Posted on 01/18/2016 4:29:32 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Pointing to the effects of "horrible" super-PACs, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Sunday said America needs to come up with a solution to keep big money out of politics.
"Well, I think you need it, because I think PACs are a horrible thing," Trump said on CNN's "State of the Union" when asked if he would pursue campaign finance reform.
The billionaire businessman, who said he is self-financing his campaign, said the wall separating super-PACs and candidates running for public office is illusory.
"First of all, everyone's dealing with their PAC. You know, it's supposed to be like this secret thing. They're all dealing with it," he said.
Trump pointed to a pair of simultaneous rallies for Republican primary candidate Jeb Bush, one hosted by his campaign and the other by a pro-Bush super-PAC.
"Bush had an event where he had an event for his whatever and an event for his PAC, right? For his campaign. The ballrooms were right next to each other and the events were simultaneous," he said. "You tell me they're not dealing with each other?"
He said candidates become "psychologically" beholden to their big-money donors, which may influence them to disregard the public interest.
"Yes, yes, oh yeah. I mean, look, psychologically yes. That's the way it is," he said when asked if politicians are swayed by their benefactors.
"Somebody gives them money, not anything wrong, just psychologically when they go to that person, they're going to do it," he added. "They owe them. And by the way, they may therefore vote negatively toward the country."
"That's not going to happen with me."
I live near you in Michigan in the summer, and in Texas in the winter. We're on rivers in both places. In Michigan I have to deal with the township, county, state DEQ, FEMS, and Corps of Engineers if I want to do so much as put out a bird bath in the spring. Each require permits and approvals.
In Texas, I must deal with..........nothing. I have found, however, that builders in Texas are much more conscientious about codes and satisfying customers than those in Michigan. In Texas they have to satisfy the customers, in Michigan, the bureaucrats. Customers are far more picky than bureaucrats. It's also notable that the state budget per person is about half the state budget per person in Michigan. For that, Texas has better roads, schools, law enforcement, and government responsiveness than Michigan. Your plan is well founded.
The Constitution is a progressive document, in that it codifies and promotes the idea of progress. But “progress” is explicitly mentioned only once in the Constitution.
- Article 1 Section 8.:
- The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
does not establish a ceiling over the rights of the people. Rather, as
- Amendment 1:
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
makes plain, it is to be understood only as a floor under our rights.
- Amendment 9:
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
It is impossible to run a press without paper and ink (and the press itself), and those things cost money. So to say you cannot spend your own money, unregulated, in acquiring (or renting) a press and operating it is to say that you do not have freedom of the press. And since it is stipulated that the press is a “useful art,” and that radio and TV are extensions of that useful art, radio and TV (and indeed, the Internet) are likewise “the press.” Therefore if you do not have the untrammeled right to spend your money on radio and TV communication with the public, you do not have freedom of the press.. . . but laws which do not apply to the owner of any member of the Associated Press are said to apply to me. I do not boast that I find the limitations burdensome as a practical matter, but in principle they are anathema. The New York Times promotes such regulation, but would be appalled at the thought that it would be applied to them. They think themselves members of a noble or priestly class. Phooey!
- Article 1 Section 9:
- No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States
Those are possibilities...not sure we want to eliminate the amount of individual contributions direct to campaigns. I also don’t think we need more politicians!
HAHA, you are not making Trump any FRiends here :)
What’s the source that says the Koch brothers donated to the New America Foundation?
Yes, they are. It is also true that Ronald Reagan was the best president we have had in at least a century - and he could not have become POTUS under modern "reform" law.The fundamental flaw of "Campaign Finance Reform" is that it reifies the status of wire service journalism (not to put too fine a point on it, the Associated Press and its membership) as "the press." No Sale.
We have freedom of the press only if we have free entry into the free fire zone of free, independent actors spending their own money to propagate their own opinions. To believe anything else is to fall for the "objective journalist" con.
It is perfectly legitimate, even laudable, for a journalist to try to be objective. It is even legitimate for a journalist to say that he is trying to be objective (if he is). But for a journalist to claim actually to be objective is to admit that he is not even trying to be objective. For any effort in the direction of objectivity must begin with honestly trying to identify one's own motives and incentives, and trying to see how those could influence one's judgement.
