Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
Thanks Tree5Thanks

Thread: Seattle’s coercive ‘democracy voucher’ campaign-finance scheme

  1. #11
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,212
    Thanks
    3816

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by cpicturetaker12 View Post
    AND detail. I believe in PUBLIC funding of elections. NO PRIVATE MONIES
    That is fucking insane.

    Quote Originally Posted by puffin View Post
    Attachment 14511

    “How to Get Your Free Money from Seattle’s New Public Campaign Financing System.”
    The Stranger

    What a load of tripe! Has the 9th ruled on this yet?
    In what warped world is one segment designated to foot the political bill for the opposing segment?
    Even to the point of subsidizing illegal residents' votes?!

    This country has lost its mind on so many levels

    "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." T Jefferson
    That is fucking insane.

  2. #12
    New Member puffin's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2017
    Posts
    104
    Thanks
    41

    From
    Tx
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    Link to your OP?
    Last word in the quote box.

  3. #13
    New Member puffin's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2017
    Posts
    104
    Thanks
    41

    From
    Tx
    your point?

  4. #14
    told you so Amelia's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    43,990
    Thanks
    25508

    From
    Wisconsin
    Quote Originally Posted by puffin View Post
    your point?
    Providing more information, from a direct source.

    You have a problem with that?

  5. #15
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,831
    Thanks
    2621

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    That is fucking insane.
    Seems like Citizens U would have something to say about this. If political spending is protected free speech, how can you compel people to spend anything? Saying nothing is as much a right as anything else.

    We should forget campaign finance, and just tighten up ethics rules, roll out a system that would allow constituents to recall a representative, without any involvement from the House or Senate. If the constituents call him back, he's out and the understudy is in, Congress doesn't have a say in it. Why would they?

  6. #16
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,254
    Thanks
    33111

    From
    in my head
    If the plaintiff wins this suit, what other functions of government would be crushed? If taxpayers can object to the messages that government sends, what other government functions can be crippled by a suit? Public schooling is pretty much all about sending messages. Public support for the arts? How about the Army Band? Nutrition labels? Scientific data? The Consumer Information Center?

  7. #17
    New Member puffin's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2017
    Posts
    104
    Thanks
    41

    From
    Tx
    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    Providing more information, from a direct source.

    You have a problem with that?
    This information?
    The Democracy Voucher Program costs the average homeowner about $11.50 per year.
    Does it make any difference if it is 1 penny or 1150 pennies? How so?

  8. #18
    New Member puffin's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2017
    Posts
    104
    Thanks
    41

    From
    Tx
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    Seems like Citizens U would have something to say about this. If political spending is protected free speech, how can you compel people to spend anything? Saying nothing is as much a right as anything else.

    We should forget campaign finance, and just tighten up ethics rules, roll out a system that would allow constituents to recall a representative, without any involvement from the House or Senate. If the constituents call him back, he's out and the understudy is in, Congress doesn't have a say in it. Why would they?
    Or we could move campaign financing into the 21 century and add a bit of sunlight while we're at it.

    I rather like the notion of mandating that every penny sent to a candidate must be publicly posted within 48 hours of receipt, no corps as humans, tossing all forms of bundling: Let's just find out who is really sending money to who!

  9. #19
    New Member puffin's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2017
    Posts
    104
    Thanks
    41

    From
    Tx
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    If the plaintiff wins this suit, what other functions of government would be crushed? If taxpayers can object to the messages that government sends, what other government functions can be crippled by a suit? Public schooling is pretty much all about sending messages. Public support for the arts? How about the Army Band? Nutrition labels? Scientific data? The Consumer Information Center?
    Wow! that's a whole bucket of red herrings.
    Dream of slippery slopes much?
    Is all govt messaging good (helpful, necessary, unbiased)?

  10. #20
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,254
    Thanks
    33111

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by puffin View Post
    Wow! that's a whole bucket of red herrings.
    Dream of slippery slopes much?
    Is all govt messaging good (helpful, necessary, unbiased)?
    I'm talking about legal precedents. On what basis will the court disallow this law, and how can that decision be tailored so that others cannot successfully sue for other causes on the same basis. I haven't seen any legal reasoning from you that would avoid the consequences I've suggested. It's not a slippery slope--if someone can accomplish something through the law, they will. I'm pointing out unforeseen consequences of your argument. If your only claim against this is "slippery slope" then you're saying no one would sue to prevent public schools from teaching subjects they didn't like or funding art they don't like, or even providing consumers with information they'd rather were not well-distributed. I think it's foolish to assume they would not, since people sue on the basis of these things all the time. Why should anyone pay for any communication from government to which they object? That's the basis of your legal argument here.

    Rather than accuse me of an informal fallacy, why not actually engage with my concern? Is it because you can't?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15th July 2017, 06:22 PM
  2. Scott Walker Accused of Campaign Finance 'Criminal Scheme'
    By TennesseeRain in forum Current Events
    Replies: 212
    Last Post: 5th July 2014, 01:56 PM
  3. A different idea on campaign finance
    By Rasselas in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 17th May 2014, 04:44 PM
  4. Campaign finance - how should we change it?
    By PapaBull in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 28th December 2011, 11:55 AM
  5. Campaign Finance Reform
    By Burning Giraffe in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20th July 2007, 04:17 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed