Comments on: We need to make campaign finance a civil rights issue

By: ywatkins

ywatkins — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:24:20 +0000

If we are going to forbid large corporations the right to voice opinions, we should forbid the media the right to voice opinions. There is no logical reason to give Westinghouse the right to voice political opinions through it’s subsidiary CBS and forbid Ford Motor Company to right to buy political ads.

By: REMant

REMant — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:45:44 +0000

Giving money to buy ads is not necessarily buying votes or influence, and the small giving figures may only indicate diminished interest in the candidates and government. Why either should the weight be swung to those without property to give, but who want government to give them some? Aside from this the donations do represent a sort of redistribution and Keynesian stimulus of their own. But for ppl who speak as the author the idea of a private sector doesn’t even exist.

By: OneOfTheSheep

OneOfTheSheep — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:40:20 +0000

@JBitn,

Maybe if you hacked your rant up into identifiable thoughts and coherent sentences by appropriate use of punctuation it could make some sense?

By: JBltn

JBltn — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:53:48 +0000

The author clearly identifies 4 of 5 overarching threats to a governing structure defined as A Federal Republic using a Representative Democracy as an OS; which quite obviously, has, little, if any, resemblance to, use or create any threat whatsoever to the current governing structure that took Federal government power and structure so successfully, effortlessly, and unrecognized by a large majority of American citizens. The new power elites kept the same the names and superstructure used in the ex- U.S. Constitution that created a Federal Republic superstructure using a Representative Democracy for operational. However the tripartite separation of governmental power, i.e. really means responsibility, authority and accountability, was easily abused, quickly misused, disregarded prior to midterm Congressional and State Governor elections then basically discarded during the last quarter of 2003;The hyped and overblown bloviating about computers causing a year 2K disaster, while the Actual 2K catastrophe; a successful coup de tat and government power grab was unreported by corporate owned MSM and totally ignored by a majority of American citizens and voters.
The actual and real danger of the 5th overarching threat wasn’t that three disparate socio-cultural forces and believer & supporters might put aside their contrasting moral belief differences & combine to prevent a presidential candidate, they had been pre-programmed to believe was the Great Enemy of their faith and fear what he would do if elected, nor that their party candidates would incessantly repeat the political smears and lies tested by focus groups and the highest credibility and believability polling scores nor the continual use of buzzword phrases fanning racial bigotry and religious hatred of their base but the timing of when those three combined & the effects that caused grew geometrically, the willingness to implement takeover action plans and rapid response by leadership group members, the apathy, unconcern and thoughtless assuming by a majority of American voters, that because all changes of political power had resulted through elections that all future political power changes would be the same.

Mr. Hindrey, your four threats plus mine, will not and do not pose any danger whatsoever to the current governing structure or those holding political power. IMHO the factors you perceive as threats are indicative of their belief that, the freedoms from government and civil rights once constitutionally protected and guaranteed, that have been legislated away, diluted, abrogated or ignored, without legal challenges, major mass protests marches and widespread civil disobedience by citizens , their hold on political power and control over society’s wealth is so complete they can do away with most of the most expensive or onerous social control methods installed during the early years of their successful coup.

The present is what ‘Ike’ warned America about in his presidency of the 50′s and what Sinclair Lewis said earlier, “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”

By: EXess

EXess — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:53:07 +0000

The writer is disingenuous with the facts, very selective and clearly biased towards Democrats.
So his article lacks any credibility.
Some of the biggest campaign contributions are via the Unions to the Democratic party in return for ……. screwing the country and making American industry uncompetitive.
Do Union members actually get to vote on the amounts of these donations ……

By: Benny27

Benny27 — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:49:21 +0000

ALLSOLUTIONS,
Perhaps if fair election funding ‘disfavours’ one side of the aisle, it is not that the proposal unfairly supports one side or other, but rather that one side is inherently more representative of the views of the population.

the fact you don’t want to hear.

Believe me, I hate the Democrats as much as anybody, but any fool can see the Republicans do not actually want to help the average man, they would prefer to posture and help themselves to the public’s money, via privatization.

Note I am speaking as an investor, tired of the management class in America stealing all the wealth of the companies they run for themselves (30+ year trend)

By: eleno

eleno — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:01:49 +0000

So this is the big issue in the US. Campaign finance reform.

Never mind that thousands of Mexican peasants flood across the border, that Iran is building a bomb, that the educational system produces citizens poorly educated that make it 25th on the list of educational achievement among developed nations.

All those things will be fixed the out of touch author would no doubt argue if campaign finance is sorted out.

Yeh really. People like Hindery are the problem, not the solution.

By: mplehner

mplehner — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:06:01 +0000

Corporations are not citizens and not voters and therefore in my mind do not have standing to make monetary political contributions. Individual citizens are the basis of this country, have the right to free speech and to their vote and that is the only entity that I believe should have the right to make monetary political contributions. No contributions should be allowed from any other entity other than from a US citizen and all contributions should be public record.

By: tmc

tmc — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:49:01 +0000

We must start with term limits for congress and the SCOTUS. Then, or at the same time, reform campaign finance. Without the term limits any changes made will just be changed again within 18 months by the powerbases in congress.

By: ALLSOLUTIONS

ALLSOLUTIONS — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:25:31 +0000

There is no such thing as civil rights. Civil rights is a made up term for people to get handouts and special treatment.

Yes, campaign finance is a problem.

Simple solution: eliminate all campaign contributions. Anyone can donate money to a campaign fund; the fund gives each candidate a small amount to spend depending upon office, such as $100,000 for a presidential candidate; the candidate can spend no more than the amount received from the fund. This take the money out of politics.

This is NOT what the author is proposing. He wants the laws changed so the Democrats can raise more money than the Republicans. He is not for an improvement that is fair to ALL, he just wants a better deal for his side.

The facts no one wants to read.

Learn to think for yourself.

Censorship is evil.