Comments on: The millionaire’s club http://bloggingblue.com/2009/11/08/the-millionaires-club/ Blogging Liberally in the Badger State Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:48:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Zach W http://bloggingblue.com/2009/11/08/the-millionaires-club/comment-page-/#comment-16486 Zach W Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:02:30 +0000 http://bloggingblue.com/?p=6884#comment-16486 Yeah, I knew it was spam the moment I saw it....unfortunately I didn't see it until a few minutes ago. Yeah, I knew it was spam the moment I saw it….unfortunately I didn’t see it until a few minutes ago.

   0 likes

]]> By: Locke http://bloggingblue.com/2009/11/08/the-millionaires-club/comment-page-/#comment-16483 Locke Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:15:29 +0000 http://bloggingblue.com/?p=6884#comment-16483 Posting this as sort of an admin note to Zach. When I got notification of a reply to this thread (from a month ago) it seemed like the above post took the word right out of my mouth. Then I realized - they did, literally. Looks like a new and unfortunately fairly cleaver spambot - or someone did it manually. Two sentences from my post were copied - verbatim - and then the nickname was a link to what looks like a gambling site. I don't know how proactive you are in anti-spam stuff, just figured I'd let you know in case you want to blacklist the IP or something. I know a few message/discussion boards & blogs I administered awhile back were just insane with how much spam crap there was - so I can appreciate the job you do and how little gets through. Posting this as sort of an admin note to Zach. When I got notification of a reply to this thread (from a month ago) it seemed like the above post took the word right out of my mouth. Then I realized – they did, literally. Looks like a new and unfortunately fairly cleaver spambot – or someone did it manually. Two sentences from my post were copied – verbatim – and then the nickname was a link to what looks like a gambling site.

I don’t know how proactive you are in anti-spam stuff, just figured I’d let you know in case you want to blacklist the IP or something. I know a few message/discussion boards & blogs I administered awhile back were just insane with how much spam crap there was – so I can appreciate the job you do and how little gets through.

   0 likes

]]> By: Locke http://bloggingblue.com/2009/11/08/the-millionaires-club/comment-page-1/#comment-15851 Locke Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:35:27 +0000 http://bloggingblue.com/?p=6884#comment-15851 I just don't know. On the one hand, I hate that money buys office for so many. And a strong public option <i>could</i> do a tremendous amount of good to clean that up...to even out the money advantage so it's more about the ideas, intelligence and dedication of the candidate. The problem I still run into is that I don't believe an individual should have any restrictions on how much money he or she can give a politician to show their support. I know it's unpopular on the web - and I've changed 180 degrees on this - but I really do believe the first amendment right to speech covers campaign contributions. As a citizen, one of the ways I exercise my free speech - is to support a candidate who is committed to the same positions I am. [I say this having never given a politician a dime :) ] And as much as I really hate the lack of transparency that's come along with the 527 groups, it seems a very clear example of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." That said, I've always thought that restrictions on a candidate's <b>expenditures</b> should not have the same Constitutional problems. I just don't any way to read a right to spend other people's money to get elected for office. Said another way, I think SCOTUS got it backwards when they allowed contribution restrictions but not expenditure restrictions in Buckley v. Valeo. At best, the <i>act of running for office itself</i> is not speech. As worst, you'd be limiting the relatively few individuals who run for office, while allowing total freedom for everyone else. I just don’t know. On the one hand, I hate that money buys office for so many. And a strong public option could do a tremendous amount of good to clean that up…to even out the money advantage so it’s more about the ideas, intelligence and dedication of the candidate.

The problem I still run into is that I don’t believe an individual should have any restrictions on how much money he or she can give a politician to show their support. I know it’s unpopular on the web – and I’ve changed 180 degrees on this – but I really do believe the first amendment right to speech covers campaign contributions. As a citizen, one of the ways I exercise my free speech – is to support a candidate who is committed to the same positions I am. [I say this having never given a politician a dime :) ] And as much as I really hate the lack of transparency that’s come along with the 527 groups, it seems a very clear example of “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”

That said, I’ve always thought that restrictions on a candidate’s expenditures should not have the same Constitutional problems. I just don’t any way to read a right to spend other people’s money to get elected for office. Said another way, I think SCOTUS got it backwards when they allowed contribution restrictions but not expenditure restrictions in Buckley v. Valeo. At best, the act of running for office itself is not speech. As worst, you’d be limiting the relatively few individuals who run for office, while allowing total freedom for everyone else.

   0 likes

]]> By: Zach W http://bloggingblue.com/2009/11/08/the-millionaires-club/comment-page-1/#comment-15850 Zach W Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:13:58 +0000 http://bloggingblue.com/?p=6884#comment-15850 I think T. Wall's hoping he can buy a seat in the Senate, just like Herb Kohl. I think T. Wall’s hoping he can buy a seat in the Senate, just like Herb Kohl.

   0 likes

]]> By: Zach W http://bloggingblue.com/2009/11/08/the-millionaires-club/comment-page-1/#comment-15837 Zach W Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:41:44 +0000 http://bloggingblue.com/?p=6884#comment-15837 Which is why I'm such a supporter of a strong public financing system for elections. If we level the playing field, we might actually see some more folks with their heads screwed on straight running for office. Which is why I’m such a supporter of a strong public financing system for elections. If we level the playing field, we might actually see some more folks with their heads screwed on straight running for office.

   0 likes

]]> By: Locke http://bloggingblue.com/2009/11/08/the-millionaires-club/comment-page-1/#comment-15833 Locke Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:41:01 +0000 http://bloggingblue.com/?p=6884#comment-15833 For me, the watershed moment was when the Republicans effectively ran no one against Herb Kohl last time around. Sure there was a guy who ran with an (R) after his name, but he got almost no money and no support from the party. Personally I really don't like that we have two parties that almost totally dominate politics - but at least one of the things about the setup should be that for most offices, the race should at least be contested. While Kohl certainly isn't the kind of guy to raise a great amount of widespread dissent (you can't really hate a guy who almost isn't there), he's gotta be about the most ineffectual Senator in the country. And yet, for one of the highest offices in the country, he effectively ran unopposed because he had so much money. I'm sure there are similar situations only with the parties reversed - it's not an R or D issue, money buys offices on both sides. It's just sad. For me, the watershed moment was when the Republicans effectively ran no one against Herb Kohl last time around. Sure there was a guy who ran with an (R) after his name, but he got almost no money and no support from the party. Personally I really don’t like that we have two parties that almost totally dominate politics – but at least one of the things about the setup should be that for most offices, the race should at least be contested. While Kohl certainly isn’t the kind of guy to raise a great amount of widespread dissent (you can’t really hate a guy who almost isn’t there), he’s gotta be about the most ineffectual Senator in the country. And yet, for one of the highest offices in the country, he effectively ran unopposed because he had so much money.

I’m sure there are similar situations only with the parties reversed – it’s not an R or D issue, money buys offices on both sides. It’s just sad.

   0 likes

]]> By: Jason Haas http://bloggingblue.com/2009/11/08/the-millionaires-club/comment-page-1/#comment-15810 Jason Haas Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:06:52 +0000 http://bloggingblue.com/?p=6884#comment-15810 I bet you Sen. Feingold isn't on that list. Terry Wall, only you can help make the senate an oligarchy! I bet you Sen. Feingold isn’t on that list.

Terry Wall, only you can help make the senate an oligarchy!

   0 likes

]]>