Guess the individual doesn't matter any more

[apb]

[COLOR=#000099]http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf[/COLOR]

So if China wanted to, they could "buy" an election? Same for a company?

Andrew

[Dave Stewart]

Actually, our leaders and elections have been bought for many years by special interest groups...they just spread the money out and make it legal...now they don't have to hide it...it is legal. Special interest monies is what really got this country in the shape it is in...not one party or the other...they are both bought and paid for and anyone with any common sense knows it. Now we can rejoice in the fact that limits are now taken off and we as a nation have managed to legally offer what little was left of our solverenty and integrity as a free nation for sale. Anyone want to buy California?

[jcb]

Policiticans have been buying elections since they began, and they don't need money--just lofty words like Hope and Change that tickle our ears. The only way anyone can buy an election is if we the voters are dumb enough to sell it. And we have been.

The only practical difference this decision--which is 100% in line with the Constitution--will make is that if you think the airwaves are saturated NOW during election time with political ads, you ain't seen nothing yet.

There really is only one way out of this mess.

[Grumpy]

I have said for many many many years that it was unconstitutional to ban organization, businesses, unions, etc., from making political contributions. Let anyone, including churches and religious organizations, donate anything they want to any politician BUT MAKE THEM ACCOUNT FOR EVERY PENNY THAT COMES IN AND SHOW EXACTLY WHERE THEY SPEND IT.

If they have to account for the money coming in and where they spend it, then we would know who is buying and/or selling who and what.

Now the churches and religious organizations need to get the ban on their voices overturned. This phony "Separation of Church and State" is nothing more than an blantent attempt to drive God out of the country AND THEY ARE SUCCEEDING. The Constitution guarentees Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion.

There have been some court challenges to the anti-God onslaught as well as local churches and even individual attempts, such as Judge Roy Moore in Alabama, to protect the display of our religious symbols in public; however, I have yet to see any religious organization challenge their congregations to form a political movement to reverse the anti-God and anti-religion trend. I just do not understand why our religious leaders are so silent on this issue.

Perhaps they are afraid that if they publicly denounce the erroneous “separation of church and state” movement, they will be seen as meddling in politics and thus loose their tax-exempt status as religious organizations. Even if that were to happen, I think it would be far better for them to pay taxes now than to eventually not have anything left to pay taxes on!!

Off my soapbox now,

Grumpy

[apb]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this statement "... it was unconstitutional to ban organization, businesses, unions, etc., from making political contributions..."

Individuals within the organization have the right to make political contributions. Allowing any entity (corporation, union, etc.) puts way too much power at the hands of a few individuals. It means, for example, that your company president could decide to put the company's support behind a specific candidate. That candidate could be one who you were very much opposed too. Agree with Dave, it puts too much control in the hands of special interest groups and less for the individual. So much for goverment by the people, of the people, for the people.

Andrew

[Grumpy]

Andrew, the real problem in America today is not money or who is contributing money--it is how few people vote.

The other side of what I have said for many years is that America does not pay its elected representatives ENOUGH. It is rediculous that we pay our Presient only $400,000 and the rest only $187,000 a year and a coach that theaches a game can make millions per year and I won't even go into what entertainers and others make.

The most important jobs in the country get a pitence and most Americans still complain that they get TOO MUCH. I know it will never happen but the solution is to pay politicans comenserate with their importance and then DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO TAKE ANY MONEY FROM ANYONE ELSE. Make them all USE ONLY AN ALLOTED AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR COMPAIGNING that is paid for by the government. Each similiar candate gets the same amount. Special interests could pay for any advertizements they want to help or hurt a particular candidate but couuld't give directly to any political entity.

The trouble is politicians whould have to enact the laws that would require this and that won't happen.

Grumpy

[apb]

the real problem in America today is not money or who is contributing money--it is how few people vote....

Yes and no. I think its more that too few informed people vote. By that I mean people who have examined the candidates and the issues enough to form an opinion of each. If you really have to be persuaded to get out and vote or can't be bothered cause its raining right now, you probably shouldn't be voting. I'm afraid now of seeing less informed folks voting and more people being subjected to miss information in order to sway the vote in one direction or another.

... The other side of what I have said for many years is that America does not pay its elected representatives ENOUGH. It is rediculous that we pay our Presient only $400,000 and the rest only $187,000 a year and a coach that theaches a game can make millions per year and I won't even go into what entertainers and others make.
... I know it will never happen but the solution is to pay politicans comenserate with their importance and then DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO TAKE ANY MONEY FROM ANYONE ELSE. Make them all USE ONLY AN ALLOTED AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR COMPAIGNING that is paid for by the government. Each similiar candate gets the same amount...

I agree with you on this part. May be we can tie their salaries to how well the country is doing?

...Special interests could pay for any advertizements they want to help or hurt a particular candidate but couuld't give directly to any political entity.

I agree with not allowing special interests giving directly to any political entity. Likewise, special interests trying to sway the vote in their favor, no. Again, the way the SC rejected McCain/Finegold it is unclear whether a foreign entity (either company or government) could set up a company in the US and then funnel money to ads as you suggest. It's a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The first amendment issue is bogus in this case. Any citizen of any organization, be it a corporation, church, union, can, as an individual, vote for those who they want to represent them in public office. Each individual on those orgainzation already has a voice in government. We do not need any special interest group trying to influence elections to favor their particular interest. That puts too much power in the hands of a few, encourages corruption, and takes away from the voice of the individual.

Andrew

[Rock_Fish]

Deleted

[jcb]

Andrew, the real problem in America today is not money or who is contributing money--it is how few people vote.

Actually it's the opposite--too many people vote. Vote because some GOTV group came and picked them up, vote for the better public speaker, or vote for whom they would prefer to have a beer with.

[jcb]

Actually it's the opposite--too many people vote. Vote because some GOTV group came and picked them up, vote for the better public speaker, or vote for whom they would prefer to have a beer with.

Or, what Andrew said ten times better above