Discussion for article #238223
Amen to all four, but I would add a fifth: Require all entities with religious exemptions to report any and all political contributions, or better yet, bar them from making those contributions. If they want to be political, then they need to register as poitical. Iām tired of religion being injected into politics.
I have very strong religious beliefs and very strong political beliefs, but I donāt preach religion in a bar and I donāt preach poltics at church.
54 Likes
You forgot to add that they should also lose their 501Ā©3 status.
Hell, I think all churches should lose that status anyway. After all, they are businesses. They just happen to be selling āBlue Sky.ā
28 Likes
RE: āspecial interest money has pushed the Democrats to the leftā
I havenāt seen much influence of The Left on Obamaās policies.
As a candidate, he supported the 2008 bank bailout without concrete salary limits or cramdown.
As president, he didnāt demand a public option in the Obamacare bill. He did get the unpopular individual mandate. Also, the āCadillac Taxā which unions opposed.
He hasnāt tried to bring back Glass-Steagall. Heās trying to pass the TPP.
15 Likes
How hard is it proofread? ā3) To reduce candidatesā need for costly commercials, the Federal Communications Commission could issue require that broadcasters to provide reasonable free air time to all House, Senate, and Presidential candidates. The public owns the airwaves, so there is nothing to stop the FCC from doing this.ā
11 Likes
For the most part all that needs to be done is for the IRS, yes that IRS, to enforce the laws about āreligiousā entities not speaking politics from the pulpitā¦ bet anyone could guess just how far that would goā¦
7 Likes
(1) Not likely.The FEC has ruled that federal contractor donations to superPACās does not violate the ban on such companies donating to candidates in federal elections. The Democrats benefit from this, though not to the same extent as the Republicans do.
(2) The SEC is pretty spineless, and doesnāt want to face the inevitable backlash of legal challenges this directive would generate.
(3) Candidates will graciously accept the free ads and continue to inundate the airwaves and internet with their own ads. Yuck!
(4) Political advocacy groups would immediately refer to themselves as āsocial awarenessā organizations and avoid this regulation.
Yes, something needs to change. None of these ideas will make that happen.
.
1 Like
Agree, I for one just canāt see how these MEGA churches can possibly do what āreligionsā have traditionally done, that is, care for the less privileged (no shelter, no money, abused, etc) among us.
5 Likes
āU.S. Court of Appeals in Washington ruled 11-0 that a ban on federal campaign contributions by individuals who contract with the government is constitutional.ā
Now thatās good news! And by 11-0. Excellent!
9 Likes
Sometimes, more money in politics can be a very bad thing.
WTF? āSometimesā? We spend way too much money on campaigns currently. All campaign should be federally funded and limited to 1 year in duration prior to the election.
6 Likes
This
5 Likes
Yeahā¦I read that several times and it made no sense at all.
In German elections, all parties participating have the right to place a certain amount of adds on all public and private channels. They are broadcast not ad nauseam, but at certain times (e.g. before the news). Parties pay nothing for this service, except for what it takes to produce the adds. And they are not allowed to buy additional air time. It works pretty well. And it would never fly in the United States, Iām afraid (First Amendment, different role of parties, freedom, yadda yadda yadda).
8 Likes
āI pledge allegiance to the United States of America, and to the global corporations for whom it stands: One nation, under their thumbs, with liberty and justice for the wealthy.ā
Corporations are now āpeople,ā but isnāt it sad that almost every damned one of them is a sociopath?
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/30994/large/corps3.jpg?1367704898
13 Likes
ā¦ but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
I would like to make this as true in practice as it is in theory. It is nearly impossible for anyone without a professed Judeo-Christian affiliation to be elected to federal or state offices.
9 Likes
Agree. I question the authorās presumption that the Democrats have been pushed to the left. Big money pushes to the right.
19 Likes
Thanks for this breath of fresh air, David Schulz of Hamline U right here in my home town of St. Paul. Itās about time federal courts recognized that for some entities campaign contributions are directly quid pro quo, and none more obviously than those directly receiving federal funds. Next in line: those who receive direct subsidies, like the petroleum industry and agribusiness.
7 Likes
Also, the media outlets that broadcast political ads count on them for a huge portion of their annual revenue. They LOVE campaign season because they sell every spot, even with inflated prices.
2 Likes
Second, special interest money has pushed the Democrats to the left and Republicans to the right, preventing bipartisan problem-solving on issues across the board.
Because we just have to get a false equivalency/both sides are responsible for gridlock dig in there somehow.
21 Likes
I gotta believe CU will be defeated one day. Or maybe thatās just me hoping. Still, the backlash seems very strong.
4 Likes