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***.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Crabbyrino Premium Member over 9 years 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***.
ossiningaling over 9 years ago
Because other Presidents never went out and raised funds, let alone take vacations.
William Bednar Premium Member over 9 years 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?
Michael Peterson Premium Member over 9 years 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.
PainterArt Premium Member over 9 years 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.
PainterArt Premium Member over 9 years ago
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.
Michael Peterson Premium Member over 9 years 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.”
PainterArt Premium Member over 9 years ago
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.