New Supreme Court Ruling? Cancel The title field is required!

1. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   4/5/2014 11:04 AM

   Wondering what everyone's thoughts are on the new ruling that basically allows unlimited contributions? I know the amount to an individual is still the same, but now in theory someone can help finance all 435 house seats in any election. One part of me says "go ahead and blow your money like that, it's your money". The other part of me says, why should some guy say in Vegas be allowed to contribute in my congressional district's race here in Missouri? Why should some one not living here have a say in who represents us? Well except for the fact our congressman spends as much time in Vegas as he does here. I guess the money wouldn't matter if us voters would educate ourselves and not believe in all the ads put out, or at least had the ability to see that group's motives. I guess my question is what do these people get out of it?
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
2. Keith Pegg

   

   0 posts
   
   4/5/2014 5:04 PM

   One buy one our rights are going out the window, This could be one of the worst things to ever happen to the USA.

   
   
   
   
3. Keith Lamb

   

   3 posts
   
   4/5/2014 5:04 PM

   "and the highest bidder is........"

   
   
   
   
4. Clay Putnam

   

   33 posts
   
   4/5/2014 6:04 PM

   I really don't know what to make of this ruling. I guess I look at it as who gets the upper hand on this one? The benefits/setbacks cut both ways for liberals and republicans, so I really don't see a winner. A republican gazillionaire gives his fortunes to his candidate(s) and the liberal gazillionaire gives his fortunes to his candidate(s). They offset. The winner would appear to be the gazillionaires. They get to feel better about themselves for having given up another .01% of their gazillions so their kids can have an abortion or read the bible in school. What I haven't figured out is who is the loser with this ruling? Are we "normal" folk somehow left out in the cold? I really don't know at this point. The only thing I know for sure is that when money is involved, it will go to hell in a hand basket.

   
   
   
   
5. Peter Bowman

   

   11 posts
   
   4/5/2014 9:04 PM

   The winners are the people who get to have jobs with advertising/marketing/polling companies who survive based on political contributions. Just think what the unemployment rate would be without these contributions.
   
   Losers? There aren't any.

   
   
   
   
6. David Brandenburg

   

   3 posts
   
   4/6/2014 8:04 AM

   Peter Bowman, CGCS said: The winners are the people who get to have jobs with advertising/marketing/polling companies who survive based on political contributions. Just think what the unemployment rate would be without these contributions.
   
   Losers? There aren't any.

   
   
   The losers are we the people who will get more robocalls and more commercials neither of which is a good source of candidate information.

   
   
   
   
7. Steven Kurta

   

   2 posts
   
   4/6/2014 9:04 AM

   PB: The loser's are those who can't exert equal spin or pressure. That's the design. Communism, capitalism, whatever system. It's about working within it to crank on people and bend them for your favor. Politics doesn't go away by taking money out or adding it in.
   
   Make things as transparent as possible. Shining a light on people or PACS takes the rhetoric down a little bit and filters out the dishonest folks who throw terms around like 'liberty and patriot' or 'change and hope'.
   
   I think the only people with real power are the poors and the rich. The middle-class will forever be stuck footing the bill for both of them.
   
   The rich can afford to pay their taxes, but don't.
   The poors are able to work, but don't.
   So, who's more dishonest and untruthful? Who's a bigger drag on the economy?
   
   The only debate worth having, imo, is defining what is 'true' and what isn't. It's harder to define than it seems.

   
   
   
   
8. Curtis Nickerson

   

   0 posts
   
   4/6/2014 12:04 PM

   Steven Kurta said: PB: The loser's are those who can't exert equal spin or pressure. That's the design. Communism, capitalism, whatever system. It's about working within it to crank on people and bend them for your favor. Politics doesn't go away by taking money out or adding it in.
   
   Make things as transparent as possible. Shining a light on people or PACS takes the rhetoric down a little bit and filters out the dishonest folks who throw terms around like 'liberty and patriot' or 'change and hope'.
   
   I think the only people with real power are the poors and the rich. The middle-class will forever be stuck footing the bill for both of them.
   
