Take that George Soro's !! No limit !

[JustRalph]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/06/14/sheldon-adelson-willing-to-spend-100-million-to-beat-obama


Gotta love a guy who puts his money where his mouth and beliefs are.

I read some place that this guy is pissed about how Obama has treated Israel. This is going to be interesting.

http://www.usnews.com/pubdbimages/image/32208/FE_DA_120614Adelson425x283.jpg

[NJ Stinks]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/06/14/sheldon-adelson-willing-to-spend-100-million-to-beat-obama


Gotta love a guy who puts his money where his mouth and beliefs are.

I read some place that this guy is pissed about how Obama has treated Israel. This is going to be interesting.

http://www.usnews.com/pubdbimages/image/32208/FE_DA_120614Adelson425x283.jpg

I can't think of even one thing to love about this guy. And I certainly don't want his money buying elections in this country.

[ElKabong]

yeah, unlike Soros buying elections.......

[fast4522]

The man knows that this country will face the same fate should Israel fail.
Socialism is not worth defending.

[JustRalph]

I can't think of even one thing to love about this guy. And I certainly don't want his money buying elections in this country.

Do the letters TS mean anything to you? Not you specifically, but the left who have been owned by Soro's for 20 years

[newtothegame]

I can't think of even one thing to love about this guy. And I certainly don't want his money buying elections in this country.
I am sure I missed your post where you condemned all of the union money pouring into the coffers of democratic politicians......:faint:

[Dave Schwartz]

And, of course, nobody had any problems with Clinton taking money from the Chinese.

Heaven forbid that anybody should donate money to the R-side.


Dave Schwartz
Who still thinks both sides of
the aisle are a waste of time.

[whiptastic]

And, of course, nobody had any problems with Clinton taking money from the Chinese.

Heaven forbid that anybody should donate money to the R-side.


Dave Schwartz
Who still thinks both sides of
the aisle are a waste of time.

It really is different now. We are living in very dangerous times for our democracy. I realize most in this thread are rooting for one "team" over another, but I would hope that everyone sees how the undue influence of big money threatens the legitimacy of the democratic institutions we hold dear. This isn't a football game we're talking about. And in all honesty, you really should have put the rolling around laughing emoticon next to that sentence about anyone donating money to the R-side.

First, Congress passed the Tillman Act in 1907, which prohibited corporations from using their treasuries to influence federal elections. Signed by President Theodore Roosevelt, the legislation recognized what had become abundantly clear: corporate influence corrupts elections. Later, under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, Congress extended the same prohibition to labor unions. For generations, these regulations provided the bedrock of our election law that followed, including the landmark Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act passed in 2003. And for several election cycles, between 2004 and 2008, our system seemed headed towards more fair and transparent elections. But Citizens United changed everything.

http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/money-crisis

[newtothegame]

It really is different now. We are living in very dangerous times for our democracy. I realize most in this thread are rooting for one "team" over another, but I would hope that everyone sees how the undue influence of big money threatens the legitimacy of the democratic institutions we hold dear. This isn't a football game we're talking about. And in all honesty, you really should have put the rolling around laughing emoticon next to that sentence about anyone donating money to the R-side.



http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/money-crisis
Ok, so is this dangerous times "now"...happen in the last month??
If not, where are YOUR post in contempt for all the big money that went to your candidate Obama??

[jdhanover]

HUGE money on both sides...dangerous because of the lack of transparency. And no watchdog.

[bigmack]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/shwow_e0.gif

I don't care what side of the aisle you on, this shit is freaky.

The guy's net woith is $25B. If he ponies up $100M, as mentioned, for him that's a start.

There oughta be a cap.

[jdhanover]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/shwow_e0.gif

I don't care what side of the aisle you on, this shit is freaky.

The guy's net woith is $25B. If he ponies up $100M, as mentioned, for him that's a start.

There oughta be a cap.

Agree - there are a number of guys who can do this if they wanted to (both sides) - and some will ....it will be an extremely ugly election.

[ElKabong]

if the sitting preznit had done a fine job and kept his promises, it wouldn't matter how much $ the pubs raised & from whom.....fact is he left the door wide open with record deficits

as for Clinton vs now....it was important in 92 and 96 also....good greif :bang:

[Dave Schwartz]

It really is different now. We are living in very dangerous times for our democracy. I realize most in this thread are rooting for one "team" over another, but I would hope that everyone sees how the undue influence of big money threatens the legitimacy of the democratic institutions we hold dear. This isn't a football game we're talking about. And in all honesty, you really should have put the rolling around laughing emoticon next to that sentence about anyone donating money to the R-side.

I have been saying that for years.

Until a wonderful, grassroots farmer from Nebraska with no money behind him (and therefore is beholden to nobody) can get elected, we will continue where we are: A government for the corporations and by the corporations.

[mostpost]

I am sure I missed your post where you condemned all of the union money pouring into the coffers of democratic politicians......:faint:
The difference is that the union money represents contributions from millions of union members. Adelson's money represents the opinion of one man. One man who represents no one but himself.

[bigmack]

The difference is that the union money represents contributions from millions of union members. Adelson's money represents the opinion of one man. One man who represents no one but himself.
Actually, the main difference is unions contributed directly to campaigns. The issue at hand is PAC's.

Should be no shortage of BO's supporters flush with loot to even the score. You are aware, there are tons of Dem's that are LOADED?

[JustRalph]

Many many of those Union contributions are compulsory and against the wishes of those forced to contribute. That's one problem with the Unions.

