Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (128654)	11/17/2000 1:35:46 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580597

Tim Re... Both amount to forceing people to pay for the airing of views that they do not agree with. Actually the second gives ("free" right of reply) gives a choice, give up your free speach rights or be forced to pay for speach you disagree with. Tim first of all not everyone gets campaign money. The candidate must be able to show a minimum of say 5% of the electorate before they can get financial backing. Thus any candidate which runs would have the same views of at least 5% of the electorate. Why can't that candidate get his 5% of the money contributed by his backers. Your money and more will be spent by your candidate, so consider that your money; therefore in the end your money is backing your candidate and his opponents if being paid by his backers. Its all in how you look at it. If you think you are saving money; forget it. The added taxes we have to pay because others buy their way out, is far more than the extra amount of taxes you would have to pay, plus you get the added benefit of actually having someone represent your interests. Additionally, there are lot of instances where we have to pay for things we don't agree with. I don't agree with many of the cases the ACLU brings, but I still have to pay for them, and how about public defenders definding rapists and criminals. As far as I am concerned they should all hang without my help defending them by forcing me to pay for a public defender.Why don't you rail against that? Or how about union members being forced to support a candidate through their union dues even if they don't like their candidate. Your argument doesn't hold up against reality. How about me being forced to pay taxes for high schools I don't even like. Lets stop that also. A court trial is a highly regulated situatation, I don't think political speech should be subject to that same level or regulation with judges decicdeing what can be said and what can not be said. Politcal speech wouldn't be regulated. You can say anything you want. Just realize that if you start attacking someone, that person has the right to respond in the same add. Why, once again are you against fairness? Because 1 - They need money and 2 - The amount of access a politician can give is not unlimited. It has to be allocated in some way." Surely you jest. There are many ways of allocating time besides having the biggest briber win. How about allocating time according to the needs of the district one is trying to represent. How about that for a novel idea? Secondly, why do they need money. We pay them a wage, that is their job. If they can't do their job for the money they are pd; then quit No I was not jesting. I also was not stateing why things should be a certain way but rather why they are that way. You apparently agree that the politicians are taking money, and giving something back to the donors in the form of allocating their time for them. Isn't that the definition of bribery? You justify it by saying they have to; but why do things have to be that way. The politicians didn't have to 50 yrs ago before TV was invented. They don't have to now if we go to public financing. If the NRA contributed to my campaign it would not be with the hope of influenceing my vote but rather with the hope of keeping an ally in office. If an oppoent of gun control sent my campaign a check I would probably not send it back but it would have no influence on my vote. Someone would be supporting my campaign because they support me, the check would not cause me to support them. No doubt your intentions would start out that way, but what happens when The NRA gives you $20,000 and you need $300,000. Where do you get the rest of your money? If you want to win, you start begging; and if that isn't enough, you start making promises. And when you really get desperate you start renting out bedrooms; taking money from gun runners,drug dealers, special interests, foreign governments etc; just like Bill did. Where is it going to end?