Spring RTS Engine

Is it true a restriction on donation sums to political campaigns in the US has been recently removed?
How could this happen?
what do you think about it?

Limitations on corporate donations to political campaigns have been removed. The court argued in an incredibly retarded decision that this counted as censorship, that political contributions *by corporations* were protected speech under the First Amendment. Insanity.

In a 5-4 decision,

I don't see what this changes. Bush Inc. essentially WAS a company. How many of his cabinet were past, present or future directors of Haliburton and other shady orgs?

If anything this decision brings MORE honesty to politics. We know they're corporate dogs, now we can see the hand that feeds them just a little more clearly.

Looking forward to people screaming about ACTIVIST JUDGES!!

SpliFF wrote:If anything this decision brings MORE honesty to politics. We know they're corporate dogs, now we can see the hand that feeds them just a little more clearly.

It also allows elections to be bought and sold. At least before companies could get in trouble for it. Now they can outright own a politician. So no, this doesn't bring more honesty, it simply puts the overall dishonesty in a bigger limelight, but said dishonesty can't be punished now.

I preferred the old way better. What good is knowing going to do you if you can't do anything about it?

@tombom, I can't necessarily tell exactly how this is "pure" activism. I mean I can see how it could be argued either way, but regardless. Personally I'm not convinced.

Link?

Forboding Angel wrote:It also allows elections to be bought and sold. At least before companies could get in trouble for it. Now they can outright own a politician. So no, this doesn't bring more honesty, it simply puts the overall dishonesty in a bigger limelight, but said dishonesty can't be punished now.

Oh... PLLUEEEASE! Bush, Diebold and FOX stole 2 elections right under your noses. Who exactly is getting punished? The whole scam was in broad daylight and the entire "punishment" is that Diebold changed their name to "Premier Election Systems" and went back to rigging state elections.

wikipedia wrote:He was an active fundraiser for George W. Bush's re-election campaign and wrote in a fund-raising letter dated August 13, 2003, that he was committed "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President."[1] His involvement with the campaign raised concerns that, as the CEO of the largest manufacturer of electronic voting equipment,[citation needed] he would have been in a position to attempt to manipulate the results of the presidential election of 2004.

In December 2005, O'Dell resigned following reports that the company was facing securities fraud litigation surrounding charges of insider trading.[10]

Oh wow! Retiring with millions of dollars as "punishment" for defrauding your shareholders and an entire nation. Yeah right. The man was 60 years old - he would have retired soon anyway.

You don't seem to get it Forboding. Your whole country is run by and for a bunch of thugs. It's been that way for so long nobody really cares. The last person who actually cared and had the ability to do anything about it was assasinated. Obama makes noises like he cares but he's still fighting 2 illegal wars, protecting mass murderers (his predecessors) and keeping people incarcerated who haven't committed any crimes (in violation of all sorts or international treaties and laws).

Which brings me back to my original comment. Politics in America IS a business. Elections just disguise that fact by making you think choosing Mr A over Mr B puts you in charge of policy.

Elections have long been bought and sold. However... I would rather they be bought by private individuals who can be held responsible... if not legally, than corporeally. I detest the protection the corporation and our right-liberal economic interpretation of responsibility affords those who command such.

Question is in what way can this be changed so that elections are not bought and sold while not breaking any of the freedoms etc..
If you have this single person,the people who are interested in his favor,will find ways to "pay" him,one way or another if it's donations,giving him a high ranking job with a gigantic pay after his work in the politics etc..
Maybe with the internet it will be easier to restrict the president and other political figures and allow them to only make important decisions with the people's consent,making the representatives more of a puppets without any opinion of their own.

Fair elections require regulation. Regulation isn't freedom. Freedom is anarchy. Anarchy isn't government. Government exists to maintain order. Order is structure and control. Structure is not freedom, control is not freedom.

/thread.

Thugs? Hardly. Fox stole an election? What the heck is wrong with you? FOX is a media outlet, it isn't capable of stealing anything, much less a national election.

Now do you know for a fact that bush stole an election ever? FACTS? No you don't. I don't have any facts that clinton stole an elections, so you can drop that charade right now.

@the rest of what spliff said... Sigh I'm not going to bother arguing the point. Mainly because it's too much typing and me explaining anyhting to him isn't going to change his mind anyway, so I'm saving us both some trouble.

Tell me something? Why are the democrats screaming at the top of their lungs about this new law? It's not that big of a deal, but to listen to the dems you'd think it's the end of the world? After putting more thought into it, I'd have to say that the new law is a good one. There's no point restricting something that just gets done under the table anyway.

@GOTA, the problem with the outcome of what you're talking about is mob rule.

smoth wrote:Fair elections require regulation. Regulation isn't freedom. Freedom is anarchy. Anarchy isn't government. Government exists to maintain order. Order is structure and control. Structure is not freedom, control is not freedom.

/thread.

This^^

Forboding Angel wrote:There's no point restricting something that just gets done under the table anyway.

So you're saying legalize everything? Murder, rape etc, all gets done under the table.

Forboding Angel wrote:FOX is a media outlet, it isn't capable of stealing anything, much less a national election.

Are you implying that a large media corporation cannot affect the views and opinions of the populace?

Since corporations are legally individuals I want to see them get married.

Peet wrote:

Forboding Angel wrote:FOX is a media outlet, it isn't capable of stealing anything, much less a national election.

Are you implying that a large media corporation cannot affect the views and opinions of the populace?

Oh you means like CBS NBC CNN MSNBC, etc? Yeah... FOX is a real threat.

Regret wrote:

Forboding Angel wrote:There's no point restricting something that just gets done under the table anyway.

So you're saying legalize everything? Murder, rape etc, all gets done under the table.

Don't be dumb, you know what I meant, and if you don't, then read harder.

Forboding Angel wrote:Don't be dumb, you know what I meant, and if you don't, then read harder.

Alas, I read the hardest I could. You write the emptiest posts right after d_b. Congratulations, absolutely no factual worth, only rambling.

Forboding Angel wrote:Oh you means like CBS NBC CNN MSNBC, etc? Yeah... FOX is a real threat.

Again, what the hell? How is that even arguing? Where's the reasoning, the logic, or at least a point?

Forboding Angel wrote:Tell me something? Why are the democrats screaming at the top of their lungs about this new law? It's not that big of a deal, but to listen to the dems you'd think it's the end of the world? After putting more thought into it, I'd have to say that the new law is a good one. There's no point restricting something that just gets done under the table anyway.

It also allows elections to be bought and sold. At least before companies could get in trouble for it. Now they can outright own a politician. So no, this doesn't bring more honesty, it simply puts the overall dishonesty in a bigger limelight, but said dishonesty can't be punished now.

I preferred the old way better. What good is knowing going to do you if you can't do anything about it?

What made you change your mind in those few hours?

I started paying attention to the specifics. Tbh I don't really care, but long story short, spliff's reasoning in his first post made sense to a degree.

I can see bad things about each way, but the fact is that spliff was right about at least things being "exposed" or out in the open. Plus, it struck me that some smaller candidates in the smaller parties might have a better chance of getting their name out there if a single organization backing him/her could completely fund the campaign.

After spending some time thinking about it, in my mind the pros outweighed the cons.

Regret wrote:

Forboding Angel wrote:Oh you means like CBS NBC CNN MSNBC, etc? Yeah... FOX is a real threat.

Again, what the hell? How is that even arguing? Where's the reasoning, the logic, or at least a point?

The acronyms were the point. Out of all of the mass media networks, FOX is the only right leaning network. Therefore when it's surrounded by hardcore left leaning networks, I fail to see how it is such a threat. If FOX gets more viewers, did it ever occur to you why that might be?