Public Campaign - Fair Elections Now Act - Comments

Cosmetic dentistry wiki

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 05:23:26 +0000

Hi all. Part of being creative is learning how to protect your freedom. That includes freedom from avarice. Help me! I find sites on the topic: Cosmetic dentistry wiki. I found only this - advanced cosmetic dentistry. Cosmetic dentistry, still of need teenagers for the 177 million americans with chamber mentioned date have not used. Cosmetic dentistry, underground healthy best range health procedure can fight and offer of minibuses, not it manufactured one-on-one. Thanks for the help :-), Mireille from Islands.

Just do debates

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:57:54 +0000

I believe the whole program should be scraped. Any money generated should be used for qualifications that are informative with debates for the public. Campaigne on a soap box using the internet too. I am tired of being lied to and cheated out of the better person. Lets face it, if we would have elected Ross Perot we may not be in the mess we are in today. He warned us, saw what was coming and here we are. It isn't hard to pay attention. Just give me the truth so i can make an intellegent vote.

!!

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:24:15 +0000

What an interesting story, thank you for that post.

Yeha very Useful information

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:50:52 +0000

Yeha very Useful information , this is both good reading for, have quite a few good key points, and I learn some new stuff from it too, thanks for sharing your information. regards, handbags

I watched Mr. Lessig on Bill

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:23:38 +0000

I watched Mr. Lessig on Bill Moyers tv show and thrilled that people are discussing this subject. The American people should be outraged that Politics work like they do. Obama won because he promised "CHANGE". I think the new slogan should be "CHANGE POLITICS".

Texas Election Reform

Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:51:26 +0000

I read your comment with great interest. Are you involved in any organized effort to reform these Election rules? Paul Austin Texas

Control?

Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:01:12 +0000

And how would this proposal make elections fair? Why is this only about the money? I am sick of the Democrats whining about this issue or that slight. I participated in the Texas Two Step in 2008 and was appalled at the intentional stealing of the caucus portion of my state's representation. Until we require the same rigor on our elections that we insist on foreign elections, I shall remain skeptical of the "fairness" of any election. Dead people vote in Chicago and NYC, and non-citizens or unqualified residents vote in Texas. You want to make them fair? Have citizenship authenticated at the DMV when people are getting their driving permit. This way the Motor-Voter law would ONLY allow citizens to be registered. Not interested in this option? How about when a death certificate is created by the coroner's office, or received by the banks, credit bureaus, probate court, or others, require these professionals to inform the supervisor of elections that the person is dead and forward a copy of the death certificate. That might address the issue. Still not convinced on those solutions? Here's a final try. Make photo identification required in order to exercise your right to vote. We have advised other countries to use this solution to mitigate some of the fraud in their system, why not here at home? Don't believe it's a problem - visit wewillnotbesilenced2008.com and see what happened in the last presidential election across the country. Finally, if you are harping on that I am a , you are sadly mistaken. I've been watching and participating in our election process as a US citizen and registered voter for over 20 years. Fair elections ONLY occur when citizens that are lawfully granted the right to vote via their registration are permitted reasonable access to the voting systems once their credentials are provided and verified. All others, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Disenfranchisement happens on both sides of this issue, the false positives – allowing a potential voter to cast a vote who should not be permitted, and false negatives – preventing a potential voter from exercising their right to cast a vote, both bias an election and must be vigilantly monitored in order for a “fair” election to occur. Let’s finally get this right without pushing through legislation like the one championed above.

They should better sit back

Sat, 06 Feb 2010 12:58:53 +0000

They should better sit back and watch

How...

Sat, 06 Feb 2010 12:53:39 +0000

There is no way we can get it back.

Fair elections?

Sat, 06 Feb 2010 12:52:15 +0000

No way. I don't believe such could happen.

How to stop corporate control of elections

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:23:45 +0000

When the right wing Supreme Court determined that the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)proactive provisions was unenforceable against states, Congress responded with the Rehabilitation Act (RA) which also protectes disabled people. The Rehabilitation Act required that governmental entities must comply with the Act's affirmative provisions if they receive Federal funds. Corporations are required to comply for hiring purposes if they receive Federal funds.The RA works. Corporations receiving Federal funds including by contract should be prohibited from using funds to influence political decisions similar to the way the RA works. This law would produce fair elections and eliminate conflicts of interest by elected officials as well as opportunities for bribery. There is no absolute prohibition on freedom of speech any more than corporations limit freedom of speech by their employees. If one wants to take the money there's a price to be paid. FWIW I've got decades of experience in Federal litigation and appeals with both the ADA and RA.

CAMPAIGN-FINANCE REFORM

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:16:52 +0000

In response to the Supreme Court decision in CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION, I have revised a proposal for campaign-finance reform that I offerred previously in an article titled "BLUEPRINT FOR A NON-VIOLENT REVOLUTION" (11/02/2008 on OpEdNews). My revised proposal is outlined in an article titled "Revisiting Campaign-Finance Reform", which was printed on 01/25/2010 on the OpEdNews website at: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Revisiting-Campaign-Financ-by-Blaine-Kinsey-100123-930.html

Clean elections

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:36:05 +0000

It's true that most of a Candidate's time is spent trying to raise cash- maybe that time could be better spent on focusing on social issues- it's a double edged sword! Money and Politics and Politics and Money!

our system is not working

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:45:17 +0000

Maybe it's time to redo the whole system of our republic. Republicans and democrats are both working for the rich. All they do is hagle and then pander to the lobbyists who will pay for their reelection. It's only good for the special interests and the monied people in our society. Let's start over and give the power to the people - we certainly are losing control with the present system where the lobbyists are in control, not the senators or even the president, etc. Start by dismantling the Fed and the tax system, then the whole election process. Let's wake up! Do they think we are idiots that have to hear simple campaign slogans hundreds of times over and over ad nauseum. OR maybe we should vote for the underdog or contrarian every time - that way they spend millions on campaigns and it backfires on them because we know who NOT to vote for i.e. the candidate we hear the most about! He's undoubtedly indebted to the special interests. The Ron Paul", the underdog, is probably standing on principles and experience, and would be the smart vote for the people, not the one we hear so much about. I thought why not have limited campaigns, equal for everybody, publicly financed. That way the public servant would work for the whole term at his designated task instead working to finance his next campaign for the second half of his term. Orjust imagine how much work they could get done if they had term limits!

unions ability vs corps in funding elections

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:51:55 +0000

For the past two days I keep hearing how unions and corporations will be able to spend as much as they want to influence elections. This seems to be intended to indicate there is some sort of parity workers vs bosses. Of course this does not reflect the reality. I know unions are far outspent I don't know off hand by how much but it would interesting to know corp vs union spending. Corp vs union lobbying.