Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, Nov. 21, 2012 | 2 a.m.
In response to Joy Bellis’ letter stating how appalled she was at the obscene mount of money Sheldon Adelson contributed to the recent campaign, I must add that am also appalled that people seem to forget that so far America is a free country and one can spend his hard-earned money any way he pleases. Sheldon Adelson employs thousands of people. Can the same be said of those who begrudge his allocation of resources? Leave the man alone and allocate your own resources as you see fit.
Right on
I Would have thought that Democrats would appreciate the stimulus to the economy
In reply to P.J. Aniello; the only exception to your letter to the editor that I have is, "We're not all free to spend how we wish."
I'm specifically referring to our government representatives!
We need public financing of campaigns. That way, rich individuals, unions, businesses and other powerful groups could not use money and lobbyists to corrupt our legislative branch and get legislation enacted that advantages them and disadvantages the rest of us.
Michael
Good one, Bradley. :)
Michael,
You and I agree that campaign funding today is not something we should be proud of. But I still have problems with public funding of it.
Public funding carries the implication that all candidates will draw from a common pool. And that in turn implies that my contribution to that pool (presumably via taxes) will go not only to a candidate that I support, but also to one or more that I DO NOT.
That seems in some ways a mockery of free speech to me.
I think that the first step is to enact laws (probably a Constitutional Amendment) that recognize that a corporation is not a person because a corporation can not enter the ballot booth and define the limits of "corporate personhood."
After that it should be easy to craft campaign funding laws that SCOTUS can't nit-pick to the point they are meaningless.
Letter writer is dead on center right. If you earned it, it's your right to spend it. That is, if there is any left after taxes.
CarmineD
Most will agree that freedom of speech, as part of the Bill of Rights, is an individual freedom and that corporations are a legal construct, not people. That said, the question becomes how do we preserve and value speech as an individual right when moneyed interests can, by shear volume, drown the voice of the individual.
boftx suggest a constitutional amendment and I heartily agree. But the difficulty of obtainng a 2/3 vote from each house of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states is formidable.
At the very least, we should have open and nearly instantaneous disclosure of who the donors are that support any message.
We can't pay to have someone killed. We can't buy Heroin legally. We can't buy Cuban cigars. The list is endless. So, the kindergarten obvious answer to the headline is "No" we aren't free to spend how we wish. Attempts to purchase the government should also be restricted. Just common sense.
We are all free to spend as we wish. Well...sort of...taxes, and Obamacare make us spend our money in a way we would rather not.
P. J. ought to be aware that hard core leftists have a proclivity to shut down speech they don't agree with by interrupting, shouting, intimidation or, if all else fails, violence. Look at their history be it ELF, ALF, SDS, Occupy Wall Street or on college campuses. They have no respect or regard for the Constitution as written and actively try to undermine it's protections we all are entitled to. To put it bluntly, hard core leftists are vile, contemptible, unruly and dangerous to those who disagree with them. If you believe in liberty, do not trust them and certainly do not turn your back on them.
You pick your charities and I'll pick mine. Don't expect me to pay more taxes so YOU can pick the charities.
Jerry Fink, Would you be so kind to provide your fellow Nevadans with links, or at least titles to articles that would prove your post?
Also, Aren't you off subject?
The government in this country should not be for sale. Citizens United tried to put it on the auction block, but failed in the Presidential election.
The rich should be forced to pay for the welfare entitlements being promoted by DHS to our new immigrants.
Remember when our new immigrants were supposed to be somewhat self-reliant? Not anymore! Dimbotards to the rescue! Living off the government can be a career choice!
Enjoy watching the crumbling of american character.
"Federal law prohibits the granting of visas to those likely to be welfare reliant, yet DHS actively promotes these benefits to millions of new arrivals every year. DHS knows this, which is perhaps why they refuse to comply with an oversight request on this very issue from the Ranking Members of four Senate Committees""
rusty 57, Please be so kind to enlighten your fellow Nevadans with links, or at least titles to articles that would prove your post.
Vidi: http://budget.senate.gov/republican/publ...
The DHS document is here.
http://budget.senate.gov/republican/publ...
Vidi: page 47 of the DHS document is where the "come to america and enjoy our safety net" sections start.
Things certainly have changed as far as what's acceptable for vote-buyin schemes.
Rusty thanks for the posts ViDi requested very enlightening. I also haven't see the response yet.
@ViDi: as far as OWS, every article written this year about them supports rusty57's comment so as far as links, read any newspaper.
chuck333; Why don't you be specific about OWS, and show your fellow citizens how they support rusty57's posts?
Rusty's information included a quote, of which this part is correct regarding US law for visa applicants...
"Federal law prohibits the granting of visas to those likely to be welfare reliant"
Visa applicants require substantial personal financial resources to show ability to be responsible for their support and healthcare needs, or commonly they need a sponsor(s) who legally assume the financial responsibility.
If neither is provided, a visa is not granted.
There are many types of visas, including 'lawful permanent resident', for which this booklet was prepared.
The process to become a lawful permanent resident is quite difficult with lots of requirements, proofs, documents required, and medical reports, and more, not to mention wait times and costs.
The complaint by Sessions is totally ridiculous!
It is like saying, 'Welcome to the country, but we are hiding information from you.' Opacity instead of transparency.
The booklet provides a variety of information, and a look at the Table of Contents and Index puts everything in context of a booklet to help new lawful permanent residents find information that they might need, including paying taxes, rights and responsibilities, and how to become a citizen.
The assistance part is just information on where to seek help, not promoting assistance dependency, and each program would have their own requirements.
I saved the .pdf for my own use in a number of areas. It is a handy reference booklet. Might be good if all US Citizen's had such a booklet.
There is no intent on the governments part to make lawful permanent residents welfare dependent.
The significant issue here is the power of money to influence the selection of our law making bodies of Congress, and the Presidency. In fact, State and local lawmakers as well.
This election was the first general election since Citizen's United, and brought alot of attention to the issue of money in campaigns and politics in general.
Future elections may not have so much light applied, and other generations tend to accept what is as the norm.
That can be to the detriment of our country, a slow undermining of our freedoms and rights.
Therefore, campaign financing issues are of the utmost importance for the democratic process, and our freedom and rights in general, especially since Citizen's United.
This must not be looked at as a one election issue, or in a partisan way.
We have to responsibly to examine and find a solution that protects the freedom and rights of the People in our democratic process.
Personhood for corporations and unions must be reversed, and other campaign reforms made requiring limits and transparency.
I see public campaign financing evenly distributed as making a better opportunity for multiple parties. It may require changes in how things are done now, and more responsibility on the part of voter's, but neither need be bad.
I think we must consider equal opportunity and fairness in any new processes.
P.J.
We just proved that rich republicans can't buy
elections.
It doesn't matter how much money they waste.
Republican greed created too many poor people.
And we poor people will out vote greedy
republicans from here on out.
DEMOCRATS FOREVER!
Ah, not quite, PJ - the government just LOVES to tell people they can't spend THEIR own money gambling online whether it's 'fixed' or not.... that's beside the point. The only point is that a person, living in this so-called FREE Country can't even play a poker game online without the government slapping their hands and telling them NO. So much for being free to spend out money any way we want, right?