Unlimited political cash would give rank-and-file conservative activists greater sway in picking their representatives, including the president, White House hopeful Ted Cruz told New Hampshire voters on Sunday.Cruz, a first-term senator who represents Texas, said deep-pocketed donors should have the same rights to write giant campaign checks as voters have to put signs in their front yards. Both, Cruz said, were an example of political speech, and he added that "money absolutely can be speech.""I believe everyone here has a right to speak out on politics as effectively as possible," Cruz said told a voter who asked him about the role of the super-rich in politics....After the session, one activist gave Cruz a blank check and told him to write it for whatever amount he needed.Cruz, mindful that accepting the check would trigger his official entrance to the Republican primary, declined but told an aide to follow up with the man after a campaign is official."Stay tuned," he said....Cruz, a tea-party favorite, is expecting to formally join a crowded field of presidential hopefuls in the coming weeks. In the meantime, he has been courting party activists and donors to help him counter deep-pocketed rivals such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.Asked about the outsized role of money in politics, Cruz said he understands voters' frustration but that cannot trump the constitutional rights to free speech."Right now, the system is crazy," Cruz said of the campaign finance rules.In the Senate, Cruz has proposed lifting all campaign contribution limits in exchange for immediate disclosure."The answer is not to muzzle citizens. It is to empower citizens," Cruz said.Yet Cruz acknowledged that heavy spending had been a headache during his 2012 campaign for Senate. "In the Senate race, I had $35 million in nasty attack ads against me," Cruz said. "And you know what? It was their Constitutional right to do so."
Quote from: GethKhilafah on March 15, 2015, 08:42:34 PMMaybe in 300 years time, middle class Americans will finally realize that Republican really aren't on their side!!!Nobody is on anybody's side in American politics. I hope you know this.
Maybe in 300 years time, middle class Americans will finally realize that Republican really aren't on their side!!!
Quote from: GethKhilafah on March 15, 2015, 09:14:32 PMQuote from: Arm The Mob on March 15, 2015, 08:51:09 PMQuote from: GethKhilafah on March 15, 2015, 08:42:34 PMMaybe in 300 years time, middle class Americans will finally realize that Republican really aren't on their side!!!Nobody is on anybody's side in American politics. I hope you know this.Thanks, Captain Fucking Obvious! But it's not like the entire rhetoric of the Republican Party is that they're on the side of the Middle Class. And it's not also like half the Middle Class gobbles that bullshit up.Yes, and The Democrats have been billing themselves as the party of social equality and minority rights since the days of Lyndon "I'll have those niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years" Johnson.Democratic systems will always be plagued by people who pursue their own interests while billing themselves as actors for the greater good. This is an inherent flaw in the system.
Quote from: Arm The Mob on March 15, 2015, 08:51:09 PMQuote from: GethKhilafah on March 15, 2015, 08:42:34 PMMaybe in 300 years time, middle class Americans will finally realize that Republican really aren't on their side!!!Nobody is on anybody's side in American politics. I hope you know this.Thanks, Captain Fucking Obvious! But it's not like the entire rhetoric of the Republican Party is that they're on the side of the Middle Class. And it's not also like half the Middle Class gobbles that bullshit up.
Quote from: GethKhilafah on March 15, 2015, 09:50:00 PMQuote from: Arm The Mob on March 15, 2015, 09:21:41 PMQuote from: GethKhilafah on March 15, 2015, 09:14:32 PMQuote from: Arm The Mob on March 15, 2015, 08:51:09 PMQuote from: GethKhilafah on March 15, 2015, 08:42:34 PMMaybe in 300 years time, middle class Americans will finally realize that Republican really aren't on their side!!!Nobody is on anybody's side in American politics. I hope you know this.Thanks, Captain Fucking Obvious! But it's not like the entire rhetoric of the Republican Party is that they're on the side of the Middle Class. And it's not also like half the Middle Class gobbles that bullshit up.Yes, and The Democrats have been billing themselves as the party of social equality and minority rights since the days of Lyndon "I'll have those niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years" Johnson.Democratic systems will always be plagued by people who pursue their own interests while billing themselves as actors for the greater good. This is an inherent flaw in the system.Doesn't mean that the Republicans are any better. And Lyndon B Johnson's Presidency was 50 years ago, so a lot can change then. Need I tell you about Nixon's "Southern Strategy".Either way, both parties are shit, and are just competing for which one is shittier. Which at the time being are the Republicans.I never meant to imply the Reps were better and I hope I didn't come off that way.Again, though, inherent hole in democracy. Everybody says they want what's best for the middle class, everybody wants to help the poor this way or that, everybody wants to save lives and protect your freedom while trampling on it, etc. Nobody can or will ever be honest about their intentions.
