Why single out big businesses? Because they mostly donate to conservative causes and you're a liberal? How about prohibiting public employees and anyone else getting money from the government from any political activity since they could personally financially benefit from their advocacy? Like teachers unions and other public employee unions. That sounds kinda fair.
Its a goal to work towards more than an immediate fix. Its like when Ron Paul presented his plan for cutting the budget he acknowledge you can't just cut off welfare overnight, instead you cut national security, regulatory agencies and waste and then gradually you work your way to a smaller and smaller government, until people can't seem to remember why its needed anymore. This would take over a century to achieve and would require a culture dedicated to NAP, voluntarily helping others and a lot of thought. And I am doing okay. I'm deciding between two different teaching jobs at two different universities at this point. My funding was cut at the university I'm at so I've been unemployed for a couple months, I have enough savings to last a couple more, but damn I keep going through these really intensive interviewing processes, like four interviews for one job and then not getting an offer. I'm thinking about publishing a book I've been writing as well. On conservative militia and seperatist movements in the United States. Anyways I hope you are doing great!
Damnit, youve figured it all out clever boy. That's exactly why us dumb naive liberals dont want big businesses to donate to political campaigns. And totally fuck teachers unions, totally, fuck edumacation! who needs that shit? Only numbers I care about are 3 , 2 , 1 Launch. As we launch another missile into some asshole country. Because Democracy is worth suppressing rights for. edit- Which fox news cast member is your favorite? I love them all. I love fox news. Thinking of maybe even getting a nice fox news tattoo on my forehead, what do you think?
A little ironic isn't it? The definition of democracy is the perceived majority banding together to suppress those that they do not agree with.
What do I think? I think you're using sarcasm to deflect attention from your inability to explain why big business should be silenced but unions shouldn't.
No, what are you talking about? I love fox news. Big business shouldnt be silenced, they need a bigger voice, and we need to criminalize all unions, fuck worker safety, who needs that? Wouldnt mind hiring children at pennies on the dollar. And I love conservatives and hate any sort of change or progress, I miss the simpler times, back when life expectancy was 35, and the speed limit was 40, back before any sort of food regulation laws, before those damn liberal scum came and fucked it all up. And I love big business.
Why do I have to be a liberal to not want Big Business to donate to campaigns? Straw man much? I'm just tired of the bull shit year after year. Hillary in particular is raking in the dough more then ever before. And I personally want to get rid of teachers unions. Allows bad teachers to continue to stay in the system. But I don't see what withholding money from unions has to do with big businesses and investment banks gambling on candidates to do their bidding.
I'll take you at your word you're not a liberal. My mistake, I thought you were a Bernie supporter. You want to prohibit big business from contributing to political causes. Do you think unions should also be silenced?
I am a Bernie supporter, in the sense that I believe the country is beyond repair so why not have some fun before the end. Rather money be given to people as opposed to Banks/Businesses if given the option. While I'm sure you'll tell me that's theft, and my counter-argument would be we just print money out of thin air anyways. Silenced, no. I think they're free to say whatever they want.
A straw man is giving a person a position he doesn't hold. When I tagged you with the liberal label you accused me of straw manning. What position did I say you have that you don't have? I've been trying to get you to say why you think business should be silenced but not unions. They both advocate for laws that benefit themselves financially. If you don't know just say you don't know.
