Nov Election, Candidates Aside...

[Ragoczy]

Not specifically. As I said in an earlier post, I would finance all campaigns from a pool of funds donated voluntarily by any entity that cares to. That would include church groups, corporations and individuals. No tax revenues, although the funds could be collected similarly to the Presedential Election Campaign Fund donation from your tax form.
But the funds would be parcelled out equally among the candidates, with no one campaign getting more than any other. That allows the voters to elect the person they feel is most qualified, rather than the one with the most money for ads. This same fund could pay for the TV time for public access. Naturally, some non-partisan group would have to handle this. One of those bumps I mentioned.

And the next bump would be, which candidates? I'd be extremely hesitant to donate if I knew an equal amount of my donation was going to go to Cynthia McKinnie (sic) and her insanity. I'd be okay with my donation going equally to Obama and McCain, much as I despise one of them (guess which ), but at least they're legitimate candidates. So who/how decides which of everyone who'd like to run for President gets a share?

True in theory, but if it were true in fact there would be no censorship of the networks. In fact, there are always some good and valid reasons to abridge free speech. Try shouting FIRE in a crowded theater and see how far you get with a free speech defense.

Well, I fundamentally disagree with FCC regulation of content. I agree with licensing, as a necessary traffic cop to keep the signals from overlapping and I agree with government access requirements, under eminent domain, but I'm strongly opposed to FCC oversight of content.

The "fire!" example is fundamental to Constitutional law -- your right to swing your arm ends at the other guy's nose. Meaning that when your exercising a right infringes on the rights of others, that's when it's abridged. For instance, you can picket a business on the public right-of-way, but cannot go on the business' property because it's private property.

There's no infringement on another's rights if I buy time on a network for political speech.

I agree that their objective includes the tax structure, as well as the propagation of laws which will benefit the corporations over the individuals. This is the very kind of action which needs to be curtailed.

Can I just point out that corporations are individuals? There's no Jabba-the-Hut-looking creature out there that's called a corporation -- corporations are owned by individuals.

True, people live their lives based upon their religious training, among other things. That includes candidates. The religion of anyone in this country should not have anything to do with their ability to hold office. Theoretically. In practice, though....
But what I'm concerned with is those ministers/priests/rabbis/whatever who use the pulpit to put forth a political position. To my mind, doing that negates the right of the church to claim tax-free status. And when the churches become actively involved in a campaign, including through the donation of money to their candidates, that violates the constitution. If a priest/minister/whatever wants to make speeches as an individual, that's fine. Let him do it on the street corner soap box like any other person, without his religious trappings.

How does it violate the Constitution? Why doesn't the free exercise of religion mean that my church can support a particular candidate we, as the congregation, believe best represents us? How is that any different than any other group supporting a candidate?

'course I'm not sure how that would work, because I don't attend church and, being an Apathetic Agnostic, it'd be a really weird service ...

"Does anybody know if there's a god yet?" "No."
"Does anybody care yet?" "No."
"Okay, see you next Sunday."