Every Democrat in the Senate Against Free Speech

[Cow Poke]

Er, Leo - a company that isn't incorporated dies with its owner (yeah, the kids can take up the mantle but in a real sense the original company as a legal entity is gone). A corporation does not. They are very different legal entities - which is where the person idea comes from.

In fact, hundreds of thousands of "companies" in the US pay there taxes as a schedule C (and related forms) on the PERSON'S tax return. It's one pool of money.

[Mountain Man]

I'm not against big donations, but I think ALL money should be identified as to source. That's tough to do, too, as people who have exceeded their maximum contribution have notoriously handed out money to others to donate to their preferred candidate.

Or they make lots of small donations that don't have to be individually reported. That's how Obama was able to accept millions of dollars in illegal contributions from foreign entities (and Bill Clinton before him; probably Hillary, too). It's a pretty major loophole.

[Mountain Man]

I still find it dubious to consider a company a legal person.

Denying someone their right to free speech simply because they're part of a company is even more dubious.

[JimL]

Every Democrat in the Senate Supports a Constitutional Amendment That Would Radically Curtail Freedom of Speech

We the people had free speech before the citizens united decision, and we will still have it if a constitutional amendment nullifies the citizens united decision. What the democrat party thinks is a fine idea, is getting the special interests big money, out of politics. The question is, why do you want special interests big money in politics?

[Cow Poke]

We the people had free speech before the citizens united decision, and we will still have it if a constitutional amendment nullifies the citizens united decision.

You obviously don't have a grasp of this whole concept.

What the democrat party thinks is a fine idea, is getting the special interests big money, out of politics.

I bet you even typed that with a straight face.

What the Democrat party thinks is a fine idea is getting REPUBLICAN special interest big money out of politics, but allowing their own.

[Cow Poke]

What the democrat party thinks is a fine idea, is getting the special interests big money, out of politics.

Is this yet another situation where the Democrats pretend to really truly want things to be better, but as long as there isn't a law forcing them to do it, they'll continue to be lying hypocrites?

Roughly three-quarters of the money donated by financial industry donors was spent supporting Democratic candidates. The finance industry donors in the top 100 gave $264 million to Democrat-supporting outside groups in 2017-18, according to the report.

Why do you let these corrupt politicians lie to you, Jim?

[Mountain Man]

It's like Cortez complaining about "dark money" despite the fact that her campaign greatly benefited from the same.

[Cow Poke]

It's like Cortez complaining about "dark money" despite the fact that her campaign greatly benefited from the same.

yup --- We don't want YOU to have big money, but it's ok for US DEMOCRATS!

[JimL]

Is this yet another situation where the Democrats pretend to really truly want things to be better, but as long as there isn't a law forcing them to do it, they'll continue to be lying hypocrites?

Hedge-Fund Billionaires Were Democrats’ Main Bankrollers in 2018

In the 2018 midterms, Democrats benefited more than Republicans from election spending by outside groups for the first time in recent history. Now, thanks to a new report from Public Citizen, we have a better understanding of where much of that money backing Democrats came from: wealthy individuals who earn their livings as hedge-fund founders, bank executives, and other key positions in the financial industry.

The report, named “Plutocrat Politics: How Financial Sector Wealth Fuels Political Ad Spending” and authored by Public Citizen’s Alan Zibel, analyzed the 100 individuals who gave the most money to outside political spending groups in the 2018 cycle and found that about half of that money came from people with financial industry backgrounds. Roughly three-quarters of the money donated by financial industry donors was spent supporting Democratic candidates. The finance industry donors in the top 100 gave $264 million to Democrat-supporting outside groups in 2017-18, according to the report.

Why do you let these corrupt politicians lie to you, Jim?

Try to leave your biased perspective behind when trying to find the facts, CP. Read the whole article rather than cherry picking out only that which you want to believe. Both political parties are on the take from these special interest groups, both are captives of the system, and perhaps the democrats outdid the republicans for the first time in 2018 in garnering special interest donations, but there is only one party that is trying to get that special interests money out of politics, and it ain't the republicans.

The solution, according to the article, is to end the massive influx of corporate and special interest money into our elections-Public Citizens has long championed a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United and support public financing of campaigns. That's not something republicans want to do. It's only democrats trying to overthrow Citizens United and enact other campaign finance laws that would get special interests money out of politics.

So, in conclusion, both political parties benefit from special interest financing, that's how the corrupt system works, but only one political party is trying to reform that corrupt sytem, and it ain't your party!

[Sparko]

We the people had free speech before the citizens united decision, and we will still have it if a constitutional amendment nullifies the citizens united decision. What the democrat party thinks is a fine idea, is getting the special interests big money, out of politics. The question is, why do you want special interests big money in politics?

so would you like it if Trump decided that Hollywood was not allowed to make any movies or campaign videos promoting whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be? Or attacking Trump? Because it can work both ways.

[JimL]

so would you like it if Trump decided that Hollywood was not allowed to make any movies or campaign videos promoting whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be? Or attacking Trump? Because it can work both ways.

This is about campaign financing, Sparko, not about Hollywood or the movies they make. As far as movies are concerned, you see what you want to see.

[Cow Poke]

Try to leave your biased perspective behind...

When you can post without bias, then feel free to lecture. You are the very epitome of bias.

[Cow Poke]

So, in conclusion, both political parties benefit from special interest financing, that's how the corrupt system works, but only one political party is trying to reform that corrupt sytem, and it ain't your party!

I'm not a Republican, genius.

[JimL]

I'm not a Republican, genius.

Okay, you're a Trumpian, which is even worse!

[Cow Poke]

Okay, you're a Trumpian, which is even worse!

You're doubling down on the lies, and showing what a jackass you are, NAMBLA boy.