Log In | Register
As the President beats back lobbyists seeking to weaken Wall Street Reform, he talks about an even broader threat that would vastly expand the influence of massive industries and their lobbyists in Washington. A recent Supreme Court decision opened the floodgates for corporations, including foreign corporations, to spend endless money on political ads that would give them even more power at the expense of American families the President pledges to fight for reforms to stem that influence.
A group of concerned lawmakers introduced bipartisan legislation to prevent corporate cash from dominating our elections. Republican leaders immediately announced their opposition, but grassroots Democrats across the country are speaking out to demand the
Seeded on Tue May 4, 2010 10:44 AM EDT
Article Source: YouTube- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (11)
I'm all for this reform. When foreign interests are allowed to pay for politicians campaigns, it says we are giving them the right to vote in our elections, make decisions that only benefit their interests and thus give them an edge to take over/own our country.
Why are we giving non-citizens the right to decide who to represent us!
I am sick and tired of having only the wealthy run for office. I'd like to see the common man/woman be able to run for office.
When we limit our candidates only to those who can afford to pay for campaigns or have the contacts to help them pay to run for office, we're doing ourselves an injustice and giving up the American Way.
- 11 votes
#1 - Tue May 4, 2010 10:53 AM EDTWhen we limit our candidates only to those who can afford to pay for campaigns or have the contacts to help them pay to run for office, we're doing ourselves an injustice and giving up the American Way.
Here Here!!
The SCOTUS has taken us back two steps in campaign finance reform. Corporations are NOT people and campaign contributions are not free speech. The financial reform of campaigns is every bit as important as the financial reform of Wall Street.
We need to get the big money out of politics. We are bleeding to death at the hands of corporate influence.
- 9 votes
I agree that we need to do away with Money being the only prerequisite to becoming a candidate. " Iam sick and tired of having only the wealthy run for office. I'd like to see the common man/woman be able to run for office."
"When we limit our candidates only to those who can afford to pay for campaigns or have the contacts to help them pay to run for office, we're doing ourselves an injustice and giving up the American Way" posted by Powerisknowledge
- 2 votes
Despite the right dominated SCOTUS's reasoning unlimited money doesn't equal freedom of speech nor does it uphold it.
A representative democracy so completely subborned by the overpowered voices and basest instincts of wealth and privelege cannot remain a democracy for long.
I wish the legislators well, however, I suspect they will fail. Those who hold the real purse strings of power are going to be loath to relax their stranglehold on our civic heart. Why else would Republicans be so Johnny-on-the-spot and immediately out front and center to begin their usual litany of denials, deflections, and delays?
- 3 votes
I wish the legislators well, however, I suspect they will fail.
Yes they will fail and so might America. I equate America with Rome.
Why did Rome Fall?
There are adherents to single factors, but more people think a combination of such factors as Christianity, decadence, lead, monetary trouble, and military problems caused the Fall of Rome. Imperial incompetence and chance could be added to the list. Even the rise of Islam is proposed as the reason for Rome's fall, by some who think the Fall of Rome happened at Constantinople in A.D. 1453.
Why did Rome Fall?
Definition: The English historian Edward Gibbon (May 8, 1737, to Jan. 16, 1794), a friend of Voltaire and Diderot, is best known for his The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which tells about the decline and fall of Rome from the second century A.D. to the 15th century fall of Constantinople. Gibbon was unsympathetic to Christianity, humorously explaining one of the economic reasons for the decline as worthless Christian expenditure:
- 2 votes
Hmm I misspelled suborned.. wish I'd recall the spellchecker more often.
In the sense that all things eventually fail I suppose you're right. But not yet.
Not yet.
The dems got their BS healthcare rammed through.Let the Republicans have freedom of speech back.Corps don't just support the repubs.Look at how much Golman Sachs gave to the dems.
#2 - Tue May 4, 2010 12:32 PM EDTI think the SCOTUS has spoken.So let it be.Simple.I thought that's what I said.
#3 - Tue May 4, 2010 2:12 PM EDTI'd be alright with this IF: Corporations were limited to contributing the maximum of $2300.00 per candidate and that money went into the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.
#4 - Tue May 4, 2010 3:12 PM EDTI'd be alright with this IF: Corporations were limited to contributing the maximum of $2300.00 per candidate and that money went into the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.
So you're all right with foreign corporations buying their way into our country through candidates and having a say in how our country is run?
- 3 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
