https://reason.com/2019/08/12/every-demo...of-speech/

""...To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process," Section 1 says, "Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections." By allowing restrictions on money spent by anyone to influence elections, that provision would nullify a principle set forth in the landmark 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo...."

(08-13-2019 10:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://reason.com/2019/08/12/every-demo...of-speech/

""...To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process," Section 1 says, "Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections." By allowing restrictions on money spent by anyone to influence elections, that provision would nullify a principle set forth in the landmark 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo...."

So a couple of questions...

1. Is this because they can't keep up with the GOP fundraising?

2. They cheat at everything they do and still can't win.

(08-13-2019 10:28 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 10:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://reason.com/2019/08/12/every-demo...of-speech/

""...To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process," Section 1 says, "Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections." By allowing restrictions on money spent by anyone to influence elections, that provision would nullify a principle set forth in the landmark 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo...."

So a couple of questions...

1. Is this because they can't keep up with the GOP fundraising?

2. They cheat at everything they do and still can't win.

Its odd to me because in 2016 the Hillary forces actually outspent Trump by a fairly large margin in the last election (I believe it was something along the lines of 2 to 3 times what Trump spent).

Whatever they want, oppose. It.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

oh boy....just when one thought they couldn't dig a deeper grave...

shite like this is when you know you're a whooped arse eatin' dirt....

#numskullcuckdumb

(08-13-2019 10:28 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 10:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://reason.com/2019/08/12/every-demo...of-speech/

""...To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process," Section 1 says, "Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections." By allowing restrictions on money spent by anyone to influence elections, that provision would nullify a principle set forth in the landmark 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo...."

So a couple of questions...

1. Is this because they can't keep up with the GOP fundraising?

2. They cheat at everything they do and still can't win.

They are probably still raising more when you add all the candidates together. They want to regulate the groups that are heavily Republican. They want a built in advantage with their labor union funding and control of the MSM media.

Didn't they have several donors that violated the donation laws?

I'm for setting a cap on what individuals and corporations can donate to a political campaign. I'd also like to see donations made to super pacs made public. From what I remember, people can donate to a super pac, which then donates money to a campaign, but there are no public records on who donated to the super pac. Get rid of that and cap donations at $5,000 or $10,000.

(08-14-2019 07:31 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  I'm for setting a cap on what individuals and corporations can donate to a political campaign. I'd also like to see donations made to super pacs made public. From what I remember, people can donate to a super pac, which then donates money to a campaign, but there are no public records on who donated to the super pac. Get rid of that and cap donations at $5,000 or $10,000.

All of these limits exist.
Contribution limits.
When conservative donors break these rules they go to jail.

(08-14-2019 07:31 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  I'm for setting a cap on what individuals and corporations can donate to a political campaign. I'd also like to see donations made to super pacs made public. From what I remember, people can donate to a super pac, which then donates money to a campaign, but there are no public records on who donated to the super pac. Get rid of that and cap donations at $5,000 or $10,000.

Already exists.. Several celebs violated it during the 2016 election by over donating to HRC..

Be better.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graph...ributions/

https://nypost.com/2018/05/05/rosie-odon...gal-limit/

Here in Kentucky, Alison Lundergan Grimes‘ father has been charged with violation election donation laws. Grimes is the Kentucky Secretary of State that ran against Mitch McConnell in his last election.
Her Dad spent $30,000 but only reported $3,700. Keep in mind Grimes oversees elections in Kentucky, imagine that.

Dems= Our way or you are off to the gulag

#4

(08-13-2019 11:47 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  oh boy....just when one thought they couldn't dig a deeper grave...

shite like this is when you know you're a whooped arse eatin' dirt....

#numskullcuckdumb

Will this be regulated?

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4575...ook-google
Censorship proposed on political ads. Seems like there is a wink, wink to get Google and Facebook to censor Republican ads--or else.