   The rich can afford to pay their taxes, but don't.
   The poors are able to work, but don't.
   So, who's more dishonest and untruthful? Who's a bigger drag on the economy?
   
   The only debate worth having, imo, is defining what is 'true' and what isn't. It's harder to define than it seems.
   

   
   
   Steve,
   I think this is the first thing you've posted that I agree with! Most of your posts "push my buttons" but you nailed it this time... Good post!

   
   
   
   
9. Clay Putnam

   

   33 posts
   
   4/6/2014 5:04 PM

   Curtis Nickerson said:

   Steven Kurta said: PB: The loser's are those who can't exert equal spin or pressure. That's the design. Communism, capitalism, whatever system. It's about working within it to crank on people and bend them for your favor. Politics doesn't go away by taking money out or adding it in.
   
   Make things as transparent as possible. Shining a light on people or PACS takes the rhetoric down a little bit and filters out the dishonest folks who throw terms around like 'liberty and patriot' or 'change and hope'.
   
   I think the only people with real power are the poors and the rich. The middle-class will forever be stuck footing the bill for both of them.
   
   The rich can afford to pay their taxes, but don't.
   The poors are able to work, but don't.
   So, who's more dishonest and untruthful? Who's a bigger drag on the economy?
   
   The only debate worth having, imo, is defining what is 'true' and what isn't. It's harder to define than it seems.
   

   
   
   Steve,
   I think this is the first thing you've posted that I agree with! Most of your posts "push my buttons" but you nailed it this time... Good post!

   
   
   All your other posts - so so.

   
   
   
   
10. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    4/6/2014 6:04 PM

    Are political donations tax deductible? If so, maybe change the tax code so they are not, and let's see how much gets donated after that change?
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
11. Steven Kurta

    

    2 posts
    
    4/7/2014 4:04 PM

    Curtis Nickerson said:
    
    Steve,
    I think this is the first thing you've posted that I agree with! Most of your posts "push my buttons" but you nailed it this time... Good post!

    
    
    
    
    
    I know for a fact there were some pictures of sheep you liked, Curtis.

    
    
    
    
12. Sandy Clark

    

    0 posts
    
    4/8/2014 12:04 PM

    Unions dump money into elections all over the country from all sorts of locations so what is the difference. Our last mayor race in San Diego, the dem candidate had big money coming in from unions nationwide and very little in the way of local individual contributions. Thank goodness the young inexperienced kid lost to a guy San Diego residents felt more properly represented their views. Unions have been doing this forever so what is wrong with letting some fat cats that want to donate kick their money in?

    
    
    
    
13. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    4/8/2014 12:04 PM

    Sandy Clark, CGCS said: Unions dump money into elections all over the country from all sorts of locations so what is the difference. Our last mayor race in San Diego, the dem candidate had big money coming in from unions nationwide and very little in the way of local individual contributions. Thank goodness the young inexperienced kid lost to a guy San Diego residents felt more properly represented their views. Unions have been doing this forever so what is wrong with letting some fat cats that want to donate kick their money in?

    
    
    I have a problem with Unions doing it as well, but there are unions in San Diego, so they are represented there?
    
    I have more of a problem with people from Vegas, Minn, or where ever that has no interest, yet they are spending money in my congressional district. Although some of these businessmen I guess might have interest in our area if they are diversified.
    
    Same thing with the PAC's, let's see where the money comes from and we can see what is behind their agenda?
    
    Right to Work is a big issue here, working on not allowing unions to take dues money and use it for political contributions unless the member says it's ok. To me right to work is more about politics then protecting businesses. If they would fix contribution laws, then that would stifle unions from contributing, but I guess now it doesn't matter.
    
    The whole thing is BS, each person's voice is not equal and to me that is not democratic, the principals we were founded on. But I guess I'm too naive and idealistic? I guess we are going back to the robber baron days?
    
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
14. Clay Putnam

    

    33 posts
    
    4/8/2014 5:04 PM

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:
    
    I have a problem with Unions doing it as well, but there are unions in San Diego, so they are represented there?
    
    Mel

    
    
    Sounds like you want it both ways, Mel. Who cares if the there are unions in San Diego? That argument carries as much weight as the argument that there are people in San Diego therefore they must be represented from across the country too. If the unions can do it so can BillyBobJoeJim Billionaire.

    
    
    
    
15. Sandy Clark

    

    0 posts
    
    4/9/2014 9:04 AM

    Mel, the majority of the candidates contributions came from unions not located in San Diego and it was a large amount. I agree on the point that what business is it of a union located out of even California contributing to a San Diego mayoral candidate. It is a national union agenda and if they get to do it, I am glad now others can kick in to combat their insidious growth. I personally can't stand unions. They hold people back by making the star performers live down to the level of the weak performers and the union bosses encourage strikes and get full pay while the followers lose houses while on the picket line. I am especially against municipal employee unions. That is the biggest most crooked conflict of interest we have going in the US!

    
    
    
    
16. Curtis Nickerson

    

    0 posts
    
    4/9/2014 4:04 PM

    Steven Kurta said:

    Curtis Nickerson said:
    
    Steve,
    I think this is the first thing you've posted that I agree with! Most of your posts "push my buttons" but you nailed it this time... Good post!

    
    
    
    
    
    I know for a fact there were some pictures of sheep you liked, Curtis.

    
    
    how did you know about the sheep??? Google is at it again!!!! I need my foil hat again

    
    
    
    
17. Wahlin Scott B

    
    4/10/2014 1:04 PM

    Sandy Clark, CGCS said: Mel, the majority of the candidates contributions came from unions not located in San Diego and it was a large amount. I agree on the point that what business is it of a union located out of even California contributing to a San Diego mayoral candidate. It is a national union agenda and if they get to do it, I am glad now others can kick in to combat their insidious growth. I personally can't stand unions. They hold people back by making the star performers live down to the level of the weak performers and the union bosses encourage strikes and get full pay while the followers lose houses while on the picket line. I am especially against municipal employee unions. That is the biggest most crooked conflict of interest we have going in the US!

    
    
    You have to have unions in a municipal setting. As a municipal manager I had no union representation, but I had a contract. A new city councilman decided he had an issue with me and I was released by the city manager under the terms of my contract. Not a bad deal actually. So many in that environment have no protection at all except unions. Every idiot who gets elected thinks they are God's Gift to Leadership. Everyone of those idiots thinks they can solve all the problems immediately because everyone else is stupid except them. You would have to be one of the idiots to go to work for a municipality without a union or contract.

    
    
    
    
18. Sandy Clark

    

    0 posts
    
    4/11/2014 10:04 AM

    For years a civil service type system existed with cities and the state of CA. People were not paid as much as the private sector but they certainly had job security and very good benefits. At least out here, unions completely ruined how cities, counties and the state operate. They control the political system, basically set up their own benefits and as a result nearly every governmental body in CA is broke and broken. So much for protection out here. They are protected and the rest of us are stuck paying for things that nobody can afford! Plus, with no need to be competitive, production is low. The vast majority of these jobs could be contracted out to the private sector at a savings with far higher efficiency. Exceptions do exist but overall with the pay and protection plus out of line union contracts, the overall result is disaster.

    
    
    
    
19. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    4/13/2014 10:04 PM

    Clay Putnam, CGCS said:

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:
    
    I have a problem with Unions doing it as well, but there are unions in San Diego, so they are represented there?
    
    Mel

    
    
    Sounds like you want it both ways, Mel. Who cares if the there are unions in San Diego? That argument carries as much weight as the argument that there are people in San Diego therefore they must be represented from across the country too. If the unions can do it so can BillyBobJoeJim Billionaire.

    
    
    Clay,
    
    I can see part of your point, unions that are national in scope would have more power if they pour money into a local election, but there is a local that is part of the national, so that is what I mean by representation. Yet BillyBob Billionaire who has no business in that city, district, or whatever local political unit, why should he be allowed to get involved in a local election? The one way I know to fix it is to limit the amount of money contributed to elections. Or make it so only money from the local union shops in that city can contribute.
    
    I really don't want it both ways, get money all together out of the political process.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO