BF2S Forums The Useful Fiction that is American Democracy

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How feasible you think it may or may not be doesn't change the fact that the system isn't broken.

Humanity has changed drastically over its history.

How so?

Humans haven't changed. Social culture as a whole has changed drastically.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

How much do you give in political donations?  You don't have to give an exact amount...  just a rough estimate.

I don't.

How much do you give?

None...  So again, I must ask...  how much influence do you really think you have in our system?  I'm not suggesting that one person should have that much power, but since neither of us are part of a wealthy interest group, our votes don't mean much.

The last time I checked, my vote had just as much weight as that of the CEO of <insert evil capitalist corporation here> in the vote counts. So does yours. That's the joy of representative forms of government.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

None...  So again, I must ask...  how much influence do you really think you have in our system?  I'm not suggesting that one person should have that much power, but since neither of us are part of a wealthy interest group, our votes don't mean much.

The last time I checked, my vote had just as much weight as that of the CEO of <insert evil capitalist corporation here> in the vote counts. So does yours. That's the joy of representative forms of government.

Does your vote also have an effect on who gets to run before an election even starts?

No. And neither does anyone else's. Anyone can run...all they have to do is file the paperwork.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Does your vote also have an effect on who gets to run before an election even starts?

No. And neither does anyone else's. Anyone can run...all they have to do is file the paperwork.

But you know that 99% of the time, it takes a lot of lobbyist money to run a successful campaign.  That's why the special interests have the power.

Regardless of who we elect, the victor is more tied to these lobbies than to the general public.

Only when convincing idiots among the voters. Not everyone is swayed by attack ads on television you know... Doesn't take much money to drive around in a pickup truck shaking hands and doing newspaper and tv interviews. Heck, most people that work for campaigns do so for free. Campaign donations are limited to $10,000 including corporate donations so it's not like that's a figure that shuts out the common man

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Does your vote also have an effect on who gets to run before an election even starts?

No. And neither does anyone else's. Anyone can run...all they have to do is file the paperwork.

But you know that 99% of the time, it takes a lot of lobbyist money to run a successful campaign.  That's why the special interests have the power.

Regardless of who we elect, the victor is more tied to these lobbies than to the general public.

But the problem is that, regardless of whether it is truly an individual or a lobby, the donation gets painted as a lobbyist donation because any individual donation over $200 must be accompanied by that donor's employer information. Then all donors from a given employer get lumped together and that employer is deemed as a lobby...whether that employer was intentionally lobbying/supporting a given candidate or not.

So the data is skewed, to say the least.

Could be why the SCOTUS wasn't thrilled with the law...

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But the problem is that, regardless of whether it is truly an individual or a lobby, the donation gets painted as a lobbyist donation because any individual donation over $200 must be accompanied by that donor's employer information. Then all donors from a given employer get lumped together and that employer is deemed as a lobby...whether that employer was intentionally lobbying/supporting a given candidate or not.

So the data is skewed, to say the least.

Could be why the SCOTUS wasn't thrilled with the law...

If that's the case, then the SCOTUS should've forced a change in the reporting of donations rather than changing donation limits.

All they can do is rule on the law that's put in front of them.

Congress needs to go back to the drawing board on the law. It's the law that's the problem. SCOTUS can't "force a change" in the law. They can either say the law is good or the law is not, according to the Constitution--they can't say "change this or that" about it.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If that's the case, then the SCOTUS should've forced a change in the reporting of donations rather than changing donation limits.

All they can do is rule on the law that's put in front of them.

Congress needs to go back to the drawing board on the law. It's the law that's the problem. SCOTUS can't "force a change" in the law. They can either say the law is good or the law is not, according to the Constitution--they can't say "change this or that" about it.

Well, they can certainly say that reporting one's speech incorrectly (lobby funds) is unconstitutional.  I would figure that the Constitution covers something about libel.

You clearly either don't understand the difference between the legislative and judicial branches or are just being intentionally obtuse.

Last edited by FEOS (2010-01-31 19:42:39)

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, they can certainly say that reporting one's speech incorrectly (lobby funds) is unconstitutional.  I would figure that the Constitution covers something about libel.

You clearly either don't understand the difference between the legislative and judicial branches or are just being intentionally obtuse.

And you clearly are trying to troll me.

No, I'm not. Not even really sure what that means, tbh.

I check on the threads where I've posted for responses. Is that "trolling"? Or is that trying to remain engaged in the debate?

Libel is defined in law. Laws are made by the legislative branch. The Constitution doesn't "cover" libel. The SCOTUS just determines whether libel laws violate any of the tenets of the Constitution. If they do, then they deem them "unconstitutional" and the laws are thrown out. If the legislative branch wants to pass libel laws after that, then they have to ensure they don't cross whatever line(s) the SCOTUS pointed out in their ruling.

The same applies to the campaign finance laws--if the legislative branch wants to pass campaign finance reform, then they have to find a way to do it that doesn't infringe on the First Amendment.

Then there's the pesky part about SCOTUS not ruling on a law unless the Constitutionality of that law is challenged by someone. So clearly someone thought their Constitutional rights were being infringed. And the SCOTUS agreed with their legal argument.

Congress is a bunch of lawyers...they should be able to figure it out if it's important enough to them. But they've got the BCS to worry about...