That kind of activity is what led to all of these crappy laws and eventually the SCOTUS calling open season.

You shall reap................

[mostpost]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/shwow_e0.gif

I don't care what side of the aisle you on, this shit is freaky.

The guy's net woith is $25B. If he ponies up $100M, as mentioned, for him that's a start.

There oughta be a cap.

The cap should be $0. No contributions to specific candidates or parties. No using your own money to finance your campaign. I know how you guys hate more taxes, but we should have a tax of maybe 3% on all earnings (including capital gains) That money should be used to finance all federal political campaigns, President, Senate and House. How to divide the money? Divide most (80% to 90%?) of it equally between the two major parties. The rest give to minor parties based on vote count in most recent election.

The amount of money a candidate for President could spend should be within certain parameters and those parameters should be the same for both major candidates. The same for candidates for House and Senate, though in those races the amounts spent would vary depending on the location.

I'm sure you all will find many things wrong with this idea, but I think it is a good basic idea.

[newtothegame]

Just so it's clear, and I have said as much on here before several times, there needs to be campaign reforms. This governemtn has not been for the people by the people for some time now. My only problem here is that the other side of the aisle never complained. NOW, all of a sudden, (we are in dangerous times), and NJ thinks it's totally wrong that a guy can put his money to work and buy an election .....
Where was this outrage for years when the dems did it???
As to unions and mosty's comments, you're almost right mosty. As someone else mentioned, that money is from many many union members. But, just because unions FORCE (that's right I said FORCE) their membership into dues does not give them the right to speak pollitically for those same people. If the members wish to contribute politically , they can do so just as the rest of us.
But, please don't come on here and tell me NOW is the most dangerous time in our lives because a HUGE R donor wishes to put his money into the ring. I dont remember you dems complaining about Soros all these years.....!
Lastly, I will add you may be right......about this being the most troubling time in our lives......Just look at who has been running this country the last three years to get us here !!!! :lol:

[mostpost]

Many many of those Union contributions are compulsory and against the wishes of those forced to contribute. That's one problem with the Unions.

That kind of activity is what led to all of these crappy laws and eventually the SCOTUS calling open season.

You shall reap................

More like few few.

[newtothegame]

The cap should be $0. No contributions to specific candidates or parties. No using your own money to finance your campaign. I know how you guys hate more taxes, but we should have a tax of maybe 3% on all earnings (including capital gains) That money should be used to finance all federal political campaigns, President, Senate and House. How to divide the money? Divide most (80% to 90%?) of it equally between the two major parties. The rest give to minor parties based on vote count in most recent election.

The amount of money a candidate for President could spend should be within certain parameters and those parameters should be the same for both major candidates. The same for candidates for House and Senate, though in those races the amounts spent would vary depending on the location.

I'm sure you all will find many things wrong with this idea, but I think it is a good basic idea.
BS, NONE of my taxes should go to funding a political campaign. So, look at your idea.....who funds the state level campaigns?? Oops, need more taxes....Then the locals??? damn more taxes...before you know it twenty percent increase in taxes to fund elections! No thanks.....
Contributions should be limited to a specific amount per person, household.
I also agree that number should be the same PER corporation IF corporations are to even be included. So, example if I can donate 250.00 so can a corporation. They should not garner favor over me by being able to donate more.
If people wish to donate to a candidate so be it...if they don't, then I guess he should represent the people anyway (at least that local and state levels).

[Dave Schwartz]

The cap should be $0. No contributions to specific candidates or parties. No using your own money to finance your campaign. I know how you guys hate more taxes, but we should have a tax of maybe 3% on all earnings (including capital gains) That money should be used to finance all federal political campaigns, President, Senate and House. How to divide the money? Divide most (80% to 90%?) of it equally between the two major parties. The rest give to minor parties based on vote count in most recent election.

I don't believe it!

Something that Mosty and I agree on!

What is the world coming to?

[mostpost]

I don't believe it!

Something that Mosty and I agree on!

What is the world coming to?
Sorry to put you in that awkward position. :(
I suggested 3%. That turns out to be way more than would be needed.
In 2007 we collected $2.568T in revenue. If we put a surtax of two tenths of 1 percent on that for electioneering purposes, we would raise more than $5B each year. The 2008 election cost $5.3B and the 2010 election cost $4B. So the four year cycle cost $9.3B and we would raise $20B. The difference could be used to fund state and local campaigns, or we could reduce the amount of the surtax.
Someone might ask what if the cost of the campaign turned out to be more than the money raised by the tax. The answer is it can't. Spending money beyond the limits established would be illegal. Of course the limits should not be set in stone, but once established for an election cycle they should not be changed. For example, in 2015 we would set the standards for the 2016 presidential election and the 2018 midterms. Then in 2019 for the 2020 Presidential election and the 2022 midterms.

[mostpost]

BS, NONE of my taxes should go to funding a political campaign. So, look at your idea.....who funds the state level campaigns?? Oops, need more taxes....Then the locals??? damn more taxes...before you know it twenty percent increase in taxes to fund elections! No thanks.....
Contributions should be limited to a specific amount per person, household.
I also agree that number should be the same PER corporation IF corporations are to even be included. So, example if I can donate 250.00 so can a corporation. They should not garner favor over me by being able to donate more.
If people wish to donate to a candidate so be it...if they don't, then I guess he should represent the people anyway (at least that local and state levels).
There is not going to be a twenty percent increase in taxes. Now I did change some numbers since my original post, so I can't really blame you for thinking that. A .2% surtax on all taxes paid to the federal government yields more than $5B per year-over $20B over four years. That is more than double what the 2008 and 2010 elections cost. When I say all taxes, I mean all taxes; personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, social security taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes and all taxes I don't know about or forgot about.

