President Obama does it again!

[kiff]

I can't wait for you to enlighten us....

...you know, as opposed to dropping by just to say nothing.

Oh sorry! How's it going Jacks? I did pm you but you never replied...

Anyways... I could have sworn we've gone through this before (not necessarily you, jacks). I know I've posted something like this before. oh well...

It's really pretty simple, yet it seems all you hear is is the constantly recycled disinformation...

It's about freedom of the press and whether bureaucrats (FEC) can decide who has this right within an election period with a "media exemption". I mean hey, only our "media" should have freedom of the press, right? After all, only good corporations like abc,cbs,nbc,cnn... ,oh and fox, should have that "privilege"...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

small, non-profit conservative evil corporation BAD! no freedom of the press for you!

The nonprofit corporation Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA")
...
The lower court held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.

Michael Moore good! Go ahead, it's cool!

During the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization named Citizens United filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, a documentary critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election.

FEC says they have the power to even ban books!

During the original oral argument, then-Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or union.[13] In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a political book.

SCOTUS tells the totalitarian fucks to go eat shit...

Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that since the First Amendment (and the Court) do not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.

 

[TWD]

Yes, money means more awareness, and more awareness GREATLY increases the chances for election, meaning that it is less about which candidate is better, but is which candidate is pleasing the corporations with the biggest pockets. Meaning, essentially, that our elections are being bought. Or are you unaware that the most donations go to the people with the most ability to financially affect a corporate interest?

This simply isn't true. In the age of the internet you can raise hundreds of thousands for an old lady that was bullied on a school bus. Blaming a lack of funding on the rich just isn't a valid excuse anymore. Anyone can generate the funds required for a worthy cause. In fact that's exactly what we have seen this year. In years past most candidates wouldn't have the funds to continue for so long in a GOP primary. This time pacs ensured that every major candidate was able to get their message out. Even crazy Ron Paul got his chance.

Can you name even one instance where a candidate this year has been ignored because they didn't pay enough homage to the rich? Even Obama who had done everything he can to turn off the rich will still amass more than enough to get his message out. The candidates are not beholden to their donors. It's just too easy to find new ones.

Your predictions have failed to materialize.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

Oh sorry! How's it going Jacks? I did pm you but you never replied...

oh, about that game?
Ravaged?

yeah I just wasn't sure how to respond.
you sent it to Crotale and Jason too but there was never a topic about it in the Games forum.

I think my point was that Obama's campaign raked in millions of dollars from rich sponsors as well Sounds pretty typical to me.

yes, and the point is that he didn't need half those dollars.
no amount of money could have saved McCain from the historical tidal-wave that was Obama combined with the historical fuck up that was Palin.

the president could have raised less than half of what he did.
if the rest of the election was identical he still would have won easily.

oh and look, TWD still ignoring every counterpoint that is put to him...

 

[Zxanphorian]

TWD: You still haven't explained why more money, especially anonymous money, is beneficial to the democratic process, leading towards a much more informed and educated electorate.

 

[dragonfliet]

This simply isn't true. In the age of the internet you can raise hundreds of thousands for an old lady that was bullied on a school bus. Blaming a lack of funding on the rich just isn't a valid excuse anymore. Anyone can generate the funds required for a worthy cause. In fact that's exactly what we have seen this year. In years past most candidates wouldn't have the funds to continue for so long in a GOP primary. This time pacs ensured that every major candidate was able to get their message out. Even crazy Ron Paul got his chance.

Can you name even one instance where a candidate this year has been ignored because they didn't pay enough homage to the rich? Even Obama who had done everything he can to turn off the rich will still amass more than enough to get his message out. The candidates are not beholden to their donors. It's just too easy to find new ones.

Your predictions have failed to materialize.

Wait, whu? I don't even know what you're trying to say. I'm not talking about paying homage to the rich, I'm talking about people cowtowing to their donors AFTER they are elected through legislation.

The single largest factor in getting elected is raising the largest amount of money (and while this isn't ALWAYS true, it is true so often that to ignore this would be silly). Hell, it's how Romney, who has enjoyed very little enthusiasm was able to bully his way through the primaries. He outspent his competition by a huge amount and, go figure, there was a correlation to his spending and his wins.

