71 % of USA thinks Bush is to blame for recession

[JB3]

so is that just to be arguentative or are you saying you don't want to have campaign finance reform because it equates to slavery and internment?

No it's saying that sometimes what citizens WANT is not allowable under the law and the constitution. Just because we WANT corporate money out of elections doesn't mean that its possible. People DO want big money out of elections, but it isn't possible right now.

I mean, quite frankly, if we want to have real campaign finance reform its going to have to go a whole lot further than a law like McCain-Feingold. I'm thinking something in the vein of a constitutional amendment stating that candidates for any national office may only accept public financing, or that the right to contribute to candidates in a national election is reserved for private citizens and not corporations.

 

[BostonPirate]

No it's saying that sometimes what citizens WANT is not allowable under the law and the constitution. Just because we WANT corporate money out of elections doesn't mean that its possible. People DO want big money out of elections, but it isn't possible right now.

I mean, quite frankly, if we want to have real campaign finance reform its going to have to go a whole lot further than a law like McCain-Feingold. I'm thinking something in the vein of a constitutional amendment stating that candidates for any national office may only accept public financing, or that the right to contribute to candidates in a national election is reserved for private citizens and not corporations.

one bite at a time. The Politicians wont let go all at once... you have to pry their fingers off the money spicket one at a time.

If the smaller measure wont pass, then there is no hope for a larger one. If the smaller one passes, then it can be the beginning of even further actions. But that means not voting for someone if they don't promise to make a change, and once in office, if they dont make the change you HAVE to get them out of office as punishment.

 

[JB3]

one bite at a time. The Politicians wont let go all at once... you have to pry their fingers off the money spicket one at a time.

If the smaller measure wont pass, then there is no hope for a larger one. If the smaller one passes, then it can be the beginning of even further actions. But that means not voting for someone if they don't promise to make a change, and once in office, if they dont make the change you HAVE to get them out of office as punishment.

Well, McCain-Feingold passed, so there's hope.

 

[BostonPirate]

Well, McCain-Feingold passed, so there's hope.

And then SCOTUS killed it.

 

[JB3]

And then SCOTUS killed it.

Because it was not allowable in their interpretation of the constitution. Hence, the constitutional amendment.

 

[hotatlboi]

Because it was not allowable in their interpretation of the constitution. Hence, the constitutional amendment.

Almost impossible to do. Not enough Republican support in the Congress. They will never go against their corporate benefactors.

 

[JB3]

Almost impossible to do. Not enough Republican support in the Congress. They will never go against their corporate benefactors.

Are you really blind and dense enough to think that its just republicans?

 

[BostonPirate]

it is both parties that need the money and until the change is comprehensive then both sides wont go for it.

that means the methodology needs to be different.

In otherwords, instead of stopping corporations out, the contributions either need to be limited ACROSS THE BOARD by all organizations etc... unions, corps, pacs, you name it. No entity either living or non living can give to any one candidate more than a set amount.

Otherwise it is a total waste of time.

How this relates to the the american people thinking that Bush is responsible for the recession we are currently in is beyond me, and since this is an ON-TOPIC designated thread, lets focus back on that aspect or just let it roll down the page and be done

 

[rareboy]

Campaigning could only take place in the 6 months leading up to the election.

In Canada, like Britain, we won't even put up with that kind of nonsense for 6 months.

There is no reason to.

But without the 24/7/365 election campaigns in the US, the 24/7/265 media would probably collapse. So they won't allow that.

It is odd that the US political electioneering system based on lack of communications technology and the speed of travel in the 17th and 18th century spawned such a perfidious legacy.