You don't want to pay for Barack Obama's campaign. I certainly don't want to contribute to Mitt Romney's campaign. Isn't it better to have candidates who are not beholden to anyone? The money all comes out of one pool. No one can say to a candidate, I gave you a lot of money, you better do what I want. Since everyone would be required to pay the surtax, no one could influence a candidate by threatening to withhold contributions.

This is a good idea. There are details that would need to be worked out but it is a good idea.

Except for one fatal flaw. Getting the politicians to pass the law and kill the goose that is laying the Golden eggs.


How much would this cost you. I don't know how much you pay in taxes each year, but let's say you pay $20,000 (Probably high). You would pay an extra $40 a year. Is it not worth eleven cents a day to you to have elections that are not influenced by money, no matter where it is coming from?

[mostpost]

I said above that perhaps we could use excess money collected to finance state and local elections. Upon reflection that is not a good idea. States should make the laws governing their elections and local governing bodies should legislate their election rules. Always subject to the Constitution of the United States and Federal election law.

[newtothegame]

There is not going to be a twenty percent increase in taxes. Now I did change some numbers since my original post, so I can't really blame you for thinking that. A .2% surtax on all taxes paid to the federal government yields more than $5B per year-over $20B over four years. That is more than double what the 2008 and 2010 elections cost. When I say all taxes, I mean all taxes; personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, social security taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes and all taxes I don't know about or forgot about.

You don't want to pay for Barack Obama's campaign. I certainly don't want to contribute to Mitt Romney's campaign. Isn't it better to have candidates who are not beholden to anyone? The money all comes out of one pool. No one can say to a candidate, I gave you a lot of money, you better do what I want. Since everyone would be required to pay the surtax, no one could influence a candidate by threatening to withhold contributions.

This is a good idea. There are details that would need to be worked out but it is a good idea.

Except for one fatal flaw. Getting the politicians to pass the law and kill the goose that is laying the Golden eggs.


How much would this cost you. I don't know how much you pay in taxes each year, but let's say you pay $20,000 (Probably high). You would pay an extra $40 a year. Is it not worth eleven cents a day to you to have elections that are not influenced by money, no matter where it is coming from?
Mosty, the concept itself is a good idea, (especially since you revised those numbers slightly). But, how in the world could you possibly take and allow the politicians more of our money? See, this is where we differ. They can not control what they already obtain in the form of taxes. As it stands now, libs want to raise taxes more just to try and control the deficits.
Add in more taxes (even if it is only 40 dollars a year per person), and this does essentially nothing. like most general funds around the country which have been abused, this too will find leaks in it to our beloved politicians in office. :bang:
I agree with you that the system needs to be redone....but as you've admitted, the sacred cows arent going to give up the golden egg so easily.
And maybe I missed it but, how would you divid the coffers accumulated for political campaigns? You do understand that people in say NY would bitch their azzes off if their money was split evenly amongst dems and repugs....right? I mean thats a blue state and that would be their arguement. same thing in a red state......
That's why I believe it is flawed. How to divy up the money would be a sticking point if left up to the politicians. The only way it would seem to be not biased is either with very strict laws regarding it (which they wont go for) or to allow the people themselves to determine how they designate their contributions.
Again though, we agree it needs to be changed. Maher shouldnt be able to contribute a million to Obama just like Adelson shouldnt be able to donate millions. Politicians fall prey to them for those contributions.

[JustRalph]

You think 20k in taxes is high? Christ! You are out of touch.......

[Robert Goren]

I have been saying that for years.

Until a wonderful, grassroots farmer from Nebraska with no money behind him (and therefore is beholden to nobody) can get elected, we will continue where we are: A government for the corporations and by the corporations. The Rickets (TD-Ameritrade) just spent nearly 4 million just get their candidiate out of the primary in Nebraska. Heaven only knows what they spend on her in the fall. Of course Kerry will have plenty of money too(12-15 million according to the word on the street), but it is a given he will be out spent by at least a 2 to 1 margin. I don't you find anybody familar with Nebraska politics that will argue that. I guess a senator is senator even if they are from Nebraska.
TV will become unwatchable here after Labor Day because of all of the political ads.

[Dave Schwartz]

You don't want to pay for Barack Obama's campaign. I certainly don't want to contribute to Mitt Romney's campaign. Isn't it better to have candidates who are not beholden to anyone?

IMHO, you pay one way or another.

Even the money donated by large corporations is ultimately paid back by the people who produce revenue for those corps - which would be you and me.

Imagine the "more right" (as in "just") legislation that would be passed if the people actually had representatives in DC that cared about them first instead of the big contributors.

Personally, I think life would get much cheaper and easier.


Dave Schwartz
Who is off in some kind of dream world
thinking about real campaign reform

[lamboguy]

shelly is such a fine man, he only needs to walk around with 7 body guards at all times. when he ran GWV travel in boston he only needed 3 body guards.

[mostpost]

You think 20k in taxes is high? Christ! You are out of touch.......

I did not say that. I do not think that. I was trying to guestimate how much Newtothegame might be paying in taxes. I know that he lives and works in Louisiana. I know that he works the night shift at a private company-he's not a government employee. I think he mentioned that he is in management. I don't know if that means he is in charge of a particular department or the entire shift.
I assumed the former and I assumed that meant a yearly salary of $60,000. I then took a third of that or $20,000.

I went back this morning and used the actual tax tables. A person making $60,000 a year would pay $8150 in income tax, $3720 in Social Security tax and $870 in Medicare tax for a total of $12,740. A .2% surtax on that would cost the person $25.48 a year or seven cents a day.

I also went back and worked this out for a person earning a salary of $6M a year. His/her surtax would amount to $11 a day.

That is a small price to pay for untainted elections.

[JustRalph]

Dave, good points.

I say we break up the Washington culture by removing the reps from Washington. They can all stay home and vote electronically. No reason to be there full time anymore. It feeds off itself.

[sammy the sage]

That is a small price to pay for untainted elections.

Eagerly await your PRICE is RIGHT comments on THIS thread...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=95222

[lsbets]

The cap should be $0. No contributions to specific candidates or parties. No using your own money to finance your campaign.



Sounds theoretically great, but what happens when the 2 major parties are in charge of election money for everyone? Would we ever see a third party movement be able to gain any steam if they were forbidden by law from raising or spending money and were denied money through legislation? If Perot were unable to spend his own money would the Reform Party have ever got off the ground and had the impact that it did?

I don't see how that feel good idea would clean up elections. I do see how it would further entrench the two parties currently in power, which would lead to more corruption.

[whiptastic]

Ok, so is this dangerous times "now"...happen in the last month??
If not, where are YOUR post in contempt for all the big money that went to your candidate Obama??

I would like to correct several blatant errors in both your assertions and logic.

First, I have no idea where you got the impression that my "candidate" is Obama. I've never stated that nor did I vote for him in the 2008 election. I'm neither registered as a member of the Democratic party, nor am I a registered Republican.

Second, by attempting to pigeon-hole me into one of your "teams" such that you can root against me or my position, you are doing yourself and your country a disservice. I see this attitude a lot on this message board and elsewhere, and I think it's dangerous. Your overly boolean reasoning as it applies to me or my position forces you to ignore me as a person and consequently ignore the subtleties I may offer. Frankly, this dumbing down of our electorate is another contributor to the decline of our democracy.

Third, no where did I state that this occurred in the last month. The Citizens United ruling was handed down in 2009, and this is a very disturbing action by the Supreme Court -- primarily because I believe they created a justification for ruling against BCRA from an unrelated case brought by Citizens United. It was, in my opinion, an overreach by the court and there are tremendous unintended consequences.

Finally, even if your assertion that Obama is "my candidate" were true, that doesn't mean that my criticism of current campaign finance laws favors one "side" or the other. I hear this line of reasoning on this board all of the time, and I wonder just when it was that modern conservatives became so enamored with the cult of victim-hood. Essentially, you are saying that because I didn't explicitly decry what one side did or does, I must support that side -- and by extension every overreaction on behalf of the other side must be completely justified and exonerated.

Maybe you feel that unlimited spending by corporations on behalf of federal candidates with little or no disclosure or oversight is just fine, but I don't.

[mostpost]

Mosty, the concept itself is a good idea, (especially since you revised those numbers slightly). But, how in the world could you possibly take and allow the politicians more of our money? See, this is where we differ. They can not control what they already obtain in the form of taxes. As it stands now, libs want to raise taxes more just to try and control the deficits.
Add in more taxes (even if it is only 40 dollars a year per person), and this does essentially nothing. like most general funds around the country which have been abused, this too will find leaks in it to our beloved politicians in office. :bang:
I agree with you that the system needs to be redone....but as you've admitted, the sacred cows arent going to give up the golden egg so easily.
And maybe I missed it but, how would you divid the coffers accumulated for political campaigns? You do understand that people in say NY would bitch their azzes off if their money was split evenly amongst dems and repugs....right? I mean thats a blue state and that would be their arguement. same thing in a red state......
That's why I believe it is flawed. How to divy up the money would be a sticking point if left up to the politicians. The only way it would seem to be not biased is either with very strict laws regarding it (which they wont go for) or to allow the people themselves to determine how they designate their contributions.
Again though, we agree it needs to be changed. Maher shouldnt be able to contribute a million to Obama just like Adelson shouldnt be able to donate millions. Politicians fall prey to them for those contributions.

I will never understand the conservative mind. Just mention the word taxes and they are automatically opposed. Even if the taxes spent in one place would be offset by savings in another.

Now let me take your objections one at a time.

like most general funds around the country which have been abused, this too will find leaks in it to our beloved politicians in office. :bang:
The legislation would have to be written in such a way that the money would never be in the General Fund and could not be borrowed from

You do understand that people in say NY would bitch their azzes off if their money was split evenly amongst dems and repugs....right? I mean thats a blue state and that would be their arguement. same thing in a red state......
Let them bitch, if its done everywhere the same it is fair.

How to divy up the money would be a sticking point if left up to the politicians. The only way it would seem to be not biased is either with very strict laws regarding it (which they wont go for) or to allow the people themselves to determine how they designate their contributions.
Allowing people to designate who their contributions go to defeats the whole purpose of the idea. Stop thinking of this as supporting a candidate and start thinking of it as supporting a process. The process of getting maximum information and opinion to the voters.

The law should spell out what money goes to the various campaigns, so much for the Presidential campaign, so much for the Senate campaigns, so much for the House campaigns. Then the determination should be made as to how much is spent in individual states and districts. A Senate campaign in New York is much more expensive than one in Idaho.

