Are you guys fucking kidding me? Corporate personhood? Do corporations cast votes? Do they physically cast votes in a voting booth? Can they serve in the armed forces? Are they taxed in the same manner as individuals? You all are the biggest threats to American democracy that this country has seen.
The people who do not want their names out there are probably using our tax dollars to campaign for office by the way. Probably, painfully true, but just my opinion.
Rep. Dan Lundgren really sold me. Alice in wonderland just puts everything into perspective.
Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to fall for that nonsense? Vote FOR Disclose act!! Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter. Unless you're one of the few extremely rich people who stands to lose from it, vote for it!
@megawarpvideo Oh yeah, of course. I meant if people didn't buy into all that shit and really took liability and saving into their own hands, we wouldn't be in this mess. Everything you just said is 100% de jure
Fortunately this failed initially. Harry Reid intentionally voted against his own cloture motion to continue his attempt at pushing this unConstitutional, ethically disgusting Act. Hopefully, educated Americans will continue to oppose Disclose.
I only wish more had fought harder for the Fed Audit.
1. The original SCOTUS decision affected corporations, thus giving them the same rights Unions already had, which is why the bill doesn't touch Unions.
2. In what way does the bill suppress free speech?
3. Corporations receiving $10 Mill would technically be using government (public) money. This puts them and their funding in the public, not private sector. Freedom for the private sector, visa vi the SCOTUS decision.
Stupid opposers to the bill, I bet most of you are conspiracy theorists obsessed with the Constitution, a document terrorists often quote according to the FBI. Can't you see the boat's sinking more on the left? We need to pour some water on the right side, okay? Yes we CAN! Don't worry about the hole at the bottom. "Change" and auxiliary verbs will surely cover it up. Thank the Nobel Laureate who can start a war and win a peace prize at the same time. Can YOU do that? Yes, we can? No, we can't.
After CfL takes 4 minutes to get to the point, you just play scary music while Democrats discuss their fairly reasonable points. There was not a SINGLE argument against this bill presented here.
This video is being carefully censored by limiting it from playing back normally. It keeps buffering and buffering. Youtube and Google we are on to you, quit the games, or face a lawsuit.
@clbackus Not true, You need to get rid of spyware cookies with superantisoyware from your system, or limit your other processes especially if you have am older model processor. You may have alot of registry errors. Or all of the above. Optimize these 3 things and try again
@splicedenergy This is no spyware, no cookies, no viruses, and no other processes. This is not about registry errors, I have registry cleaners, and is not about my computer. This is simply and completely about this video being put through a coffee straw. I played other videos a the same time I was trying to play this video. All fine. This was the only video acting up.
@clbackus Maybe it was overloaded with others trying to watch at the same time. I did not get even a stutter not once. So if it you think it was done on purpose by big brother it would be for everyone including me but it wasnt.
I do not understand why C4L opposes this bill. You would think C4L would favor limiting the power of corporations to interfere in elections and control the government.
@kathicII The reason is that the bill is selective. Not equal rights. Same as allowing a white person to a benifit that isn't available to a black person based on color. Unions are corperations that support the Dems along with other businesses that support the Dems agenda. Note that every tax paying citizen is a corperation that is not exempted in the bill with the issue of the social security card so this bill is the start of duct tape to the first amendment.
@biga87718 One: Corporations are not people. They should not have the same rights as people. Two: If all people are bound by this law as you say, then the people in Unions will also be bound by it. I fail to see how requiring the attachment of a name to campaign money is anti 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment does not guarantee anonymity for said speech.
@megawarpvideo Oh I know. I'm just saying, the reality is that we've been bankrupt. This whole "recession/depression" thing is an illusion. I don't really care about big businesses, or if they bring in lots of money to the "economy". They mean nothing to me. We could all live better without them.
Help Peter Schiff win the Republican Primary in Connecticut August 10th. He was Ron Paul's economic advisor and we need him just as bad so please visit his website shiffforsenate and make phone calls and donate on Thursday the 29th of July for a moneybomb!
The dramatic music is a bit much, don't you think? Especially coupled with silly phrases like "OBAMACARE" and "FRANKenDODD REFORM"... C'mon guys, I thought you were above stuff like this. How about we stick to facts and leave name-calling out of it.
I have an idea for a new form of government in every country. The 'people' are the executive officer(president) so all laws made by congress must be voted(approved or vetoed) by the 'people'.
All people in political office are subject to review every 6 months; meaning they come up for vote again. If they are ever VOTED out they receive no pension.
All new and existing laws will be put to a vote by the people.
No more leaders and very likely all the worlds problems will end.
@wetweasel56 good idea. but 6 months, i feel, is too short a time to see if changes are working. One year would be cool for me and two years would be the max. I also believe laws should be decided by the people. But the congress should still be there to produce a simple and legal copy of the law. The legal document covers all the bases and closes the loopholes while the simple copy is a shorter copy released to the public that clearly expresses pros and cons of the law.
@wetweasel56 Im tired of idiocy like the filibuster whoever uses it. We need to move ideas quickly, find out if they work and amend them later. I feel that having a last resort to stall a law is not right because there may be much more important things to be done that are waiting in line.
If you really want to get "Tea Party" candidates, USE THE INTERNET! Find out what your local, state and federal candidates are REALLY all about. This time around is about making America work for AMERICANS! Take responsibility, investigate, don't vote based on party, don't vote based on what people tell you, vote on who you think will do the best job (but investigate first, disinfo abounds when it really counts!)! Remember, Scott Brown ran as a repub "tea party" candidate, but he votes dem!
Those who support this bill have not thuroughly looked into this bill. It EXCLUDES any orginzation the Fed deems to powerful in the political spectrum, such as the NRA and Unions. Orwell was right, All animals are free, but some are more free than others. It is another blantant attack on grassroots movements as this will do nothing to hinder the machine but make it more powerful, and also intimidate political dissent.
4 minutes in and its a complete joke. I hope people feel better after watching this but you are NOT voting out of this hole. Marxist now rule America completely and voting will not solve our problems.
Adam Kokesh lost for Congress, and it seems campaign for liberty people will also let Peter Schiff lose in the Senate this month... Seems that only like a few hundred people are trying to get this people voted. The rest of America seems to lazy to try, even supposedly freedom thinking americans... so sad.
This is a very partisan clip from campaign for liberty, these Republicans hide behind the constitution to help their buddies, even though they are on the right side of the argument, I can do my own research I'm tired of paying for inefficient, overpaid regulators who get bribed off any way. This bill will hurt the grass roots more than Corp.
No more taxes, No property tax, no income tax and bring back the empire to protect our borders and the states, nullification and interposition!
and put you in jail if you cant afford her govt approved cartel insurance she is a liar and a shill, and Im pretty sure she has been apart od the walking dead for a few years....so shes got that going for her....
i dont know the details of this bill, but going by this video i dont see why it would be so bad if there is a law that requires a statement of who paid for the certain political ads. obviously it should apply to all including to unions though. but as i said i dont know all the details of the bill
@wetweasel56 yes, which is obviously bullshit. it should apply to all groups or none at all. but in principle i see nothing wrong with a law forcing disclosure of funders of political advertising
The fact that both parties are controlled by the same people doesn't change whether or not this passes. Focus on the real problem that is all of government and the way it is taken over.
This video didn't do a very good job of explaining to the laymen how this bill is a negative for the American people.
Are libertarians scared they won't be able to create a party if corporate donors are exposed?
