Something We Can Agree Upon

[x]

[Willow]

lol!  Actually, Wayne, no.  It's discouraging, I'm sure, that just when we think we've found the universally accepted truth there will be someone who sees it differently or just doesn't see it.

Let's search for something on which we can disagree in a civil manner.      

[x]

He he he - OK, it's not that they are not intelligent, it's that they are BOUGHT.  I really would like to figure out a way to make Congress Critters accountable to the people in their district and not to the people who have put millions into PAC's or live out of state and want to influence a race.  Several senators (retiring) have said that the majority of their time is spent in raising funds for the next election.  This can't be healthy.

[Skinhead]

I for the life of me can't figure out why we can't limit how much a canidate can spend on an election campaign.  Example: $1,000,000 tops.  all canidates, all offices, no more.  Why make it impossible for the average Joe to run for office?  Why would anyone spend billions to run for a job that pays a couple hundred grand?   Plus then we wouldn't be subjected to the endless barrage of stupid political adds and robo calls.  And the politicians would be out raising campaign money rather than representing we the people.

[x]

I for the life of me can't figure out why we can't limit how much a canidate can spend on an election campaign.  Example: $1,000,000 tops.  all canidates, all offices, no more.  Why make it impossible for the average Joe to run for office?  Why would anyone spend billions to run for a job that pays a couple hundred grand?   Plus then we wouldn't be subjected to the endless barrage of stupid political adds and robo calls.  And the politicians would be out raising campaign money rather than representing we the people.

Because the McCain-Feingold bill that limited soft money and PAC's was over turned by the Supreme Court as limiting free speech.  Then in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations, as persons, could give unlimited amounts of money to political organizations because to not allow this was a violation of their free speech rights.
 
The Citizens United ruling is one of the most appalling decisions to come out the this right leaning court in a long time.
 

[MP]

The last election, McCain agreed to, and followed, the public funding limits.  Obama did NOT.  He took unlimited funds.  So, for progressives to lament the spending is hyprocisy at its worse.

MP

[x]

The last election, McCain agreed to, and followed, the public funding limits.  Obama did NOT.  He took unlimited funds.  So, for progressives to lament the spending is hyprocisy at its worse.

MP

That's not really true at all... he just used the loopholes... he got lots of money.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aws6d0H5id9k&refer=politics

[musclehead]

for the first time ever in a presidential election they spent over a billion dollars combined to get elected.

lots-o-interesting stuff here

http://www.opensecrets.org/