AOC and Dark Politics

[Mountain Man]

The opensecret report shows ALL individual donations, and no corporate donations.

"Individual donations" attached to a corporation. Again, they're not PRIVATE donations. The onlly question I have is when did Cortez decide it was wrong to accept that money? Was it before or after the election?

[Starlight]

"Individual donations" attached to a corporation. Again, they're not PRIVATE donations. The onlly question I have is when did Cortez decide it was wrong to accept that money? Was it before or after the election?

From the beginning of her campaign she has belonged to the Justice Democrats group which requires its candidates comply with its rules about not accepting corporate PAC and big donor money in order to be part of the group. Thus AOC complied with these rules ever since the beginning of her campaign. I heard about her candidacy and saw multiple interviews with her long before she was elected because I was following the progress of the Justice Democrats closely because my number one concern with regard to US politics is stopping corruption and that was the primary original point of that organisation.

[Mountain Man]

So you're asserting that it was before the election. That raises some interesting questions.

"But I had to do the wrong thing in order to do the right thing." Hmmm!

[seer]

Again - I am not interested in "what happened." I am interested in what WILL happen. If an existing law is not uniformly applied - then THAT is what should be addressed. You don't solve the problem by throwing open the gates to dark money in politics. And I continue to be amazed that you are defending the very people working to ensure that your voice is heard as little as possible. It just boggles the imagination....

And unless you are willing to apply the same restrictions to media conglomerates, you are pounding sand. And I don't think you are willing...

[RumTumTugger]

An issue seems to be though that the US constitution is too difficult to amend.

The United States Constitution is not supposed to be haphazardly amended. The founding fathers did not want mob rule.

An issue I see around the world is that it's difficult to strike the correct balance as to how difficult it should be to amend a constitution. e.g. Alabama's constitution by contrast has 928 amendments which is just getting absurd.

Your example of Alabama tells me the founders set up the right amount of Difficulty to amending the U.S. Constitution. Process for the US Constitution that allows situations like Alabama where htey haphazardly create 900+ amendments nor does the Mob Rule The Constitutional amendment process we have is one that forces folks to really think about the changes being asked for to weigh the positives and negatives. I as many other American Citizens enjoy The Constitution with it's check and balances that are not being haphazardly taken away by a thoughtless Mob that decides that it wants Bread and Circuses instead of life, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness.

[rogue06]

The United States Constitution is not supposed to be haphazardly amended. The founding fathers did not want mob rule.

It was deliberately designed to let cool heads prevail and not have every passing fancy and fad enshrined into the constitution.

[carpedm9587]

"Individual donations" attached to a corporation. Again, they're not PRIVATE donations. The onlly question I have is when did Cortez decide it was wrong to accept that money? Was it before or after the election?

As far as I can tell - she has never said it is wrong to accept individual donations. You're blowing smoke, MM, and it's tedious. Last word to you.

[carpedm9587]

From the beginning of her campaign she has belonged to the Justice Democrats group which requires its candidates comply with its rules about not accepting corporate PAC and big donor money in order to be part of the group. Thus AOC complied with these rules ever since the beginning of her campaign. I heard about her candidacy and saw multiple interviews with her long before she was elected because I was following the progress of the Justice Democrats closely because my number one concern with regard to US politics is stopping corruption and that was the primary original point of that organisation.

He's trolling, Star. Not worth the time or effort.

[carpedm9587]

And unless you are willing to apply the same restrictions to media conglomerates, you are pounding sand. And I don't think you are willing...

I am absolutely willing. Just not sure how you draw a clear line between "reporting" and "campaigning."

[Terraceth]

From what I can tell, the reason for Alabama's extremely long state constitution is that all sorts of stuff that in any other state would just be a regular law gets put into their constitution. In particular, the tax code is in the constitution so every change to taxation has to be put into the Constitution--I expect any constitution would be extremely long if in the last century every change to taxation has to be a constitutional amendment.

[seer]

I am absolutely willing. Just not sure how you draw a clear line between "reporting" and "campaigning."

It is completely subjective, that is why a Michael Moore movie is acceptable and a Citizens United movie isn't. And why it won't work and never will be fair.

[carpedm9587]

It is completely subjective, that is why a Michael Moore movie is acceptable and a Citizens United movie isn't. And why it won't work and never will be fair.

"It's not fair" is the whine of a toddler (and lately a president), Seer. I don't pay it a lot of attention.

As for Moore vs. Citizen's - I am under the impression that Moore produced a movie that hit the theaters, and Citizens was trying to get airtime on a national network. Is that incorrect?

[Mountain Man]

As far as I can tell - she has never said it is wrong to accept individual donations. You're blowing smoke, MM, and it's tedious. Last word to you.

It's a corporate donation coming from an individual within that corporation. I'm not sure if you find this genuinely hard to grasp, or if you're being deliberately obtuse, and to be honest, I really don't care.

[seer]

"It's not fair" is the whine of a toddler (and lately a president), Seer. I don't pay it a lot of attention.

As for Moore vs. Citizen's - I am under the impression that Moore produced a movie that hit the theaters, and Citizens was trying to get airtime on a national network. Is that incorrect?

No, see the link. They first were prevented from advertising on public air waves, Moore and his corporate buddies were not. Then they were prevented from showing the movies (they actually produced two movies). One movie was slated for Direct TV, a private company. The law prevent any such action if it reached over 50,000 viewers, which Moore's movie and advertisements certainly did. Both subjective and biased.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citize...FEC#Background

[carpedm9587]

No, see the link. They first were prevented from advertising on public air waves, Moore and his corporate buddies were not. Then they were prevented from showing the movies (they actually produced two movies). One movie was slated for Direct TV, a private company. The law prevent any such action if it reached over 50,000 viewers, which Moore's movie and advertisements certainly did. Both subjective and biased.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citize...FEC#Background

Read the article, Seer. Moore was running ads for a movie in the theater. Citizens united was looking to run adds for a movie to be broadcast on Direct TV. You're comparing apples and oranges here.

That doesn't make the media issue less difficult - but your example is not a good one to make the case.