I support Campaign For Liberty, but the Bartok-esque music in the background and the lack of solid information made this whole video seem like a right-wing propoganda piece.
Republican or democrat it doesnt matter its just a dirty rat race designed to keep us distracted while these corrupt FUCKS take our rights and rob us blind...
@IndoeSMoke Be that as it may, you gotta give some credit to the republicans for having recently obstructed the Disclose Act and it's imposition on free speech.
the most psychopathic are the most driven. the most driven are the most likely to succeed in life. combine this with a surveillance state, and you have people in prominent positions being blackmailed for their psychopathic behaviors. for many it is not blackmail, but a "deal with the devil".
I like the changing Rep/Dem logos in the margins. Keeps me from having to strain my eyes to read the small text. Gj on that. Gd idea.
On topic: Oppose the Disclose Act. Oppose what the existing administration being puppeteer-ed by the Fed tells you. Wall Street fraudsters do NOT care about you. They're the same as they've always been, thieves, & the whole deal w/ the Disclose Act, & the FCC and DHS taking over the internet is this: They want to take away your freedom of speech. It's that simple
Yup. And if you donate to the 'wrong' sources, then it makes you an enemy. Imagine if, let's say, the Tea Party gets labeled as a terrorist organization. If you donate to the Tea Party, how does that make you any different from a terrorist yourself?
Sad... To be honest, both democrats and Republicans are awful. The only thing that can happen is that the people need to realize what is going on and then vote them out
I want to see some real analysis of this bill. Scary music and heart string pulling raises my alarms. I'm a life long registered independent. I lean to the libertarian right but I'm not going to be scared into supporting something I don't fully understand.
I read their description, frankly it's more of the same. Scary noises and not much substance. I'm all about winning the war against the left with sound ideas but I reject scare tactics. Show me the point by point breakdown of why this bill is a problem without all the emotional invective.
@kmg501 Just use some critical thinking and common sense and it is easy to see that this bill is not for transparency of the government for the people, it is for transparency of the people for the government.
@kmg501 I agree with you that what you just said is not an argument. I did not imply anything as I was not arguing. No need to be defensive. I was reffering you to simply think about it yourself instead of relying on others to do the thinking for you. I find it rather obvious why it is bad hence the end of my initial comment but you may think otherwise and that is your right.
@esiosan It makes the individual donor transparent to the government. It doesn't matter who is funding who, it matters who you choose to vote for. Are you saying that you wouldn't vote for a candidate based on who else is supporting them? That doesn't seem very "open mined".
Actually, I would base my vote for a candidate based off from two funding factors. 1, as you said, is WHO funds them, and 2, is WHO the candidate accepts as a source of funding, be they directly tied or independent of the candidate.
Who someone allies themselves with, especially when it comes to business and politics, says a lot about the character of a candidate. And yes, I apply this to Obama as much as anyone else.
@AndrewDeLong Insurance companies gave money to each and every candidate during the last presidential elections. Does that mean that each and every candidate was in the pocket of the insurance companies? I am sure racist people gave money to Obama's campaign, is he not supposed to except their money too?
Well, yes and no. I'm sure there are a few candidates in their pockets, sure. But I would like to know who is privately running campaigns on behalf of a candidate, and if said candidate accepts such an endorsement. The simple fact is, we are letting corporations get into politics in such a fashion, that I, as well as many others, WANT to know who is saying what, and for what reasons. I would defy you to tell me what is wrong with that notion.
@AndrewDeLong It is a severe breach of privacy. You and every other person or business has a right to spend their money however they see fit and have a right to keep said expenditures private. Why should you have a right to know who I am supporting with my money? If I want to disclose that information then so be it. If I don't that is up to me. This bill completely negates that privacy.
This is not for us, it is for the politicians currently in office. It gives them more to divide us by.
IF this bill applied to the individual, I might agree with you. But it does not, so I do not. A corporation is not a person, first and foremost, and a corporation using its money to publicly support or slam a candidate is actually using the combined monies of everybody from the bottom on up, whether or not they agree with the corp. This does not give it the same rights as the individual. In that sense, I cannot see whats wrong with forcing it to fess up to its own actions.
@AndrewDeLong This bill affects any organization that pools money for campaigning be it a private or corporate.
A corporation is a group of individuals. A corporation does not use its monies "bottom on up, whether or not they agree with the corp", they use money given to them willingly by consumers and stock holders. Once the money is in their possession they have every right to do with it as they please.
It is a knock on privacy. This helps the politicians not the citizens.
@AndrewDeLong And this bill does apply to the individuals. It will force these corps and groups to name names of individual donors of more than $1,000. Just because some people are rich doesn't mean they deserve any less privacy than those less wealthy.
Not agreed. If people are willing to back a politician to such an extent as $1,000 or more, then why would they be afraid to fess up to it? I'll put it as simple as a certain congressman said it. The only ones who are afraid of disclosure, are those with something to hide. And you know as well as I do that Corporations have no business in running separate campaigns. Since when has the democratic process been in the private sector in such fashions?
As for the right to privacy...look at the first Amendment. It guarantees the right to free speech. It says nothing on issues of privacy. The 4th and 5th Amendments do, but only in cases of criminal or alleged criminal behavior.
In short, infringing on your privacy in a non court manner IS NOT unconstitutional. If you want to make that argument, you'll have to rewrite the constitution first.
@AndrewDeLong My privacy is not in the "private sector" it is in "my sector" and I have a right to my privacy as you do.
As far as your "only ones who are afraid of disclosure, are those with something to hide.", does that mean you are for the patriot act and government mandated airport x-ray scanners? They say the same quote about those things.
It doesn't matter if I have something to hide or not, you have no right to know what I do with my own money plain and simple.
Well, I would like to see a more comprehensive version of the patriot act, sure. As for Airport scanners, I am 100% in agreement with them, if it means a safer trip. As for your money and what you do with it...I'd agree...if those actions didn't have potential effects that might make their way to me. If you will use your money, to THAT amount, to run a public campaign, then let the directly related information be just as public. To NOT do so is cowardly & hypocritical.
@AndrewDeLong It is not a public campaign, it is a private campaign. If it were my tax dollars being spent then yes, I should know how, but if it is not my money I have no right to know how others spend it.
There is nothing hypocritical or cowardly about wanting my liberty and privacy. I find it much more cowardly to give up ones personal liberties for the illusion of safety and far more hypocritical to want your own personal privacy whilst not allowing all others to enjoy theirs.
I am not hypocritical in the least. If I spend that much money on a public campaign (and yes, once you use any sort of media to spread a political message it IS public) then I'd gladly be willing to disclose who I am and what I do. It is as simple as this, if someone is going to try to sway public opinion and choices, then said someone has no right to complain about privacy. You forefit it when you make the choice to influence others.
@AndrewDeLong You need to correct your usage of the words public and private in the context of your arguments.
It is spread on privately owned tv stations that contract with privately owned cable companies. Public would mean they are publicly funded.
"if someone is going to try to sway public opinion and choices, then said someone has no right to complain about privacy".In that case, I want to see your voting history, as well as your medical history because that may affect me as well
"In that case, I want to see your voting history, as well as your medical history because that may affect me as well"
My voting history is all yours. Matter of fact, that is obtainable through legal means. Prove to me that my medical history is relevant to this conversation, and I'll continue on that tangent, otherwise, your point there is moot.
As for public and private, I'm basing off from the fact that you are effecting the public, & are not remaining private in your actions
Yes, each of our actions has (usually inadvertent) effects on others. But once you set out to purposely effect the major social decisions of others, you are no longer subject to privacy, in that sense. You have directly set out to change, en mass, the minds of others, and in doing such, should very well state your motivations and MOTIVATORS behind said actions. If someone want me to vote a certain way, I want to know who has that intent and why. Privacy (in that case) be damned.
@AndrewDeLong I am in know affecting "major social decisions of others" by campaigning for a politician. I am using my first amendment right of free speech to speak about something specific. Spending my money to promote those beliefs are my prerogative. 80% of the US consider themselves Christian: Do you think all churches should be forced to show who has tithed to them since they have "set out to affect major social decisions of others?
You even want my motivation not just the dollar amount?
Your motivation is assumed by who you are, what you do, and how you do it. As for who should be affected by this, I do agree with the $1,000 cutoff. Perhaps even higher. But the fact is this: This is MAINLY aimed at corporations, who have no business in politics anyway. To even allow a faceless, non corporal entity the same rights as an individual is, in my view, a gaffe on the part of the SCOTUS. This bill is basically a way to remedy that. continued next....
@AndrewDeLong Even if the bill is mainly aimed at corporations it does indeed affect the freedom of speech and privacy of individuals. Putting a cap on someones mouth simply because they speak louder is ludicrous.
If you want to remedy the situation let's get rid of corporations all together. This bill is merely putting a bandage on an infected wound. Instead of creating new legislation, how about repealing the original legislation that caused the problem in the first place ie corporate law
Again, this bill DOES NOT affect free speech. In no way, shape, or form does it PREVENT corporations from speaking out in a political manner. As for privacy, I stated it earlier. If you wish to effect the public en mass like that, then privacy (in the sense of who is funding said effect) is forfeited. In terms of the layman, if you want to change my mind, I want to know who the hell you are.
@AndrewDeLong Andrew, this bill punishes people without a crime committed. Taking away someones privacy via their money is directly affecting their freedom of speech. That money goes towards signs, stickers and TV ads. You are advocating denial of freedom for having a loud voice.
Why don't you hold religions and schools to the same standards since they affect people "en mass"?
Explain to me why I should lose my privacy because the masses choose to listen.
What punishment in there in both being able to voice yourself whilst telling who you are? No as far as I see. To equate your situation to a church or school is foolish. Mainly because when a Church run's an ad, it always states who/what it is anyway. A school is a learning institution, which also states it's identity. Again, there is no freedom from having a loud voice. It simply saying that the voice must be connected to whatever "produces" that voice.
As for your privacy, it's simple. If you want to get a point across, then you should state who you are, so that the validity of your words and actions can be found out. Corporations have agendas, which usually sullies any chance of honest campaigning. Again, by simply telling who you are, what do you honestly lose? Like I said before, only those with something to hide, hate disclosure. Really now, what do you have to fear, other than your own actions being brought to light?
@AndrewDeLong A religion's/church's sole purpose is to influence the masses yet you aren't asking the government to force them to release the names of their donors.
Most of your most recent comment was dribble so I am going to move on.
Back to logic. Your ideology is faulty and you are consistently proving that. Please take time to reevaluate what you think is right/wrong. Instead of regurgitating what you have been told, think for yourself. Please. For your own sake.
Dribble is usually seen by those who do not comprehend. But I digress. Religion...well, ever hear of the separation of Church and State? That covers that. As for the faultiness of my "ideology" (which I tend to call cold logic), please, elaborate. You assume I don't think for myself, yet I have been doing nothing BUT that. And still, you have yet to show how free speech is hindered, or what you really have to lose. Please, answer me. What actions do you want kept hidden?
The fact is, nothing is lost by saying who you are, so far as funding independent campaigns goes. This is simply a way to hide what would otherwise be suspicious connections between a candidate and a private campaigner. Republicans are afraid of unpopular ties being brought to light, which is the only real issue here. Hell, Dems have unpopular business connections, but you don't see them hiding behind the thin veil of an argument such as "privacy" and "free speech" arguments.
In short, why not step out of your rightist ideology, and apply a bit of logic to the situation. Privacy isn't hurt by stating who you are when you fund something so large as a campaign. Free speech is not hurt in the least, and you have not shown how it is....basically making that nothing but a straw mans argument. I have yet to see you even refute the argument that effecting decisions en mass warrants disclosure. You tried churches and schools, but made no headway there.
Because they both disclose their identities anyway. Basically, I have yet to see an argument from you that actually applies reasonable logic to the situation. Honestly, when it comes to the disclose act, using the two arguments you have been is a fools task. If you wanted to argue that the exemptions made in the bill are unfair, then I'd back you 100%. But you decided to argue points that simply have no logical backing, for that, I can only stand in awe of you & the political right.
Andrew, your smirky separation of church and state comment is silly. Do you honestly believe that religion has no influence in politics and society?
As far as your faulty ideology,I have been tearing it apart for a day now. Whether you choose to see it or not means nothing to me. I can only repeat myself for so long before I tire.
As far as what actions I want kept hidden: whatever I feel. That's my right unless I commit a crime.
Incomprehensible? Really? Well, I would suggest taking a reading and comprehension course then. Some high schools and most colleges still offer it.
Religion, on legal scales (as in they can do this or that) is separate of the state. In morally focused decisions, it takes effect. Try a better argument. As for tearing my arguments apart, well, I like that delusion, but have not seen it yet. Any examples you used were faulty and easily rendered moot.
@AndrewDeLong If my examples are so easily "rendered moot", why have you not done so?
Still you can not compute the logical side of how religion affects people, affects politics. Either that or you are simply refusing admission for argument's sake.
If you refuse to see the correlation of that example of influence/privacy "en mass" and the Disclose Act, then there is really no point in any further discussion.
As far as disclosure in religion is concerned, I rendered your point moot by stating that it already discloses it identity. Furthermore, the separation of church and state goes so far as to assure that politics/law may not mandate what a religion does in terms of finances or practice/worship. The only real correlation between it and politics is the moral guidance it provides individual lawmakers at the decision table, which doesn't further your point at all, hence why it is moot.
Oh, and if you are going to say that it coerces the decisions of lawmakers, and thus needs to be disclosed, I again point to the separation topic. Beyond that, I need no argument. Your decision to try to use religion as an example to prove me wrong, was in and of itself wrong. You failed to comprehend the legal limits your argument would hit, and thus blindly charged in with a fool's way of trying to refute me. You might have had better luck sticking to the schools issue, but I doubt it.
@AndrewDeLong You are refusing to ook at it how I have laid it out. Regardless if the state is separated from the church, the church has influence, which was my whole point. If you are saying that you have a right to other's privacy since they influence "en mass" then you are saying you have a right to religion's, preacher's, doctor's, lawyer's, scientist's, teacher's, and philosopher's privacy because they intend to influence the masses. Wake up, son.
@AndrewDeLong You are blinded by your ego. You aren't even trying to comprehend what I am saying. You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing at this point and trying to talk big but you aren't really putting anything into the debate. This is not a pissing contest no matter how much you wish it to be.
@AndrewDeLong lol Nothing you've said proves anything. You are still denying that religion has great influence "en mass". Also: "I rendered your point moot by stating that it already discloses it identity", no it does not disclose the identity of the individual donors. Please try another angle. I am tired of repeating myself.
