Mercedes-Benz Forum - View Single Post - No Sane Person should really be able to argue against this
View Single Post
post #25 of (permalink) Old 03-12-2019, 12:30 AM
hbar
BenzWorld Elite
 
hbar's Avatar
 
Date registered: Feb 2007
Vehicle: '74 & '78 450 SEL
Location: Illinois
Posts: 8,992
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Quoted: 2099 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenT View Post
I disagree with the concept that groups are equivalent to individuals (people) and should have the same fist amendment rights. It has resulted in the unleashing of hundreds of millions in election influence with no accountability and the emergence of dark money from organizations that are not required to identify the source of it.
If you really believed that, then you should be in favor of a law that prohibited the news media from reporting any political news.

1) All major news sources are corporations that exist to make a profit.

2) Freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is a 1st Amendment right. It is also meaningless to say that it only applies to individuals as it clearly applies to a collective group - specifically the company that makes money selling the news.

3) The press has more influence on politics than any other industry. They also enjoy a broad exemption to disclose their sources and the 1st Amendment makes them virtually immune from accountability. The government is prohibited from regulating the industry.

Quote:
As it stand, this system is the polar opposite to anything resembling having individual expressing their opinion because they are being drowned in a sea of cash spent by corporations and wealthy PACs or super PACs.
I guess you skipped over the part where I described exactly how overturning CU would effectively prevent grassroots organizations from being able to use donations from like minded individuals to get their message out the public. This isn't hypothetical, it's already happened. In 2005, before the CU decision, the FEC arbitrarily decided that several grassroots organizations violated campaign finance law by running radio ads critical of political candidates before a Federal election. The groups were fined out of existence and threatened with criminal prosecution if they contested the decision.

Quote:
If you or anyone else sees no problem with this current structure we should stop any further discussion on campaign reform. There's a reason why it was my first point.
That's a strikingly ignorant statement to make in a thread that exists for the sole purpose of discussing the need for election reform. And especially arrogant when you've made a point to ignore the specific suggestions presented by the OP and discussed by other members and inserted your own suggestions as if they were equally viable, or even reasonable. Every one of them lacks basic common sense but you insist on pretending that valid criticism simply doesn't exist.





Quote:
Don't like the League? Pick a group or any other organization as long as the GOP and DNC (as corporations ffs) don't have absolute control of the debates.
Pick a group? Is that really going to be up to me? Really, I'm flattered, but it should be obvious that there aren't (and can't be) any legal mandates on who gets to host political debates. The way it works is that debate hosting and format rules are decided by a kind of negotiation process among the various candidates and news organizations. You can't really change that process.





Quote:
You missed the Party part, individuals are not political parties. I'll be more specific... national political parties like the Greens, Libertarian, constitutional, etc. Actual living/breathing parties
Get a handful of goofs together and they call themselves a political party. Who is to arbitrarily decide they don't qualify? What if a bunch of these toothless idiots who make up some of these white supremacist organizations got their act together long enough to register as a party? How could you keep them out considering your idea is based on the concept of not having "made up requirements" for participating in debates? Sounds like you want it both ways.





Quote:
See above on who qualifies.

As to the rich, they would not be allowed. One pot, split evenly.
I'm astounded that you believe this could possibly work in the real world.



So, how about you provide a comment or two on the video that is the topic here. You said you watched it. Perhaps you can demonstrate your ability to contribute to a meaningful discussion on an important issue without making it all about yourself.

Last edited by hbar; 03-12-2019 at 12:37 AM.
hbar is offline  
 
 

Title goes here

close
video goes here
description goes here. Read Full Story
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome