Supreme Court allows more private money in election campaigns

[RetiredGySgt]

Did anyone bother to read the ruling? It keeps the limits on max contributions to individuals. It simply allows someone to contribute to more then an arbitrary number of candidates.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Did anyone bother to read the ruling? It keeps the limits on max contributions to individuals. It simply allows someone to contribute to more then an arbitrary number of candidates.

Yep.

It allows for people to now pay over a certain amount, so they can pay more money, though not more to individual candidates. However, $6.5 billion was spent at the last Federal Election with Presidential election. That was up from $5 billion.

So 2016 looks like a $7 billion election. Why do people need so much money to be heard? Simply said, they don't. They're advertising.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Clearly, you lack a brain. There is still a limit on how much money a person can give to each candidate. If you think $2,600 per election is going to cause them to sell out feel free to have Congress lower the limit.

From someone who's first thing to do is insult, this is a little rich.

Yes, I know there is a limit on how much each individual can receive, is this the point? No it isn't.

However, this is money that can come from say, Mr A who works for a certain company, oh, and Mr B from the same company along with Mr C, D, E, F etc etc all give money which comes from their company. All of a sudden Mr CEO has managed to funnel a hell of a lot of money into the getting his way.
Also, how many congressmen are there?

Put this on top of the lobbying "hey, would you like a nice dinner to support my campaign?"

Ever wondered why the US uses the US dollar bill and Canada has what, $5 coins, the UK 2 pound coins which are 3 dollars, the EU has 2 Euro coins and just about every first world country has coins worth a lot more than 2 dollars?

It's because the govt has been bought, literally the company that makes the material for the dollar bill makes sure the US govt spends MORE MONEY that it would if it used dollar coins and no dollar bills by paying off the congressmen, in this case the senators are right up there.

Often it's difficult to actually know where the money is coming from. You could probably compile a list of who works for who, or who has connections with who or whatever. But it's still corruption, it's still wrong.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't. The system is broken, but nobody has a solution on how to fix it. Let anyone write a check and we're open to bribery in the form of campaign contributions. No contributions and only the rich run. Public funding of elections has it's own issues concerning how to pay and keeping third parties out (nevermind the ballot laws on the books now that favor the Dems and Repubs).

It's a huge quagmire of a problem but no one seems to have any idea what to do except bash everyone else.

It's a difficult issue.

However, limiting how people can spend money could be an option. Increasing time for all candidates in some kind of debate or whatever, but yeah, the answers are a long way off, other than completely changing the system.

 

[hangover]

Obama's home....

Nancy Pelosi's home(s)......

How disgraceful, that liberals have the audacity to live like privileged cons.

 

[hangover]

Let it be noted, that those supporting the ruling are the moron cons. So when they start whining about Hollywood owning the government, remember,,, you asked for it.

 

[Barb]

perspective

 

[bucs90]

Republicans LOVE this.

Why? Because it enables the rich to have even more influence over politics.

When will you all finally understand- the rich are just better than us, and our existence is to do nothing but honor them and find new ways to serve them and make their lives better.

God Bless the rich, we should all feel lucky just to be allowed on the same Earth that they own.

 

[natstew]

Did anyone bother to read the ruling? It keeps the limits on max contributions to individuals. It simply allows someone to contribute to more then an arbitrary number of candidates.

Yep.

It allows for people to now pay over a certain amount, so they can pay more money, though not more to individual candidates. However, $6.5 billion was spent at the last Federal Election with Presidential election. That was up from $5 billion.

So 2016 looks like a $7 billion election. Why do people need so much money to be heard? Simply said, they don't. They're advertising.

So, you want to limit the amount the Republicans sources can give, but continue the unlimited amount Unions, BAR associations , AARP, and the AMA can give to Democrats.

 

[natstew]

Republicans LOVE this.

Why? Because it enables the rich to have even more influence over politics.

When will you all finally understand- the rich are just better than us, and our existence is to do nothing but honor them and find new ways to serve them and make their lives better.

God Bless the rich, we should all feel lucky just to be allowed on the same Earth that they own.

Are you really that stupid? Do you not know that more RICH people give far more to Democrats than they do to Republicans?