The VAST MAJORITY of money in political races comes from the very rich and PACs, NOT from a large group of citizens.

Let's break that down a little bit. Since the best possible way to be elected is to make the most amount of money, and the best way to make the most amount of money is to please the richest people, the politicians are essentially forced to please a very very small group of people as best as they can, who become highly influential (if they aren't pleased, they don't donate their large amount of wealth). This isn't to say that what we have is a system of absolute corruption, because we don't, even though such things do happen on a pretty semi-regular basis (they are the minority). What we do have, however, is a system where people are buying access and are able to write small provisions that greatly benefit themselves, that the laws become twisted for their benefit. It isn't corrupt in an outright way, but it is most certainly corrupt in a small way that hurts our system greatly.

The point is to remove massive single investors so that what you're talking about, where large groups of people donate money in a small, regulated way happens, and where major corporations aren't able to give millions and millions and millions and demand, in essence if not in provable fact, the attention of the recipients of that money, time to discuss legislation, to get their own hands on it and to influence in a disturbing way the running of our country.

 

[TWD]

oh and look, TWD still ignoring every counterpoint that is put to him...

Dude, don't be so high maintenance. I don't have the time nor the inclination to respond to every tiny little point in every post like some here do. I respond to the posts that I think are worth responding to, help move the conversation along, or I find interesting. Quite frankly your posts are none of those things. So don't cry about it. Just become a better poster.

TWD: You still haven't explained why more money, especially anonymous money, is beneficial to the democratic process, leading towards a much more informed and educated electorate.

I think that the more voices we have out there involved in the political process the better. I want everyone's voice to be represented on the airwaves. If it's a widespread opinion then there will certainly be someone willing to spend some money putting it out there. The more information and opinion that voters are presented with the better. I am confident that they can successfully navigate the flood of information. We don't need government to tell us how much or what kind of political speak can be on the air. The voters can figure it out.

On the anonymous point: If I understand correctly then the concern here is that candidates would give breaks to their friends. If you don't know who donated then how would you catch such corruption? I think that's a legitimate concern so I'll deal with you. I can agree to forcing PACs to disclose donors, if liberals can agree to not bully and punish people for contributing. We can't have a culture where people are afraid to speak their mind.

The single largest factor in getting elected is raising the largest amount of money (and while this isn't ALWAYS true, it is true so often that to ignore this would be silly). Hell, it's how Romney, who has enjoyed very little enthusiasm was able to bully his way through the primaries. He outspent his competition by a huge amount and, go figure, there was a correlation to his spending and his wins.

I just simply don't agree with this opinion. Mitt Romney won because the others were all bad candidates. The money really had nothing to do with it. The truth is that they all spent a lot of money. There's a point at which more money isn't going to help you. I really don't think having more funds would have helped anyone defeat Romney.

 

[Luv_Studd]

Amounts raised by candidates in the attached would fund a small country or two, no doubt:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

http://www.classwarfareexists.com/2012-superpac-spending-already-exceeds-2010/

http://www.roosevelttorch.com/sections/news/money-talks-in-2012-republican-primary-1.2716975#.T-UFqZE8WSo

 

[Zxanphorian]

I think that the more voices we have out there involved in the political process the better. I want everyone's voice to be represented on the airwaves. If it's a widespread opinion then there will certainly be someone willing to spend some money putting it out there. The more information and opinion that voters are presented with the better. I am confident that they can successfully navigate the flood of information. We don't need government to tell us how much or what kind of political speak can be on the air. The voters can figure it out.

On average, that is true that more of anything is always better to find averages and trends in data, public sentiment, etc. But each voice is not 'valued' the same. If you recall from statistics classes, when creating regression lines, you can have a single data point that throws the entire magnitude and direction of the regression . Think of the 'mega-donor' or 'mega-voice' as one of those outlying points. They will be able to out-spend and out-influence many of the other points/voices, and thus be detrimental to the whole political process.

Also the voters cannot figure it out for themselves and sift through the information and opinion. We are a society of low-information, non-engaged citizens. Many people cannot have a health intellectual debate anymore, and it shows in things like the reduction of Congresses declining grade level of speech. We act on emotion and opinion, and not from facts. The United States has the lowest levels of people who accept evolution (which is widely accepted as fact, and not as a theory many skeptics still label it as) among the developed world, and we vote people in who believe in creationism and want to teach creationism's clone, the erroneously-labeled 'theory' of intelligent design, in public science classrooms. Hell, just look around the internet and YouTube, and you will know what I am talking about.