Quote from: Arm The Mob on March 15, 2015, 09:21:41 PMQuote from: GethKhilafah on March 15, 2015, 09:14:32 PMQuote from: Arm The Mob on March 15, 2015, 08:51:09 PMQuote from: GethKhilafah on March 15, 2015, 08:42:34 PMMaybe in 300 years time, middle class Americans will finally realize that Republican really aren't on their side!!!Nobody is on anybody's side in American politics. I hope you know this.Thanks, Captain Fucking Obvious! But it's not like the entire rhetoric of the Republican Party is that they're on the side of the Middle Class. And it's not also like half the Middle Class gobbles that bullshit up.Yes, and The Democrats have been billing themselves as the party of social equality and minority rights since the days of Lyndon "I'll have those niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years" Johnson.Democratic systems will always be plagued by people who pursue their own interests while billing themselves as actors for the greater good. This is an inherent flaw in the system.Doesn't mean that the Republicans are any better. And Lyndon B Johnson's Presidency was 50 years ago, so a lot can change then. Need I tell you about Nixon's "Southern Strategy".Either way, both parties are shit, and are just competing for which one is shittier. Which at the time being are the Republicans.
I'm honestly pretty undecided on campaign spending. I'd rather see the donations pooled into a general fund that is fairly distributed to each candidate after the primaries, I think, but stuff like this painting Republicans as evil rich white guys is pretty ironic considering President Obama spent more and raised more than any other candidate in history. To get upset at the fact that presidential campaigns spend monumental amounts of money just seems childish at this point.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 15, 2015, 09:31:24 PMI'm honestly pretty undecided on campaign spending. I'd rather see the donations pooled into a general fund that is fairly distributed to each candidate after the primaries, I think, but stuff like this painting Republicans as evil rich white guys is pretty ironic considering President Obama spent more and raised more than any other candidate in history. To get upset at the fact that presidential campaigns spend monumental amounts of money just seems childish at this point.The difference was that Obama raised more money via small donors (people who donated less than $200 aka grass roots) than Romney raised in total iirc. So that's kind of a false equivalency right there since Obama relied on these small donors in a big way.
Fuck that, I don't want my money going to perpetuate the corrupt two-party system.
Quote from: Azumarill on March 16, 2015, 11:14:45 AMQuote from: Arm The Mob on March 16, 2015, 11:13:08 AMFuck that, I don't want my money going to perpetuate the corrupt two-party system.ive uh.... got some bad news for you...also, you misunderstood: i didnt mean that only donations wouldnt be accepted. i meant that the only funds that candidates would be allowed to use are special funds set aside by the government to spread information in a wholesome, substantive manner. this would prevent wealthy individuals or interest groups from using their massive monetary advantage to swing things in their favorWhich is, again, fucking retarded. Forcing the taxpayer to pay for frivolous shit like this that runs just fine on donations is ridiculous. A campaign spending or donation cap works just fine and doesn't force me or anybody else to fund people we hate.
Quote from: Arm The Mob on March 16, 2015, 11:13:08 AMFuck that, I don't want my money going to perpetuate the corrupt two-party system.ive uh.... got some bad news for you...also, you misunderstood: i didnt mean that only donations wouldnt be accepted. i meant that the only funds that candidates would be allowed to use are special funds set aside by the government to spread information in a wholesome, substantive manner. this would prevent wealthy individuals or interest groups from using their massive monetary advantage to swing things in their favor
Quote from: Azumarill on March 16, 2015, 11:27:08 AMQuote from: Arm The Mob on March 16, 2015, 11:23:25 AMQuote from: Azumarill on March 16, 2015, 11:14:45 AMQuote from: Arm The Mob on March 16, 2015, 11:13:08 AMFuck that, I don't want my money going to perpetuate the corrupt two-party system.ive uh.... got some bad news for you...also, you misunderstood: i didnt mean that only donations wouldnt be accepted. i meant that the only funds that candidates would be allowed to use are special funds set aside by the government to spread information in a wholesome, substantive manner. this would prevent wealthy individuals or interest groups from using their massive monetary advantage to swing things in their favorWhich is, again, fucking retarded. Forcing the taxpayer to pay for frivolous shit like this that runs just fine on donations is ridiculous. A campaign spending or donation cap works just fine and doesn't force me or anybody else to fund people we hate."runs just fine on donations"our campaign system is a fucking nightmare....And you don't think it would be worse in the hands of bearaucrats?