The biggest issue is really Buckley vs Valeo which essentially stated the gov could not limit individual contributions to politicians and destroyed a ton of state and local legislation which attempted to keep money out of local politics. Citizens United was the cherry on top allowing the creation of super pacs and organizations which are issue based that don't have to publicly disclose their donors. Both Buckley vs Valeo and citizens United must be stopped with a consitutional amendment which says that the government should be allowed to set reasonable limits on campaign contributions. The biggest issue has nothing to do with presidential election. Most political scientists that have studied the issue have found there is virtually no connection between money spent in presidential elections and the result of the election. This is because there is so much free press given by the national news media that the candidates don't need money to get their message out there. However when you study local elections, congressional elections, and especially primaries there is almost and undeniable link between campaign funding and who wins the election. IIRC one massive study found that 98 percent of the time and this was for literally thousands of differnt elections the person who spent more money won. Most experts I've heard talk about this issue agree that the first million dollars is really what you need to put up a fighting effort in an election. Because it's hard to raise this amount of money elections will favor individuals who cozy up to big businesses and people who are already in office and have massive fundraising operations. I can understand why people would be skeptical of publicly funded campaigns but I think it would be extremely beneficial for congressional elections. Alleviating some of the need for fundraising would most certainly increase the openness of the process and allow more grassroots individuals to be involved in politics. Additionally it would allow politicians to spend less time sucking up to corporate lobbyists. Of course this wouldn't solve the problem and there would still be corruption but I think it would be a step in the right direction. I agree that limiting campaign contributions/ads is definitely not pro free speech. The problem though we have now is that if you allow corporations and extremely wealthy individuals unlimited free speech they drown out the voices of everyone else. I think 501c organizations don't provide any legitamate functions for our society and only increase the corruption that currently exists by allowing billionaires to tip the scale. Are you opposed to limiting campaign contributions in any way?
On a personal level I don't think any individual or business should give politicians a cent. Anything more is too much. Legally speaking, I really don't have an answer for you. I think it's fiddling while Rome burns. If it would move us to a little more transparency and less corruption, I support it, but I don't think that is the case. I believe that there is a permanent ruling class of people and nothing is going to stop them from stepping on the rest of us. You could remove corporations from the picture entirely so that there's no big business mucking up the political process and it's not going to stop the ruling class operating in their own interests. There's already examples of this such as Cuba. That's the truth as I see it and I'm sticking to it.
Cruz has had about $130 million spent on campaign advertising vs $36 million for Trump yet Trump's had lots more air time than Cruz. Hillary outspent them both combined with $222 million. If spending was limited the publicity hounds like Trump would have a huge advantage. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0
Well I'm not a liberal. I'm just neutral. And I don't think anybody should be silenced. Free speech is an inherent natural right. And you're the one who keeps bringing up unions. i don't think they really have enough power in today's age to make a difference. 50s-80s though would have been a concern.
I think I understand now. I was only bringing up unions trying to get you to answer my one question about why you want business silenced but not unions but you keep dodging. I don't think you know it's because businesses support the more conservative candidates and unions support the more liberal because you've only heard what liberals say. And unions do have a lot of power. That's where the push for $15/hr is coming from and that's not even one of their major agendas. They put Wisconsin governor Scott Walker thru a recall election a few years ago and have been a major contributor to the Democratic Party forever plus they have a large and powerful lobby. If you're really neutral you'd be listening to both sides. The only fair thing to do is to allow all voices freedom to campaign or lobby as they see fit. There will be perceived abuses from both sides but passing laws trying to level the playing field always ends up tilting the field toward whoever is in charge of making the laws.
But I just said nobody should be silenced, and anybody has a right to free speech... I smoke a lot of weed so you're really confusing me. Are you equating cash to having a say in politics? That's foolish and dangerous. Supporting campaigns is one thing but when a group pools money together they're going to want something in return. I don't believe in giving groups the same rights as an individual.
But you just said you had no problem with union political activities. Isn't allowing unions to participate in political activities giving them the same rights as individuals? They donate lots of money and pick which candidates are more supportive to their own interests so their members know who to vote for. Together the members of the teacher's associations, the nurses associations, the SEIU, the government workers unions, teamsters, and others can swing elections. And yes, I am also equating cash to having a say in politics. Isn't that what Bernie and Trump have been going on about? So I ask you for the final time, why do you think "big business and banks" should be silenced by prohibiting them from contributing money for political activities but unions shouldn't?
i don't think Unions should be able to give money either. They can influence their groups in whatever way they want. But at the end of the day the individual makes the decision.