Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

[dcarrigg]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a major campaign finance decision, striking down some limits on federal campaign contributions for the first time. The ruling, issued near the start of a campaign season, will change and most likely increase the already large role money plays in American politics.

The decision, by a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, with the Court’s more conservative justices in the majority, was a sequel of sorts to Citizens United, the 2010 decision that struck down limits on independent campaign spending by corporations and unions. But that ruling did nothing to affect the other main form of campaign finance regulation: caps on direct contributions to candidates and political parties.

See the rest here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us...ions.html?_r=0

[Woodsman]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a major campaign finance decision, striking down some limits on federal campaign contributions for the first time. The ruling, issued near the start of a campaign season, will change and most likely increase the already large role money plays in American politics....



The decision, by a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, with the Court’s more conservative justices in the majority, was a sequel of sorts to Citizens United, the 2010 decision that struck down limits on independent campaign spending by corporations and unions. But that ruling did nothing to affect the other main form of campaign finance regulation: caps on direct contributions to candidates and political parties.




See the rest here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us...ions.html?_r=0

The best democracy money can buy.

• Politico reported that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said of the ruling:“Freedom of speech is being upheld.”
• Bloomberg News pointed out that a big winner will be TV stations, which "may see more advertising money flowing in during the next election season."
• On the other hand, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissenting opinion that the ruling "creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or a candidate's campaign."
• On the New York Times editorial page editor's blog, Jesse Wegman called the ruling "another blow to democracy."
• David Earley of Salon wrote "McCutcheon could make things even worse."

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/...n_opinion.html

[dcarrigg]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

The best democracy money can buy.
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/...n_opinion.html

Why even have a republic? Let's just give seats to the Forbes 500 and be done with it.

[vt]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

This is why my proposal to have a limit on money for any party, and have it provided by the government. Say $50 million for Presidential and $75 million for Congress each election.

This would apply to any political party, non-profit, corporation, individual, union, etc.

Obama raised $1 billion and Romney a bit less. This would be prohibited under my proposal. No more Koch, Soros, Federal unions, other unions, corporations, individuals, and NO foreign funds. Nothing. Only government funds.

TV and radio would have to find other sources of revenue. TV and radio news would have to be objective in coverage. Too bad for MSNBC and FOX, plus most of the MSM.

[Woodsman]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

This is why my proposal to have a limit on money for any party, and have it provided by the government....

Holy crap, vt, we agree on public financing of elections!

[vt]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

Well,

That's what I said in at least once in a previous post. I want to get all bias out of the process. A fair discussion of the issues with none of the negative crap from both sides.

Voter ID is also a requirement, as is citizenship. Free elections, free markets, free speech; the whole free enchilada.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

Why even have a republic? Let's just give seats to the Forbes 500 and be done with it.

The ruling doesn't remove the limit on the amount of money that a person can donate to any single candidate. That is still limited. It just removes the limit on the total that you give to all candidates. So you are no longer limited to X amount of total giving directed to candidates. You weren't limited in how much you could give to PACs anyway. You could give a billion to a political PAC if you wanted. So how does this minor change really make much difference? It's not like the Kochs can donate a billion directly to the next Republican presidential candidate...they will still be limited to donating no more than (whatever the limit currently is) directly to a candidate.

So all the hysteria by the Left puzzles me, beyond the fact that they have plenty of extremely wealthy donors too, like Soros, so they'll be doing just as much donating. The Democrats never seem to exactly lack for spending money at election time.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

It's not about winning against the other party. It's about buying politicians in both parties.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

Well,

Voter ID is also a requirement, as is citizenship. Free elections, free markets, free speech; the whole free enchilada.

Even a citizenship requirement is a bit of a farce when an illegal alien can sneak across the border and start popping out kids who will automatically be citizens and eligible to vote in 18 years. When the other side stuffs the ballot box by importing a new population to outvote the natives, where's the legitimacy of democracy? Democracy only makes sense within a homogenous nation with one identity group - one nation. Otherwise it's simply a breeding competition to see which competing identity group can gain power.

Recently my elderly mother, a lifelong labor supporter, Democrat, and rabid hater of Republicans, said to me that she didn't remember voting to have the country taken over by Mexicans. I said, that's what you voted for when you voted for Democrats, ma. Didn't change her mind tho. She'd never vote for a Republican; they're too "greedy".

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

It's not about winning against the other party. It's about buying politicians in both parties.

You can't "buy" a politican for the few thousand dollars that you are still limited to donating to an individual candidate.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

Seems to me like being the largest economic sector to donate in both parties might have paid off pretty well for finance over the last couple decades...

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

.. It's not like the Kochs can donate a billion directly to the next Republican presidential candidate...they will still be limited to donating no more than (whatever the limit currently is) directly to a candidate...

You are correct only because you use the word "directly" and because you point to today's ruling rather than Citizen's United.

The Kochs can give a billions dollars to the next republican presidential candidate indirectly, and without disclosing they did so.
First, they give a billion to a 501(c)(4) which hides their identity. Next the 501 (c)(4) gives the untraceable billion to a super PAC to spend on the candidate.

Yes, today's ruling was small compared to Citizen's United, but it pushes the same direction.

[vinoveri]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

another 5/4 decision - weeha - the Citizens United case was the victory bell for the Corptocracy

forget the legal sophistry - are we not a government by, of, and for the PEOPLE?

Hypothetical (although somewhat irrelevant to the current topic): Should a resident of FL be able to contribute to a candidate running in NY for: a) federal office and b) state office.

This has always perplexed me: why should a representative of a state be able to be backed by someone from another state (ok, I can at least see the argument for Fed office but don't agree with it)?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

another 5/4 decision - weeha - the Citizens United case was the victory bell for the Corptocracy

forget the legal sophistry - are we not a government by, of, and for the PEOPLE?

Hypothetical (although somewhat irrelevant to the current topic): Should a resident of FL be able to contribute to a candidate running in NY for: a) federal office and b) state office.

This has always perplexed me: why should a representative of a state be able to be backed by someone from another state (ok, I can at least see the argument for Fed office but don't agree with it)?

I don't know why we allow it, but I do it.
I send a couple hundred bucks to a few senate candidates from other states each year.
The actions of every Senator affect me pretty directly.

I don't bother with the house of representatives.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

.. Democracy only makes sense within a homogenous nation with one identity group..

I respect your honesty in disavowing democracy in the United States.