The Almighty US Government

[Heywood]

Soros isn't some anomaly as you suggest.

You glossed over my post where I said...

But really, we're not even talking about political affiliation. I mention the Kochs as the most prominent example in the news but there are certainly others. What we're discussing is that money is too important to politicians and how politicians are bought by lobbyists and special interests.

...but you seem to insist on changing the subject for some reason.

But hey, guess what, their money would be removed from the equation too. There are liberal lobbying groups on K street that would be disempowered by my proposed changed.

I want popular opinion, not money, to dominate American politics, no matter whether that money comes from the left or the right.

Isn't that what you want? If not, why not?

I am not convinced that money dominates elections...at least to the degree you make it out. Eric Cantor's recent defeat suggests that it doesn't.

I also realize there are two issue here which are interwoven. Free Speech and Money in politics. If I want free speech(and I do) I have to accept that money will be in politics. There is nothing wrong with you or anyone else using their wealth to spread a political message. The fact that someone has more money than you is irrelevant. You have more money than someone else. If you wanted to make the money issue "fair" to everyone you simply have to ban money politics altogether. I think you realize this which is why you wanted to originally ban all political ads. Unfortunately, banning all money from politics is a restriction on free speech.

---

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/27...n-the-pipe

Multi-millionaire Nick Hanauer is no dummy. He sees the writing on the wall.

I'd strongly suggest you read this entire piece titled "The pitchforks are coming . . . for us Plutocrats"

And what do I see in our future now?

I see pitchforks.

At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country—the 99.99 percent—is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.

But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.

And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won’t last.

Multi-millionaire Nick Hanauer is a dummy. As long as the plight of poor people continue to improves, they won't be inclined to revolt. Now someone can come along and stir them up and convince them that they will be better off if they revolt...that might start a revolution but some statistic will not. The fact is, poor people now have more stuff...more wealth...than they have ever had at any time in the history of the human race. Why should you think they will revolt other than if they are incited?

Wealthy people have more 0's in their ledgers....which make for "alarming" statistics. In the end, people care about real stuff. Cars, DVDs, computers, etc,. I bet if you measured the actual real stuff people owned....the amount of stuff owned by poor people is growing faster than the amount of stuff owned by rich people.

[DeistPaladin]

I also realize there are two issue here which are interwoven. Free Speech and Money in politics. If I want free speech(and I do) I have to accept that money will be in politics.

As previously explained, stopping people from buying more speech doesn't mean they don't have free speech.

[Heywood]

I also realize there are two issue here which are interwoven. Free Speech and Money in politics. If I want free speech(and I do) I have to accept that money will be in politics.

As previously explained, stopping people from buying more speech doesn't mean they don't have free speech.

Stopping people from buying more free speech is imposing a restriction on their ability to speak. They simply have less ability than they would have before they were stopped from buying more free speech.

You are happy with restricting the free speech of people wealthier than you. Would you be happy if people poorer than you decided you were spending too much of your wealth on your speech?

You can't separate these two issues. Unfettered free speech means there is going to be money in politics. I'd rather have unfettered free speech than have money removed from politics.

[DeistPaladin]

Stopping people from buying more free speech is imposing a restriction on their ability to speak. They simply have less ability than they would have before they were stopped from buying more free speech.

Purchased speech isn't free. Therefore, it's not free speech.

You are happy with restricting the free speech of people wealthier than you.

I'm not.

Would you be happy if people poorer than you decided you were spending too much of your wealth on your speech?

I would ask why they feel it is so. I haven't purchased control of any political figures. None of them would even know who I was.

You can't separate these two issues.

Sure you can.

Unfettered free speech means there is going to be money in politics.

No, it's doesn't.

I'd rather have unfettered free speech than have money removed from politics.

You don't have to make that choice. It's a false dilemma.

[Cinjin]

I don't see what the big deal is Heywood. You scream free-speech free-speech like a butthurt hippy when it has absolutely nothing to do with DP's proposal.

I'll explain as you seem to be a little thick on the matter.

Is Marlboro being denied free-speech because they are not allowed to advertise on television? No
Is Warner Brothers denied free-speech because they are only allowed to advertise General Audience Previews on television? No
Are pornographers denied free-speech because they aren't allowed to post their product in public arenas? No
Are politicians denied free-speech because they are not allowed to spend money on campaign elections? Fuck no.

