Steve Breen by Steve Breen

Steve Breen

Comments (15) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. crabbyrino

    crabbyrino GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    It is a sad commentary on the “American Politic.” When will we adopt campaign time limits as well as term limits? When will we disallow outside financial support (PACS)? Until that happens, sitting presidents, veeps, etc will continue to raise funds anywhere & everywhere they can. Let’s start w/ banning PACS…I am weary of hearing KOCH BROTHERS’ b***s***.

  2. ossiningaling

    ossiningaling said, 9 months ago

    Because other Presidents never went out and raised funds, let alone take vacations.

  3. Rx71Wm29

    Rx71Wm29 GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    And, while we’re at Obama bashing, where is Congress planning to go in a few days? Perhaps Steve should place one of those signs on each of the empty chairs in the House and Senate. But, of course, it’s become standard cartoonist fare to bash the president, hasn’t it?

  4. Weboh

    Weboh said, 9 months ago

    @Rx71Wm29

    He didn’t specify Obama. Obama just happens to be the current President. Like @ossiningaling sarcastically said, other Presidents did it too. Steve is more than likely “bashing” all Presidents for wasting their whole last year or two raising funds and/or campaigning.

  5. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 9 months ago

    To date, Obama has held 401 fundraising events. That’s 83 more in 5 1/2 years than Bush had in his full 8 years, and is on pace to easily eclipse the record held by President Clinton (638).

    Press Shunned from Obama’s 400th Fundraiser Charged to Taxpayers (Yes, I know it says 400. I go with the unofficial Presidential Statistician, CBS’s Mark Knoller.

    Obama On Pace to Become All-Time Campaigner-in-Chief

  6. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    Fundraising is supporting free speech, according to the Supremes.

  7. TJDestry

    TJDestry GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    Shame on him for having to ask for support. If the Democrats were like the Republicans, they could get the support ahead of time and then just get regular paychecks for doing what the fatcats hired them to do.

  8. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 9 months ago

    @TJDestry

    Absolutely. Republican Hillary Clinton has raked in $5 Million in speaking fees at Wall Street firms since leaving the State Dept. 15 months ago.

    Mother Jones, a notoriously right-wing site

    And since leaving office, Republican Bill Clinton has earned 1.35 million in speaking fees for Goldman Sachs alone, and about $23 million overall in fees from the financial sector for the same period.

  9. PainterArt

    PainterArt GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    Hey, money is speech. Corporations are people. Maybe we will have a corporation President before this is all over and we can make the post it note permanent in the seal. All sad.

  10. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 9 months ago

    @PainterArt

    Hey, money is speech. Should newspapers (and their equivalent) be denied their Constitutional right to espouse their view on who should be elected and and which policies should be enacted 24/7/365?

  11. PainterArt

    PainterArt GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    @churchillwasright

    You seem to be confusing money, speech, and freedom of the press. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

    Notice money is not in the constitution. The constitution does not say money equal free speech. Yet are strict constitutional supreme court judges have said money equal speech. No wonder our politicians are out raising money.

  12. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 9 months ago

    @PainterArt

    It is you who are confused. If I want to give money to a group to buy media space, that is my right under the First Amendment.

  13. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 9 months ago

    @PainterArt

    It is you who are confused. If I want to give money to a group to buy media space, that is my right under the First Amendment.

    Just as any other movement, big or small, I cannot speak by myself. We join “unions”, in the broad sense of the term.

    Otherwise you will have only the opinions of the “Corporate Press” (you hear those who think this way daily on these threads), or the “Liberal Journalists” (you also hear those on these threads that think that the journalists lean left, which I happen to agree with).

    Let’s use the Teacher’s Union as an example. Should they be allowed to take money from their members to run ads that advocate for increased wages? Of course.

    Should a counter-group be allowed to form a PAC to raise money to buy an ad campaign that shows the money goes into administrative cost and not to teacher’s salaries? According to you, not. We should rely on the newspapers., because they’ll tell us an unbiased opinion.

    According to you, newspapers (by this I mean the NYTimes and the Washington Post. Every other media outlet dutifully follow their lead) should be allowed 24/7/365 to promote their causes and candidates. Every one else should be limited to 30, 60, 90 or whatever days before an election.Sorry, but this isn’t what the Framers envisioned.

  14. TJDestry

    TJDestry GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    The Democrats should do what the Republicans do: Become outright corporate shills. Then there’s no more need for fundraising — it’s more of a “subscription model.”

  15. PainterArt

    PainterArt GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    @churchillwasright

    Your confusion is in money being give to PAC or teachers union to buy ad or air space is what is at debate here or in the above political cartoon. I have no problem with that. Those organizations are free to do with their money as they see fit.

    It is money given to politicians that I have a problem with and equating that this is free speech and protected by the first admendment.

    Money is not protected in the first amendment. Money does not equal speech. If this were true bribery would also be protected by the first amendment.

    As you state above money is a means to get speech out by private citizen is fine, but even in this equation money is not free speech. It is tool that can be used many different ways.

    Money given to a politician get close to bribery. This must be regulated or it will in fact become bribery with people/corporations/organizations simply buying offices. People will argue that we have that today. Sanctioned bribery.

    In any equal equation the reverse must be true and speech doesn’t equal money. You are not payed in speech. You can’t buy things at your local store in speech.

    Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or indirectly through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. Money can be used for equal or unequal participation in democracy. Money is only a tool not the idea itself (speech).

    The fact that money is used/ can be used to bribe politician, police, etc distorts our democracy. Look at Mexico or many countries around the world.

    There is nothing you wrote in your last reply that I disagree with except that everyone sees the media through there own colored goggles. The debate of money = speech is about money going directly to politicians not to citizen organizations.

  16. Refresh Comments.