Constitutional Amendment proposal gathering steam

[rj40]

I can only speak to what I think. But for me, if a politician is saying one thing but getting money (sometimes a lot of money) from individuals or a group or groups that support the opposite, I want to know about it. Or, more realistically, if they are not telling me something they believe in, but intend to pursue, those donations may be the best way for me to have a more complete understanding of what their election would mean. It is data I want to have when making voting decisions.

I am not prepared to argue much here, only present what I think and take in what people tell me. I have learned a lot here. As far as arguing points and trying to convince others, I tend to follow what a lot of church leaders do, focus on convincing young people (when I attempt it at all).

I am having trouble following some of the other stuff you write, but would urge you, and ask you, to not resort to arms. You make some good arguments and the pen is mightier than the sword.

[Stubby]

"I never understood the need for allowing big companies to donate money."

Because it's their money to donate.

How about foreign corporations like Baosteel, Feicheng Acid, or Suntech?
or Bauhaus, VW Group, IG Farben?
or Dish TV or Sun Pharmaceutical?
or Toyota, Hyundai?

[TDPerk]

I can only speak to what I think. But for me, if a politician is saying one thing but getting money (sometimes a lot of money) from individuals or a group or groups that support the opposite, I want to know about it.

If they have calculated it will in net benefit them to screw you, they are going to screw you if they are the sort to do so. Also, this has nothing to do with the Citizens United decision, which preserved the 1st amendment against an attempt not to prohibit anonymous donations to politicians by corporations, but to prohibit speech within a certain time frame of an election. Prohibiting anonymous speech forgoes all the advantages of it, and also does nothing to prevent quid quo pro in politics.

Or, more realistically, if they are not telling me something they believe in, but intend to pursue, those donations may be the best way for me to have a more complete understanding of what their election would mean. It is data I want to have when making voting decisions.

And because these laws prohibit or impair speech, the communication of information, they necessarily mean you have less information, not more. If a politician will lie to you, then they will lie to you.

I am having trouble following some of the other stuff you write, but would urge you, and ask you, to not resort to arms. You make some good arguments and the pen is mightier than the sword.

Why on earth would I resort to arms presently, when of those three, only the jury box is lost as an effective check on tyranny?

While the clearly rampant vote fraud by Democrats certainly ran up the score against the Republicans--certain precincts in Philadelphia, for example, expelled Republican poll watchers illegally and then reported 144% of their registered voters as voting for Obama in 2012, and they recorded 0 votes for Romney--I don't think this changed the Electoral vote outcome. Romney's chief problem is that he couldn't motivate the Republicans to the polls--and really, why would they bother? No one barely enough of a Republican to be tolerable to a North East blue state is Republican enough to do the country enough good to be worth the effort.

Likewise, the left's attempts to burn the soapbox--as with this amendment--has no chance at this time of succeeding.

The criminality and incompetence of the Democrats is now apparent enough that 2014 and perhaps also 2016 should prove quite repairative, if the Republican establishment can be defeated to see candidates nominated who will attempt repair.

And if those years do not prove to be such, there is still "a lot of ruin in a country*".

About the pen being mightier than the sword, I suggest you look up the result of the contest between Thomas Becket and King Henry, before you rely on the common use of that phrase. The pen can be mightier than a sword, and it may be mightier than the swords then arrayed against it...but only when it can rally a greater number of swords in opposition, when in extremis.

* Have you heard that phrase?

[TDPerk]

"I never understood the need for allowing big companies to donate money."

Because it's their money to donate.

How about foreign corporations like Baosteel, Feicheng Acid, or Suntech?
or Bauhaus, VW Group, IG Farben?
or Dish TV or Sun Pharmaceutical?
or Toyota, Hyundai?

You mean US corporations with US citizen employees and customers, subject to US laws and having US shareholders? Of course they have a right to free speech. None of those firms do business here without incorporating here without some or all of those circumstances obtaining.

You are losing this argument quite badly.

It's because you have no case to make to the public interest, you only have narrow, temporary, nakedly partisan goals.

[rj40]

RE TD:
"A lot of ruin in a country." I had not heard or read that. Thanks. I will delve into it.
"Pen mightier than the sword." Yeah, a bit trite. I know a very little about Henry and Beckett, but will look into the as well.

Yeah, Citizens United. All I *think* I know is what I see on Wikipedia. And whatever else I pick up on forums and the media.

At any rate, I still want to know who is giving what and to who. I don't want to stop free speech, but I want to know. A non-perfect answer I agree. If it comes to a vote, I think I know how I will vote.

[TDPerk]

It's a partial quote from Adam Smith, I observe it to mean that you shouldn't panic even in the face of substantial losses. Ironically enough, he wrote it when someone wrote him, that writer despairing, concerning a serious military reversal which Adam Smith's nation had suffered at a place called Saratoga...

I observe Obama's jest about having the IRS audit his opponents, said in 2009, having had quite a regrettable effect on the IRS' behavior. It is similar to the plaint made by Henry II, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest!*" Several of his knights took this to be a firm request, and murdered the Archbishop in his cathedral in a spectacularly bloody manner. This was not in fact what Henry intended--although if it had gone un-noticed, I've no doubt Obama would be fine with the crimes done in his service. Thomas had written and spoken against Henry's campaign to reduce the scope of Church power in England, and I'ce no idea as to the rectitude of either side either in law or equity...but Thomas' pen did not avail him, neither did it avenge him. His murderers ultimately did service in the Crusader Marches to get back in the Church's graces, but certainly the usual penalty for murder was not inflicted or even sought. *Whatever he really said, accounts differ.

" If it comes to a vote, I think I know how I will vote."

I know all the money in the world won't buy a vote if it's not for sale, and that if a bought vote by a politician sees substantial pushback from their constituency, it won't stay bought no matter the price paid.

The chilling effect on speech is what the leftys are going for, and I say be damned to them.

[hanelyp]

Yeah, Citizens United. All I *think* I know is what I see on Wikipedia. And whatever else I pick up on forums and the media.

Wikipedia is usually a reliable source on technical subjects. On something as politically charged as Citizens United it is not to be trusted at face value. The major media is unreliable at best, utterly not to be trusted on politically charged subjects.

[MSimon]

"I never understood the need for allowing big companies to donate money."

Because it's their money to donate.

How about foreign corporations like Baosteel, Feicheng Acid, or Suntech?
or Bauhaus, VW Group, IG Farben?
or Dish TV or Sun Pharmaceutical?
or Toyota, Hyundai?

Do American laws affect their business? Then I'd say they had in interest.

[MSimon]

I know all the money in the world won't buy a vote if it's not for sale, and that if a bought vote by a politician sees substantial pushback from their constituency, it won't stay bought no matter the price paid.

Which is why I call the voting that goes on in our system a safety valve. The system is always owned by money. The question is: is it susceptible to outside influences on occasion.

Or more bluntly: is the will of money and power absolute.

[TDPerk]

@MSimon

is it susceptible to outside influences on occasion

I think that's entirely too negative a view.

As long as the 1st amendment is preserved from such fools as Stubby and his pack of ilk, it is susceptible to continual correction.

In this age of the Internet, the mass media not-withstanding. Blogspot is more consequential than this particular firearm.