Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 208

Thread: More Corruption......

  1. #1
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default More Corruption......

    Or at least the potential for it.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ns?CMP=ema_565

    The supreme court has struck down limits on individual campaign contributions, ruling that federal caps on combined donations to candidates, parties and political action committees are an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.
    Chief Justice John Roberts rejected arguments made by the administration that lifting the aggregate limit would be a bigger infringement on the free speech of ordinary voters who cannot afford to influence politics in the same way.

    Congress “may not … regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others,” said Roberts.
    This sort of thing really does amaze me.

  2. #2
    Senator Cisalpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sunshine state
    Posts
    3,483

    Default

    Money buys elections. Not only that, it's so disturbing to see them spending so much money that could be put to much better use than making commercials slamming each other. As long as people believe everything they see on tv and stay to lazy to research candidates, money matters.

    Edit: Oh, you'll love this one....

    http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/polit...tures/7223303/

    My first reaction was ehh.. he can dress up if he wants to. Then after seeing the pics...I was like...this dude ain't right in the head! LOLOL
    Last edited by Cisalpine; 04-03-2014 at 08:39 PM.

  3. #3

    Default

    Did you actually read the decision? Or are you just complaining about America again?

    “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Natsee (word is filtered...) parades–despite the profound offense such spectacles cause–it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”
    s4r2:cerwin | BOHICA: It's more than just a tax policy, it's an alliance!
    s1r3:allah | 2,292,206 kills | DSP

  4. #4
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default

    Which is the part that is wrong. The idea that spending is the same as speech is wrong to start with, but there are very good reasons to have donation limits. Preserving the democratic process being the first. As it stands now, companies are free to basically bribe any official they like with as much as they want.

  5. #5

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
    As it stands now, companies are free to basically bribe any official they like with as much as they want.
    One of the points that really gets me about these recent party-line decisions in favor of unrestricted campaign donations: Companies are run by people, so giving the companies unrestricted free "speech" rights is giving the people who run those companies, in essence, double-speech. That is not equal rights for all Americans. Not to mention, as you pointed out, the rather dubious claim that money is a form of speech.

    Personally, I am of the opinion that rights are for people, not for legal constructs used to make managing businesses and shared properties easier. Conservatives these days, on the other hand, seem to think that rights (other than the 2nd Amendment) are for businesses and their owners, not for the average citizen.

  6. #6

    Default

    "Moreover, the only type of corruption that Congress may target is quid pro quo corruption. Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner “influence over or access to” elected officials or political parties. Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310, 359. The line between quid pro quo corruption and general influence must be respected in order to safeguard basic First Amendment rights, and the Court must “err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it.”
    Makes sense to me.
    s4r2:cerwin | BOHICA: It's more than just a tax policy, it's an alliance!
    s1r3:allah | 2,292,206 kills | DSP

  7. #7
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    is giving the people who run those companies, in essence, double-speech.
    Actually that's a good point. What would annoy me most though about giving companies free speech is that you can bet that not all the employees working for the company will agree with what their boss's boss's boss's etc ad infinitum boss thinks when it comes to politics. It is partly their hard labour that is making the money that is being given away.... to people they don't agree with.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    One of the points that really gets me about these recent party-line decisions in favor of unrestricted campaign donations: Companies are run by people, so giving the companies unrestricted free "speech" rights is giving the people who run those companies, in essence, double-speech. That is not equal rights for all Americans. Not to mention, as you pointed out, the rather dubious claim that money is a form of speech.

    Personally, I am of the opinion that rights are for people, not for legal constructs used to make managing businesses and shared properties easier. Conservatives these days, on the other hand, seem to think that rights (other than the 2nd Amendment) are for businesses and their owners, not for the average citizen.
    What about labor unions? Do they get first amendment rights?
    s4r2:cerwin | BOHICA: It's more than just a tax policy, it's an alliance!
    s1r3:allah | 2,292,206 kills | DSP

  9. #9

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iRidiculous View Post
    What about labor unions? Do they get first amendment rights?
    For political purposes? I would say that they shouldn't be able to do any campaign contributions; just inform their members about issues, give the members a unified voice (as in speech, not money) to politicians, encourage the members to vote/donate, help with any necessary paperwork (e.g., voter registration, making form letters to send to politicians, etc.).

