Follow the Money

[Jim]

There are a number of issues that need to be carefully considered, but I don't have a problem with limitations on contributions and imposing a requirement for full disclosure.

 

Otherwise, with the money=speech scenario, corporate interests will have a louder voice, much louder. There is no reality based information to suggest that somehow Unions and contributions by individuals is going to keep up with the moneyed interests.

 

Yes, I have concerns regarding how free speech is constrained but what we have now is the more money you have the more you have access and the more your message is out there. Take a look a the quote I posted at the beginning of the thread - does anyone actually belive that is a true statement?

[billcoe]

teenage speak..."WHATevar!" OMG!

[tvashtarkatena]

I don't go for any measure that reduces my political power as a citizen

 

because the institutionalization of corporations buying elections don't reduce your political power? You are clueless.

 

- whether they be gags on my free speech or limiting my ability to vote for who I want through term limits. That fact that I live in a country where half the population is operating from a barely functioning brain stem doesn't change that. That's what constitutional protections are for - to put a cyclone fence around a possible brain stem zombie uprising.

 

spoken like an elitist who ignores how corporate media manufacture consents, how a perpetually dysfunctional government betrays constituencies year after year leading to disenfranchisement of ~50% of the population, etc ..

 

The media is a tool to be used to one's advantage. Organizations that aren't effective don't know how to use the media for this - those that are, do.

 

The media also loves to report train wrecks. Hence - excessive teabagger coverage. Things functioning smoothly are not titillating and therefore not 'news'. This principle hasn't changed in forever.

 

Consumption of news also tends to be self selecting. Idiots watch standard network news. Tea baggers read their zombie blogs. Progressives read Noam Chomsky like a bible. Mostly, people find media outlets that will reinforce the beliefs they already have. They're simply looking for emotional strokes. Nice doggy!

 

Do I think I'm smarter than most of the population? Yes. Does that make me an elitist? Probably. Does it matter? Not so much. What matters is the effectiveness of my participation in forwarding my political agenda as a citizen. Laws passed, court rulings made, candidates elected - all leading to the kind of positive effect on the lives on individuals I'd like to see made.

 

 

[j_b]

The media is a tool to be used to one's advantage. Organizations that aren't effective don't know how to use the media for this - those that are, do.

 

More evidence of your cluelessness. The corporate media reports only what it wants to report.

 

The media also loves to report train wrecks. Hence - excessive teabagger coverage. Things functioning smoothly are not titillating and therefore not 'news'. This principle hasn't changed in forever.

 

Clueless again. Fox frames the issues and the rest of the corporate media follows.

 

Consumption of news also tends to be self selecting. Idiots watch standard network news. Tea baggers read their zombie blogs. Progressives read Noam Chomsky like a bible. Mostly, people find media outlets that will reinforce the beliefs they already have. They're simply looking for emotional strokes. Nice doggy!

 

Do I think I'm smarter than most of the population? Yes. Does that make me an elitist? Probably.

 

Nooooo! you are an elitist for not accounting for consent being manufactured through political and commercial propaganda, shitty education, pandering to the lowest common denominator, outright lying, media blackouts, self-censorship, outright censorship, etc ..

 

Does it matter? Not so much. What matters is the effectiveness of my participation in forwarding my political agenda as a citizen. Laws passed, court rulings made, candidates elected - all leading to the kind of positive effect on the lives on individuals I'd like to see made.

 

it does matter that you ignore the role of the corporate media and wildly disproportionate financial muscles.

[tvashtarkatena]

 

Now we're getting to the heart of your objections. If the distribution of spending favored your side, we wouldn't be hearing much from you, methinks.

 

Yup. Get busy, jb!

 

lying piece of shit!

 

As anyone who does fundraising already knows, the lion's share of any donor funded organization's contributions, regardless of political bent, comes from a relatively few wealthy donors. It's very rare when an organization is primarily funded by lots of small donors, who tend to be, let's say, fickle, not very loyal, and very costly on a per capita basis in terms of fund raising efforts.

 

if small contributors don't come through, fOrget it. We don't need the untold millions spent on sound-bytes. Many other countries have a more engaged, knowlaedgeable populations and spend a fraction of what we spend on elections.

 

I don't know about what other countries spend on elections, but I'd go out on a limb to say that the most effective activist organizations in those countries, as in ours, are primarily funded by a small percentage of their wealthiest donors. That's just a statistical principle regarding fund raising, or any social connection, for that matter. If you've got alot of skin in the game, you stick with it more, through thick and thin, year after year. If you've given $5 - you basically don't really give much of a fuck. Next year, you're chasing after some new shiny bauble.

 

Average contribution per member of all the save Darfur organizations on Facebook: 19 cents. Has Darfur been saved? Not so much.

[j_b]

YOu are switching topic. We were talking about elections.

[tvashtarkatena]

You're right. You werent' just talking about small donors being the key to saving the world. I'm insane. Thanks for letting me know.

[j_b]

I am glad to let you know we were talking about cash donations for elections. Cash donations for campaigning on issues are a different topic.

[j_b]

There are a number of issues that need to be carefully considered, but I don't have a problem with limitations on contributions and imposing a requirement for full disclosure.

 

Otherwise, with the money=speech scenario, corporate interests will have a louder voice, much louder. There is no reality based information to suggest that somehow Unions and contributions by individuals is going to keep up with the moneyed interests.

 

But you know, putting a cap on contributions would be denying their "right" to deny your right to participate in a fair election. It's basically the same self-serving logic used by slave owners to defend their right to human chattel.

[tvashtarkatena]

Don't even try. You're talking to a crazy person.

[j_b]

But you know, putting a cap on contributions would be denying their "right" to deny your right to participate in a fair election.

 

but again, fair elections aren't a right until the corporatist judges agree to it. Exactly like, African Americans didn't have any civil rights until congress voted the civil right act, but then it only happened because of "mobs" that took to the street and an intrusive "big government" that trampled the rights of the racist to deny civil rights to African Americans. Robespierre then cut a few heads and since then we have lived under the tyranny of the majority. Hypocrites of the world unite to defend your right to trample other people's right. [/clown mode]

[JayB]

Booga booga.

[billcoe]

Booga booga.

You wouldn't be so damn happy if we sent your ass to say...Somalia....now would ya? HA HA!, beat that irrefutable logic. BOOYAH!

[Hugh Conway]

Booga booga.

 

Don't you mean "Union Union"?

[JayB]

Booga booga.

 

Don't you mean "Union Union"?

 

Yes.