowaBayDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Salem, Oregon
    Posts
    994

    Default

    So since corporations are not people and have no right to contribute to campaigns, should they not then be exempt from taxation? The phrase "Taxation without representation." rings a bell.

    I would agree that the Super PACs and bundlers are bad. I would be for unlimited contributions that are 100% out in the open and public record instead.

    A sole proprietorship or Partnership are pretty directly "people" should they be banned from donation as well?

    Though a corporation isn't a "person" all its Board of Directors and Stockholders are people.
    ________________________________
    Dan Cram
    No longer live in Iowa but I have a new Bay Dog!!

    Skywatcher Salem Orchard Hard "Cider"

  3. #3
    Senior Member BonMallari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LV/CenTex/Idaho
    Posts
    12,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IowaBayDog View Post
    So since corporations are not people and have no right to contribute to campaigns, should they not then be exempt from taxation? The phrase "Taxation without representation." rings a bell.

    I would agree that the Super PACs and bundlers are bad. I would be for unlimited contributions that are 100% out in the open and public record instead.

    A sole proprietorship or Partnership are pretty directly "people" should they be banned from donation as well?

    Though a corporation isn't a "person" all its Board of Directors and Stockholders are people.

    This is one of the few times I will disagree with you....unlimited spending on campaigns gives us what we currently have, just a matter of who has the deepest pockets


    My idea is give all the viable candidates the same amount of money and place a cap on it...If a campaign cant manage a budget, then they sure cant manage the country's finances...by limiting the money spent on campaigns it would force the candidates to actually get out and meet people instead of relying on slick media to further their agenda
    All my Exes live in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by lanse brown View Post
    A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

  4. #4
    Senior Member .44 magnum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,102

    Default

    Oh dear.... what will Monsanto do if the Amendment happens.
    I like one-shot kills where possible and prefer to do all my hunting before I shoot. ..... Elmer Keith



  5. #5
    Senior Member IowaBayDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Salem, Oregon
    Posts
    994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BonMallari View Post
    This is one of the few times I will disagree with you....unlimited spending on campaigns gives us what we currently have, just a matter of who has the deepest pockets


    My idea is give all the viable candidates the same amount of money and place a cap on it...If a campaign cant manage a budget, then they sure cant manage the country's finances...by limiting the money spent on campaigns it would force the candidates to actually get out and meet people instead of relying on slick media to further their agenda
    I guess I see it as if I have $100 I can donate and you have $10000 we should both be free to do so without limitation to a candidate of our choosing. Any limiting is opressing someone's freedom.


    We also have an issue that basically there are about 10 states that have any say in the election due to the electoral college. Having lived in Iowa and now Oregon I can tell you that the attention Iowa gets is 1000 times as much as Oregon. Having my vote marginalized in Oregon is somewhat disappointing but not being barraged for 2 years with National political campaign ads is pretty nice.
    ________________________________
    Dan Cram
    No longer live in Iowa but I have a new Bay Dog!!

    Skywatcher Salem Orchard Hard "Cider"

  6. #6
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BonMallari View Post
    This is one of the few times I will disagree with you....unlimited spending on campaigns gives us what we currently have, just a matter of who has the deepest pockets


    My idea is give all the viable candidates the same amount of money and place a cap on it...If a campaign cant manage a budget, then they sure cant manage the country's finances...by limiting the money spent on campaigns it would force the candidates to actually get out and meet people instead of relying on slick media to further their agenda
    Yup!

    It should be a battle of ideas and not which candidate can dominate in buying media.
    It's such a shame that in the USA, defending Liberty has become such a heroic deed.

  7. #7
    Senior Member JS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    2,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IowaBayDog View Post
    I guess I see it as if I have $100 I can donate and you have $10000 we should both be free to do so without limitation to a candidate of our choosing. Any limiting is opressing someone's freedom.

    .....
    Well, this will get you the 2% of the vote, for sure!!

    JS
    Dont wave your phony patriotism in MY face! If you really love America, open your wallet and hire an American kid to build what you buy. Think of all our problems that might solve. Doug Fraser (paraphrased) 1980

    Real Americans buy American.



    Snowshoe's All American Guy SH, UDX, WCX ... CODY ... at the bridge
    CH. Snowshoe's Girl Crazy MH, UD, WCX, SDHF, OS ... PRESLEY
    ... at the bridge
    Millpond's Baby Boomer MH*** ... BABE
    Snowshoe's Crazy For Lovin You SH ... NELSON

  8. #8
    Senior Member BonMallari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LV/CenTex/Idaho
    Posts
    12,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IowaBayDog View Post
    I guess I see it as if I have $100 I can donate and you have $10000 we should both be free to do so without limitation to a candidate of our choosing. Any limiting is opressing someone's freedom.


    We also have an issue that basically there are about 10 states that have any say in the election due to the electoral college. Having lived in Iowa and now Oregon I can tell you that the attention Iowa gets is 1000 times as much as Oregon. Having my vote marginalized in Oregon is somewhat disappointing but not being barraged for 2 years with National political campaign ads is pretty nice.
    I absolutely HATE the primary system....with all due respect to the constituents of Iowa and SoCarolina, they are NOT the pulse of the country

    I think we should have a regional or even a National primary,I do not like that the nomination may already be a forgone conclusion by the time I get to vote
    All my Exes live in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by lanse brown View Post
    A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

  9. #9
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BonMallari View Post
    This is one of the few times I will disagree with you....unlimited spending on campaigns gives us what we currently have, just a matter of who has the deepest pockets


    My idea is give all the viable candidates the same amount of money and place a cap on it...If a campaign cant manage a budget, then they sure cant manage the country's finances...by limiting the money spent on campaigns it would force the candidates to actually get out and meet people instead of relying on slick media to further their agenda
    Who determines viable?
    Bill Davis

  10. #10
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by huntinman View Post

    Who determines viable?
    Voters and not Political Parties should determine who is viable in an Open Primary. Take the Top 4 or 5 to the General Election. Same with Debates, let The People decide who they want to hear in the Debates, which should be those same 4 or 5 top candidates.

    Why should The People's choices be limited?
    It's such a shame that in the USA, defending Liberty has become such a heroic deed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •