New Privacy Policy: Valve may share aggregate and individual information with other parties without restriction.

[maks]

and even if RICH PEOPLE HAVWE ALWAYS BEEN ALLOWED TO SPEND DEY MONEY ON ELECTION DONATIONS HISTORICALLY it doesn't make it right

whether it's "right" or not is a matter of opinion. what matters is that it would be unconstitutional to stop them.

whether it's "right" or not is a matter of opinion. what matters is that it would be unconstitutional to stop them.

it's only unconstitutional if you consider money a form of "speech"

even then, some forms of speech are deemed irresponsible and not allowed, such as yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. Free speech has and has always had limits in place to protect against infringing upon our liberties. Commercial speech is not extended the same rights as other forms of speech and it should be considered that corporate campaign donations in exchange for political favors is pretty blatantly a form of commercial speech no matter what loopholes are being used.

considering elections are a matter of public discourse that ought to be fair to rich and poor alike, there ought to be certain laws that prevent anonymous unlimited donations from corrupting that process

[maks]

it's only unconstitutional if you consider money a form of "speech"

Even if you don't, do you want to set a precedent where the federal government can tell you what to spend your money on?

even then, some forms of speech are deemed irresponsible and not allowed, such as yelling FIRE in a crowded theater.

So sick of this example and all of the violations of our rights that it's used to justify. Yelling 'fire' is illegal because it basically causes a riot and can kill people. Donating money to someone, or swearing on TV, are not comparable so stop comparing them please.

Free speech has and has always had limits in place to protect against infringing upon our liberties. Commercial speech is not extended the same rights as other forms of speech and it should be considered that corporate campaign donations in exchange for political favors is pretty blatantly a form of commercial speech no matter what loopholes are being used.

Donating money in return for favors is called bribery and has always been illegal. Instead of creating new laws we should try enforcing the ones we already have.

Even if you don't, do you want to set a precedent where the federal government can tell you what to spend your money on?



So sick of this example and all of the violations of our rights that it's used to justify. Yelling 'fire' is illegal because it basically causes a riot and can kill people. Donating money to someone, or swearing on TV, are not comparable so stop comparing them please.



Donating money in return for favors is called bribery and has always been illegal. Instead of creating new laws we should try enforcing the ones we already have.

The Federal government already tells you what to spend your money on, and more importantly (and more relevantly), what NOT to spend your money on. Putting a cap on campaign donations does not prevent free speech, it merely limits the corrupting influence money can have such as when two fucking oil tycoons make up half of your goddamn campaign contributions.

Just because this particular form of "speech" doesn't immediately cause people to get trampled in a stampede doesn't mean it's not irresponsible and destructive. I don't think there's anything more destructive on a large scale for the people in this country than allowing corporations to buy our government and enact laws that allow them to continue widening the economic disparity and erasing the middle class.

Bribery is hard to prove without hard evidence, and corruption begets corruption so even with proof, who would be willing to go against the corporate conglomerate that effectively owns our government?

[maks]

The Federal government already tells you what to spend your money on, and more importantly (and more relevantly), what NOT to spend your money on.

And your solution to that is to give them more control over your money?

Just because this particular form of "speech" doesn't immediately cause people to get trampled in a stampede doesn't mean it's not irresponsible and destructive. I don't think there's anything more destructive on a large scale for the people in this country than allowing corporations to buy our government and enact laws that allow them to continue widening the economic disparity and erasing the middle class.

The KKK, the neonazis, and the westboro baptist church are irresponsible and destructive. they're also constitutionally protected. They have to be, because we're not just giving lip service to free speech like the european and canadian hypocrites, we actually have it.

Bribery is hard to prove without hard evidence, and corruption begets corruption so even with proof, who would be willing to go against the corporate conglomerate that effectively owns our government?

we'd need honest politicians, which is why it's never going to happen. campaign contributions buy exposure, not votes. The people are still ion control of the electoral process, if they are too dense to look any further than the attack ads on TV then they're getting the government they deserve, and I'm fine with that.

And your solution to that is to give them more control over your money?

It's not about controlling your money, it's about preventing you from FUCKING UP the federal election system with it. Separation of Church and State used to mean something (and should again) but what about Separation of Corporation and State? Why is it such a controversial stance to say that we shouldn't allow enormous amounts of money given with a very obvious agenda to corrupt our political system?

The KKK, the neonazis, and the westboro baptist church are irresponsible and destructive. they're also constitutionally protected. They have to be, because we're not just giving lip service to free speech like the european and canadian hypocrites, we actually have it.

They are only destructive to people's feelings. Congressman Tim Holden recently brought forward a bill to allow animal waste dumping in Chesapeake Bay. Soon after he received 16,000 dollars in campaign contributions from various agricultural PACs. This is real destruction.

we'd need honest politicians, which is why it's never going to happen. campaign contributions buy exposure, not votes. The people are still ion control of the electoral process, if they are too dense to look any further than the attack ads on TV then they're getting the government they deserve, and I'm fine with that.

All it is is lying to the public by obfuscation and omission. You're right, people should look into things more deeply, but that doesn't excuse what is happening. You say people are okay with it, but they aren't, clearly here I am ion the intenret bitching about it and plenty of others are too, so dont get angry as fuck at them when they try to change things.

[maks]

It's not about controlling your money, it's about preventing you from FUCKING UP the federal election system with it. Separation of Church and State used to mean something (and should again) but what about Separation of Corporation and State? Why is it such a controversial stance to say that we shouldn't allow enormous amounts of money given with a very obvious agenda to corrupt our political system?

yeah I'm not exactly sure how buying someone a TV commercial is fucking up the federal election system. Sounds to me like the real issue here is with voters who give a fuck about fancy expensive commercials and bus tours instead of issues. Idiots, basically. I don't care if each candidate only had a budget of $5, idiots are still going to make stupid descisons in the voting booth it's like a law of nature.

They are only destructive to people's feelings. Congressman Tim Holden recently brought forward a bill to allow animal waste dumping in Chesapeake Bay. Soon after he received 16,000 dollars in campaign contributions from various agricultural PACs. This is real destruction.

You're blaming the campaign contributions for a decision he made before he received them?

All it is is lying to the public by obfuscation and omission. You're right, people should look into things more deeply, but that doesn't excuse what is happening. You say people are okay with it, but they aren't, clearly here I am ion the intenret bitching about it and plenty of others are too, so dont get angry as fuck at them when they try to change things.

I said -I'm- ok with it. I have to be, because it's not going to change. Getting all militantly upset about the way the world works is only going to get pepper sprayed. Fact is, idiots are the majority and in a democracy that means the idiots are in control. No amount of campaign finance reform is going to change that, you cxould spend years removing corporate dollars from the campaigns and in the end we're still going to have a congress full of asswipes. Sounds like a gigantic waste of time to me.

but certain things should be considered rights
and americans for whatever reason don't think health care is a right that a rich country that can very very easily create a national healthcare system should run
there is absolutely no reason why medicine costs even 1 cent in the US
and there is no reason why health care should cost more in the US than it does in fucking third world countries

instead some dumbfuck created the HMO system in the early 60s and then manipulated employee hours so they're not full time so they're not entitled to those benefits
how the fuck does that make sense?

[maks]

but certain things should be considered rights

WE HAVE A RIGHT TO PAY RETARDEDLY HIGH TAXES FOR SOMETHING WE WILL SELDOM USE! -Canada