Would Democrats Amend Constitution to Stop the Koch Brothers?

A bad exaggeration for sure, but not an outright fallacy.

Why defend the big guys at all cost unless somehow their is an assumption they can do no wrong?

Why argue against all regulation? I am against bad regulation, but the idea that all regulation is bad is like saying that because a few street signs in your town are dangerous all street signs need to be banned.

There is no even playing field, its a game of king of the mountain. Once you fight your way to the top its much easier to push the other competitors down. At least lets make rules that allow the others to get close enough to try to knock them down.

 

maybe we can try to convince the right that the Persons with the most Capital may not necessarily be the most good under our form of Capitalism simply due to our form of Socialism.

 

Then we can just reverse the law. They can give whatever they want, but the TAKING of the money would be restricted.

Re: your god. When she finally gets around to the decision, it's too late. The government has already been corrupted beyond repair.

 

No, one need not wonder about that.

Every single campaign finance law in the last 100 years has been the product of a Democrat or had strong Democratic backing.

Republcians opposed the McCain Feingold Act for over a decade, and then went to court.

Even after the disasterous Citizen's United ruling, Democrats strove to adress this flawed anti democratic ruling with new campaign finance legislation, the Disclose Act.

Republicans blocked it. TWICE!

Since the GOP has used its obstruction capabilites to prevent campaign finance limits and disclosure, dispite Democratic efforts to reinstate them, no one needs to wonder at all.

Now that the GOP has insured that big money can buy government, they hypocritically try and claim high ground when their opponants play by the rules the GOP wrote.

 

Yes, democrats do fight free speech. BTW, McCain Feingold was only 7 years old when it was found unconstitutional.

 

I believe our elected representatives who may lay any claim to Faith in Capitalism, should not have problems with capital in politics.

But, I also believe our elected representatives should be able to make money by investing in the general welfare with an official Mint at their disposal.

 

But he would only do it if he could exempt George Sorros (sp?) and the other liberal donors who contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrats.

 

Of course. Reid, Schumer and Levin Do Not want a level playing field.

 

Yes. And so will WORKING Conservatives and Republicans, once they realize the Koch Brothers are seeking to enrich primarily the wealthiest people on the planet.

The Kochs and those who back them, are a negative for working men and women.

 

I would be willing to wager that there are many here who believe the constitution itself should simply be abolished as it's an out of date document not relative to today's world? Am I right?

 

What's your point?

McCain Feingold was introducted in the early 1990's. The GOP fought it for over a decade, and then went to court, as I said.

Nothing in your response adresses a thing I said.

You can't make the case that the GOP wants to be for sale. It has shown that in word and deed for most of my adult life!

MY points on GOP standard opposition to any sort of campaign reform stand.

- - - Updated - - -

Charles and David Koch spent more money in the 2012 election cycle, than George Soros did in a decade.

You can drop the false equivalancy now.

 

Really? I think you just value one point of view. I think people like you're quite comfortable with silencing a view you oppose politically. That point of view is offensive.

 

I'm glad to see that you find the words you tried to put in my mouth are offensive.

I am for strong, even campaign finance regulation.

In fact, I would prefer to see publically financed elections, with each candidate getting EXACTLY the same amount of money.

I think that third party groups should be banned outright from participating in any way in election campaigns.

That's the only way you'll ever see people without money or ties to money participating in public life.

My comments regarding the Republican party are accurate, and easily documented. The GOP has preferred a system that encourages candidates to sell themselves to powerful interests whenever possible.

That's why the fought the McCain Feingold Act tooth and nail, why they went to court when it passed, and why they filibustered every attempt to reinstate key parts of it.

Bush used to brag about how the bankers bought him. And who can forget the VIP Cayman's registered yacht that was literally moored next to the GOP Convention hotel in Tampa in 2012?

 

It sure could use a makeover.

 

Wrong on a couple levels.
No one should be able to buy the gov't. NO ONE.
No moral judge. Especially one that can't even communicate with us on a any level.

 

Laughable. The Koch obsession with democrats is not much different than their other past historical obsessions like race. Gotta have a bogeyman.

 

Even though I'm sure Reid is just doing it to pander some D votes in upcomming elections, I think its high time we the people had a say in politcal spending.