    Of course, I would expect the same standards for businesses, or even tighter (since they are not typically formed of like-minded individuals).

  10. #10
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Of course, I would expect the same standards for businesses, or even tighter (since they are not typically formed of like-minded individuals).
    Just out of interest... with regards to corporations that are founded upon religious values, are companies allowed to mandate a religion for their workers? I'm not talking about contraception here.

    Because if they are not, then surely companies cannot donate by the same token due to their workers not being on the same political side.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    For political purposes? I would say that they shouldn't be able to do any campaign contributions; just inform their members about issues, give the members a unified voice (as in speech, not money) to politicians, encourage the members to vote/donate, help with any necessary paperwork (e.g., voter registration, making form letters to send to politicians, etc.).

    Of course, I would expect the same standards for businesses, or even tighter (since they are not typically formed of like-minded individuals).
    You'll need to change the laws to restrict their freedom of speech if you don't want them making campaign contributions. And informing their members about issues? That probably has more political value than campaign donations. Is the unified voice for political issues or for compensation negotiations with their employer? Encourage their members to vote for a specific candidate? When unions engage in political issues it's worth more than campaign donations.

    Are you worried corporations will influence the public too much? Or are you worried about quid pro quo political corruption? Both?
    s4r2:cerwin | BOHICA: It's more than just a tax policy, it's an alliance!
    s1r3:allah | 2,292,206 kills | DSP

  12. #12
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  13. #13
    Senator Cisalpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sunshine state
    Posts
    3,483

    Default

    Our company is in a highly regulated industry and our company policy is to limit how much an employee can contribute to a candidate, and have to fill out a notification form and submit it to the home office. They want no one to later claim anyone was trying to "buy" votes/power/influence.

    I think there should be a cap on election spending. Anyone can contribute whatever they want. That's not the issue. The issue is how it's spent. It really isn't fair if you have two qualified candidates and one gets 5 times the exposure because he's spending obscene amounts of money on advertising. Cap it. If the opponent can't reach the cap, then that's his problem at that point.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cisalpine View Post
    Our company is in a highly regulated industry and our company policy is to limit how much an employee can contribute to a candidate, and have to fill out a notification form and submit it to the home office. They want no one to later claim anyone was trying to "buy" votes/power/influence.

    I think there should be a cap on election spending. Anyone can contribute whatever they want. That's not the issue. The issue is how it's spent. It really isn't fair if you have two qualified candidates and one gets 5 times the exposure because he's spending obscene amounts of money on advertising. Cap it. If the opponent can't reach the cap, then that's his problem at that point.
    How? Does the candidate only have a certain amount to spend? What if their opponent has friends in the media that give them favorable coverage, for free. How do you quantify that kind of support? What about other people that aren't part of the campaign - can they spend money on ads? Would that count towards their favorite candidate's total? What about labor union support? They can "inform" all the union members their side of an issue and how they should vote, and it doesn't cost anything for the politician. The opponent would have to spend money on ads to get their message to reach union members.
    s4r2:cerwin | BOHICA: It's more than just a tax policy, it's an alliance!
    s1r3:allah | 2,292,206 kills | DSP

  15. #15

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
    Just out of interest... with regards to corporations that are founded upon religious values, are companies allowed to mandate a religion for their workers?
    Do you mean are they currently legally allowed to, or do I think they should be allowed to?

    Other than churches, I'm fairly certain that the first one is a "no", and the second one is definitely a "no".

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
    Because if they are not, then surely companies cannot donate by the same token due to their workers not being on the same political side.
    You would think so, but the U.S. has some dumb**** laws and regulations on campaign donations, with them getting ever more ridiculous as this corrupt-Republican dominated Supreme Court continues.

    Quote Originally Posted by iRidiculous View Post
    You'll need to change the laws to restrict their freedom of speech if you don't want them making campaign contributions.
    No ****, Sherlock? You were asking me for clarification on a post about my personal beliefs of how things should be run.

    Quote Originally Posted by iRidiculous View Post
    And informing their members about issues? That probably has more political value than campaign donations.
    Funnily enough, that is something that both unions and businesses already take advantage of. When there is a bill up for vote that directly affects them, or one of the candidates would be significantly better for them than the other, you can bet your *** that a lot of unions and businesses will be mentioning this.

    Quote Originally Posted by iRidiculous View Post
    Is the unified voice for political issues or for compensation negotiations with their employer?
    Both. It is just as useful for arguing against bad laws that hurt employees as it is for arguing against bad compensation packages with employers, and should be available for use in both situations. I think that "free speech" should be for speech and not money, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by iRidiculous View Post
    Are you worried corporations will influence the public too much? Or are you worried about quid pro quo political corruption? Both?
    If by "the public", you mean "elected officials", then yes to both. Furthermore, I fail to see how giving obscenely large campaign contributions to politicians in exchange for them putting favorable positions on their platform can be viewed as anything except "quid pro quo corruption", doubly-so when it has been made possible for them to do so anonymously to the public.

    Also, on that note, a relevant article about how the conservative "Originalist" members of SCOTUS are completely and utterly full of **** yet again (they have quite a habit of only using their "Originalist" methodology when it happens to coincide with their political positions).

  16. #16
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    The whole concept is just bizarre. Does it then follow that if someone has the right to say the taliban trains its soldiers well, they also have the right to give the taliban millions of dollars? Or even if I'm allowed to say "he's a waste of space", it then follows that I can freely pay someone to make the space available?

    It's ridiculous. But then a lot of the stuff that comes from SCOTUS is ridiculous these days. Graves and turning come to mind.

    There should be a cap on donations and expenditure. But if you have to pick one, make it expenditure. Lock it down to a low number and let them spend the rest of the donations on charity work. Isn't that what a lot of the donating groups are supposed to be doing anyway?
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  17. #17
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default

    It was the first answer I was looking for. I know you don't think they should. Well.... it is a safe assumption given what you've posted in the past.

  18. #18

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    The whole concept is just bizarre. Does it then follow that if someone has the right to say the taliban trains its soldiers well, they also have the right to give the taliban millions of dollars? Or even if I'm allowed to say "he's a waste of space", it then follows that I can freely pay someone to make the space available?
    See what you've done, modern day Republicans? You've made things so bad that I'm having to agree with Rokchick about something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
    It was the first answer I was looking for. I know you don't think they should. Well.... it is a safe assumption given what you've posted in the past.
    Okay. In that case, so far as I am aware, worker discrimination laws prevent that in all cases except churches and similar houses of worship. Everywhere else so far as I am aware, even religiously-run hospitals, charities, and the like, cannot legally make religious belief one of the qualifications for employment.

  19. #19

    Default

    Breyer’s dangerous dissent in McCutcheon (the campaign finance case)
    opposition to First Amendment protection of campaign donations has become a significant “cause” on the liberal left. It’s not hard to see why: the legacy mainstream media, Hollywood, academia, publishing, the legal profession, the mainline churches, and the arts, i.e., almost all of the leading opinion-making areas of American life, are dominated by liberals (though conservatives dominate talk radio, evangelical churches, and have Fox News). The one place where the playing field is more or less level is in campaign spending. Limit campaign spending, and left-leaning opinion-makers utterly dominate American political discourse.
    ...
    Breyer turns constitutional history on its head, by declaring that the purpose of the First Amendment was not to prevent government abuses, but to ensure ”public opinion could be channeled into effective governmental action.” As Tim Sandefur points out, “Actually, the framers devised the constitutional structure to prevent public opinion from being channeled into effective government action. One cannot honestly read The Federalist without understanding that the system was designed in order to ensure that public opinion would only be translated into government action when it had been sufficiently challenged, weighed, and considered for its correspondence to principles of justice.”
    Breyer adds that “corruption,” by which he means individuals engaging in too much freedom of speech via campaign donations, ”derails the essential speech-to-government-action tie. Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard. Insofar as corruption cuts the link between political thought and political action, a free marketplace of political ideas loses its point.”
    The danger of this argument is that analogous reasoning could be used to censor major media corporations such as the New York Times, Hollywood, and so on, to wit: ”When Hollywood spends billions of dollars each year advancing a liberal agenda, the general public will not be heard. Instead of a free marketplace of ideas, we get a marketplace in which major Hollywood moguls have hundreds of thousands of times the ‘speech power’ of the average American.”
    s4r2:cerwin | BOHICA: It's more than just a tax policy, it's an alliance!
    s1r3:allah | 2,292,206 kills | DSP

  20. #20

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    The danger of this argument is that analogous reasoning could be used to censor major media corporations such as the New York Times, Hollywood, and so on, to wit: ”When Hollywood spends billions of dollars each year advancing a liberal agenda, the general public will not be heard. Instead of a free marketplace of ideas, we get a marketplace in which major Hollywood moguls have hundreds of thousands of times the ‘speech power’ of the average American.”
    And? We seriously need some heavy reform of our news companies, since they're turning into such propaganda machines anyways.

    I think that if they want to be open about being just entertainment (e.g., The Daily Show), then sure, give them a free pass to say what they want; however, if they are going to claim to be news, then they should be held to some strict standards about honesty and impartiality.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    And? We seriously need some heavy reform of our news companies, since they're turning into such propaganda machines anyways.

    I think that if they want to be open about being just entertainment (e.g., The Daily Show), then sure, give them a free pass to say what they want; however, if they are going to claim to be news, then they should be held to some strict standards about honesty and impartiality.
    I agree with the problem but not your solution.

    Sharyl Attkisson was one of the last mainstream investigative reporters, but she recently resigned from CBS News. Investigative reporting in the "news" business is dead. It's all Daily Show now.

    Sharyl Attkisson resigns from CBS News
    Attkisson, who has been with CBS News for two decades, had grown frustrated with what she saw as the network’s liberal bias, an outsize influence by the network’s corporate partners and a lack of dedication to investigative reporting, several sources said.
    s4r2:cerwin | BOHICA: It's more than just a tax policy, it's an alliance!
    s1r3:allah | 2,292,206 kills | DSP

  22. #22
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iRidiculous View Post
    I agree with the problem but not your solution.

    Sharyl Attkisson was one of the last mainstream investigative reporters, but she recently resigned from CBS News. Investigative reporting in the "news" business is dead. It's all Daily Show now.

    Sharyl Attkisson resigns from CBS News
    In the interests of keeping this balanced, that happens everywhere:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

    But in any case, news has always been biased. I don't see why people make such a big deal of it all the sudden. No one complained about partisanship and yellow journalism when it was SO MUCH WORSE than it is today. At least today, the truth is just concealed by omission rather than openly lied about, at least in most cases.

