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 : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Calladine who wrote (7851)	8/22/2004 3:53:22 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

[I]f I as a corporate contributor give a politician $500,000 (in whatever ways I legally or illegally can), I would suggest to you that if the average VOTER contribution is (shall we say) $50, that in terms of INFLUENCE I am able to wield influence to the extent of about 10,000 voters. That's a specious assertion predicated upon a linear relationship between influence and contribution. It may be legitimate, but it's impossible to prove. Moreover, no matter how much a contributor gives, it's still one man, one vote. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) However, and more importantly, I'd be interested in the basis for your specifying of corporate contributors; what if one individual contributes $500,000? Would that raise the same hackles as a corporate contributor doing so? [I]f I find that guys in prison are hostile to my party I can deny them the vote (in many states) while they are in prison, and also after they are out of prison also (in some states). As you intimated, whether individuals in jail or ex-felons can vote is overwhelmingly determined on a state-by-state basis. (Thank goodness states still have some rights that the Constitution accorded them, as I see it.) I'd assume - based upon your previous assertion (which we'll hack through in time) regarding 'corporate contributors,' what you're opposed to is the potential for influence buying or otherwise coercing the rule of law for the benefit of a few? In this instance, ex-felons have been prohibited in various states for decades, through Republican and Democratic political administrations at the local, state, and federal levels. Make no mistake that the Constitution specifically reserves the establishment and maintenance of voting regulations to states and permits those bodies to restrict voting rights to felons, present and former. Only now is it, apparently, an issue. If malleable government is something you find repulsive, those comments should be directed at the individuals attempting to change long-standing laws for their own benefit - in this instance, specifically, traditionally liberal groups which almost to the man support the Democratic Party. That's influence peddling, isn't it? Which is bad - right? There are many other ways that people are DENIED votes...Blacks in some parts of the country, Hispanics in others. James, where in the United States of America are hispanics or blacks "DENIED" the right to vote? LPS5