You've created this BULL SHIT coupling of campaign funds with free-speech. The two are mutually exclusive.

It's fucking simple really. Pay attention. I can draw the lines for you and no one loses free-speech.

In the interest of gaining transparency in government, fairness in the voting process, and with the intent to quell corruption:
1. Candidates would not be able to receive funds from any source other than the American Tax Payer (NO PRIVATE DONATIONS)
---This would also limit the ridiculous amount of spending that goes on.
2. Each Candidate would be allowed one website that is funded by the Tax Payer (NO PRIVATE DONATIONS)
3. Candidates would be allowed to voice their issues openly in weekly TV debates. (NO ADVERTISING)
4. No Private Party is ever allowed to create TV or Radio advertising in support of a candidate DURING an election. (BEFORE AND AFTER IS FINE)
5. Candidates would be allowed to advertise on any of their own transportation vehicles. (Buses and planes, etc)

It's that simple. Draw the lines and the rules for an election and then enforce them. Now since you're painfully belligerent and utterly naive on this issue, allow me to explain why this would be a significant help to our corrupt system:

1. With weekly debates, the candidates are always on equal footing and no one has the unfair advantage of private dollars funding dirty political advertising. Most importantly for you, both politicians maintain their free speech as they can freely express themselves on national TV.
2. It takes a minimal amount of funds to design and build a website. All candidates can would have X amount of dollars allocated to them to do that. Allowing them their free-speech that you so desperately want us to believe they aren't getting.
3. With private parties unable to make even the tiniest donation to a political party/candidate, the American people would have a chance at finding a politician that actually wants to help us rather than help himself. This would also keep the elected candidate from returning favors to the billionaires that couldn't give two shits about raping America and destroying the environment and/or the economy.
4. Candidates could feel free to create print adds with their own money. Again, no donations are ever allowed.

We do it to Marlboro, Camel, Warner Brothers, pornographers and the like. We could easily put rules on our political candidates that would insure fairness in publicly held elections. This business of you whining and bitching about free-speech is complete and utter bull shit. They would lose NONE!

[Minimalist]

All well and good Cinj as far as elections go.

Now come up with a solution that deals with the corporate whores and their legions of lobbyists after the election.

[The Grand Nudger]

Point 4 absolutely violates free speech Cinjin. No worries, it can be left out (or left as is in the real world) and the effect would be the same.

[Cinjin]

Point 4 absolutely violates free speech Cinjin. No worries, it can be left out (or left as is in the real world) and the effect would be the same.

No it wouldn't. Private parties can be heard on CNN and Fox News and any other news show. They can also be heard on websites and in print. And don't forget, they would only be restricted DURING an election.
The reason for point no. 4 is only one thing: Candidates must win elections on their own merit. We regulate a multitude of things seen by the public for the good of the public. This would be no different. Key thing here: Nowhere is it written that Free Speech must ALWAYS include radio and television. In fact if that were the case, we'd have porn on every TV channel and a multitude of companies screaming about the government violating their rights.

[Cinjin]

All well and good Cinj as far as elections go.

Now come up with a solution that deals with the corporate whores and their legions of lobbyists after the election.

I'd love to outlaw lobbyists but in truth, some lobbyists are useful to getting things done. I'm afraid I don't have a solution for that one just yet.

[The Grand Nudger]

No it wouldn't. Private parties can be heard on CNN and Fox News and any other news show. They can also be heard on websites and in print. And don't forget, they would only be restricted DURING an election.

Right, so, however long our elections went on for that would be the span of time in which these people had no right to free speech. The span of time in which our government used its firmly established authority to say "Hey, shut the fuck up, we're trying to engage in the democratic process". Shaky.

(Have you considered the incredible advantage this would give to incumbency btw?)

The reason for point no. 4 is only one thing: Candidates must win elections on their own merit. We regulate a multitude of things seen by the public for the good of the public. This would be no different. Key thing here: Nowhere is it written that Free Speech must ALWAYS include radio and television. In fact if that were the case, we'd have porn on every TV channel and a multitude of companies screaming about the government violating their rights.

No I get it (that you think it will accomplish a goal), but it would be different- We'd be telling people, during an election, that they were not allowed to express their political opinions except at the approved times... in the approved manner.

:late edit. What if their political opinion - is that my opinions about the approved times and approved manners is bullshit and I ought to be impeached?