Personally, I'd want to go even further, e.g. to make all bundled political expenses illegal.

 
If a person wants to contribute directoly to a candidate, PAC, etc. that should be OK if it is published on the WEB over, say $100, within limits, etc.

BUT there should be no group contributions. e.g. Neither the Labor Unions, Corporations, Populist groups, etc. to politics. Thus one can decide to work somewhere, purchase stock, support charities, religious groups, fund assistance groups e.g. ARPA, etc. without having their money spent for politics.

Posted at March 2, 2006 1:35 PM in response to Giving Shareholders a Say Over Political Contributions

Since Roberts has abstained from discussing his "Core Values" and since I believe that this is important, the Umpire suggestion was extended as pointing out if the rules say that the umpire should stand 2 feet to the right of the center line, we need to know if that is the Catcher's Right or the pitcher's right.

We all agree Roberts is a smart, likable man, and may even accept the statement that he is a modest judge and not wonder if this statement is just political, but since there is no record or statement on which we can understand how he approaches the values of the country I am not convinced that he should sit on the court.

Thus I suggest we not vote against him, he has not shown that he is a bad appointment, but express our disappointment that he and his sponsor have abstained from clarifying these values by abstaining from voting on his election.

Posted at September 20, 2005 12:13 PM in response to Should Democratic Senators Vote to Confirm Roberts?

QUESTION -- YES!!!) Roberts should, as with other nominees be strongly questioned to determine what his qualifications and philosophy are: A person with a life time appointment to the most important office of the land should be a known quantity.

 

VOTE AGAINST -- Yes) If, as we all expect, Roberts is a Scalia like, or there is not evidence that he is not, then as he is more conservative than "we" would prefer, and thus should be voted against.

 

FILIBUSTER -- NO!!) If, as I expect, Roberts is an intelligent, rational, non criminal, qualified person, who is not a "Foams at the Mouth" extremist, then we should let the nomination proceed. only if a nominee is not, should the filibuster be used.

 

Posted at August 1, 2005 9:38 AM in response to Roberts not Bad Enough?