A few years ago I had a show in America. I'd mention to American friends I would be visiting their country of birth and every conversation went exactly like this:
"Where are you going?"
"Texas."
"Why on Earth do you want to want to go there?"
"I have a show in Austin."
"Oh, Austin. That's cool."
And when I visited for a week, Austin was pretty cool. But out of all the places I've been to in the US it felt the most "American" due to the accents and big cars. And it is the only place on Earth where I've seen people riding Segways as an actual mode of transport, and not for fun or a sight seeing tour. That was pretty funny.
I believe the limit is something like $2,500 as an individual. The reason is probably due to campaign finance reform legislation, but I am not completely sure.
I believe the limit is something like $2,500 as an individual. The reason is probably due to campaign finance reform legislation, but I am not completely sure.
The article you linked talked about $4,600.
...whose totals far exceeded the $4,600 that individuals can legally give to the primary and general elections...
Would this be $4,600 total, or $4,600 for both max? Either way, it's bullshit if you ask me. Why should I be limited in the amount of money I wish to support my candidate with? It makes no sense.
I believe the limit is something like $2,500 as an individual. The reason is probably due to campaign finance reform legislation, but I am not completely sure.
The article you linked talked about $4,600.
...whose totals far exceeded the $4,600 that individuals can legally give to the primary and general elections...
Would this be $4,600 total, or $4,600 for both max? Either way, it's bullshit if you ask me. Why should I be limited in the amount of money I wish to support my candidate with? It makes no sense.
Your right, the 4,600 is a total of both, you are limited to 2,300 for the primary and 2,300 for the general election.
On the one hand, I like the idea. We have a problem in that people need a lot of money in order to get in power. Even to run for mayor, or town council, requires thousands of dollars to put signs all over town and such. Thus, there is an unequal opportunity and representation in government. Only people with enough extra cash are able to run for office. Also, people with lots of money to donate have unequal representation in government, as they can help a candidate win or not win. Most of the time, the candidate with the most money wins. So putting limits and regulations on how candidates fund their campaigns makes sense in terms of keeping the elections a fair game.
The problem is that these sorts of regulations fly in the face of free speech and economic freedom, but they are also unenforceable.
Hypothetically let's say you want to make a law that says candidates can't spend more than $100,000 on TV commercials. Ok. Let's pretend that Bill Gates really likes candidate B and decides to make his own $5,000,000 commercial supporting that candidate. Instead of donating to the campaign, he just does it himself. Are you going to impose on Bill Gates freedom to buy TV commercials that say whatever he wants to say? No, you can't do that.
What if someone who owns a TV station really likes candidate B. On the news they say lots of things supporting candidate B. Are you going to say thay aren't allowed to do that? The candidate didn't ask for it, or pay for it. The news just did it on their own. It's free speech, you can't do anything about it.
Let's say you make a law that candidates can't spend more than $1,000 on mailing out fliers to people's houses. Ok, every candidate sends out their $1,000 worth of mailings using the cheapest postage. Now candidate C happens to need some landscaping on his lawn. He spends $50,000 of his own money on some fancy landscaping. The landscaper happens to really like that candidate, they're high school friends. The landscaper decides to take $1,000 of his recent profits and send out his own mailing. Who are you to tell him he can't do it? Can you prove the candidate told him to? If he did it of his own volition, are you going to restrict his freedom of speech?
I think the major problem of campaign finance reform is that it reduces the voices of the candidates themselves and increases the voices of the masses. The voices of the candidates themselves will be less heard, and instead the voices of the news networks, and people on forums are more heard. Disinformation, rumors, speculation, rhetoric, and people talking from a position of ignorance will gain greater weight than the things the candidates themselves are saying.
In conclusion, it sucks that whoever has the most money wins. It sucks a lot. I wish I could fix it. But I, nor anyone else, seems to be able to come up with a solution that is actually enforceable, or doesn't make things worse.
Man, people in my state are scary. I can't tell if the people who did this are pro-Obama (Obama will kill the Bear Market on Wall St! Yay!) or anti-Obama (Dead animals is what you will get if you elect Obama! Ohnoes!). Either way, someone needs to lock up the crazies.
I just got back from early voting. I was the only twenty year old there, and there were only five people. FIVE! Now, I know that early voting had started Monday, but I think that this is sad. Granted, most people around here are McCain supporters, but still. Regardless, Obama just got a vote in Texas, home of conservative everything (even the Democrats hate Obama here).
I just got back from early voting. I was the only twenty year old there, and there were only five people. FIVE! Now, I know that early voting had started Monday, but I think that this is sad. Granted, most people around here are McCain supporters, but still. Regardless, Obama just got a vote in Texas, home of conservative everything (even the Democrats hate Obama here).
I just got back from early voting. I was the only twenty year old there, and there were only five people. FIVE! Now, I know that early voting had started Monday, but I think that this is sad. Granted, most people around here are McCain supporters, but still. Regardless, Obama just got a vote in Texas, home of conservative everything (even the Democrats hate Obama here).
Even in Austin?
I should have been more specific: Southeast Texas.
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.
U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Friday night rejected the suit by attorney Philip J. Berg, who alleged that Obama was not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency. Berg claimed that Obama is either a citizen of his father's native Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia after he moved there as a boy.
Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father. His parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian man.
Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad.
Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."
I like the result (throwing out the case) but I don't understand the ruling. Wouldn't electing an ineligible candidate be a bad thing and who would have the standing to bring such a case to court?
I like the result (throwing out the case) but I don't understand the ruling. Wouldn't electing an ineligible candidate be a bad thing and who would have the standing to bring such a case to court?
If you are born on US soil, you are a US citizen. That's how it works. Illegal immigrants from Mexico and other places come to the US and have children. Those children are 100% US citizens automatically, even though their parents are not. The result is that those children get to go to school and receive other benefits from the government. Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is part of the United States. End of story.
I like the result (throwing out the case) but I don't understand the ruling. Wouldn't electing an ineligible candidate be a bad thing and who would have the standing to bring such a case to court?
If you are born on US soil, you are a US citizen. That's how it works. Illegal immigrants from Mexico and other places come to the US and have children. Those children are 100% US citizens automatically, even though their parents are not. The result is that those children get to go to school and receive other benefits from the government. Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is part of the United States. End of story.
I agree with you on Obama's citizenship but that was not my question. My question was about the ruling.
From what I can tell, the ruling was based on one of the requirements to show legal standing. In order to bring a lawsuit, you have to first show legal standing. One of the requirements is that you demonstrate "injury in fact." In other words, you have to show that something has caused actual harm, either financially, health-wise, or something else tangible. The judge ruled that the alleged ineligibility of the candidate didn't seem like it had caused definite harm. (This is probably because the candidate is NOT ineligible, and therefore his ineligibility cannot possibly have caused harm, but that's just speculation.)
This is basically a ruling to keep the case from coming to court...the judge probably realized it was a bullshit case and used whatever procedural dismissal he could to prevent the guy from wasting any more time.
Maybe the McCain campaign started this whole thing. I mean, if you told McCain that Obama was born in Hawaii, he'd probably question whether Obama could be president. Hawaii wasn't even a state when McCain was born.
Maybe the McCain campaign started this whole thing. I mean, if you told McCain that Obama was born in Hawaii, he'd probably question whether Obama could be president. Hawaii wasn't even a state when McCain was born.
Comments
"Where are you going?"
"Texas."
"Why on Earth do you want to want to go there?"
"I have a show in Austin."
"Oh, Austin. That's cool."
And when I visited for a week, Austin was pretty cool. But out of all the places I've been to in the US it felt the most "American" due to the accents and big cars. And it is the only place on Earth where I've seen people riding Segways as an actual mode of transport, and not for fun or a sight seeing tour. That was pretty funny.
On the one hand, I like the idea. We have a problem in that people need a lot of money in order to get in power. Even to run for mayor, or town council, requires thousands of dollars to put signs all over town and such. Thus, there is an unequal opportunity and representation in government. Only people with enough extra cash are able to run for office. Also, people with lots of money to donate have unequal representation in government, as they can help a candidate win or not win. Most of the time, the candidate with the most money wins. So putting limits and regulations on how candidates fund their campaigns makes sense in terms of keeping the elections a fair game.
The problem is that these sorts of regulations fly in the face of free speech and economic freedom, but they are also unenforceable.
Hypothetically let's say you want to make a law that says candidates can't spend more than $100,000 on TV commercials. Ok. Let's pretend that Bill Gates really likes candidate B and decides to make his own $5,000,000 commercial supporting that candidate. Instead of donating to the campaign, he just does it himself. Are you going to impose on Bill Gates freedom to buy TV commercials that say whatever he wants to say? No, you can't do that.
What if someone who owns a TV station really likes candidate B. On the news they say lots of things supporting candidate B. Are you going to say thay aren't allowed to do that? The candidate didn't ask for it, or pay for it. The news just did it on their own. It's free speech, you can't do anything about it.
Let's say you make a law that candidates can't spend more than $1,000 on mailing out fliers to people's houses. Ok, every candidate sends out their $1,000 worth of mailings using the cheapest postage. Now candidate C happens to need some landscaping on his lawn. He spends $50,000 of his own money on some fancy landscaping. The landscaper happens to really like that candidate, they're high school friends. The landscaper decides to take $1,000 of his recent profits and send out his own mailing. Who are you to tell him he can't do it? Can you prove the candidate told him to? If he did it of his own volition, are you going to restrict his freedom of speech?
I think the major problem of campaign finance reform is that it reduces the voices of the candidates themselves and increases the voices of the masses. The voices of the candidates themselves will be less heard, and instead the voices of the news networks, and people on forums are more heard. Disinformation, rumors, speculation, rhetoric, and people talking from a position of ignorance will gain greater weight than the things the candidates themselves are saying.
In conclusion, it sucks that whoever has the most money wins. It sucks a lot. I wish I could fix it. But I, nor anyone else, seems to be able to come up with a solution that is actually enforceable, or doesn't make things worse.
Game over for McCain.
Here's another really good interview with Colin Powell.
Dead bear covered with Obama signs found at school
Link
This is basically a ruling to keep the case from coming to court...the judge probably realized it was a bullshit case and used whatever procedural dismissal he could to prevent the guy from wasting any more time.
Could be wrong though.