Quote from: Arm The Mob on March 16, 2015, 11:23:25 AMQuote from: Azumarill on March 16, 2015, 11:14:45 AMQuote from: Arm The Mob on March 16, 2015, 11:13:08 AMFuck that, I don't want my money going to perpetuate the corrupt two-party system.ive uh.... got some bad news for you...also, you misunderstood: i didnt mean that only donations wouldnt be accepted. i meant that the only funds that candidates would be allowed to use are special funds set aside by the government to spread information in a wholesome, substantive manner. this would prevent wealthy individuals or interest groups from using their massive monetary advantage to swing things in their favorWhich is, again, fucking retarded. Forcing the taxpayer to pay for frivolous shit like this that runs just fine on donations is ridiculous. A campaign spending or donation cap works just fine and doesn't force me or anybody else to fund people we hate."runs just fine on donations"our campaign system is a fucking nightmare....
Quote from: Azumarill on March 16, 2015, 03:20:19 AMunfortunately, there's no way to lock the interest groups/wealthy out of the equation without locking the grassroots fundraising out, too.You limit the amount of money both legal and natural persons can donate?
unfortunately, there's no way to lock the interest groups/wealthy out of the equation without locking the grassroots fundraising out, too.
Quote from: Azumarill on March 16, 2015, 11:52:30 AMQuote from: Flee on March 16, 2015, 11:50:39 AMQuote from: Azumarill on March 16, 2015, 03:20:19 AMunfortunately, there's no way to lock the interest groups/wealthy out of the equation without locking the grassroots fundraising out, too.You limit the amount of money both legal and natural persons can donate?wouldnt stop the bigwigs from funneling their huge funds in somehowWorks pretty well for almost all other developed countries.
Quote from: Flee on March 16, 2015, 11:50:39 AMQuote from: Azumarill on March 16, 2015, 03:20:19 AMunfortunately, there's no way to lock the interest groups/wealthy out of the equation without locking the grassroots fundraising out, too.You limit the amount of money both legal and natural persons can donate?wouldnt stop the bigwigs from funneling their huge funds in somehow
Quote from: LC on March 16, 2015, 01:10:48 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 15, 2015, 09:31:24 PMI'm honestly pretty undecided on campaign spending. I'd rather see the donations pooled into a general fund that is fairly distributed to each candidate after the primaries, I think, but stuff like this painting Republicans as evil rich white guys is pretty ironic considering President Obama spent more and raised more than any other candidate in history. To get upset at the fact that presidential campaigns spend monumental amounts of money just seems childish at this point.The difference was that Obama raised more money via small donors (people who donated less than $200 aka grass roots) than Romney raised in total iirc. So that's kind of a false equivalency right there since Obama relied on these small donors in a big way.No, that's not correct at all. Obama raised about 1/3 from small donors and Romney raised 1/4. Cruz isn't making the distinction between the two sources, anyway, so it wouldn't have been a false equivalency in the first place. The point is that both sides want open access to whatever funds they can get. This isn't a partisan issue, it's an issue of how you think donations should take part in the campaign process.
I think, but stuff like this painting Republicans as evil rich white guys is pretty ironic considering President Obama spent more and raised more than any other candidate in history.
Just 9 percent of donors to GOP front-runner Mitt Romney, by contrast, came from the lowest end of the contribution scale, the study shows. Obama raised more money in aggregate from small donors — $56.7 million — than Romney raised overall.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 16, 2015, 07:30:08 AMQuote from: LC on March 16, 2015, 01:10:48 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 15, 2015, 09:31:24 PMI'm honestly pretty undecided on campaign spending. I'd rather see the donations pooled into a general fund that is fairly distributed to each candidate after the primaries, I think, but stuff like this painting Republicans as evil rich white guys is pretty ironic considering President Obama spent more and raised more than any other candidate in history. To get upset at the fact that presidential campaigns spend monumental amounts of money just seems childish at this point.The difference was that Obama raised more money via small donors (people who donated less than $200 aka grass roots) than Romney raised in total iirc. So that's kind of a false equivalency right there since Obama relied on these small donors in a big way.No, that's not correct at all. Obama raised about 1/3 from small donors and Romney raised 1/4. Cruz isn't making the distinction between the two sources, anyway, so it wouldn't have been a false equivalency in the first place. The point is that both sides want open access to whatever funds they can get. This isn't a partisan issue, it's an issue of how you think donations should take part in the campaign process.QuoteI think, but stuff like this painting Republicans as evil rich white guys is pretty ironic considering President Obama spent more and raised more than any other candidate in history.This is what I was referring to specifically. Your insinuating that their money came from the same place and yes it is correct that Obama raised more money via small donors than Romney raised in total.http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-fundraising-powered-by-small-donors-new-study-shows/2012/02/08/gIQANfKIzQ_story.htmlQuoteJust 9 percent of donors to GOP front-runner Mitt Romney, by contrast, came from the lowest end of the contribution scale, the study shows. Obama raised more money in aggregate from small donors — $56.7 million — than Romney raised overall.The source for the source.http://cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-02-08/Small_Donors_in_2011_Obama_s_Were_Big_Romney_s_Not.aspxAlso by 1/3rd I'm hoping you did a typo and actually meant about 1/2.
Quote from: LC on March 16, 2015, 01:23:25 PMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 16, 2015, 07:30:08 AMQuote from: LC on March 16, 2015, 01:10:48 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 15, 2015, 09:31:24 PMI'm honestly pretty undecided on campaign spending. I'd rather see the donations pooled into a general fund that is fairly distributed to each candidate after the primaries, I think, but stuff like this painting Republicans as evil rich white guys is pretty ironic considering President Obama spent more and raised more than any other candidate in history. To get upset at the fact that presidential campaigns spend monumental amounts of money just seems childish at this point.The difference was that Obama raised more money via small donors (people who donated less than $200 aka grass roots) than Romney raised in total iirc. So that's kind of a false equivalency right there since Obama relied on these small donors in a big way.No, that's not correct at all. Obama raised about 1/3 from small donors and Romney raised 1/4. Cruz isn't making the distinction between the two sources, anyway, so it wouldn't have been a false equivalency in the first place. The point is that both sides want open access to whatever funds they can get. This isn't a partisan issue, it's an issue of how you think donations should take part in the campaign process.QuoteI think, but stuff like this painting Republicans as evil rich white guys is pretty ironic considering President Obama spent more and raised more than any other candidate in history.This is what I was referring to specifically. Your insinuating that their money came from the same place and yes it is correct that Obama raised more money via small donors than Romney raised in total.http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-fundraising-powered-by-small-donors-new-study-shows/2012/02/08/gIQANfKIzQ_story.htmlQuoteJust 9 percent of donors to GOP front-runner Mitt Romney, by contrast, came from the lowest end of the contribution scale, the study shows. Obama raised more money in aggregate from small donors — $56.7 million — than Romney raised overall.The source for the source.http://cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-02-08/Small_Donors_in_2011_Obama_s_Were_Big_Romney_s_Not.aspxAlso by 1/3rd I'm hoping you did a typo and actually meant about 1/2.It might help if your source included the entirety of campaign donations, not just 2011.https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/Obama raised a lot of small donations initially, then moved to large donations later in the campaign.
I was specifically to 2011. So anything else is irrelevant.
The difference was that Obama raised more money via small donors (people who donated less than $200 aka grass roots) than Romney raised in total iirc.
ArticleQuoteUnlimited political cash would give rank-and-file conservative activists greater sway in picking their representatives, including the president, White House hopeful Ted Cruz told New Hampshire voters on Sunday.Cruz, a first-term senator who represents Texas, said deep-pocketed donors should have the same rights to write giant campaign checks as voters have to put signs in their front yards. Both, Cruz said, were an example of political speech, and he added that "money absolutely can be speech.""I believe everyone here has a right to speak out on politics as effectively as possible," Cruz said told a voter who asked him about the role of the super-rich in politics....After the session, one activist gave Cruz a blank check and told him to write it for whatever amount he needed.Cruz, mindful that accepting the check would trigger his official entrance to the Republican primary, declined but told an aide to follow up with the man after a campaign is official."Stay tuned," he said....Cruz, a tea-party favorite, is expecting to formally join a crowded field of presidential hopefuls in the coming weeks. In the meantime, he has been courting party activists and donors to help him counter deep-pocketed rivals such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.Asked about the outsized role of money in politics, Cruz said he understands voters' frustration but that cannot trump the constitutional rights to free speech."Right now, the system is crazy," Cruz said of the campaign finance rules.In the Senate, Cruz has proposed lifting all campaign contribution limits in exchange for immediate disclosure."The answer is not to muzzle citizens. It is to empower citizens," Cruz said.Yet Cruz acknowledged that heavy spending had been a headache during his 2012 campaign for Senate. "In the Senate race, I had $35 million in nasty attack ads against me," Cruz said. "And you know what? It was their Constitutional right to do so."Basically, Cruz is in favor of elections being bought by George Soros and the Koch Brothers. And this guy claims to represent grassroot conservatives.
Ted Cruz Doesn't Want Any Limits On Campaign Contributions
