The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 72

Thread: Legalized buying of candidates?

  1. #41
    Senior Member K G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    southeast us
    Posts
    5,355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    KG, I take back every bad thought I ever had about you. It looks like you're a reasonable guy after all!
    I'm really more of right-handed moderate...I TOTALLY understand the counterpoint (thanks, HEW...), but I know what money will do to the public airwaves, to the folks that live and die by what's on TV (ducknwork, let me know how that "throwin' marks in the dark" works out for you...).

    For my money, keep the special interest groups, right or left oriented, on a SHORT leash media-wise. Individuals need to do their own research, question their candidates, be careful who they lend their voice and financial support to, and then pull the lever. Too many people let the media (left and right) do their thinking for them...the scale of this just went up beyond anyone's comprehension with this SCOTUS decision...that's all I'm saying.

    kg
    I keep my PM box full. Use email to contact me: rockytopkg@aol.com.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by K G View Post
    Be careful, Franco. If you're running political CANDIDATE ads (which you will be...there are three windows this year), lowest unit rate will KILL you. I've heard that political advertising agencies already have their audit teams in place and that ALL political schedules, from dogcatcher to US Senate, will be audited. No one wants to write checks back to politicians after a campaign....nor do they want to go to Federal court for price gouging....

    kg
    Over the last 30 years in radio, I've been through many Federal elections. Never have we had to refund a dime to candidates. If we sellout at our lowest unit rates(which are fairly high) it will be a windfall.

    Again, if the national media can support candidates and issues, I see no problem with businesses supporting candidates and telling thier side of the story.
    Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. Calvin Coolidge



  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by K G View Post
    I'm really more of right-handed moderate...I TOTALLY understand the counterpoint (thanks, HEW...), but I know what money will do to the public airwaves, to the folks that live and die by what's on TV (ducknwork, let me know how that "throwin' marks in the dark" works out for you...).
    Huh? You lost me....

  4. #44
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Why should a corporation, that employs people, be barred from advocating their position by supporting candidates that support them?

    Should voluntary organizations (NRA, AKC, DU, etc) be allowed to advocate their position by donations to candidates that support them?

    Should non-voluntary organizations (unions, etc) be allowed to advocate their position by donations to candidates that support them?

    Should tax exempt organizations be allowed to advocate their position by donations to candidates that support them?

    Should we be allowed to assemble, at any level, and have those organization of common interest advocate for us by pooling our money in the form of donations to candidates that support us?

    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.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Oakdale,ct.
    Posts
    2,879

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    Why should a corporation, that employs people, be barred from advocating their position by supporting candidates that support them?

    Should voluntary organizations (NRA, AKC, DU, etc) be allowed to advocate their position by donations to candidates that support them?

    Should non-voluntary organizations (unions, etc) be allowed to advocate their position by donations to candidates that support them?

    Should tax exempt organizations be allowed to advocate their position by donations to candidates that support them?

    Should we be allowed to assemble, at any level, and have those organization of common interest advocate for us by pooling our money in the form of donations to candidates that support us?
    1. because ALL the people employed by that corporation do not share the same politcs as the corporation

    2. no

    3. no

    4. no

    5. no

    let the people vote.

    we don't need to be harangued and told how we should vote.

    the politicians should be ASKING US, THE PEOPLE how we want to be served, not acting in the interests of business entities to whom they owe their election.-Paul
    Last edited by paul young; 01-22-2010 at 12:36 PM.
    there's no good reason to fatten up a retriever.

  6. #46
    Senior Member K G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    southeast us
    Posts
    5,355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ducknwork View Post
    Huh? You lost me....
    My apologies. Dave mentioned "there's always a dog and a field somewhere," implying that one could train rather than watch TV. The GREAT majority of TV viewing is done after 5pm, even moreso after 7pm. It's hard to train in the dark...

    Quote Originally Posted by Franco View Post
    Over the last 30 years in radio, I've been through many Federal elections. Never have we had to refund a dime to candidates. If we sellout at our lowest unit rates(which are fairly high) it will be a windfall.

    Again, if the national media can support candidates and issues, I see no problem with businesses supporting candidates and telling thier side of the story.
    Depending on the issues you have in LA, you may well sellout at your LUR...but what are you going to do if RATE CARD "issue" dollars come to town? You gonna pre-empt a candidate that's paying LUR? That's when the FUN starts....

    k g
    I keep my PM box full. Use email to contact me: rockytopkg@aol.com.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    Why should a corporation, that employs people, be barred from advocating their position by supporting candidates that support them?

