Posted on 10/11/2010 9:43:56 AM PDT by mandaladon
Every Freeper should be familiar with Article 1, Section 8.
Is that the answer?
“We need to take all private contributions out of elections and go to public funded elections only.”
If you mean that those who are making issue ads, or campaigning in other less than open ways, should disclose their donors, I disagree with you. Private contributions are just that...private.
This is a first amendment issue, and those who want to donate, should feel free to donate without the entire world knowing about it.
Public funding would probably be left in the hands of those who are in power.
Would you trust them to be fair?
“Bribery is not free speech.”
I believe you are wrong that it’s bribery. Who is bribing whom?
Frankly, I would love to do away with almost all of the election donation laws, and have the various campaigns post all of their donors and donations online immediately after they’ve received the funds. I would love for there not to be a limit on those donations, either, as long as they are disclosed.
However, I don’t think that revealing donors’ names should apply to groups...I believe 504C3s?
Thank you, too, Black Agnes!
Thanks for the ping, and for the excerpt, nutmeg!
“Since the Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Democrats in Congress have been trying to pass legislation to repeal the First Amendment for business, though not for unions.”
First amendment for me, but not for thee?
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!
There are a lot of things that are protected by the first amendment, among them flag burning. I guess we can add bribery to the list.
It is my first amendment right to bribe my elected officials with campaign contributions so they will do my bidding at the expense of the best interest of the public and the nation at large.
Interesting that you mention that. I’ve been working on listening to Laurie Roth’s interview of Doug Hagmann and Judi McLeod from Canada Free Press, regarding the alleged threats made to the media heads if they reported on the eligibility issue.
The claim is that once before the election and once afterwards, Obama’s people (still listening for details over a 3-hour interview while my computer is messed up with a virus, but at this point Axelrod and Rahm have been mentioned by name) told the heads of Fox, NBC, CBS, and 2 large radio networks (that Hagmann declined to name) that if they reported on the eligibility issue (including place of birth, documentation about BC, passport, Pakistan travels, aliases including Barry Soetoro, Islamic schools, and any oaths of allegiance) they would be annihilated by just this kind of scrutiny of the media ownership (with anti-monopoly and diversity issues seeming to be the primary points of attack for legal harassment of these companies if they didn’t step in line with Obama’s demands.
At a meeting between the leadership and the top 4 anchors for one of those companies (I’m betting not Fox), according to the notes taken by the administrative assistant at the meeting (the only record of that meeting left by the time she returned to work the next day, since somebody had deleted all records from her computer by that time), somebody asked whether the media exec wasn’t angry at being threatened.
The response was that if it had been done by that (*&#&#(*# George W Bush then it would make them mad, but because it was being done by Obama they could understand where he was coming from.
Hagmann says he has records of these statements that he got when meeting with that administrative assistant 4 different times, collected according to PI license standards. He says he hasn’t come forward with the actual evidence because at this point his sources would not be safe if he did so.
After seeing Obama’s treatment of Gerald Walpin, the Chrysler attorneys, the AIG execs (”I’m the only thing standing between them and the pitchforks” - when the union thugs bussed people to encircle the AIG exec’s house), and now the Chamber of Commerce (for heaven’s sake!).... this would not surprise me in the least.
I remember there being a meeting reported where Roger Ailes told his people not to report on the eligibility issue. And I remember after the inauguration somebody from the Obama administration met with Ailes again; I remember Michael Savage actually saying something positive about Ailes because he needed our support when faced with this thuggery, so that had to be after I started back at this job, so sometime within the last year.
Anyway, this seems to be the way Obama operates.
And the media is fine with it, as long as it’s Obama doing it and not some (shudder!) conservative.
The fact that the media is openly in the tank for Obama is old news, but I’d like to see more light shed on its tolerance of corruption.
If this claim is true, it is tolerance of BLATANT corruption.
Interesting that CNN didn’t even have to be threatened.
Oh, and looking at my notes I see also that along with Rahm and Axelrod, George Soros was specifically mentioned as well. And there was supposed to be a blackout on Obama’s law license as well.
Seems to me that if you’re taking flak you’re over the target. Good to know what Soros, Axelrod, and Rahm wanted to remain hidden.
It’s sort of like shortly before the election when the Missouri law enforcement group decided they were going to be the “Truth Squad”. Remember that? They were going to give people trouble if they had signs that said anything about Obama raising taxes or being Muslim. Interesting to see what they want to censor out of the public discourse. Flak over the target.
Of course not in the case of our small contribtuions. But the big money contributions, it is.
“It is my first amendment right to bribe my elected officials with campaign contributions so they will do my bidding at the expense of the best interest of the public and the nation at large.”
That’s just silly!
Everyone is entitled to donate to the campaign of their choice.
I’m beginning to doubt your sincerety on this forum.
Sometimes its good to spark discussion. Sometimes we are just sorting it out.
It depends on which way you want to “spark” discussion.
” But the big money contributions, it is”
What “big money” would that be, and why would you want to deny them to right to be a part of the discussion?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.