Once the total money in a campaign is decided, most of the money should be divided equally between the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate with the rest being divided in some way between the minor parties.

How do we determine these various divisions and who should enforce them? I think the law should establish the framework in which the decisions are made.
At first I was thinking of establishing a commission to administer the program.
I know how you guys love new commissions. :rolleyes: Then I realized that we already have a Federal Elections Commission which monitors contributions and how money is spent. Since it would no longer have to monitor contributions it would have time to administer the program.

One more thing, no extraneous advertising. In other words you could not use your vast fortune to put ads on TV supporting Mitt Romney. Media outlets could only accept ads directly from the campaigns and they would have to accept any ads the campaign was able to pay for. This does not mean that media outlets could not comment and editorialize, just that they could not financially support a particular candidate.

I know this is a pipe dream. I know there are many details to be worked out, but I think the basic idea is a good one.

[rastajenk]

The process of getting maximum information and opinion to the voters...
is infringed by all of these proposals to level the field. I'd rather support free speech that I don't agree with than controlled speech that is agreeable.

[newtothegame]

I will never understand the conservative mind. Just mention the word taxes and they are automatically opposed. Even if the taxes spent in one place would be offset by savings in another.

Now let me take your objections one at a time.

like most general funds around the country which have been abused, this too will find leaks in it to our beloved politicians in office. :bang:
The legislation would have to be written in such a way that the money would never be in the General Fund and could not be borrowed from

You do understand that people in say NY would bitch their azzes off if their money was split evenly amongst dems and repugs....right? I mean thats a blue state and that would be their arguement. same thing in a red state......
Let them bitch, if its done everywhere the same it is fair.

How to divy up the money would be a sticking point if left up to the politicians. The only way it would seem to be not biased is either with very strict laws regarding it (which they wont go for) or to allow the people themselves to determine how they designate their contributions.
Allowing people to designate who their contributions go to defeats the whole purpose of the idea. Stop thinking of this as supporting a candidate and start thinking of it as supporting a process. The process of getting maximum information and opinion to the voters.

The law should spell out what money goes to the various campaigns, so much for the Presidential campaign, so much for the Senate campaigns, so much for the House campaigns. Then the determination should be made as to how much is spent in individual states and districts. A Senate campaign in New York is much more expensive than one in Idaho.

Once the total money in a campaign is decided, most of the money should be divided equally between the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate with the rest being divided in some way between the minor parties.

How do we determine these various divisions and who should enforce them? I think the law should establish the framework in which the decisions are made.
At first I was thinking of establishing a commission to administer the program.
I know how you guys love new commissions. :rolleyes: Then I realized that we already have a Federal Elections Commission which monitors contributions and how money is spent. Since it would no longer have to monitor contributions it would have time to administer the program.

One more thing, no extraneous advertising. In other words you could not use your vast fortune to put ads on TV supporting Mitt Romney. Media outlets could only accept ads directly from the campaigns and they would have to accept any ads the campaign was able to pay for. This does not mean that media outlets could not comment and editorialize, just that they could not financially support a particular candidate.

I know this is a pipe dream. I know there are many details to be worked out, but I think the basic idea is a good one.

LOL don't fuss at me for being skeptical of our politicians. We have had years of history to prove my skepticism is justified lol.
But, hey I like the idea for the most part.....I would just need to see it in writing. Tell ya what, and this is more on a serious note. The only way this ever changes is through people like us. I will sign a petition of organization for this effort......:)

[mostpost]

Sounds theoretically great, but what happens when the 2 major parties are in charge of election money for everyone? Would we ever see a third party movement be able to gain any steam if they were forbidden by law from raising or spending money and were denied money through legislation? If Perot were unable to spend his own money would the Reform Party have ever got off the ground and had the impact that it did?

I don't see how that feel good idea would clean up elections. I do see how it would further entrench the two parties currently in power, which would lead to more corruption.

My idea does not do anything to encourage a third party. On the other hand, I have not heard much about the Reform Party lately. We have a two party system. We have had the same two major parties for over 150 years. My idea does provide for financing for third parties.

Just for a talking point, lets say the major parties divide 80%. That leaves 20% for the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Reform Party and what ever others there may be. That 20% becomes 100%. (of itself-understand?) Then you take the total votes cast for all the third parties in the last presidential election and you base their share on their percentage of those votes. To make it simple say there is $100M dollars designated for third parties. Then assume that the Green Party got half the votes cast for third party candidates. The Green Party would receive $50M for the next election.

My idea does not address election fraud, that is true. You can still miscount ballots, people can still vote illegally, you can still purge voter roles so only certain classes can vote, but no one can win an election be saturating the airwaves with misleading ads. You can still run misleading ads, but each side can run equal numbers of misleading ads. ;)

[lsbets]

My idea does not do anything to encourage a third party. On the other hand, I have not heard much about the Reform Party lately. We have a two party system. We have had the same two major parties for over 150 years. My idea does provide for financing for third parties.

Just for a talking point, lets say the major parties divide 80%. That leaves 20% for the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Reform Party and what ever others there may be. That 20% becomes 100%. (of itself-understand?) Then you take the total votes cast for all the third parties in the last presidential election and you base their share on their percentage of those votes. To make it simple say there is $100M dollars designated for third parties. Then assume that the Green Party got half the votes cast for third party candidates. The Green Party would receive $50M for the next election.