  23. #23
    Senator Cisalpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sunshine state
    Posts
    3,483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iRidiculous View Post
    How? Does the candidate only have a certain amount to spend? What if their opponent has friends in the media that give them favorable coverage, for free. How do you quantify that kind of support? What about other people that aren't part of the campaign - can they spend money on ads? Would that count towards their favorite candidate's total? What about labor union support? They can "inform" all the union members their side of an issue and how they should vote, and it doesn't cost anything for the politician. The opponent would have to spend money on ads to get their message to reach union members.
    It's really very easy and simple. You tell the candidates they can only spend $xxxxxxxx of their campaign funds. I think what needs to be clarified is the fact that most people think of advertising when they say cap spending. So it can be clarified to advertising. What any other union, business or person wants to do on their own dime is their perogative. And are you SERIOUS about the media???? Give me a break. You show me ONE, just ONE media outlet that is truly non partisan. All of the things you listed are already happening. The problem comes when someone that is just as qualified, but may not be as well known, wants to run for office. He's not already in Washington (or state/city level) with unions and others in his pockets. He's a simple person who is sick and tired of the same old, same old cronies in DC doing the same crap year after year. He seeks to make a difference. Everyone complains about the choices they have when election time comes. If there is a cap on advertising/election spending, your every day Joe Blow might actually have a fighting chance. Your way, the same old rich farts stay in office year, after year, after year, after year. Nothing changes.
    Last edited by Cisalpine; 04-04-2014 at 05:57 PM.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    In the interests of keeping this balanced, that happens everywhere:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

    But in any case, news has always been biased. I don't see why people make such a big deal of it all the sudden. No one complained about partisanship and yellow journalism when it was SO MUCH WORSE than it is today. At least today, the truth is just concealed by omission rather than openly lied about, at least in most cases.
    Completely agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cisalpine View Post
    It's really very easy and simple. You tell the candidates they can only spend $xxxxxxxx of their campaign funds. I think what needs to be clarified is the fact that most people think advertising when they say cap spending. So it can be clarified to advertising. What any other union, business or person wants to do on their own dime is there perogative. And are you SERIOUS about the media???? Give me a break. You show me ONE, just ONE media outlet that is truly non partisan. All of the things you listed are already happening. The problem comes when someone that is just as qualified, but may not be as well known, wants to run for office. He's not already in Washington (or state/city level) with unions and others in his pockets. He's a simple person who is sick and tired of the same old, same old cronies in DC doing the same crap year after year. He seeks to make a difference. Everyone complains about the choices they have when election time comes. If there is a cap on advertising/election spending, your every day Joe Blow might actually have a fighting chance. Your way, the same old rich farts stay in office year, after year, after year, after year. Nothing changes.
    So cap the influence of candidates running for office but allow everyone else in the media to have unlimited freedom of speech? That would make the relationships between incumbent politicians and the people writing the news even more incestuous than it already is.

    Quote from the McCutcheon decision:
    At the same time, we have made clear that Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others.
    s4r2:cerwin | BOHICA: It's more than just a tax policy, it's an alliance!
    s1r3:allah | 2,292,206 kills | DSP

  25. #25
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default

    Political advertising on the TV and in the radio isn't allowed in Norway. At all.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
    Political advertising on the TV and in the radio isn't allowed in Norway. At all.
    What does that accomplish?
    s4r2:cerwin | BOHICA: It's more than just a tax policy, it's an alliance!
    s1r3:allah | 2,292,206 kills | DSP

  27. #27
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iRidiculous View Post
    What does that accomplish?
    Peace on earth and good will to all man kind.

    But seriously, it stops money being such a big factor in politics. It prevents buying of elections through advertising. That is the logic behind it anyway.

    And damn is it nice not to have to sit through.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
    Peace on earth and good will to all man kind.

    But seriously, it stops money being such a big factor in politics. It prevents buying of elections through advertising. That is the logic behind it anyway.

    And damn is it nice not to have to sit through.
    Sounds convenient. I don't think that law would be constitutional in the US though.
    s4r2:cerwin | BOHICA: It's more than just a tax policy, it's an alliance!
    s1r3:allah | 2,292,206 kills | DSP

  29. #29
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iRidiculous View Post
    I agree with the problem but not your solution.

    Sharyl Attkisson was one of the last mainstream investigative reporters, but she recently resigned from CBS News. Investigative reporting in the "news" business is dead. It's all Daily Show now.

