Freedom of speech??

[bsrsharma]

Purely as a business strategy, I think spending money on election campaigns has a lower return on investment compared to alternatives. For example, lobbying. Financing campaigns produces uncertain results whereas “buying” the politician after the election produces predictable outcomes. Look at the enormous success of lobbyists compared to voters in U.S. at every level of government.

Another issue many have raised is whether foreigners/foreign government have freedom of speech in U.S. I believe they have; but it would be stupid foreigner to push the commonsense limits. Again alternative modes are more effective. See the success of American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Similarly, China achieves its objectives through U.S. Chamber of Commerce rather than engaging in “free speech”.

[mike92104]

I would rather the corporations be allowed to give freely and openly to any cause or candidate they choose rather than plying whack a mole trying to close every loophole that would be discovered in any sort of legislation trying to prevent it. I just want it disclosed in plain and clear language. “This candidate paid for by the (insert evil corp. name here) corporation.

[mike92104]

I would rather the corporations be allowed to give freely and openly to any cause or candidate they choose rather than plying whack a mole trying to close every loophole that would be discovered in any sort of legislation trying to prevent it. I just want it disclosed in plain and clear language. “This candidate paid for by the (insert evil corp. name here) corporation.

[mike92104]

I would rather the corporations be allowed to give freely and openly to any cause or candidate they choose rather than plying whack a mole trying to close every loophole that would be discovered in any sort of legislation trying to prevent it. I just want it disclosed in plain and clear language. “This candidate paid for by the (insert evil corp. name here) corporation.

[mike92104]

I would rather the corporations be allowed to give freely and openly to any cause or candidate they choose rather than plying whack a mole trying to close every loophole that would be discovered in any sort of legislation trying to prevent it. I just want it disclosed in plain and clear language. “This candidate paid for by the (insert evil corp. name here) corporation.

[mike92104]

I would rather the corporations be allowed to give freely and openly to any cause or candidate they choose rather than plying whack a mole trying to close every loophole that would be discovered in any sort of legislation trying to prevent it. I just want it disclosed in plain and clear language. “This candidate paid for by the (insert evil corp. name here) corporation.

[paramount]

[quote=mike92104]I would rather the corporations be allowed to give freely and openly to any cause or candidate they choose rather than plying whack a mole trying to close every loophole that would be discovered in any sort of legislation trying to prevent it. I just want it disclosed in plain and clear language. “This candidate paid for by the (insert evil corp. name here) corporation.[/quote]

I didn’t read anything regarding sunshine in this decision, and I wouldn’t assume there would be more disclosure under this new ruling.

[paramount]

[quote=mike92104]I would rather the corporations be allowed to give freely and openly to any cause or candidate they choose rather than plying whack a mole trying to close every loophole that would be discovered in any sort of legislation trying to prevent it. I just want it disclosed in plain and clear language. “This candidate paid for by the (insert evil corp. name here) corporation.[/quote]

I didn’t read anything regarding sunshine in this decision, and I wouldn’t assume there would be more disclosure under this new ruling.

[paramount]

[quote=mike92104]I would rather the corporations be allowed to give freely and openly to any cause or candidate they choose rather than plying whack a mole trying to close every loophole that would be discovered in any sort of legislation trying to prevent it. I just want it disclosed in plain and clear language. “This candidate paid for by the (insert evil corp. name here) corporation.[/quote]

I didn’t read anything regarding sunshine in this decision, and I wouldn’t assume there would be more disclosure under this new ruling.

[paramount]

[quote=mike92104]I would rather the corporations be allowed to give freely and openly to any cause or candidate they choose rather than plying whack a mole trying to close every loophole that would be discovered in any sort of legislation trying to prevent it. I just want it disclosed in plain and clear language. “This candidate paid for by the (insert evil corp. name here) corporation.[/quote]

I didn’t read anything regarding sunshine in this decision, and I wouldn’t assume there would be more disclosure under this new ruling.

[paramount]

[quote=mike92104]I would rather the corporations be allowed to give freely and openly to any cause or candidate they choose rather than plying whack a mole trying to close every loophole that would be discovered in any sort of legislation trying to prevent it. I just want it disclosed in plain and clear language. “This candidate paid for by the (insert evil corp. name here) corporation.[/quote]

I didn’t read anything regarding sunshine in this decision, and I wouldn’t assume there would be more disclosure under this new ruling.

[briansd1]

[quote=bsrsharma]Purely as a business strategy, I think spending money on election campaigns has a lower return on investment compared to alternatives. For example, lobbying. Financing campaigns produces uncertain results whereas “buying” the politician after the election produces predictable outcomes. Look at the enormous success of lobbyists compared to voters in U.S. at every level of government.

Another issue many have raised is whether foreigners/foreign government have freedom of speech in U.S. I believe they have; but it would be stupid foreigner to push the commonsense limits. Again alternative modes are more effective. See the success of American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Similarly, China achieves its objectives through U.S. Chamber of Commerce rather than engaging in “free speech”.[/quote]

Yes, I agree. Lobbying is much more effective. But I think that leaders do remember the ones who supported them from the very beginning when they got started.

China is learning that lobbying pays off.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/08/AR2010010803710.html

[briansd1]

[quote=bsrsharma]Purely as a business strategy, I think spending money on election campaigns has a lower return on investment compared to alternatives. For example, lobbying. Financing campaigns produces uncertain results whereas “buying” the politician after the election produces predictable outcomes. Look at the enormous success of lobbyists compared to voters in U.S. at every level of government.

Another issue many have raised is whether foreigners/foreign government have freedom of speech in U.S. I believe they have; but it would be stupid foreigner to push the commonsense limits. Again alternative modes are more effective. See the success of American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Similarly, China achieves its objectives through U.S. Chamber of Commerce rather than engaging in “free speech”.[/quote]

Yes, I agree. Lobbying is much more effective. But I think that leaders do remember the ones who supported them from the very beginning when they got started.

China is learning that lobbying pays off.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/08/AR2010010803710.html

[briansd1]

[quote=bsrsharma]Purely as a business strategy, I think spending money on election campaigns has a lower return on investment compared to alternatives. For example, lobbying. Financing campaigns produces uncertain results whereas “buying” the politician after the election produces predictable outcomes. Look at the enormous success of lobbyists compared to voters in U.S. at every level of government.

Another issue many have raised is whether foreigners/foreign government have freedom of speech in U.S. I believe they have; but it would be stupid foreigner to push the commonsense limits. Again alternative modes are more effective. See the success of American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Similarly, China achieves its objectives through U.S. Chamber of Commerce rather than engaging in “free speech”.[/quote]

Yes, I agree. Lobbying is much more effective. But I think that leaders do remember the ones who supported them from the very beginning when they got started.

China is learning that lobbying pays off.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/08/AR2010010803710.html

[briansd1]

[quote=bsrsharma]Purely as a business strategy, I think spending money on election campaigns has a lower return on investment compared to alternatives. For example, lobbying. Financing campaigns produces uncertain results whereas “buying” the politician after the election produces predictable outcomes. Look at the enormous success of lobbyists compared to voters in U.S. at every level of government.

Another issue many have raised is whether foreigners/foreign government have freedom of speech in U.S. I believe they have; but it would be stupid foreigner to push the commonsense limits. Again alternative modes are more effective. See the success of American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Similarly, China achieves its objectives through U.S. Chamber of Commerce rather than engaging in “free speech”.[/quote]

Yes, I agree. Lobbying is much more effective. But I think that leaders do remember the ones who supported them from the very beginning when they got started.

China is learning that lobbying pays off.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/08/AR2010010803710.html

[Author]

Posts