My idea does not address election fraud, that is true. You can still miscount ballots, people can still vote illegally, you can still purge voter roles so only certain classes can vote, but no one can win an election be saturating the airwaves with misleading ads. You can still run misleading ads, but each side can run equal numbers of misleading ads. ;)

Your idea would eliminate third parties and guarantee the two party monopoly in perpetuity. Do you think that the two major parties would decide to give any money to any third party - green, libertarian, or anyone else? Do you think Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell would support giving one penny to someone who might crash their party? Do you think Nancy Pelosi would give a dime to a Green Party candidate in her district, or Boehner to an independent Tea Party candidate in his? Under your proposal it would be impossible for any of these theoretical candidates to run because they would have zero dollars.

As rasta said, I would rather support free speech I don't agree with than control speech. Like many liberal ideas, yours sounds good at first airing, and makes people who support it feel good, but the result is more power and control to those already in power, and less liberty for we, the people.

[newtothegame]

I would like to correct several blatant errors in both your assertions and logic.

First, I have no idea where you got the impression that my "candidate" is Obama. I've never stated that nor did I vote for him in the 2008 election. I'm neither registered as a member of the Democratic party, nor am I a registered Republican.

Second, by attempting to pigeon-hole me into one of your "teams" such that you can root against me or my position, you are doing yourself and your country a disservice. I see this attitude a lot on this message board and elsewhere, and I think it's dangerous. Your overly boolean reasoning as it applies to me or my position forces you to ignore me as a person and consequently ignore the subtleties I may offer. Frankly, this dumbing down of our electorate is another contributor to the decline of our democracy.

Third, no where did I state that this occurred in the last month. The Citizens United ruling was handed down in 2009, and this is a very disturbing action by the Supreme Court -- primarily because I believe they created a justification for ruling against BCRA from an unrelated case brought by Citizens United. It was, in my opinion, an overreach by the court and there are tremendous unintended consequences.

Finally, even if your assertion that Obama is "my candidate" were true, that doesn't mean that my criticism of current campaign finance laws favors one "side" or the other. I hear this line of reasoning on this board all of the time, and I wonder just when it was that modern conservatives became so enamored with the cult of victim-hood. Essentially, you are saying that because I didn't explicitly decry what one side did or does, I must support that side -- and by extension every overreaction on behalf of the other side must be completely justified and exonerated.

Maybe you feel that unlimited spending by corporations on behalf of federal candidates with little or no disclosure or oversight is just fine, but I don't.

lol you are hillarious. Sadly more transparent then hillarious so either way, you're not very good at it.
You do know there is a search feauture on this website right? Amazingly, you can go back and look at nearly every post an individual has posted. (You have got to love modern technology) lol
If you go back and search, amazingly, you have taken up for MO Obama and got on another poster as attacking her as tasteless and crass....
More then once you have told us all how intellectually smart Obama is....
You jumped in a thread, taking up for a liberal poster here (the first time you and I have tango'd) and INcorrectly took a position about what he had posted, regarding BUSH and Cheney falsifying documnets...then you had to retract.....
You took an opportunity (without stating that you had done so) of editing a fellow members here's post to reflect another jab at republicans...which was very tasteless not notifying of the editing that is...
The more one looks at your post, it's quite obvious where your political opinions lay....And, that's just fine! Just don't come here with this "I am not registered either way .....You may not be registered but your opinions surely do reflect something different......
P.S you do know that admission is the first step to recovery.....:lol:
Being a liberal is bad, being a closet liberal is ever worse.....!!! lol

[rastajenk]

Amen, brother lsbets :ThmbUp:

[newtothegame]

I would like to correct several blatant errors in both your assertions and logic.

First, I have no idea where you got the impression that my "candidate" is Obama. I've never stated that nor did I vote for him in the 2008 election. I'm neither registered as a member of the Democratic party, nor am I a registered Republican.

Second, by attempting to pigeon-hole me into one of your "teams" such that you can root against me or my position, you are doing yourself and your country a disservice. I see this attitude a lot on this message board and elsewhere, and I think it's dangerous. Your overly boolean reasoning as it applies to me or my position forces you to ignore me as a person and consequently ignore the subtleties I may offer. Frankly, this dumbing down of our electorate is another contributor to the decline of our democracy.

Third, no where did I state that this occurred in the last month. The Citizens United ruling was handed down in 2009, and this is a very disturbing action by the Supreme Court -- primarily because I believe they created a justification for ruling against BCRA from an unrelated case brought by Citizens United. It was, in my opinion, an overreach by the court and there are tremendous unintended consequences.

Finally, even if your assertion that Obama is "my candidate" were true, that doesn't mean that my criticism of current campaign finance laws favors one "side" or the other. I hear this line of reasoning on this board all of the time, and I wonder just when it was that modern conservatives became so enamored with the cult of victim-hood. Essentially, you are saying that because I didn't explicitly decry what one side did or does, I must support that side -- and by extension every overreaction on behalf of the other side must be completely justified and exonerated.

Maybe you feel that unlimited spending by corporations on behalf of federal candidates with little or no disclosure or oversight is just fine, but I don't.
No, you didnt say it happened last month, your comment was, "It really is different now. We are living in very dangerous times for our democracy" .....So I asked did this just happen in the last month....... as I dont recall your post regarding Maher's million dollars donated to Obama's super pac.......But then again, based on your history of post (as I have shown above), I wouldnt expect a negative comment towards the liberal side.

