Breaking a Thousand
Here's the end of one discussion at least to date and the beginning of another.
Soft Money was begun as one part of a total effort. There are many more such as ensuring recall and initiatives. So how did we end up?
The main thrust was against entities controlling. Pros far outweigh the cons.
The claim of violation of free speech which applies to people not and freedom of assembly which applies only to people or citizens as a group and not to PACs, corporations, unions doesn't exist. I would state the support of equating money as free speech produces the opposite effect. But then I read the entire document and did not cherry pick occasional fragmented phrases.
The sole argument other than I claim the right by virtue of wealth to take away all your rights is not only a First Amendment violation but a violation of the 5th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments.
The curious notion that some have the right without explanation to take away the many rights of the rest of us without exception doesn't hold water - nor make sense. It is not acceptable as a valid explanation.
So what does one do with this information? First you identify the other side who are now coming forward voluntarily in I suppose some form of ''we've won' arrogance. Can't blame them it's true. Then identify the battleground. then develop and apply tactics to the opponents. Those who demand the sole right to all rights by virtue of...? Of what? They have the top levels sewn up tight and one never attacks the strength. They do not necessarily control all the 110,000 precincts. They have a precarious hold on certain very large groups. Groups they regularly rip off. Elderly comes first in my mind. Serving military also. the anti-religious stance coupled with turning their platform into a secular church where preaching dogma replaces educating as a third. There are more.I named just a few.
The target is the precincts the tactic is empower the citizens with education and a sense of rights and responsibilities coupled together equals power. A belief that what used to be the divine right of kings is now the combined rights of citizens - the true source of political legitimacy.
Control of Soft Money is but one available target starting with laundering tax money into campaign contributions. It doesn't take all 110,000 precincts. Just enough to ignite the fire and let the sparks spread using human nature.
Why? I believe that list above is too many rights to give up without a fight. And i don't serve any party or any individual who believes government should control citizens.
Soft Money was begun as one part of a total effort. There are many more such as ensuring recall and initiatives. So how did we end up?
The main thrust was against entities controlling. Pros far outweigh the cons.
The claim of violation of free speech which applies to people not and freedom of assembly which applies only to people or citizens as a group and not to PACs, corporations, unions doesn't exist. I would state the support of equating money as free speech produces the opposite effect. But then I read the entire document and did not cherry pick occasional fragmented phrases.
The sole argument other than I claim the right by virtue of wealth to take away all your rights is not only a First Amendment violation but a violation of the 5th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments.
The curious notion that some have the right without explanation to take away the many rights of the rest of us without exception doesn't hold water - nor make sense. It is not acceptable as a valid explanation.
So what does one do with this information? First you identify the other side who are now coming forward voluntarily in I suppose some form of ''we've won' arrogance. Can't blame them it's true. Then identify the battleground. then develop and apply tactics to the opponents. Those who demand the sole right to all rights by virtue of...? Of what? They have the top levels sewn up tight and one never attacks the strength. They do not necessarily control all the 110,000 precincts. They have a precarious hold on certain very large groups. Groups they regularly rip off. Elderly comes first in my mind. Serving military also. the anti-religious stance coupled with turning their platform into a secular church where preaching dogma replaces educating as a third. There are more.I named just a few.
The target is the precincts the tactic is empower the citizens with education and a sense of rights and responsibilities coupled together equals power. A belief that what used to be the divine right of kings is now the combined rights of citizens - the true source of political legitimacy.
Control of Soft Money is but one available target starting with laundering tax money into campaign contributions. It doesn't take all 110,000 precincts. Just enough to ignite the fire and let the sparks spread using human nature.
Why? I believe that list above is too many rights to give up without a fight. And i don't serve any party or any individual who believes government should control citizens.
