By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - So fears over Citizens United was GREATLY overblown, yes?

badgenome on 04 December 2012

On second thought, I'm afraid the present interpretation of "the press" is too broad. The only sort of speech that should be protected is that which comes from an actual printing press. Since the founding fathers couldn't have imagined something like the internet because they lived a long time ago (like 50 years ago!) the government should be able to do whatever it wants in that area. Roll on, SOPA!



Around the Network
killerzX on 04 December 2012
badgenome said:
On second thought, I'm afraid the present interpretation of "the press" is too broad. The only sort of speech that should be protected is that which comes from an actual printing press. Since the founding fathers couldn't have imagined something like the internet because they lived a long time ago (like 50 years ago!) the government should be able to do whatever it wants in that area. Roll on, SOPA!


or microphones... there's no way the founding fathers could have envisioned the press having microphones. There should be background checks on these microphones and a waiting period to see if you are mature enough to use it. and take a test too before you are allowed one.

After all if it werent for microphones buffoons in the media like bob costas coldnt have said their idiotic statements.



Adinnieken on 04 December 2012
TadpoleJackson said:
Adinnieken said:

No that isn't at all proof of any fact.

The fact of the matter is that SuperPACs raised the majority of funds used to elect Romney.  The Romney campaign and the Republican party actually had little to contribute.  By comparison, the Obama campaign raised the majority of its funds, with a few SuperPACs contributing. 

Had the Supreme Court ruled against Citizens United, there would have been a lot less money in the campaign.  There would have been far fewer negative ads, and more issue oriented ads.

Had Romney had more integrity with his positions, had he been more relatable and therefore more likeable, he could have won the election and the Citizens United ruling would have been a major factor. 



No, the Romney campaign at times was outraising the Obama campaign in donations

Romney's fundraising haul, from joint efforts between Team Romney and the Republican National Committee (RNC), marks the second straight month that they have passed the $100 million mark and is likely to intensify concerns among Obama’s reelection team — who raised $75 million in July — that they will be outpaced by the GOP’s fundraising push.

...

The [Romney] campaign said that more than 94 percent of all donations received last month were for $250 or less. Those 600,627 contributions totaled $25.7 million of the haul.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/242325-romney-outraises-obama-for-third-month-in-a-row

Then it was spending on advertising. 

In one of them, the SuperPACs for Romney were doing all the spending, where as on the Obama side, it was the campaign itself that was doing all the spending.

Which only makes the situation worse.  Because if the Romney campaign was able to raise more, and spend less on advertising, it meant that they were able to spend more stump speeches.  Where as Obama was doing the vast majority of spending in his campaign, which meant not only was he financing the majority of ads, but also having to pay for those stump speeches. 



TadpoleJackson on 04 December 2012
Adinnieken said:

Then it was spending on advertising. 

In one of them, the SuperPACs for Romney were doing all the spending, where as on the Obama side, it was the campaign itself that was doing all the spending.

Which only makes the situation worse.  Because if the Romney campaign was able to raise more, and spend less on advertising, it meant that they were able to spend more stump speeches.  Where as Obama was doing the vast majority of spending in his campaign, which meant not only was he financing the majority of ads, but also having to pay for those stump speeches. 


Hate to be that guy, but links? :3 

I remember about a month before the election I stopped seeing almost all Obama commercials in my [swing] state. But his pacs were still all over the airwaves. While we were getting quite a bit of Romney ads, both from his campaign and his Super Pacs 



cusman on 04 December 2012

I just ignored all the fund raising deadline blah blah... and just let it play out.

I made my decision to vote and I trusted the rest of American Citizens to make their own decision. Funding a bunch of political crap didn't seem like a good use of hard earned money better spent on video games (being multi-platform gamer can be expensive - but so worth it)



Around the Network
Adinnieken on 04 December 2012
TadpoleJackson said:
Adinnieken said:

Then it was spending on advertising. 

In one of them, the SuperPACs for Romney were doing all the spending, where as on the Obama side, it was the campaign itself that was doing all the spending.

Which only makes the situation worse.  Because if the Romney campaign was able to raise more, and spend less on advertising, it meant that they were able to spend more stump speeches.  Where as Obama was doing the vast majority of spending in his campaign, which meant not only was he financing the majority of ads, but also having to pay for those stump speeches. 


Hate to be that guy, but links? :3 

I remember about a month before the election I stopped seeing almost all Obama commercials in my [swing] state. But his pacs were still all over the airwaves. While we were getting quite a bit of Romney ads, both from his campaign and his Super Pacs 

What state?  I was in a on the fence, likely Obama state.  PACs were throwing commercials up on the air in markets that the candidate didn't even run and to a demographic that likely wouldn't pay attention to the candidates anyway.

I sincerely doubt I'll find it now, though I do believe it was on MSNBC.  I'm fairly certain it wasn't a "blog" post.



TadpoleJackson on 04 December 2012
Adinnieken said:

What state?  I was in a on the fence, likely Obama state.  PACs were throwing commercials up on the air in markets that the candidate didn't even run and to a demographic that likely wouldn't pay attention to the candidates anyway.

I sincerely doubt I'll find it now, though I do believe it was on MSNBC.  I'm fairly certain it wasn't a "blog" post.


Just south of the VA/NC border. Meaning I get mostly VA news.