The Double Edged Sword of Term Limits

[SuburbanFarmer]

Not unless you shred the 1st amendment.

Are corporations people?

Is the press?

Individual members of the press, yes. Not in groups.

[clubgop]

Are corporations people?

Is the press?

Individual members of the press, yes. Not in groups.

They are all corporations, even the small independent ones incorporate to protect themselves from liability. Mike Bloomberg gets unlimited speech because he owns a network with his name on it, and owns every journalist in his employ or wants to keep options open, but you want to shred the entire 1st amendment because Hobby Lobby wants to run a 30 second ad.

[The Conservative]

Ugh. Clubby's right. If you restrict campaign donations to a certain amount, it could be seen as a 1st amendment violation because corporations are considered legal persons.

Taking away that right from corporations would prevent business owners from running their business as they see fit. I sympathize with that point of view.

All of this crap makes my head hurt. Voting is the gayest thing you can do with your pants on.

They were restricted in the past, we would be going back to how it was.

[clubgop]

Ugh. Clubby's right. If you restrict campaign donations to a certain amount, it could be seen as a 1st amendment violation because corporations are considered legal persons.

Taking away that right from corporations would prevent business owners from running their business as they see fit. I sympathize with that point of view.

All of this crap makes my head hurt. Voting is the gayest thing you can do with your pants on.

They were restricted in the past, we would be going back to how it was.

So independent dark money. Same as it ever was. You play accounting games with people that have a message and big bank balances, the message is going to get out. Why drive this shit underground? Have it in your face and deal with it head on. Dirty dick wants the fantasy of sullying an untouched virgin but there aren't any they are all whores at least this way I know who is paying.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Is the press?

Individual members of the press, yes. Not in groups.

They are all corporations, even the small independent ones incorporate to protect themselves from liability. Mike Bloomberg gets unlimited speech because he owns a network with his name on it, and owns every journalist in his employ or wants to keep options open, but you want to shred the entire 1st amendment because Hobby Lobby wants to run a 30 second ad.

Running ads also has nothing to do with political payoffs. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Ugh. Clubby's right. If you restrict campaign donations to a certain amount, it could be seen as a 1st amendment violation because corporations are considered legal persons.

Taking away that right from corporations would prevent business owners from running their business as they see fit. I sympathize with that point of view.

All of this crap makes my head hurt. Voting is the gayest thing you can do with your pants on.

They were restricted in the past, we would be going back to how it was.

So independent dark money. Same as it ever was. You play accounting games with people that have a message and big bank balances, the message is going to get out. Why drive this shit underground? Have it in your face and deal with it head on. Dirty dick wants the fantasy of sullying an untouched virgin but there aren't any they are all whores at least this way I know who is paying.

I’d rather see Bloomberg paying out of his own pocket, than leveraging his entire corporation to do it.

[clubgop]

Individual members of the press, yes. Not in groups.

They are all corporations, even the small independent ones incorporate to protect themselves from liability. Mike Bloomberg gets unlimited speech because he owns a network with his name on it, and owns every journalist in his employ or wants to keep options open, but you want to shred the entire 1st amendment because Hobby Lobby wants to run a 30 second ad.

Running ads also has nothing to do with political payoffs. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

What do "political payoffs" have to do with the 1st amendment be it from corporations or individuals methinkd thou dost protest too much.

[clubgop]

They were restricted in the past, we would be going back to how it was.

So independent dark money. Same as it ever was. You play accounting games with people that have a message and big bank balances, the message is going to get out. Why drive this shit underground? Have it in your face and deal with it head on. Dirty dick wants the fantasy of sullying an untouched virgin but there aren't any they are all whores at least this way I know who is paying.

I’d rather see Bloomberg paying out of his own pocket, than leveraging his entire corporation to do it.

He is doing both. What's the difference?

We need Campaign Finance reform now!- Bloomberg News

Mike Bloomberg spend millions for "Got out the vote efforts" - Bloomberg News

"Coporations aren't people and don't have any rights."

"When Trump attacks CNN ( a coporation] he is threatening a free press."

Same people.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Politicians are just the sales team for political parties.

Not everyone has the skills or temperament to be a salesman - so running for office probably isn't the best avenue of political engagement for everyone. There are still plenty of ways to get into the game, but people would rather just complain about not having access to the high-profile job of "Candidate."

Campaign finance reform won't change that.

[Xenophon]

Ugh. Clubby's right. If you restrict campaign donations to a certain amount, it could be seen as a 1st amendment violation because corporations are considered legal persons.

Taking away that right from corporations would prevent business owners from running their business as they see fit. I sympathize with that point of view.

All of this crap makes my head hurt. Voting is the gayest thing you can do with your pants on.

What does ‘running a business’ have to do with political donations? Unless we’re enshrining political payoffs (corruption) as a ‘fundamental right’?

Because if you take away the corporation's first amendment rights, not only would they not be able to donate to political parties over a certain amount, but they could also get in trouble for running their business in a certain way, i.e. Catholic hospital not performing abortions.

They'd have to somehow find a way to remove personhood from corporations without damaging the 1st amendment.