    Sharyl Attkisson resigns from CBS News
    That dumb ***** cooked the story about Benghazi, She made 60 minutes broadcast a 'tailwind' style story. That's not investigative reporting, because the facts were both wrong and cooked with a blatant partisan bias.

    Restore the fairness act.
    Break up the major media companies so that there are more than 6 of them.
    If they call themselves news hold them to strict regulations about what the news actually IS (hint, it's not a straight week of coverage of a missing airplane).
    Ban all political advertising, replace it with free airtime one month before the election with a balance skew leaning towards local candidates with presidential ads occupying about 10% of air time max. A good skew might be 10% Pres, 15% Senate (off year 5% to house, 10% state), 25% federal house, 50% state level offices, including justices and sheriff and school boards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  30. #30
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iRidiculous View Post
    Sounds convenient. I don't think that law would be constitutional in the US though.
    Why not? We have more free speech than you do here according to a variety of studies. Granted this is about the press, but it is what Google comes up with for "countries rated by free speech".

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    That dumb ***** cooked the story about Benghazi, She made 60 minutes broadcast a 'tailwind' style story. That's not investigative reporting, because the facts were both wrong and cooked with a blatant partisan bias.
    Link?

    Sharyl Attkisson pissed a lot of people off in the Obama administration with the topics she investigated. She also was one of the first to report on Fast and Furious.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    Restore the fairness act.
    Break up the major media companies so that there are more than 6 of them.
    If they call themselves news hold them to strict regulations about what the news actually IS (hint, it's not a straight week of coverage of a missing airplane).
    Ban all political advertising, replace it with free airtime one month before the election with a balance skew leaning towards local candidates with presidential ads occupying about 10% of air time max. A good skew might be 10% Pres, 15% Senate (off year 5% to house, 10% state), 25% federal house, 50% state level offices, including justices and sheriff and school boards.
    You mean the fairness doctrine? It's an outdated law that is unnecessary.

    What reason would you have to break up media companies? Usually that kind of meddling in the market is reserved for breaking up monopolies. But since new "News" channels can enter the market and compete with the big 6 media corporations it would be harder to justify. How many media companies do you want to break them up into? Is this only for TV media companies?

    Look, I don't like how the "mainstream media" reports the news either. But they don't have a monopoly anymore, they aren't the only source of information in the digital age.

    Strict regulations for "news" companies? Forcing media companies to provide free air time? That's not first amendment friendly... and it doesn't solve anything.

    If you want to restrict speech it must be for a better reason than what you are offering.
    s4r2:cerwin | BOHICA: It's more than just a tax policy, it's an alliance!
    s1r3:allah | 2,292,206 kills | DSP

  32. #32
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iRidiculous View Post
    Link?

    Sharyl Attkisson pissed a lot of people off in the Obama administration with the topics she investigated. She also was one of the first to report on Fast and Furious.
    Which she also probably cooked. She belongs on Fox News, not a legitimate news network.


    Quote Originally Posted by iRidiculous View Post
    You mean the fairness doctrine? It's an outdated law that is unnecessary.

    What reason would you have to break up media companies? Usually that kind of meddling in the market is reserved for breaking up monopolies. But since new "News" channels can enter the market and compete with the big 6 media corporations it would be harder to justify. How many media companies do you want to break them up into? Is this only for TV media companies?

    Look, I don't like how the "mainstream media" reports the news either. But they don't have a monopoly anymore, they aren't the only source of information in the digital age.

    Strict regulations for "news" companies? Forcing media companies to provide free air time? That's not first amendment friendly... and it doesn't solve anything.

    If you want to restrict speech it must be for a better reason than what you are offering.
    False
    They ARE too big, they deserve to fail.
    So you trust everything you read on the internet, which explains a lot about you.
    I don't care, it will make the system better and provide a better informed electorate. It's also perfectly first amendment friendly, regulation on access is not regulation on speech.
    The reason, it works better and is less corrupt is not a good enough reason?

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  33. #33
    Senator Cisalpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sunshine state
    Posts
    3,483

    Default

    I only believe what I see with my own eyes, hear with my own ears. Everything else is taken with a grain of salt.

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
    Why not? We have more free speech than you do here according to a variety of studies. Granted this is about the press, but it is what Google comes up with for "countries rated by free speech".
    Our press has become lapdogs for the Obama administration. Before that, they were restricted by the Bush administration under the guise of national security, but at least they still made efforts to investigate and report.

    Just wait until the next Republican becomes president. Hopefully the media in the US will wake up and start doing it's job again. Until then you can find more truth about what's going on in the US through independent media sources online. At least until Congress passes a law to determine who should be considered a journalist for "legitimate news-gathering activities." To me this new proposal by the govt seems nuts, trying to control who can and cannot report news as a "journalist."

    Regardless, I agree that our press is not fighting for the first amendment and it makes other countries appear more free, in terms of speech.
    s4r2:cerwin | BOHICA: It's more than just a tax policy, it's an alliance!
    s1r3:allah | 2,292,206 kills | DSP

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    Which she also probably cooked. She belongs on Fox News, not a legitimate news network.
    Another fine example of shooting the messenger and ignoring the message.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    False
    They ARE too big, they deserve to fail.
    So you trust everything you read on the internet, which explains a lot about you.
    I don't care, it will make the system better and provide a better informed electorate. It's also perfectly first amendment friendly, regulation on access is not regulation on speech.
    The reason, it works better and is less corrupt is not a good enough reason?
    If they deserve to fail they will. That's exactly why MSNBC and CNN ratings have tanked over the last 5 years, their reporting is crap.

    Where did I say I trust everything I read on the internet? That's silly.

    How does it work better? How is it less corrupt?

    Also, did you read the SCOTUS decision?
    s4r2:cerwin | BOHICA: It's more than just a tax policy, it's an alliance!
    s1r3:allah | 2,292,206 kills | DSP

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Do you mean are they currently legally allowed to, or do I think they should be allowed to?

    Other than churches, I'm fairly certain that the first one is a "no", and the second one is definitely a "no".
    Chick-fil-a gets away with it based on a very stringent hiring process.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  37. #37

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    Chick-fil-a gets away with it based on a very stringent hiring process.
    They get away with it because they technically don't require any specific religious beliefs (just such a huge heap of "moral behavior" requirements that it's effectively conservative Christian only, plus a lot of heavily-religious mandatory seminars), and they have good lawyers.

    Personally, I think those practices of theirs are utter bull**** and shouldn't be allowed.

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    They get away with it because they technically don't require any specific religious beliefs (just such a huge heap of "moral behavior" requirements that it's effectively conservative Christian only, plus a lot of heavily-religious mandatory seminars), and they have good lawyers.

    Personally, I think those practices of theirs are utter bull**** and shouldn't be allowed.
    Why not? No one is forcing anyone to work there. Their business their rules...

    I don't know much about chickfila or their religion. All I know is the left hates them.
    s4r2:cerwin | BOHICA: It's more than just a tax policy, it's an alliance!
    s1r3:allah | 2,292,206 kills | DSP

  39. #39
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iRidiculous View Post
    [Republican better]

    Hopefully the media in the US will wake up and start doing it's job again.
    I stopped reading here. The very idea that the left wingers win in any form of media in the US is a joke.

    Give me a shout on Skype some time. I'll show you what the rest of the world is saying. Hint: CNN is considered right wing.

  40. #40
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iRidiculous View Post
    Why not? No one is forcing anyone to work there. Their business their rules...

    I don't know much about chickfila or their religion. All I know is the left hates them.
    Except that in our society, if you don't work, you don't eat or make rent and end up on the street.

    Some great choice that is if Chick-Fil-A is one of your only options. Which given the prevalence of outsourcing and decimation of the urban manufacturing centers it could very well be.

    Employers in our society have too much power, and that needs to be reined in and a proper balance between worker rights and corporate guidance established.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •