The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 72

Thread: Legalized buying of candidates?

  1. #21
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by K G View Post
    Yeah...that's exactly what you want....your regular advertisers pre-empted for political ads....

    Issues advertisers will pay non-preemptible rates, forcing you to do one (or a combination) of three things: 1) gouge your regular advertisers with higher rates in order for their spots to clear, 2) let them be pre-empted and bear their wrath, or 3) add more units to the hour...and blow off listeners.

    Lose-lose-lose situation regards,

    kg
    I don't know of any radio stations that are sold out, we all have inventory without having to add any more. I love the high rates Issue Advertising yields as it allows us to keep cost down to the local advertisers.
    Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. Calvin Coolidge



  2. #22
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    WHAT?? Did I miss sarcasm or otherwise mis-read the above comment???

    Do you think Exxon execs sit around board tables and brainstorm ways to keep costs to consumers down?? Do you think THAT is what they will spend campaign contributions on? I had to have missed your point, right?
    I do think they want to keep cost down and affordable. Thier ROI is good but not out of line for the huge amount they spend to make the profits they do.

    Yes, I want them to finance a "Drill Now" campaign as a counterpoint to slanted/spun information we get from the media.

    If we are going to meet our energy challenges, we need to be better informed of both sides.

    P S

    The hostility coming from the White House and media towards the oil industry could drive all the major companies out of the U S A. That would make the collapse of the domestic auto business a pimple on an elephants ass compared to losing a profitable energy industry.

    I think the Dems have thier eye on running the oil and energy industries.
    Last edited by Franco; 01-21-2010 at 11:23 PM.
    Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. Calvin Coolidge



  3. #23
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by K G View Post
    Money changes everything. Look for union advertising to dominate the airwaves in states where they are strong.
    I gotta beg to differ with you, KG. Unions were already spending money out the arse in political campaigns via the 527 groups they set up. The 527 groups are the various organizations that popped up to circumvent McCain-Feingold...America Coming Together (George Soros' pet), Moveon.org., Emily's List, Swiftboat Vets, etc. The SEIU is consistantly in the top 3 of 527 money. So far, in the 2010 election cycle, four of the five largest 527 groups are unions.

    Corporations are comprised of shareholders. Shareholders are people. People have rights to free speech. For that reason I would contend that a million dollars given by Exxon for political purposes is a helluva lot more democratic/representative (given that Exxon is comprised of tens of thousands of shareholders) than a million dollars given by George Soros (representing one person). Why should George Soros have nearly unfettered rights to give and a corporation representing thousands have nearly no rights to do so? What makes it ok for the NRA to have 1st Ammendment protections but not IBM?
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  4. #24
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Franco View Post
    I do think they want to keep cost down and affordable. Thier ROI is good but not out of line for the huge amount they spend to make the profits they do.

    Yes, I want them to finance a "Drill Now" campaign as a counterpoint to slanted/spun information we get from the media.

    If we are going to meet our energy challenges, we need to be better informed of both sides.

    P S

    The hostility coming from the White House and media towards the oil industry could drive all the major companies out of the U S A. That would make the collapse of the domestic auto business a pimple on an elephants ass compared to losing a profitable energy industry.

    I think the Dems have thier eye on running the oil and energy industries.
    Many of our major companies have fled to distant shores already for cheaper labor, but that's a whole different thread that I think we could agree on.

    Think back to the election where Obama outspent McCain and won the election. A lot of that was with Wall St money. Now, that source of revenue will be unleashed. Your voice and mine will be lost. The grass roots voters who supported Scott Brown with their 20 spots will be rendered insignificant.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  5. #25
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    The ruling by Scotus on this issue I believe is correct. On an absolute basis it is hard to argue that Corporations do not have the right to free speech. The problem with the ruling however will have many consequences, some intended some not. What it has effectively done is marginalize the individual voter. No longer does it matter if he makes a contribution to a candidate that he supports because now his contribution has become meaningless because of the influence that huge budgets of corporate America have on politicians. That is just one, I believe there are many others.

    As is the case of other rights granted by the Constitution there is a need here to set limits. We see that in free speech. Yelling "Fire" in a theater is definitely not cool. Libel laws are another example. Gun laws are another area where limits have been imposed. This should be no different. I think transparency and monetary limits is a good starting point.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cotts135 View Post
    As is the case of other rights granted by the Constitution there is a need here to set limits. We see that in free speech. Yelling "Fire" in a theater is definitely not cool.
    Speaking about unintended consequences... McCain-Feingold made yelling "fire" the norm, if not cool. Post-Mcain/Feingold, a lot of the money that used to go to candidates and parties instead went to 527 groups. The 527s (on both sides of the political spectrum) often hurled scurrilous lies about their opponents and and have generally lowered the political discourse in this country. I'd much rather have the uber-libs at Google touting their leftwing nonsense in the open and with their name on it than funneling their money to some unaccountable Soros 527 that spews a bunch of vile lies.
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    Although I hear Obama's upcoming budget will ban ownership of dogs over 35 pounds by 2013....
    That's what I heard. Smaller dogs create less methane, therefore slowing global warming. I guess we should start looking for boykins now...


    Does someone have a link to an article about the decision? I have not seen anything about it yet. Thanks!

  8. #28
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    Speaking about unintended consequences... McCain-Feingold made yelling "fire" the norm, if not cool. Post-Mcain/Feingold, a lot of the money that used to go to candidates and parties instead went to 527 groups. The 527s (on both sides of the political spectrum) often hurled scurrilous lies about their opponents and and have generally lowered the political discourse in this country. I'd much rather have the uber-libs at Google touting their leftwing nonsense in the open and with their name on it than funneling their money to some unaccountable Soros 527 that spews a bunch of vile lies.
    I agree with this. the law of unintended consequenses.

    Show me the money!

    Does someone have a link to an article about the decision? I have not seen anything about it yet. Thanks!
    article and a link to the decision:

    http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/...1st-amendment/
    Last edited by subroc; 01-22-2010 at 08:15 AM.
    subroc

    Article [I.]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article [II.]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  9. #29
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    Many of our major companies have fled to distant shores already for cheaper labor, but that's a whole different thread that I think we could agree on.

    Think back to the election where Obama outspent McCain and won the election. A lot of that was with Wall St money. Now, that source of revenue will be unleashed. Your voice and mine will be lost. The grass roots voters who supported Scott Brown with their 20 spots will be rendered insignificant.
    An even BIGGER disappointment for your side will be George Soros voice (spending) being balanced!!





    rk
    Stan b & Elvis

  10. #30
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    An even BIGGER disappointment for your side will be George Soros voice (spending) being balanced!!





    rk
    Don't you see? We're playing right into their hands by all this partisan infighting. For every Soros, there's a Swiftboater. Meanwhile, your voice has been reduced to extra donut money for campaign center workers.

    If 100,000 voters send in their grass roots $20, a company with a contrary agenda can write a check for $2,000,001 and out shout every one of those people. And those people are you and me.

    I don't see how a republican or democrat or anyone else can see this as anything other than the corporate takeover of our gov't. Someone pointed out this is already happening....well just wait, you ain't seen nothin' yet!
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

Posting Permissions

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