You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Guess it's Kucinich for me. Who'da thunk it.
How do you decide who gets public funding and who doesn't?
Also, do you think it's a massive breach of the First Amendment to entirely ban donations from private entities to candidates they favor?
How do you figure it being publicly owned? They're beholden to stockholders yes, but they're simply competing for ratings/advertising dollars--just another private entity working in its own self-interest.
And I certainly don't like the idea of government-mandated programming.
Do you feel that it makes sense to privately back a public office? If so, why?
The airwaves belong to the American people. The FCC is charged with regulating them. While I don't like the idea of government-mandated programming the fact is the government does control what we can and can not see on a daily basis through the use of the FCC. If we are already beholden to a system that is ultimately controlled by the government why shouldn't that system be used to educate the voting public?
__________________ .500 is the goal. Focus, people. Focus!
Last edited by Kubrick; September 24th, 2007 at 05:33 PM.
What's so hard to believe? Just because Kucinich is unelectable doesn't mean he isn't right. Probably the same with Hunter, except he's wrong.
-_Sf
- It's selective in overgeneralized pop issues.
- If you look at the main grid, there are a lot of candidates/issues that don't have positions marked yet.
- Positions also aren't nearly as simple as supports/opposes.
What's so hard to believe? Just because Kucinich is unelectable doesn't mean he isn't right. Probably the same with Hunter, except he's wrong.
-_Sf
The way that I viewed it is that the polar opposite candidates are most in line with their party's core beliefs. So while it may seem skewed, it only looks that way because of consistency in a voter's personal agenda. If you are moderate, the candidate with the most moderate stance on all issues will jump out at you. If you are a staunch conservative Hunter will shoot to the top of your list. If you are a peace craving liberal Kucinich will rise to the top of your list.
It is a simplistic way of associating yourself with the candidate that values your issues in a similar fashion.
Last edited by Kubrick; September 24th, 2007 at 05:50 PM.
Do you feel that it makes sense to privately back a public office? If so, why?
The airwaves belong to the American people. The FCC is charged with regulating them. While I don't like the idea of government-mandated programming the fact is the government does control what we can and can not see on a daily basis through the use of the FCC. If we are already beholden to a system to is ultimately controlled by the government why shouldn't that system be used to educate the voting public?
There is a big difference between regulation (FCC) and control (e.g. Russia).
I think the fedgov needs to regulate elections yes, but I'm still not sure where I draw the line. I, however, can say I don't support an outright ban on private funding. That's a very basic aspect of freedom of speech that I'm very uneasy about inhibiting.
I'll be totally upfront in that I haven't done nearly enough research on the legal aspects of campaign finance reform vs. the Constitution to be more specific than that. I'll get back to you in a few years.
I'll be totally upfront in that I haven't done nearly enough research on the legal aspects of campaign finance reform vs. the Constitution to be more specific than that.
I know that a post Civil War supreme court case declared that corporations be treated as persons, hence, their ability to exercise their "freedom of speech" via campaign donations.
I don't like it. My understanding of human rights, the actual concept of them, as embodied in the DofI and the Constitution, is that they are a product of Enlightenment philosophy which held that only human beings have such rights. Corporations don't have rights, governments don't have rights, churches and monarchies don't have rights either. Human beings are the only ones with the rights codified in the Constitution. That's why I think the Supreme Court case is bad law.
Of course, I appreciate the pragmatic approach too. I'm glad that unions, for example, are able to contribute to offset some of the heinous political doings of big business, even though I think the idea that gives Unions the right to do it is wrongheaded.
So not only do you have a question of whether or not private entities, non citizens like Unions and corporations, have the right to contribute to politicians, parties, and campaigns, but also you have sort of a Mexican standoff between corporations and unions (with big business holding an uzi and unions holding a .22, but still). Neither wants to let go without the other one doing it first.
BTW: Kucinich, Dodd, and Edwards for me. Don't remember the #s, but they were somewhere around 45.
But any survey that is predicated on a tripartite "yes, don't care, no" axis is bound to produce polar results.
I know that a post Civil War supreme court case declared that corporations be treated as persons, hence, their ability to exercise their "freedom of speech" via campaign donations.
I don't like it. My understanding of human rights, the actual concept of them, as embodied in the DofI and the Constitution, is that they are a product of Enlightenment philosophy which held that only human beings have such rights. Corporations don't have rights, governments don't have rights, churches and monarchies don't have rights either. Human beings are the only ones with the rights codified in the Constitution. That's why I think the Supreme Court case is bad law.
I'm inclined to agree (superficially at this point), but what about personal donations then?
And I didn't mean to imply by my "research on the legal aspects" comment that the SCOTUS is the end-all, be-all... just that I don't know the history of the research/arguments/decisions as well as I would like.
Huckabee 33
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Guns - Background Checks, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Civil Union
Cox 29
Assault Weapons Ban, Same-Sex Civil Union
Giuliani 25
Abortion Rights, Death Penalty, Embryonic Stem Cells, Assault Weapons Ban, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Net Neutrality, Same-Sex Constitutional Ban
Thompson 21
Death Penalty, Embryonic Stem Cells, Net Neutrality
McCain 19
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Embryonic Stem Cells, ANWR Drilling, Guantanamo, Torture, Wiretapping, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Net Neutrality, Same-Sex Constitutional Ban
Brownback 17
No Child Left Behind, Guns - Background Checks, Wiretapping, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Net Neutrality, Iraq Troop Surge, Iraq Withdrawal, Same-Sex Civil Union
Paul -3
Obama -19
Biden -24
Clinton -25
Dodd -27
Richardson -28
Edwards -28
Gravel -47
Kucinich -53
__________________ ~ No man has ever gone through life without having a scared heart.
That's a very basic aspect of freedom of speech that I'm very uneasy about inhibiting.
The problem the system is designed to encourage nothing more than bribery. What is normally a crime in mainstream society turns into the norm behind closed political doors. I have no problem with a business or individual making a political donation because, and ONLY because, they support their positions on something. We all know these cases, especially from the business end, are just an advance for payback.
The system needs to be much more transparent, and the three people in the equation who need to make it happen: The businesses (need it to thrive), the politicians (need to survive) and the public (just don't give a crap) don't have the desire to change it, so it goes on and it gets worse.
The problem the system is designed to encourage nothing more than bribery. What is normally a crime in mainstream society turns into the norm behind closed political doors. I have no problem with a business or individual making a political donation because, and ONLY because, they support their positions on something. We all know these cases, especially from the business end, are just an advance for payback.
The system needs to be much more transparent, and the three people in the equation who need to make it happen: The businesses (need it to thrive), the politicians (need to survive) and the public (just don't give a crap) don't have the desire to change it, so it goes on and it gets worse.
Well, that's pretty much it in a nutshell. I'm just not sure what can or should be done about it.
Maybe...if we can keep Corps and Unions out of the process it would be a start. They way to quell the "right of speech" side is to let Unions and Corps encourage their members (employees) to donate to whatever cause. Another words let individuals donate ONLY.
Also, how about a limit on the amount that can be given??? I haven't thought of all the pratfalls but maybe this can work....
Whatever the case, I just don't like how this works out. I agree with drgycan, I just think it's an upfront payment for something later on...a KICKBACK if you will...
jom
__________________ Old men's room wall saying: Flush hard, it's a long way to Washington
DRice