    Should voluntary organizations (NRA, AKC, DU, etc) be allowed to advocate their position by donations to candidates that support them?

    Should non-voluntary organizations (unions, etc) be allowed to advocate their position by donations to candidates that support them?

    Should tax exempt organizations be allowed to advocate their position by donations to candidates that support them?

    Should we be allowed to assemble, at any level, and have those organization of common interest advocate for us by pooling our money in the form of donations to candidates that support us?
    1) They shouldn't be. If they don't like what thier company stands for, they shouldn't be working there.
    2) If the govenment can finance organizations such as ACORN, then organizations should be able to provide financial support to candidates they agree with
    3) They already do. And, if you don't like what your union stands for, change jobs.
    4) Absolutly NO! If they are tax exempt, then they should keep thier mouths shut. I'd like to see the IRS investigate many of the churchs around the country to see if they are preaching gospel or politics. If politics, then they lose their tax exempt status.
    5)Yes, many already do so.
    Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. Calvin Coolidge



  8. #48
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    This an amazing thread. I've never seen a better illustration of the old adage..."it depends on who's ox is being gored."

    Talk about shifting principles...it seems to depend more on whimsy than principle.

    Seems to me if we are believers in 'freedom', than why not for "all"?

    A ruling from the SCOTUS like this certainly doesn't take long to determine which 'side' dislikes it the most. The squeeling from the left is deafening.

    I give a FRA who is buying ads for whomever. If it's one area the first amendment is needed is political speech, and in this 'enlightened' age, that means bombarding the airwaves and filling newspapers with additional pages of advertising. If that irritates you, pages can be thrown away, electronics can be turned off.

    FWIW, it might be a time you need to get immersed in what you believe, and ignite others with your same principles...kinda like the activists in the Tea Partys.

    Here's a speech given several months ago by a well known judge. While his primary concern was aimed at the healthcare bill being fabricated, and how it was just another usurpation of the Constitution, his exortation for the present generation is obvious.

    UB


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n2m-X7OIuY
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  9. #49
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,869

    Default

    None of the leftys seem to have any issues with how much a union can contribute.....just "EVIL" corporations!!!


    rk
    Stan b & Elvis

  10. #50
    Senior Member K G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    southeast us
    Posts
    5,355

    Default

    You're certainly entitled to your opinion, UB...God knows we'll get to hear it when you're so inclined...

    It's quite simple for those who offer a dissenting opinion to be classified as "whimsical"....having a point of view dismissed is easier for some to take than others, depending on who is doing the dismissing. Sometimes it's no problem to "dismiss the dismisser"....

    When it comes to the 1st Amendment, we ALL have that guaranteed right...we as INDIVIDUALS. I think it's safe to say that pretty much everyone would agree with your statement:
    Seems to me if we are believers in 'freedom', than why not for "all"?
    It just strikes me a little odd that someone with your years of experience, particularly in the area of "public access" (both paid and not), would interpret the SCOTUS decision as a simple "access" issue. It's going to be ALL ABOUT MONEY, NOT ABOUT FREE SPEECH! I find the term "free" used in this case insulting....perhaps ironic at best and patently false at worst....and I'm talking about ANYONE's message, be it left, right, or straight down the middle. MONEY is going to determine the access to airwaves and coming off one of the worst revenue years in the history of media, you can bet that this slippery slope is going to be soaked with the saliva of big media, just WAITING for the deluge to begin.

    And relative to this "enlightened age"....I guess all of this is much ado about nothing, then...we'll all, rural and urban, have done our own research, made our own phone calls, canvassed our own districts, all in an effort to learn just exactly WHAT we should be concerned with and where our support should be directed, both literal and financial. Those big corporations might as well keep those coins in their pockets...their assault on the nation's airwaves with their self-serving messages will go in one ear/eye and out the other. They'd be better off returning the money to their investors as profit and dividends instead of trying to buy influence and opinion....

    Surely no politician will feel obligated to "remember" the millions of dollars conveyed by corporate messages that were aired in support of their positions or initiatives. I'm positive they will let the CEOs, CFOs, board members, and shareholders know not to expect any special "in kind" treatment after their opening of the coffers.....

    I'm reasonably sure that NO ONE on this board, be they left or right leaning or straddling the center, is naive enough to think that this situation will not happen. It will....and soon.

    I so want to be wrong regards,

    k g
    I keep my PM box full. Use email to contact me: rockytopkg@aol.com.

Posting Permissions

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