[newtothegame]

Your idea would eliminate third parties and guarantee the two party monopoly in perpetuity. Do you think that the two major parties would decide to give any money to any third party - green, libertarian, or anyone else? Do you think Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell would support giving one penny to someone who might crash their party? Do you think Nancy Pelosi would give a dime to a Green Party candidate in her district, or Boehner to an independent Tea Party candidate in his? Under your proposal it would be impossible for any of these theoretical candidates to run because they would have zero dollars.

As rasta said, I would rather support free speech I don't agree with than control speech. Like many liberal ideas, yours sounds good at first airing, and makes people who support it feel good, but the result is more power and control to those already in power, and less liberty for we, the people.
Yeah, LS, you are right on target here and this is what I was teling mosty in essence. Can't trust those politicians to do the right thing. We have a long history of politicians serving their own needs and wants. Leaving it up to them to divide, divy, however you wish to call it is a bad idea.....:ThmbUp:

[TJDave]

The 100 mil Sheldon Adelson plans to spend will not in the least influence how I will vote.

OTOH, If he were to personally give me 100 million dollars I'll vote for anybody he wants.

The problem is stupid voters not unlimited campaign funds.

[rastajenk]

How about he gives you 100 mill and you still vote for whoever you want?

[Tom]

I, for one, am on the edge of my seat waiting for the Obama attack ads to fill the airwaves. I don't even care if they are outright lies.....time for the dems to get a taste of their own medicine.

Bring it on.
40% of the American people are too stupid to know what is going on anyways.

[whiptastic]

lol you are hillarious. Sadly more transparent then hillarious so either way, you're not very good at it.
You do know there is a search feauture on this website right? Amazingly, you can go back and look at nearly every post an individual has posted. (You have got to love modern technology) lol
If you go back and search, amazingly, you have taken up for MO Obama and got on another poster as attacking her as tasteless and crass....
More then once you have told us all how intellectually smart Obama is....
You jumped in a thread, taking up for a liberal poster here (the first time you and I have tango'd) and INcorrectly took a position about what he had posted, regarding BUSH and Cheney falsifying documnets...then you had to retract.....
You took an opportunity (without stating that you had done so) of editing a fellow members here's post to reflect another jab at republicans...which was very tasteless not notifying of the editing that is...
The more one looks at your post, it's quite obvious where your political opinions lay....And, that's just fine! Just don't come here with this "I am not registered either way .....You may not be registered but your opinions surely do reflect something different......
P.S you do know that admission is the first step to recovery.....:lol:
Being a liberal is bad, being a closet liberal is ever worse.....!!! lol

If you are amazed by the search feature or if you think that's even "modern technology", I fear nuance is completely lost on you.

I do think that Obama is a smart guy. Maybe not as smart as Nixon or Clinton (who are/were both very intelligent men), but he's is intelligent.

I missed a post in that thread and apologized for having done so. In my world, when I guy steps up and admits fault, it should be forgiven and forgotten. Maybe it's different where you are from. All I was trying to do there was point out that something might have been missed in the discussion. That said, you attacked my reading comprehension when the reality was I simply hadn't read that page. Had I, I never would have stuck my two cents in. That said, I wasn't incorrect in my statement, just in its application.

Maybe because I was raised in the south, I have a different take on the way folks should interact. I think it is tasteless and crass to attack a man's wife in the way it was presented. You should never talk about anyone, especially a woman in the way that poster was addressing Michelle Obama. You and I are likely different in this regard.

Finally, my attempt at humor to show how off the rails some of the posts are around here by changing two words in a guy's quote was obviously too subtle for you. I did point out that I was trying to be funny in that change, and later explained it, but I wasn't aware of the protocol. It was later explained, so you won't see that again from me; however, you don't address the larger point I was making. I guess that nuance is lost on you.

The problem I see around here is if you are slightly to the left of Attila the Hun, you are a commie pinko liberal. That is simply crazy. If you think that the current POTUS is a socialist or communist, you are beyond nuts. I've said before that he governs slightly to the right of Richard Nixon, and from a policy perspective that's accurate. In this climate, how is a moderate who isn't attached at the hip to the far right supposed to operate?

[whiptastic]

No, you didnt say it happened last month, your comment was, "It really is different now. We are living in very dangerous times for our democracy" .....So I asked did this just happen in the last month....... as I dont recall your post regarding Maher's million dollars donated to Obama's super pac.......But then again, based on your history of post (as I have shown above), I wouldnt expect a negative comment towards the liberal side.

OK. Let's play this game out for a moment just so you will see how truly crazy it is.

I don't recall your post condemning the Rwandan Genocide, therefore you must support the mass murder.

I don't recall your post condemning the Cincinnati Reds, therefore you must support communism.

I don't recall your post condemning the use of money from foreign nationals in super PACs, therefore you support selling out our elections to China.

I could keep going, but I think you get the point. Just because I didn't call out every possible grievance or every single malfeasance possible under the Citizens United decision doesn't meant that I think it's right -- on either side.

Also, I should point out that you added emphasis to my quote without proper attribution that you'd done so, therefore you must be a complete hypocrite. :D

[newtothegame]

If you are amazed by the search feature or if you think that's even "modern technology", I fear nuance is completely lost on you.

I do think that Obama is a smart guy. Maybe not as smart as Nixon or Clinton (who are/were both very intelligent men), but he's is intelligent.