If you say that you actually are objective, you have just revealed that you have not even begun to try. And that conundrum is not escaped by joining a mutual admiration society wherein you need not claim objectivity for yourself so long as you claim objectivity for everyone else - secure in the knowledge that they will reciprocate the favor.
But what is the motive of the journalist? Plainly, the journalist does not do things, he only announces the results of what others did. Theodore Roosevelt famously asserted that"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena . . . who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds . . .Being, in that formulation, "the critic," journalists inherently tend to reject that claim, and to imply the opposite. They do not want to be openly partisan (blowing their "objectivity" cover), but IMHO the blunt assertion of that opposite premise is articulated by Elizabeth Warren: "You didn't build that."The upshot, and the intention, of campaign finance "reform" legislation is that while socialists may freely exploit propaganda organs, all others are to shut up.
Don’t you get it. The msm and the political class are asking questions to try and get Trump ruined. They are doing the same to Cruz.
I really don’t care how they respond because the msm and others will twist it up.
I am tired of the media thinking that they are the arbiters so u am ignoring them.
It takes more than that to make money
Perhaps you better fit with Sandwrs and the Occupy groip
Oh sure thing
Perhaps you too are better matched with Sanders and Occupy
Free speech? There are SuperPacs out there who have a handful of donors each giving millions of dollars, and they hide their involvement through the Pacs and thus control their candidates on the sly. This is not "Free speech." It's plutocracy and the tyranny of open borders proponents and globalists who make kings out of candidates who have no business running for office. It's because of this big money in politics that only a billionaire can stand up and oppose them instead of a regular, honest American.
Freepers didn't realize they were getting screwed by the Koch brothers and the Chamber of Commerce who quickly moved in to take over campaigns. Freepers didn't know that the GOPe, including many of our best "conservatives," favored America-destroying trade deals and immigration policies.
You yourself are actually an example of the dangers of trusting even "conservative" SuperPacs and megadonors to represent our interests. You write for Breitbart, funded by a Ted Cruz Megadonor, that has never once reported a single negative article about Cruz, and which, unbeknownst to its readers, sends data on its readership to the Ted Cruz psychological analysis operation in order to tailor money-pitches to the conservative electorate. You then come onto FR, you read a blog (a long time blog,with a detailed About-page, years and years of history) that drops this bombshell, and you immediately declare that you had went to the blog and saw that it had no About page, no history, and was probably a Trump campaign front. All of this to defend your employer, Breitbart.
Now you-- a confirmed liar-- write for Breitbart, which pays you. Breitbart, in general, has its own agenda, and it receives money from billionaires. Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, etc., all make millions from GOP ad revenue and the revenue that comes from mega donors and the ads they air on their programs. These people all have their own agenda, and that agenda is influenced by lots and lots of MONEY. Just like you.
What are SuperPacs? They are organizations where a small number of donors can covertly, literally fund a campaign that everybody hates, like Jeb Bush, and we don't know a thing about it. Meanwhile, a regular American can't get into politics without selling out to special interest groups that want anti-American trade deals and immigration policies just so they can make a buck.
It took a billionaire to break the cycle. This country really shouldn't have to rely on billionaire candidates to make a difference. I would like to see an America where the big money stranglehold is broken. After Trump, that's the only way we can go forward.
All other billionaire money is evil.
Forget the 1st amendment, we need more government regulations that empowers the MSM.
///
He's cutting a deal with the media. More suppression of First Amendment rights gives more power to the media gatekeepers.
He wants them to want him to be president.
and you know who I am and are still obsessed with me....and I don’t know who you are and like the rest of the planet, do not care.
Sure you do! You even send me sweet private messages where you rail about how you think it's a mark of honor to be temporarily zotted by the idiot FR mods, and then you start ranting and raving about "you're nobody!" as you foam at the mouth like a madman.
Hence why you're such a good example of everything wrong with conservative media.
We literally have crazy liars telling us what to think and feel!
Of course, but that's not what Trump wants.
Exactly.
But Trump supporters won't understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.