As far as government intervention, I agree that we shouldn't limit the amount and type of political speak in the media. But government should level the playing field monetarily and require full transparency and disclosure of who the donors are.

On the anonymous point: If I understand correctly then the concern here is that candidates would give breaks to their friends. If you don't know who donated then how would you catch such corruption? I think that's a legitimate concern so I'll deal with you. I can agree to forcing PACs to disclose donors, if liberals can agree to not bully and punish people for contributing. We can't have a culture where people are afraid to speak their mind.

Exactly, there is full deniability on the candidate's and donor's part if there is any corruption or conflicts of interests if the donors are secret. Imagine a candidate from a generic party touting his or her alternative energy credentials, yet receiving seven or eight figure checks from the big oil and natural gas companies. Gee I wonder who the candidate will favor while writing legislation (if in Congress) or relaxing enforcement (if in the White House).

Also how are liberals all to blame for bullying/punishing people for contributing or speaking their minds? Conservatives do that all the time when they fall out of line from their pledges, litmus tests, contracts, etc. No-one dares to cross Beck, Limbaugh, Norquist, and the like without being lambasted as a RINO and a 'liberal-lover.'

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

Just become a better poster.

look who's talking.
ever since your inane remarks about socialism you've done nothing but ignore every legitimate reply I've made. both about Citizens United and the incredibly dense notion that more ads and more money = better education and an improved political process.

you said the United States is no place for socialism.
...even though HUGE swaths of the economy and government (especially the military) are dependent on socialized/Federal programs.

you said more political ads = better educated electorate.
...even though there is zero evidence to support this - for starters - and you know damn well that no one is beholden to the TRUTH in political advertising. there is no governing body to speak of. the guidelines for approving and/or benefiting from political ads (especially now that they can be from anonymous/shadow organizations) are half-assed at best.

I want everyone's voice to be represented on the airwaves.

I mean do you hear yourself?
look who's pining for Utopia now.

your wish for everyone to have a voice could not be more in jeopardy THANKS TO the Citizens United ruling.

If it's a widespread opinion then there will certainly be someone willing to spend some money putting it out there.

this couldn't be further from reality.
just look at the war on drugs (easy target I know, the point remains).

the world would be so much better off if we drastically changed our policy on drug prohibition and treatment of non-violent offenders. this opinion is more than widespread. it is observable.
the government would collect SIGNIFICANT sums of revenue both in savings and taxes by changing our immature and long outdated policy.

but where is the money that should naturally follow this widespread (and demonstrated) opinion?

there's some, sure.
though we see a vast amount of money and effort and time being spent against this widespread opinion every day.

oh but I'm just a bad poster.
don't bother addressing these totally illegitimate critiques. just hit the talking points and move on.
ignore the criticism. or just call the critic a bad poster and assure yourself that his points aren't worth responding to. that's surely the mark of a good poster like yourself.

 

[Underscore]

Dude, [...] Just become a [...] do[...]g.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

yes, and the point is that he didn't need half those dollars.
no amount of money could have saved McCain from the historical tidal-wave that was Obama combined with the historical fuck up that was Palin.

the president could have raised less than half of what he did.
if the rest of the election was identical he still would have won easily.

I don't buy that at all. McCain/Palin had a decent run. They raised (by some accounts anyway) about half as much money as Obama did. You can't honestly tell me that the extra hundreds of millions of dollars that Obama raised had nothing to do with him being elected, particularly after that link posted by dragonfliet.

And to act like he wasn't bought and paid for by corporations and rich buttholes just like everyone else is ludicrous. You literally don't get into office, especially President, without accepting money from someone you probably shouldn't. Obama has enough questionable affiliations that this should be obvious (and, no, I'm not saying nobody else has questionable affiliations. In my estimation, every Presidential candidate ever has had questionable affiliations).

I just don't see Obama winning 2008 with less money than McCain. A huge part of his campaign was message penetration, and you don't get that kind of penetration for free. (even in the secret service )

 

[TWD]

just hit the talking points and move on.
ignore the criticism. or just call the critic a bad poster and assure yourself that his points aren't worth responding to. that's surely the mark of a good poster like yourself.