I missed a post in that thread and apologized for having done so. In my world, when I guy steps up and admits fault, it should be forgiven and forgotten. Maybe it's different where you are from. All I was trying to do there was point out that something might have been missed in the discussion. That said, you attacked my reading comprehension when the reality was I simply hadn't read that page. Had I, I never would have stuck my two cents in. That said, I wasn't incorrect in my statement, just in its application.

Maybe because I was raised in the south, I have a different take on the way folks should interact. I think it is tasteless and crass to attack a man's wife in the way it was presented. You should never talk about anyone, especially a woman in the way that poster was addressing Michelle Obama. You and I are likely different in this regard.

Finally, my attempt at humor to show how off the rails some of the posts are around here by changing two words in a guy's quote was obviously too subtle for you. I did point out that I was trying to be funny in that change, and later explained it, but I wasn't aware of the protocol. It was later explained, so you won't see that again from me; however, you don't address the larger point I was making. I guess that nuance is lost on you.

The problem I see around here is if you are slightly to the left of Attila the Hun, you are a commie pinko liberal. That is simply crazy. If you think that the current POTUS is a socialist or communist, you are beyond nuts. I've said before that he governs slightly to the right of Richard Nixon, and from a policy perspective that's accurate. In this climate, how is a moderate who isn't attached at the hip to the far right supposed to operate?
lol, YOU still don't get it do you??
None of the above things matter. I really could care less what affiliation you are. YOU are the one who apparently needed to clarify it by stating that you are "neither this nor that........
So, all I have done is go back and show that nearly all of your post are ONE sided (to the left of attilla the hun lmao) and you take humbrage to it.
I really could care less......but as in previous post, you make claims and when the rubber meets the road, you have to make retractions.
Remember how I ended that post........?????
Admission is the first step to recovery,......lol
Its ok to be liberal, but in this day and age, there is no reason to be a closet liberal......:lol:

[newtothegame]

OK. Let's play this game out for a moment just so you will see how truly crazy it is.



I don't recall your post condemning the Rwandan Genocide, therefore you must support the mass murder.



I don't recall your post condemning the Cincinnati Reds, therefore you must support communism.

I don't recall your post condemning the use of money from foreign nationals in super PACs, therefore you support selling out our elections to China.


I could keep going, but I think you get the point. Just because I didn't call out every possible grievance or every single malfeasance possible under the Citizens United decision doesn't meant that I think it's right -- on either side.



Also, I should point out that you added emphasis to my quote without proper attribution that you'd done so, therefore you must be a complete hypocrite. :D
Show me the thread on Rwanda.......
Show me the thread on the reds.......
Show me the thread on foriegn nationals and super pacs.......(by the way I have stated many times I am all for campaign reform).
See, again , you're are lost cause none of those topics were available (or brought up) to comment on.
Nice try though....now run along like a little closet pinkie and find your next talking point. :lol:

[badcompany]

Your idea would eliminate third parties and guarantee the two party monopoly in perpetuity. Do you think that the two major parties would decide to give any money to any third party - green, libertarian, or anyone else? Do you think Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell would support giving one penny to someone who might crash their party? Do you think Nancy Pelosi would give a dime to a Green Party candidate in her district, or Boehner to an independent Tea Party candidate in his? Under your proposal it would be impossible for any of these theoretical candidates to run because they would have zero dollars.

As rasta said, I would rather support free speech I don't agree with than control speech. Like many liberal ideas, yours sounds good at first airing, and makes people who support it feel good, but the result is more power and control to those already in power, and less liberty for we, the people.

When Socialist Utopia arrives, there won't be a need for an opposing party.;)

[TJDave]

How about he gives you 100 mill and you still vote for whoever you want?

A deal is a deal.

I'll even throw in the vote of my lawn guy and four of his relatives.

[fast4522]

Fellow Republicans: First let me say that it is not important to agree with one another 100 percent. The party establishment try's to put together a platform and then try to get us into single file. This is old school and ineffective when dealing with communistic filthy do nothing dead weights who we oppose in the next election. Many fail big time on both party sides in leaving this great nation intact and all that it was and should be for coming generations. What is required from all who do not consider themselves communistic is to look real hard at this administration as it is in today's light. Come together and put the trash out in November, no if's and's or but's! I implore you to do the correct thing for these United States of America.

[BlueShoe]

So Sheldon Adelson is being compared to George Soros? Adelson is trying to support and preserve nations, Soros goal has always been to weaken and wreck them. That pretty much says it all, and makes further comparison redundant.

[Robert Goren]

I get the biggest kick out the Ricketts "stop the spending" super pac. They aren't saying that to the city of Chicago though because they want to the city to pony 300 million to redo Wrigley Field. Their local senate candidate here has gotten a bit of scandal attached to her. It turns out her husband has been renting government owned and subsidised ranch land for years. Ranchers who able to rent from the government land pay about 5 cent on the dollar compared to what it cost to rent privately owned land. Strange how when talking about cutting SS and Medicare during the primary, she never got around to mentioning that massive give away of government funds.

[Tom]

Give-a-ways or investments?
Inquiring minds want to know.

[fast4522]

Trump says, 25% tax on everything made in China and we will not owe them anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzjiW4U4V9g&feature=related

This week he told investors to guard their investments because massive inflation is on the way inside 2012.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6a1DZR1u5M&feature=related

[Tom]

Well, the Donald has proven he knows FAR more about the economy than Baroke Obama.

[fast4522]

You guys love wearing them there knee pads just to redistribute the wealth :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: