ObamaRama 8

[5mn_Major]

Re: ObamaRama 8

SCOTUS knocks down McCain-Feingold
'bout time.

Got to love the 'its good if our side wins' attitude on the right.

How is allowing companies and special interest money a large say in choosing an democratically elected official a good thing?

[MattS]

Re: ObamaRama 8

SCOTUS knocks down McCain-Feingold
'bout time.

Yeah, I much prefer my elected officials to be bought and paid for before and during their election than afterward.

[moe24]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Got to love the 'its good if our side wins' attitude on the right.

How is allowing companies and special interest money a large say in choosing an democratically elected official a good thing?

It's most certainly not a good thing, but the problem with McCain-Feingold was that it didn't stop special interest money from dictating policy, it just played favorites with who was allowed to play the game.

What Congress should do, which is why it'll never happen, is set rules limiting ALL special interests and clearly define what constitutes a gift/donation as well as define when such contributions can be made.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: ObamaRama 8

I can hardly wait to see how much money funnels into the GOP Ticket for 2012.

It will be staggering.

[geezer]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Got to love the 'its good if our side wins' attitude on the right.

How is allowing companies and special interest money a large say in choosing an democratically elected official a good thing?

As a libertarian, I like it because it damages legislation that was crafted for the exclusive advantage of one of the national parties, in opposition to grassroots groups like the NRA, whose members can only buy TV ads by pooling their money. It doesn't matter which party; I'd still oppose it. (As you'll recall, McCain "the Maverick" was taken along for the ride which severely damaged his presidential prospects among conservatives later)
I'm not yet sure if this ruling will affect the NRA membership's campaign for free speech; but it's a step in the direction of liberty at least, and further away from big brother.

[5mn_Major]

Re: ObamaRama 8

As a libertarian, I like it because it damages legislation that was crafted for the exclusive advantage of one of the national parties, in opposition to grassroots groups like the NRA, whose members can only buy TV ads by pooling their money. It doesn't matter which party; I'd still oppose it. (As you'll recall, McCain "the Maverick" was taken along for the ride which severely damaged his presidential prospects among conservatives later)
I'm not yet sure if this ruling will affect the NRA membership's campaign for free speech; but it's a step in the direction of liberty at least, and further away from big brother.

The NRA should not be allowed to organize financial support...neither should unions. I have many liberatarian leanings myself...but I believe in clean democracy first (in the same way I believe in capitalism...but dislike monopolies).

In what way was it favorable to one party?

[ScottM]

Re: ObamaRama 8

What Congress should do, which is why it'll never happen, is set rules limiting ALL special interests and clearly define what constitutes a gift/donation as well as define when such contributions can be made.

Cut off all private contributions entirely. Make the elections publicly funded. We could give the knuckleheads $50 and 3 days to campaign, and I doubt we'd be any worse off.

[moe24]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Cut off all private contributions entirely. Make the elections publicly funded. We could give the knuckleheads $50 and 3 days to campaign, and I doubt we'd be any worse off.

I like the way you think.

[streaker]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Government bailouts have been designed to stop the economy from going into a freefall. If banks fail on a widespread basis, people panic. If people panic, they pull money out of institutions. Huge job losses would have destroyed govt income not just from new unemployment claims, but also from huge reductions in govt tax income. The best answer to limit the deficit (which is ultimately what matters...not spending) is to keep the country from a catastrophy.

Over last winter, this was a real threat that the US cannot afford. Increases in govt spending have been important so far. What happens going forward as and if the economy improves is what will matter.

And unfortunately, much of the military spending so far is a result of the Republican ramp up...its just that Obama hasn't entirely pulled the plug yet. We shouldn't be in Iraq, we shouldn't be in Germany.

Having said that, I'm of the opinion that the health care battle was the wrong battle at the wrong time. I'm not necessarily for or against...just not the priority.

I am against new measures against the banks. There are a number of folks who feel we should have a witch hunt against the banks. We shouldn't. We should hit the decision makers and put them in jail. But banks just need basic regulations on what products they have so as to protect society. Unfortunately, the administration appears to be attacking the way (size, organization) banks go to market.

I am very much against all this meddling in the financial industry.

I agree with most of what you have stated. The P&L on financial institutions and banks is mixed- Goldman Sachs announced huge profits, while Citigroup and B&A showed substantial losses.

I am against bonuses for either, especially those showing profit (while either laying off people or not releasing home loans to do it.)

Wall street execs are still getting rich and it's teeing people off, and the easiest targets are those that took gov't loan money.

[geezer]

Re: ObamaRama 8

The NRA should not be allowed to organize financial support...neither should unions.

When you say it like that, it doesn't reflect that the main gripe of McCain-Feingold is that it gags such groups from buying airtime near elections. It's not about direct "financial support" to candidates, which is already limited.

In what way was it favorable to one party?

I'm hoping a smart person will step up and answer this, so I can continue to be lazy and stick with the Limbaugh-approved talking point.

[moe24]

Re: ObamaRama 8

The NRA should not be allowed to organize financial support...neither should unions.

While McCain/Feingold did restrict this to a certain degree, a bigger issue was that it also restricted their 1st amendment right to voice their opinion on candidates near election time.

Also if you are in favor of limiting contributions from organizations, the way McCain/Feingold went about it was nothing more then playing games with what types of organizations could contribute and which couldn't. You either allow contributions from ALL organizations with clearly defined limits and rules, or you don't allow them from ANY organization.

In what way was it favorable to one party?

I don't think it is. This ruling has pros and cons for both parties.

[5mn_Major]

Re: ObamaRama 8

While McCain/Feingold did restrict this to a certain degree, a bigger issue was that it also restricted their 1st amendment right to voice their opinion on candidates near election time.

Also if you are in favor of limiting contributions from organizations, the way McCain/Feingold went about it was nothing more then playing games with what types of organizations could contribute and which couldn't. You either allow contributions from ALL organizations with clearly defined limits and rules, or you don't allow them from ANY organization.

I am in favor of limiting contributions from organizations. IMO any steps in this direction is healthy for a democracy. M/F might not be perfect, but it was better than nothing...both in the fact that there were some limitations and the fact that it made it a much more of an issue than it had been before. Perhaps both parties get together and do it right.