Campaign Finance Reform opinion

KWQC 6
Jan 22, 2010

The Supreme Court is making it easier for corporations and unions to support or oppose
political candidates by allowing them to buy campaign ads.

The 5-4 vote last Thursday, Jan. 21, overturns a decades old ruling.
http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=campaign+finance+reform&FORM=EWRE


Former U.S. Senator Adlai Stevenson III weighed in on the decision saying,
"It's government of, for and by the corporate predators."

The life-long politician says The Supreme Court is taking a huge step backward by
allowing corporate America to buy campaign ads.
"This takes us back to the 1870's; to the gilded age when senators represented standard oil.
The court is purporting to equate the rights of property owners with the rights of citizens,
which is very questionable."

Stevenson says bringing more money into the political arena is the last thing our country needs.
"Our politics is already overrun by money - unlike any other developed democracy in the world.
The financial industry already invests about $300 million a year just on lobbyists, public relations -
so who represents the people? Where's their lobby?"

With leaders of big companies allowed to spend freely, Stevenson says they'll basically control
what you see and hear in the media. And he says it will be hard for you to weed out fact from fiction.


"I'm not against attacks, but they have to be truthful. But how do the people judge - if the defense contractors,
the oil companies, the bankers control the airwaves - which is effectively what could happen here."

Overturning the decades old law could give you fewer people to choose from on election day.
Stevenson says a lot of people won't run for office, because they're not for sale.

"It's going to be very hard for an honest man to get elected. Who's gonna invest in him?"

Total BS. Corporations, unions and special interst groups do not represent individuals and do not necessarily speak for the individuals who make up their group or the shareholders whose money they are donating. Now there is a push to have tax payer dollars fund candidates who either don't have enough money or can't raise enough money to pay for their campaigns. Again more BS. Why should we have to foot the bill to finance anyones campaign.


My solution. any campaign donations that come in from corporations, unions and so on are taxed at a 50% rate. the candidate gets 50 %, the taxed 50% goes into the public fund for all the others

the right makes this about free speech, the left makes it about the corporate bogeyman.... it is in between.

jamesjchrist wrote:

the right makes this about free speech, the left makes it about the corporate bogeyman.... it is in between.

my feelings is individuals should have the say, the free spech, not an entity like a corporation.

we need to boycott against both, bad gov and big corpse, but the corpse are more threatening since we have even less say so about their bullshit than we do the gov

KK wrote:

jamesjchrist wrote:

the right makes this about free speech, the left makes it about the corporate bogeyman.... it is in between.

my feelings is individuals should have the say, the free spech, not an entity like a corporation.

leaving the huge multinationals aside, corporations ARE people. boards of directors and shareholders need to keep tabs on what they spend and why they spend it.

it's all Hillary's fault:




LINK____Want to know what campaign finance reform is really about?

jamesjchrist wrote:

KK wrote:

jamesjchrist wrote:

the right makes this about free speech, the left makes it about the corporate bogeyman.... it is in between.

my feelings is individuals should have the say, the free spech, not an entity like a corporation.

leaving the huge multinationals aside, corporations ARE people. boards of directors and shareholders need to keep tabs on what they spend and why they spend it.

they are comprised of people but thye make donations with money that belongs to the people (Shareholders-employees) that is not necessarily the opinion of the people.

c/thru wrote:

it's all Hillary's fault:




LINK____Want to know what campaign finance reform is really about?

The Cato Institute. Elected by nobody, bought and paid for by everybody.

Foundation support:

* Atlantic Philanthropies
* Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
* Earhart Foundation
* JM Foundation, founded by Jeremiah Milbank
* John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
* Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
* Castle Rock Foundation (formerly known as The Coors Foundation)
* Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
* Ford Foundation
* Ploughshares Fund
* Marijuana Policy Project

Corporate support:

* Altria Corporate Services Inc. (Formerly Philip Morris)
* American Petroleum Institute
* Comcast Corporation
* Fedex Corporation
* Microsoft
* R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
* Visa USA INC.
* WalMart Stores Inc.
* A number of foreign and domestic car companies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_institute#Funding

that list includes some of the worst evil-doers currently doing evil

c/thru wrote:

that list includes some of the worst evil-doers currently doing evil

do they represent you? more than likely not . than why should they be allowed to sponsor someone when they don't represent the views of the individual

If they had a "Malcontent" Party, I might let them represent me.

KK wrote:

c/thru wrote:

that list includes some of the worst evil-doers currently doing evil

do they represent you? more than likely not . than why should they be allowed to sponsor someone when they don't represent the views of the individual

Candidates should "Just Say No !!"

c/thru wrote:

KK wrote:

c/thru wrote:

that list includes some of the worst evil-doers currently doing evil

do they represent you? more than likely not . than why should they be allowed to sponsor someone when they don't represent the views of the individual

Candidates should "Just Say No !!"

they should. but they don't represent us. they represent the corporate donors. seriuosly, these campaign donations should be taxed at a 50% rate