Oh yes, because Jacks:SmirckingRevenge NEVER does that

 

[SlayerDragon]

you had me at penetration

 

[Vaskadar]

Whatever, I'm throwing my vote away on Vermin Supreme. I'll not vote for either retard or douchecanoe ramming his fist in the air while making false proclamations and promises. At least there will be clean oral hygiene with Vermin Supreme dictating your life.
New Hampshire Debate
[m]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1s_U35nE6Q[/m]

 

[Zxanphorian]

Obama has enough questionable affiliations that this should be obvious (and, no, I'm not saying nobody else has questionable affiliations. In my estimation, every Presidential candidate ever has had questionable affiliations).

Let me guess: Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, Saul Alinsky, and John Maynard Keynes' ghost?

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

Oh yes, because Jacks:SmirckingRevenge NEVER does that

you can stop being so elementary.
anytime now... I'll wait.

address my counterpoints or shut up.

You can't honestly tell me that the extra hundreds of millions of dollars that Obama raised had nothing to do with him being elected

of course not.
I never said anything like that.

but 2008 was unprecedented for a lot of reasons.
the least of which is how much money was being spent.

And to act like he wasn't bought and paid for by corporations and rich buttholes just like everyone else is ludicrous.

I didn't act like that either.

You literally don't get into office, especially President, without accepting money from someone you probably shouldn't.

yes exactly.
which is why I can't hold that against Obama.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

I didn't act like that either.

What the...

yes exactly.
which is why I can't hold that against Obama.

I never said to hold it against him. The only reason I brought it up is that Obama is not the ONE RULER SUPREME GOD AMONGST US ALL HOLIER THAN ALL INFALLIBLE MASTER PERSON. Here in reality, he raised more money (primarily from rich people) than the competition and won. dragonfliet mentioned having a corporate interest, so, obviously, Obama has a corporate interest just like his contemporaries. Not every business is trying to get the same things.

I simply wholesale disagree with the idea that Obama is different (read: better) than any other current politician (or, by that token, worse). I disagree with him, sure, but that is irrelevant. He got into office through massive financial investment and it seems silly to sit here complaining about millions of dollars being spent by corporations to get people elected yet fawn over a person who used that same system to get elected.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

Obama is not the ONE RULER SUPREME GOD AMONGST US ALL HOLIER THAN ALL INFALLIBLE MASTER PERSON.

I don't recall anyone saying he was.

Here in reality, he raised more money (primarily from rich people) than the competition and won.

no one is arguing this point.

He got into office through massive financial investment and it seems silly to sit here complaining about millions of dollars being spent by corporations to get people elected yet fawn over a person who used that same system to get elected.

you claim that I'm ignoring the money he raised.
I'm not. obviously raising more than your opponent helps. but this point is so obvious that I didn't feel there was any reason to go out of my way to address it in the beginning.

if you want to see me admit that raising money helps win elections, well here I go: raising money helps win elections.

but I am also claiming that you are ignoring the historical precedence of the 2008 election; historical on both fronts. democrats had the first black man and republicans had the first woman. the combination of first black man (who wasn't a token black man like Herman Cain) plus HORRIBLE woman and inability of John McCain to connect with minorities and young people played AT LEAST as big a role as the money raised.

I don't know where you (and people on the right) get off with all this hyperbole when it concerns what Obama does as a politician on his journey toward political power. you think we (on the left-ish side) are supposed to swallow our pride and admit shame in the face of supporting a guy who had some Wall Street help.

why?
I believe my candidate is superior to yours. and it's unfortunate that our election process is so flawed that he must do some things that I dislike in order to get to the place where he might be able to change those things a little bit at a time.

I don't see how this automatically means that I am sacrificing my principles.
we all have to live in the world as it is currently designed.

 

[Firefly]

What about capping campaign budgets?

And TWD, a country can't function without socialism.

 

[-Jes-]

I don't buy that at all. McCain/Palin had a decent run.
I just don't see Obama winning 2008 with less money than McCain.

I honestly couldn't see Obama losing.
Outside of America, McCain was more or less declared DOA by the public at large in no small part due to Palin.