Waiting for Fitzgerald

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
Everyone can donate how much ever they want to any politician as long as they disclose it.

I pretty sure this isn't true. There are limits per individual that differ based on the office.

Corporations are a tricky situation because they are legal individuals so it seems they should be able to donate to. What is in a corporations interest is not necessarily in the interest of all its shareholders separate interest. So Corporations should be able to donate as long as they can justify that such donations are in the interest of the shareholders as a whole.

This is pretty much what corporate law says already.


PACs are just set up because individuals are limited on how much

they can donate. If you get rid of limitations on individuals you can get rid of PACs.

Untrue. PAC allow people of like minds to broadcast a message to a wider audience than the individuals could alone.

Bottom line: I don't see the harm. Why are you afraid of free speech.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
We are talking about giving to campaigns. If you want to run your own ads there are no rules (even under todays laws). You only have to disclose if you give to a campaign. But if you and fifty friends want get together and run attack ads on anyone is OK.

We are talking about free speech. The assinine line drawing that has been done in this area is second only to the assinine line drawing in the religion cases.

And I believe under McCain Feingold, your statement above is not entirely true. Isn't there a blackout period within 30 days prior to an election?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Then why don't you donate to the tsi tsi fly organization? Why do you need an organization to pool your money? What is the difference between a hundred of you each donating a dollar as opposed to each of you donating a dollar to a group that then donates a hundred dollars (unless you are try to hide something)?

If the tsetse fly organization is a nonprofit, then it can't buy political ads or lobby (uh, within certain stringent limitations, at least)

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Why are you afraid of free speech.

are you mocking the spankster? cute!!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
are you mocking the spankster? cute!!

To jump off from one of Ty's favorite lines, I find it ironic that someone so utterly devoted to the free trade of goods and services would want to put a limit on the free trade of ideas.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I pretty sure this isn't true. There are limits per individual that differ based on the office.

I was talking about in my plan. Of course right now individuals cannot donate how much they want.


This is pretty much what corporate law says already.

Originally posted by sgtclub

PACs are just set up because individuals are limited on how much

Exactly. So if individuals are not limited on how much they donate you don't need pacs.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Untrue. PAC allow people of like minds to broadcast a message to a wider audience than the individuals could alone.

Yes - but they are not necessary if people can donate however much they want.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Bottom line: I don't see the harm. Why are you afraid of free speech.

I am not afraid of free speech. I am interested in full disclosure. People can say whetever they want as long as they are willing to take credit for it. If people want to express their opinion by donating to a campaign fine. But admit that you have done it.

[Spanky]

I don't understand why you are so against full disclousre? What is wrong with people knowing where money comes from?

The campaign finance laws totally favor Republicans right now. When you limit donations (Federal to $200, CA State $5000) you favor the people that have multiple midrange donors. Upper middle class people tend to be republican. The poor and the hyper rich tend to be Democrat (Adalai Stevensons campaigns was funded mainly by six people).

When there is a maximun, then the best fundraiser is not the one that knows a few really rich people, but a lot of moderately rich people. knowing a lot of small donors doesn't do you much good either.

Under the current finance laws I can raise a lot of money (Delay is about to find out how much) but it is really an unfair system.

People should be able to donate as much as they want as long as they are willing to admit they donated it. It is when you get secret money going into campaigns is when the bad special interest starts to get influence (tobacco companys etc).

I told McCain to his face that he was making the system worse. But as you are probably aware, McCain is not a man easily persuaded.

Anyway - it is ironic that the Dems keep pushing for these "finance reforms" and every time one gets passed it makes it harder for them to raise money.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't understand why you are so against full disclousre? What is wrong with people knowing where money comes from?

The campaign finance laws totally favor Republicans right now. When you limit donations (Federal to $200, CA State $5000) you favor the people that have multiple midrange donors. Upper middle class people tend to be republican. The poor and the hyper rich tend to be Democrat (Adalai Stevensons campaigns was funded mainly by six people).

When there is a maximun, then the best fundraiser is not the one that knows a few really rich people, but a lot of moderately rich people. knowing a lot of small donors doesn't do you much good either.

Under the current finance laws I can raise a lot of money (Delay is about to find out how much) but it is really an unfair system.

People should be able to donate as much as they want as long as they are willing to admit they donated it. It is when you get secret money going into campaigns is when the bad special interest starts to get influence (tobacco companys etc).

I told McCain to his face that he was making the system worse. But as you are probably aware, McCain is not a man easily persuaded.

Anyway - it is ironic that the Dems keep pushing for these "finance reforms" and every time one gets passed it makes it harder for them to raise money.

Full disclosure is fine by me.

McCain's insistance on campaign finance is when I first realize he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I think, though I'm not sure (and you would know better than I) that his heart is in the right place, but maybe I'm just being naieve and it was an ego thing for him.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky


Exactly. So if individuals are not limited on how much they donate you don't need pacs.



Yes - but they are not necessary if people can donate however much they want.

Sure, for the truly rich that, because practically speaking, they have unlimited funds. Not so for the rest of us, so we need to band together for a common cause in order to be heard.

I am not afraid of free speech. I am interested in full disclosure. People can say whetever they want as long as they are willing to take credit for it. If people want to express their opinion by donating to a campaign fine. But admit that you have done it.

You obviously didn't like the 527s. I'm fine with full disclosure, but I'm not sure it's essential for causes other than direct contributions to candidates (to ward against a quid pro quo). But for issues, I think the position is what counts, regardless of the speaker.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't understand why you are so against full disclousre? What is wrong with people knowing where money comes from?

[etc]

Spanky --

Screeds like this give hope to our enemies. Why do you hate America?

S_A_M

[Captain]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sure, for the truly rich that, because practically speaking, they have unlimited funds. Not so for the rest of us, so we need to band together for a common cause in order to be heard.




You obviously didn't like the 527s. I'm fine with full disclosure, but I'm not sure it's essential for causes other than direct contributions to candidates (to ward against a quid pro quo). But for issues, I think the position is what counts, regardless of the speaker.

Doesn't all this come down to aggregate versus entity theories of 527s and whether limits are in place?

If you have a no-limit, full disclosure system, then there is no reason not to allow PACs so long as their donors are also disclosed. If the individual could give directly, why not let them do it through a PAC?

If you retain limits, PACs let you multiply your limits. If I give the limit directly, but also give to a PAC that supports the candidate, and have my corporation give to the candidate, I am multiplying the number of gifts derived from my personal wealth (applying an aggregate theory of entities).

[Fair and Equitable]

Originally posted by Gattigap
You presume I care enough to calculate it. Meantime, keep it up, and soon the percentages will be such that your first dozen or so epistles on whatever it was won't matter.

While you're approaching 3200 posts (not including your drivel on Infirm) and the highlight of your posting career is riding the coattails of other, more memorable posters by acting as if you're their lawyer.

I can only hope I live up to your high standards.

Originally posted by Fair and Equitable
While you're approaching 3200 posts (not including your drivel on Infirm) and the highlight of your posting career is riding the coattails of other, more memorable posters by acting as if you're their lawyer.

I can only hope I live up to your high standards.

Is knowing that you never will what makes you such an insufferable prick?

[Fair and Equitable]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You didn't understand my post, did you, you mouthy little bitch?

S_A_M

Mosy people on here don't understand half of what you say,considering you typically speak out of both sides of your mouth as well as your ass. That said, you accused me of "hiding" behind a sock. Perhaps I misssed it, but is secret agent man your real name? Either you think I'm some other poster or you're holding the idiotic and hypocritical view that I should be posting under my real name. Which is it?

[Fair and Equitable]

Originally posted by ironweed
Is knowing that you never will what makes you such an insufferable prick?

If it makes you feel better, I would never use the term "high standards" with you.