In the sense that it as a whole (call it a corporation) discloses itself, yes, religion does just that. The bill calls for the corporations (i.e: the GROUP of donors) to disclose their identities. Regardless of that though, religion as an arguing point for you is STILL moot due to the separation of church and state. By the by, please quote where I denied the influence of religion. I only denied that it CAN be influenced by law. Please, check your reading capabilities.
@AndrewDeLong "I only denied that it CAN be influenced by law." That doesn't make any sense. How does law influence religion in the context of our debate?
Andrew, read my words. Regardless of a separation of church and state, churches have far more influence on voters than any campaign. How are you not understanding this? A churches influences is not is not held to simply "religious" topics. Christians have tons of influence on the law that we have today.
Goodness your idiocy gets me. I was stating that I acknowledged that religion cannot be influenced by law (i.e: it cannot be forced by law to take an action such as disclosure of information...per your suggestion/example of unfairness). I DID acknowledge that it influences law in that it serves as a moral guide for lawmakers. Listen pal, if you want to accuse me on not comprehending something, then you'd very well better know what the hell it is you're actually talking about.
@AndrewDeLong "Listen pal, if you want to accuse me on not comprehending something, then you'd very well better know what the hell it is you're actually talking about."---facepalm.
If that's a rebuttal, then I hope to the lord above that you were face palming your own remark. Because as far as intelligent conversation goes, your usable input died like 10 comments ago. Like I said, comprehension, try it some time.
Yeah, I think we're pretty much done here. Your viable contributions to this ended...well...there never really were any. So yeah, it is sad that I had to amuse such a pointless tangent of yours for so long.
@AndrewDeLong I would not be in such awe at your hypocritical stance on privacy and liberty if you were consistent and said "all information of any donations to any campaign by any and all individuals should be transparent public information". I would still highly disagree with you but at least you wouldn't be following flip flopping ideals. There is no ideologically sound middle of the road on this, my friend. Either all or none have privacy you can't pick and choose. What's it going to be?
@AndrewDeLong The only way to find someones voting history via "legal means" is to ask them for it. You said "if someone is going to try to sway public opinion and choices, then said someone has no right to complain about privacy" and you are now trying to sway my choices and your health may indirectly affect may health, so I want to see your medical history.
@AndrewDeLong Everything that anyone of us does has influence on others but that does not give us a right to their private information. Either everyone has privacy or no one has privacy. You can't pick and choose who and who should not have privacy(barring criminals). When you start to take away bits of that form this group and a little from that group, you empower the governments with rights it should not have.
What happens if you are in the minority and others are stealing your rights?
Are you guys fucking kidding me? Corporate personhood? Do corporations cast votes? Do they physically cast votes in a voting booth? Can they serve in the armed forces? Are they taxed in the same manner as individuals? You all are the biggest threats to American democracy that this country has seen.
b2tama 1 year ago
Obama - keep the change you filthy animal. I'll keep my guns - and liberty.
Change is inevitable. It will be a deeep plunge world wide. The Dollar will fall , and history will repeat itself.
I wrote in Ron Paul in 2008.
suavehotguy24 1 year ago
frankly, as a ron paul supporter, i don't see anything wrong with the DISCLOSE Act. it will generate important information for the voting public.
imgdumpprep 1 year ago
Wow the democrats have carried on Bush's legacy.. who would have thought? "Change" has certainty come to AmeriKa
LibertyJedi 1 year ago
Well change has certainty come to America!
LibertyJedi 1 year ago
The people who do not want their names out there are probably using our tax dollars to campaign for office by the way. Probably, painfully true, but just my opinion.
notunderarock 1 year ago
Rep. Dan Lundgren really sold me. Alice in wonderland just puts everything into perspective.
Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to fall for that nonsense? Vote FOR Disclose act!! Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter. Unless you're one of the few extremely rich people who stands to lose from it, vote for it!
TheReaverOfDarkness 1 year ago
@megawarpvideo Oh yeah, of course. I meant if people didn't buy into all that shit and really took liability and saving into their own hands, we wouldn't be in this mess. Everything you just said is 100% de jure
Cstrife234 1 year ago
@Cstrife234
Governments can't save. But they will 'invest', haha...
jcvjcvjcvjcv 1 year ago
24 people who dislike this need to move to Canada.
golftdibrad 1 year ago
Fortunately this failed initially. Harry Reid intentionally voted against his own cloture motion to continue his attempt at pushing this unConstitutional, ethically disgusting Act. Hopefully, educated Americans will continue to oppose Disclose.
I only wish more had fought harder for the Fed Audit.
veradinx 1 year ago
propaganda
buzwazfuz 1 year ago
1. The House bill affects corporations but not Unions
2. This is an attempt at suppressing Supreme Court upheld free speech
3. The bill 100% muzzles any corporation receiving $10 million in government contract money. Freedom for some but not for all?
4. Both bills exempt the NRA and others, why?
5. This bill becomes law 30 days after Obama signs it. A blatant attempt to change the rules right before an election
6. There have been no hearings on this important free speech issue
jbranstetter04 1 year ago
@jbranstetter04
1. The original SCOTUS decision affected corporations, thus giving them the same rights Unions already had, which is why the bill doesn't touch Unions.
2. In what way does the bill suppress free speech?
3. Corporations receiving $10 Mill would technically be using government (public) money. This puts them and their funding in the public, not private sector. Freedom for the private sector, visa vi the SCOTUS decision.
4. The NRA is a Union (see #1).
Any more questions?
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
Stupid opposers to the bill, I bet most of you are conspiracy theorists obsessed with the Constitution, a document terrorists often quote according to the FBI. Can't you see the boat's sinking more on the left? We need to pour some water on the right side, okay? Yes we CAN! Don't worry about the hole at the bottom. "Change" and auxiliary verbs will surely cover it up. Thank the Nobel Laureate who can start a war and win a peace prize at the same time. Can YOU do that? Yes, we can? No, we can't.
chicapees 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL 2012!
quietstormprod 1 year ago
No FOX/CNN/MSNBC Backed Candidates 2012!
If they're for it we are against it!
Glen Beck misleads many too...... RudyMcCromney will not change a dam thing!
lushfauna 1 year ago
After CfL takes 4 minutes to get to the point, you just play scary music while Democrats discuss their fairly reasonable points. There was not a SINGLE argument against this bill presented here.
jcromartie 1 year ago
This video is being carefully censored by limiting it from playing back normally. It keeps buffering and buffering. Youtube and Google we are on to you, quit the games, or face a lawsuit.
clbackus 1 year ago
@clbackus Not true, You need to get rid of spyware cookies with superantisoyware from your system, or limit your other processes especially if you have am older model processor. You may have alot of registry errors. Or all of the above. Optimize these 3 things and try again
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy This is no spyware, no cookies, no viruses, and no other processes. This is not about registry errors, I have registry cleaners, and is not about my computer. This is simply and completely about this video being put through a coffee straw. I played other videos a the same time I was trying to play this video. All fine. This was the only video acting up.
clbackus 1 year ago
@clbackus Maybe it was overloaded with others trying to watch at the same time. I did not get even a stutter not once. So if it you think it was done on purpose by big brother it would be for everyone including me but it wasnt.
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@clbackus Seriously? Plays fine for me.
jcromartie 1 year ago
@jcromartie Yes, This morning it plays fine. What changed, nothing other than my IP address. How? Disconnect internet, and reconnected.
clbackus 1 year ago
Comment removed
syanen 1 year ago
Mike Lee!!! Rand Paul!! Ron Paul!!! BJ Lawson!!!
Arise America!
NCIcaucus 1 year ago 3
*yawn*
ToroQ3000 1 year ago
Obama you leech, i hope Ron Paul beats you in 12.
Welker541 1 year ago 11
Love the dramatic horror music.
bpargin 1 year ago
I do not understand why C4L opposes this bill. You would think C4L would favor limiting the power of corporations to interfere in elections and control the government.
kathicII 1 year ago
@kathicII The reason is that the bill is selective. Not equal rights. Same as allowing a white person to a benifit that isn't available to a black person based on color. Unions are corperations that support the Dems along with other businesses that support the Dems agenda. Note that every tax paying citizen is a corperation that is not exempted in the bill with the issue of the social security card so this bill is the start of duct tape to the first amendment.
biga87718 1 year ago
@biga87718 One: Corporations are not people. They should not have the same rights as people. Two: If all people are bound by this law as you say, then the people in Unions will also be bound by it. I fail to see how requiring the attachment of a name to campaign money is anti 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment does not guarantee anonymity for said speech.
kathicII 1 year ago
We need some reality in 2012...
OilTheGun 1 year ago
Not sure short of a nuke how DC is going to get cleaned out.
VirginianAmerican 1 year ago
Follow the money trail all the way to its' creation to pinpoint the true underlying problem in the American political and economic woes.
Politicians legalize fraud so that banks can create money from nothing while charging interest on it.
dlucas90 1 year ago
@megawarpvideo Oh I know. I'm just saying, the reality is that we've been bankrupt. This whole "recession/depression" thing is an illusion. I don't really care about big businesses, or if they bring in lots of money to the "economy". They mean nothing to me. We could all live better without them.
Cstrife234 1 year ago
Nancy Pelosi would be the last person I would want to teach an economics class.
doc7474 1 year ago
game over
EdMan2012 1 year ago
Help Peter Schiff win the Republican Primary in Connecticut August 10th. He was Ron Paul's economic advisor and we need him just as bad so please visit his website shiffforsenate and make phone calls and donate on Thursday the 29th of July for a moneybomb!
cybermutagen 1 year ago
The dramatic music is a bit much, don't you think? Especially coupled with silly phrases like "OBAMACARE" and "FRANKenDODD REFORM"... C'mon guys, I thought you were above stuff like this. How about we stick to facts and leave name-calling out of it.
YAOMTC 1 year ago
republicans/democrats.....choose your poison.
piecarbob 1 year ago
I have an idea for a new form of government in every country. The 'people' are the executive officer(president) so all laws made by congress must be voted(approved or vetoed) by the 'people'.
All people in political office are subject to review every 6 months; meaning they come up for vote again. If they are ever VOTED out they receive no pension.
All new and existing laws will be put to a vote by the people.
No more leaders and very likely all the worlds problems will end.
wetweasel56 1 year ago
@wetweasel56 good idea. but 6 months, i feel, is too short a time to see if changes are working. One year would be cool for me and two years would be the max. I also believe laws should be decided by the people. But the congress should still be there to produce a simple and legal copy of the law. The legal document covers all the bases and closes the loopholes while the simple copy is a shorter copy released to the public that clearly expresses pros and cons of the law.
tallassb 1 year ago
@wetweasel56 Im tired of idiocy like the filibuster whoever uses it. We need to move ideas quickly, find out if they work and amend them later. I feel that having a last resort to stall a law is not right because there may be much more important things to be done that are waiting in line.
tallassb 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Come on people! Where are you at?
tintlio 1 year ago
If you really want to get "Tea Party" candidates, USE THE INTERNET! Find out what your local, state and federal candidates are REALLY all about. This time around is about making America work for AMERICANS! Take responsibility, investigate, don't vote based on party, don't vote based on what people tell you, vote on who you think will do the best job (but investigate first, disinfo abounds when it really counts!)! Remember, Scott Brown ran as a repub "tea party" candidate, but he votes dem!
-Oz
Ozlanthos 1 year ago 2
IS THIS TRUE??? youtube.com/watch?v=3HAf-OvB77o
MrEuroheritage 1 year ago
A true American would stop paying the income tax as it is not apportioned back to the states as stated by the constitution.
drifterted 1 year ago
Those who support this bill have not thuroughly looked into this bill. It EXCLUDES any orginzation the Fed deems to powerful in the political spectrum, such as the NRA and Unions. Orwell was right, All animals are free, but some are more free than others. It is another blantant attack on grassroots movements as this will do nothing to hinder the machine but make it more powerful, and also intimidate political dissent.
KLEEBRIGHT 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
alex jones sucks
spread the word
NefariousBanana 1 year ago
4 minutes in and its a complete joke. I hope people feel better after watching this but you are NOT voting out of this hole. Marxist now rule America completely and voting will not solve our problems.
Edgrot 1 year ago
Adam Kokesh lost for Congress, and it seems campaign for liberty people will also let Peter Schiff lose in the Senate this month... Seems that only like a few hundred people are trying to get this people voted. The rest of America seems to lazy to try, even supposedly freedom thinking americans... so sad.
stonecast 1 year ago
@stonecast
that's a shame.
jmjfanss 1 year ago
@stonecast...it's their districts and Dem controlled states. There will be a big turn over in November, just wait and see.
wetweasel56 1 year ago 2
This is a very partisan clip from campaign for liberty, these Republicans hide behind the constitution to help their buddies, even though they are on the right side of the argument, I can do my own research I'm tired of paying for inefficient, overpaid regulators who get bribed off any way. This bill will hurt the grass roots more than Corp.
No more taxes, No property tax, no income tax and bring back the empire to protect our borders and the states, nullification and interposition!
europa 1 year ago
patriots visit liberty websites
dailypaul(dot)com
libertypoet(dot)com
libertypulse(dot)com
campaign4liberty 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this video is fucking propaganda
buzwazfuz 1 year ago
@buzwazfuz ,,,The TEA PARTY is here and we will not go away until our public servants do what we tell them!!! Ron Paul for President 2012...
petiemac24 1 year ago 3
@buzwazfuz everything you allow yourself to be exposed to is propaganda
Jicim 1 year ago
at least nancy pelosi wants to legalize marijuana
buzwazfuz 1 year ago
@buzwazfuz
and put you in jail if you cant afford her govt approved cartel insurance she is a liar and a shill, and Im pretty sure she has been apart od the walking dead for a few years....so shes got that going for her....
europa 1 year ago
Music is too loud.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
The change is coming, just like in 2006
Sadly, to many people are still living in Wonderland
sansez 1 year ago
Comment removed
yakyakyak69 1 year ago
Fundamentally Transform:
Fundamental = Radical
Transform = Revolution
yakyakyak69 1 year ago
Ron Paul 2012 or bust
Shohadaku 1 year ago 36
i dont know the details of this bill, but going by this video i dont see why it would be so bad if there is a law that requires a statement of who paid for the certain political ads. obviously it should apply to all including to unions though. but as i said i dont know all the details of the bill
noogie123 1 year ago
@noogie123...did you know that certain groups are exempt? Unions will be exempt and they are big Dem supporters now.
wetweasel56 1 year ago
@wetweasel56 yes, which is obviously bullshit. it should apply to all groups or none at all. but in principle i see nothing wrong with a law forcing disclosure of funders of political advertising
noogie123 1 year ago
Everything of value is gone in this country.
isssssssce 1 year ago 2
Good-bye first amendment. You will be missed.
Forlo12345 1 year ago 2
The fact that both parties are controlled by the same people doesn't change whether or not this passes. Focus on the real problem that is all of government and the way it is taken over.
Shaunt1 1 year ago
Oh the special treatment for the unions... I'm shocked.
Voy2378 1 year ago
The clip would have been more effective if the background music either is dropped or subdued. Too much noise.
hlwrites 1 year ago
This video didn't do a very good job of explaining to the laymen how this bill is a negative for the American people.
Are libertarians scared they won't be able to create a party if corporate donors are exposed?
I support Campaign For Liberty, but the Bartok-esque music in the background and the lack of solid information made this whole video seem like a right-wing propoganda piece.
Keep it classier & more info-based than this!
Matchu80 1 year ago
depressed music, depressed video
everything will be OK
sov19871987 1 year ago
@xWren How the hell is Angle a teao-con?
Nillok 1 year ago
Yes, please leave out the annoying music...
cowboy219 1 year ago
dear campaign for liberty,
please cut out the lame music from future videos. I believe it takes away from your message.
asphyxiafeeling 1 year ago
i'm confused.
bigb47 1 year ago
Dan Lungren is a police state thug who made absolutely no sense at all. I'm very disappointed in the CfL for aligning with this neocon thug.
djcharleyd 1 year ago
America = capitalism,,, LOL,, yeah right.... America = Central Planning... There will be no freedom left in america...
bjarnet3 1 year ago
Yay! I hope it passes! <3
xsithos 1 year ago
You know what the dumbocrats are probably looking at the repugnacans thinking that they stole their lines from four years ago.
pjfislord 1 year ago
uhh fuck you nancy pelosi
LibertySole 1 year ago 3
shut the fuck up about the music you whiney little cry babies
BLLAARRRGG 1 year ago 2
Some of those flags were missing some stars.
RumbleHD 1 year ago
Stop supporting Zionism. That is what no politician has the balls to say because the Israeli lobby is the most powerful lobby in America.
TheArJist 1 year ago
Republican or democrat it doesnt matter its just a dirty rat race designed to keep us distracted while these corrupt FUCKS take our rights and rob us blind...
IndoeSMoke 1 year ago 7
@IndoeSMoke Be that as it may, you gotta give some credit to the republicans for having recently obstructed the Disclose Act and it's imposition on free speech.
QuartuvLarry 1 year ago
I blame Bush and Fox news.
whippoorwillss 1 year ago
@whippoorwillss I blame the absolute idiots ---- like you!
MsWanderer1 1 year ago
@MsWanderer1 Wow you don't know satire when you see it?
whippoorwillss 1 year ago
@whippoorwillss I blame the women that don't give us pussy when we need it. Who has time to think of starting wars when you're getting laid?
mentalholocaust 1 year ago 2
ONOZ THIS ARE SRS BSNS GAIZ, WE NEEDZ TEH GOODER SLAVE-DRIVERS OR ELSE!
Guest655321 1 year ago
the most psychopathic are the most driven. the most driven are the most likely to succeed in life. combine this with a surveillance state, and you have people in prominent positions being blackmailed for their psychopathic behaviors. for many it is not blackmail, but a "deal with the devil".
zapproowsdower 1 year ago
The music is a bit too morose, notwithstanding the fact that some of these scumbags really are blood sucking vampires.
schulwitz 1 year ago
Dan Lungren is no friend of liberty. He voted for the wall street bailout and is going to be voted out in november.
bi0dude42O 1 year ago 2
Supported by the media equals being a Zionist. Simple observation.
efectomariposa93 1 year ago
4:38 Isn't this the guy that thought Guam was going to tip over?
1eyednewt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes we can = thank you satan (if played in reverse)
ic300x 1 year ago
Ugh, lose the music...
3rdEchel0n 1 year ago 4
No NWO!
zrzr4 1 year ago
nice horror flick.very scary.
taxisgay12 1 year ago
Nancy Pelosi never knows what she's talking about. She's fed info from "economists" heh.
Cstrife234 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Cstrife234
I hate her sooooooooo much.
Just looking at her makes me mad.
ic300x 1 year ago
I like the changing Rep/Dem logos in the margins. Keeps me from having to strain my eyes to read the small text. Gj on that. Gd idea.
On topic: Oppose the Disclose Act. Oppose what the existing administration being puppeteer-ed by the Fed tells you. Wall Street fraudsters do NOT care about you. They're the same as they've always been, thieves, & the whole deal w/ the Disclose Act, & the FCC and DHS taking over the internet is this: They want to take away your freedom of speech. It's that simple
syko52 1 year ago
@syko52 Here here. The funny thing is we're not headed toward Bankruptcy. We've been there since the 30s.
Cstrife234 1 year ago
@syko52
Taking away the internet is =
to burning down the library of alexandria
ic300x 1 year ago 3
is this pass it will be a disaster
StraussBR 1 year ago
So, this bill makes it that if I donate money, the government will always know about it?
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Yup. And if you donate to the 'wrong' sources, then it makes you an enemy. Imagine if, let's say, the Tea Party gets labeled as a terrorist organization. If you donate to the Tea Party, how does that make you any different from a terrorist yourself?
Now can you see how this bill can be a problem?
Muddypantsjo 1 year ago
Dirty politicians' dirtier propaganda. But don't blame them, blame the stupid American people who elected them.
focus21x 1 year ago
Sad... To be honest, both democrats and Republicans are awful. The only thing that can happen is that the people need to realize what is going on and then vote them out
goodatbasebal 1 year ago 4
fuck. not cool.
Decentralism 1 year ago
I liked how that lady's "version" of the constitution was the size of a dictionary.
eurohim 1 year ago 7
I want to see some real analysis of this bill. Scary music and heart string pulling raises my alarms. I'm a life long registered independent. I lean to the libertarian right but I'm not going to be scared into supporting something I don't fully understand.
.
Show me the analysis...
.
kmg501 1 year ago 3
@kmg501 There's a link in the description to a post that has loads of information on the bill.
fcc420 1 year ago
@fcc420
I read their description, frankly it's more of the same. Scary noises and not much substance. I'm all about winning the war against the left with sound ideas but I reject scare tactics. Show me the point by point breakdown of why this bill is a problem without all the emotional invective.
kmg501 1 year ago
@kmg501 Just use some critical thinking and common sense and it is easy to see that this bill is not for transparency of the government for the people, it is for transparency of the people for the government.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago 32
@Mauhadeeb28
Implying the lack of thinking ability isn't an argument. Supplying an actual break down of the point by point facts is.
kmg501 1 year ago
@kmg501 I agree with you that what you just said is not an argument. I did not imply anything as I was not arguing. No need to be defensive. I was reffering you to simply think about it yourself instead of relying on others to do the thinking for you. I find it rather obvious why it is bad hence the end of my initial comment but you may think otherwise and that is your right.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28 Please clarify: What exactly is in the bill that is against the people?
3:50 Special interests fund our political campaigns, thus destroying democracy.
5:28 Carving some special interests however, is wrong. The bill still better than what we have now, since now we have "nothing".
6:35 How does transparency infringe Freedom of speech?
I am an independent, free thinker, and don't vote based on party lines. I'm open minded to your suggestions thanks.
esiosan 1 year ago
@esiosan It makes the individual donor transparent to the government. It doesn't matter who is funding who, it matters who you choose to vote for. Are you saying that you wouldn't vote for a candidate based on who else is supporting them? That doesn't seem very "open mined".
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Actually, I would base my vote for a candidate based off from two funding factors. 1, as you said, is WHO funds them, and 2, is WHO the candidate accepts as a source of funding, be they directly tied or independent of the candidate.
Who someone allies themselves with, especially when it comes to business and politics, says a lot about the character of a candidate. And yes, I apply this to Obama as much as anyone else.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong Insurance companies gave money to each and every candidate during the last presidential elections. Does that mean that each and every candidate was in the pocket of the insurance companies? I am sure racist people gave money to Obama's campaign, is he not supposed to except their money too?
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Well, yes and no. I'm sure there are a few candidates in their pockets, sure. But I would like to know who is privately running campaigns on behalf of a candidate, and if said candidate accepts such an endorsement. The simple fact is, we are letting corporations get into politics in such a fashion, that I, as well as many others, WANT to know who is saying what, and for what reasons. I would defy you to tell me what is wrong with that notion.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong It is a severe breach of privacy. You and every other person or business has a right to spend their money however they see fit and have a right to keep said expenditures private. Why should you have a right to know who I am supporting with my money? If I want to disclose that information then so be it. If I don't that is up to me. This bill completely negates that privacy.
This is not for us, it is for the politicians currently in office. It gives them more to divide us by.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28
IF this bill applied to the individual, I might agree with you. But it does not, so I do not. A corporation is not a person, first and foremost, and a corporation using its money to publicly support or slam a candidate is actually using the combined monies of everybody from the bottom on up, whether or not they agree with the corp. This does not give it the same rights as the individual. In that sense, I cannot see whats wrong with forcing it to fess up to its own actions.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong This bill affects any organization that pools money for campaigning be it a private or corporate.
A corporation is a group of individuals. A corporation does not use its monies "bottom on up, whether or not they agree with the corp", they use money given to them willingly by consumers and stock holders. Once the money is in their possession they have every right to do with it as they please.
It is a knock on privacy. This helps the politicians not the citizens.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong And this bill does apply to the individuals. It will force these corps and groups to name names of individual donors of more than $1,000. Just because some people are rich doesn't mean they deserve any less privacy than those less wealthy.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Not agreed. If people are willing to back a politician to such an extent as $1,000 or more, then why would they be afraid to fess up to it? I'll put it as simple as a certain congressman said it. The only ones who are afraid of disclosure, are those with something to hide. And you know as well as I do that Corporations have no business in running separate campaigns. Since when has the democratic process been in the private sector in such fashions?
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
As for the right to privacy...look at the first Amendment. It guarantees the right to free speech. It says nothing on issues of privacy. The 4th and 5th Amendments do, but only in cases of criminal or alleged criminal behavior.
In short, infringing on your privacy in a non court manner IS NOT unconstitutional. If you want to make that argument, you'll have to rewrite the constitution first.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong My privacy is not in the "private sector" it is in "my sector" and I have a right to my privacy as you do.
As far as your "only ones who are afraid of disclosure, are those with something to hide.", does that mean you are for the patriot act and government mandated airport x-ray scanners? They say the same quote about those things.
It doesn't matter if I have something to hide or not, you have no right to know what I do with my own money plain and simple.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Well, I would like to see a more comprehensive version of the patriot act, sure. As for Airport scanners, I am 100% in agreement with them, if it means a safer trip. As for your money and what you do with it...I'd agree...if those actions didn't have potential effects that might make their way to me. If you will use your money, to THAT amount, to run a public campaign, then let the directly related information be just as public. To NOT do so is cowardly & hypocritical.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong It is not a public campaign, it is a private campaign. If it were my tax dollars being spent then yes, I should know how, but if it is not my money I have no right to know how others spend it.
There is nothing hypocritical or cowardly about wanting my liberty and privacy. I find it much more cowardly to give up ones personal liberties for the illusion of safety and far more hypocritical to want your own personal privacy whilst not allowing all others to enjoy theirs.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28
I am not hypocritical in the least. If I spend that much money on a public campaign (and yes, once you use any sort of media to spread a political message it IS public) then I'd gladly be willing to disclose who I am and what I do. It is as simple as this, if someone is going to try to sway public opinion and choices, then said someone has no right to complain about privacy. You forefit it when you make the choice to influence others.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong You need to correct your usage of the words public and private in the context of your arguments.
It is spread on privately owned tv stations that contract with privately owned cable companies. Public would mean they are publicly funded.
"if someone is going to try to sway public opinion and choices, then said someone has no right to complain about privacy".In that case, I want to see your voting history, as well as your medical history because that may affect me as well
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28.
"In that case, I want to see your voting history, as well as your medical history because that may affect me as well"
My voting history is all yours. Matter of fact, that is obtainable through legal means. Prove to me that my medical history is relevant to this conversation, and I'll continue on that tangent, otherwise, your point there is moot.
As for public and private, I'm basing off from the fact that you are effecting the public, & are not remaining private in your actions
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
continued...
Yes, each of our actions has (usually inadvertent) effects on others. But once you set out to purposely effect the major social decisions of others, you are no longer subject to privacy, in that sense. You have directly set out to change, en mass, the minds of others, and in doing such, should very well state your motivations and MOTIVATORS behind said actions. If someone want me to vote a certain way, I want to know who has that intent and why. Privacy (in that case) be damned.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong I am in know affecting "major social decisions of others" by campaigning for a politician. I am using my first amendment right of free speech to speak about something specific. Spending my money to promote those beliefs are my prerogative. 80% of the US consider themselves Christian: Do you think all churches should be forced to show who has tithed to them since they have "set out to affect major social decisions of others?
You even want my motivation not just the dollar amount?
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Your motivation is assumed by who you are, what you do, and how you do it. As for who should be affected by this, I do agree with the $1,000 cutoff. Perhaps even higher. But the fact is this: This is MAINLY aimed at corporations, who have no business in politics anyway. To even allow a faceless, non corporal entity the same rights as an individual is, in my view, a gaffe on the part of the SCOTUS. This bill is basically a way to remedy that. continued next....
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong Even if the bill is mainly aimed at corporations it does indeed affect the freedom of speech and privacy of individuals. Putting a cap on someones mouth simply because they speak louder is ludicrous.
If you want to remedy the situation let's get rid of corporations all together. This bill is merely putting a bandage on an infected wound. Instead of creating new legislation, how about repealing the original legislation that caused the problem in the first place ie corporate law
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Again, this bill DOES NOT affect free speech. In no way, shape, or form does it PREVENT corporations from speaking out in a political manner. As for privacy, I stated it earlier. If you wish to effect the public en mass like that, then privacy (in the sense of who is funding said effect) is forfeited. In terms of the layman, if you want to change my mind, I want to know who the hell you are.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong Andrew, this bill punishes people without a crime committed. Taking away someones privacy via their money is directly affecting their freedom of speech. That money goes towards signs, stickers and TV ads. You are advocating denial of freedom for having a loud voice.
Why don't you hold religions and schools to the same standards since they affect people "en mass"?
Explain to me why I should lose my privacy because the masses choose to listen.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28
What punishment in there in both being able to voice yourself whilst telling who you are? No as far as I see. To equate your situation to a church or school is foolish. Mainly because when a Church run's an ad, it always states who/what it is anyway. A school is a learning institution, which also states it's identity. Again, there is no freedom from having a loud voice. It simply saying that the voice must be connected to whatever "produces" that voice.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
continued....
As for your privacy, it's simple. If you want to get a point across, then you should state who you are, so that the validity of your words and actions can be found out. Corporations have agendas, which usually sullies any chance of honest campaigning. Again, by simply telling who you are, what do you honestly lose? Like I said before, only those with something to hide, hate disclosure. Really now, what do you have to fear, other than your own actions being brought to light?
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong A religion's/church's sole purpose is to influence the masses yet you aren't asking the government to force them to release the names of their donors.
Most of your most recent comment was dribble so I am going to move on.
Back to logic. Your ideology is faulty and you are consistently proving that. Please take time to reevaluate what you think is right/wrong. Instead of regurgitating what you have been told, think for yourself. Please. For your own sake.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Dribble is usually seen by those who do not comprehend. But I digress. Religion...well, ever hear of the separation of Church and State? That covers that. As for the faultiness of my "ideology" (which I tend to call cold logic), please, elaborate. You assume I don't think for myself, yet I have been doing nothing BUT that. And still, you have yet to show how free speech is hindered, or what you really have to lose. Please, answer me. What actions do you want kept hidden?
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
continued...
The fact is, nothing is lost by saying who you are, so far as funding independent campaigns goes. This is simply a way to hide what would otherwise be suspicious connections between a candidate and a private campaigner. Republicans are afraid of unpopular ties being brought to light, which is the only real issue here. Hell, Dems have unpopular business connections, but you don't see them hiding behind the thin veil of an argument such as "privacy" and "free speech" arguments.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
Continued....
In short, why not step out of your rightist ideology, and apply a bit of logic to the situation. Privacy isn't hurt by stating who you are when you fund something so large as a campaign. Free speech is not hurt in the least, and you have not shown how it is....basically making that nothing but a straw mans argument. I have yet to see you even refute the argument that effecting decisions en mass warrants disclosure. You tried churches and schools, but made no headway there.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
last...
Because they both disclose their identities anyway. Basically, I have yet to see an argument from you that actually applies reasonable logic to the situation. Honestly, when it comes to the disclose act, using the two arguments you have been is a fools task. If you wanted to argue that the exemptions made in the bill are unfair, then I'd back you 100%. But you decided to argue points that simply have no logical backing, for that, I can only stand in awe of you & the political right.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong Your dribble was incomprehensible..
Andrew, your smirky separation of church and state comment is silly. Do you honestly believe that religion has no influence in politics and society?
As far as your faulty ideology,I have been tearing it apart for a day now. Whether you choose to see it or not means nothing to me. I can only repeat myself for so long before I tire.
As far as what actions I want kept hidden: whatever I feel. That's my right unless I commit a crime.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Incomprehensible? Really? Well, I would suggest taking a reading and comprehension course then. Some high schools and most colleges still offer it.
Religion, on legal scales (as in they can do this or that) is separate of the state. In morally focused decisions, it takes effect. Try a better argument. As for tearing my arguments apart, well, I like that delusion, but have not seen it yet. Any examples you used were faulty and easily rendered moot.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong If my examples are so easily "rendered moot", why have you not done so?
Still you can not compute the logical side of how religion affects people, affects politics. Either that or you are simply refusing admission for argument's sake.
If you refuse to see the correlation of that example of influence/privacy "en mass" and the Disclose Act, then there is really no point in any further discussion.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28
As far as disclosure in religion is concerned, I rendered your point moot by stating that it already discloses it identity. Furthermore, the separation of church and state goes so far as to assure that politics/law may not mandate what a religion does in terms of finances or practice/worship. The only real correlation between it and politics is the moral guidance it provides individual lawmakers at the decision table, which doesn't further your point at all, hence why it is moot.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
Oh, and if you are going to say that it coerces the decisions of lawmakers, and thus needs to be disclosed, I again point to the separation topic. Beyond that, I need no argument. Your decision to try to use religion as an example to prove me wrong, was in and of itself wrong. You failed to comprehend the legal limits your argument would hit, and thus blindly charged in with a fool's way of trying to refute me. You might have had better luck sticking to the schools issue, but I doubt it.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong You are refusing to ook at it how I have laid it out. Regardless if the state is separated from the church, the church has influence, which was my whole point. If you are saying that you have a right to other's privacy since they influence "en mass" then you are saying you have a right to religion's, preacher's, doctor's, lawyer's, scientist's, teacher's, and philosopher's privacy because they intend to influence the masses. Wake up, son.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong You are blinded by your ego. You aren't even trying to comprehend what I am saying. You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing at this point and trying to talk big but you aren't really putting anything into the debate. This is not a pissing contest no matter how much you wish it to be.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong lol Nothing you've said proves anything. You are still denying that religion has great influence "en mass". Also: "I rendered your point moot by stating that it already discloses it identity", no it does not disclose the identity of the individual donors. Please try another angle. I am tired of repeating myself.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28
In the sense that it as a whole (call it a corporation) discloses itself, yes, religion does just that. The bill calls for the corporations (i.e: the GROUP of donors) to disclose their identities. Regardless of that though, religion as an arguing point for you is STILL moot due to the separation of church and state. By the by, please quote where I denied the influence of religion. I only denied that it CAN be influenced by law. Please, check your reading capabilities.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong "I only denied that it CAN be influenced by law." That doesn't make any sense. How does law influence religion in the context of our debate?
Andrew, read my words. Regardless of a separation of church and state, churches have far more influence on voters than any campaign. How are you not understanding this? A churches influences is not is not held to simply "religious" topics. Christians have tons of influence on the law that we have today.
This is ridiculous. I'm done.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Goodness your idiocy gets me. I was stating that I acknowledged that religion cannot be influenced by law (i.e: it cannot be forced by law to take an action such as disclosure of information...per your suggestion/example of unfairness). I DID acknowledge that it influences law in that it serves as a moral guide for lawmakers. Listen pal, if you want to accuse me on not comprehending something, then you'd very well better know what the hell it is you're actually talking about.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong "Listen pal, if you want to accuse me on not comprehending something, then you'd very well better know what the hell it is you're actually talking about."---facepalm.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28
If that's a rebuttal, then I hope to the lord above that you were face palming your own remark. Because as far as intelligent conversation goes, your usable input died like 10 comments ago. Like I said, comprehension, try it some time.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong So, so sad.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28
Yeah, I think we're pretty much done here. Your viable contributions to this ended...well...there never really were any. So yeah, it is sad that I had to amuse such a pointless tangent of yours for so long.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong I would not be in such awe at your hypocritical stance on privacy and liberty if you were consistent and said "all information of any donations to any campaign by any and all individuals should be transparent public information". I would still highly disagree with you but at least you wouldn't be following flip flopping ideals. There is no ideologically sound middle of the road on this, my friend. Either all or none have privacy you can't pick and choose. What's it going to be?
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndrewDeLong The only way to find someones voting history via "legal means" is to ask them for it. You said "if someone is going to try to sway public opinion and choices, then said someone has no right to complain about privacy" and you are now trying to sway my choices and your health may indirectly affect may health, so I want to see your medical history.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndrewDeLong Hey "if you have nothing to hide".....
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong Everything that anyone of us does has influence on others but that does not give us a right to their private information. Either everyone has privacy or no one has privacy. You can't pick and choose who and who should not have privacy(barring criminals). When you start to take away bits of that form this group and a little from that group, you empower the governments with rights it should not have.
What happens if you are in the minority and others are stealing your rights?
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
Are you aware that various organizations, such as the NRA, got themselves exempted from the req