Supreme Court Doesnt Care if Unlimited Funds Corrupt Politicians

[teapartysamurai]

Republicans like the idea of living in a plutocracy. Not even surprised enough to get outraged anymore.

What the hell?
What do you think that word means?
You don't think that advocacy groups and unions that give money to the dem's are not a plutocracy?
Look the word up occupied. It's not just Corporations.

It is in this case, Unions and advocacy groups are hardly a match for cash and ruthlessness.

Yeah, we saw noooooooooooooo ruthlessness or thuggery by unions up in Wisconsin during the Scott Walker Recall Debacle.

Those voters voted for Scott Walker because Scott Walker had acvocates hold guns to all the voters heads.

It wasn't because the voters were turned off by the thuggery of the Unions.

You run with that!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Republicans like the idea of living in a plutocracy. Not even surprised enough to get outraged anymore.

What the hell?
What do you think that word means?
You don't think that advocacy groups and unions that give money to the dem's are not a plutocracy?
Look the word up occupied. It's not just Corporations.

It is in this case, Unions and advocacy groups are hardly a match for cash and ruthlessness.

Not even in the neighborhood. Advocacy groups = grass roots politics. Unions = grass roots politics. In both instances, they are like-minded citizens pooling their money to get more clout. Anyone surprised that the rw's are against that?

Enormous mega-corporations (they are NOT people, "friend") are buying the election. That means they will own Etch A Sketch if he's elected. WHY are rw's in favor of THAT? Why are they in favor of even more jobs leaving the United States?

 

[teapartysamurai]

all this liberal butt hurt comes from the fact they can't raise any money.. I'm lovin it.

That's basically all this is about. The "butthurt" is strong with this one (the op).

 

[Dr.House]

It's funny that the democratics, lovers of union money, would likely wither away if that cash cow went dry... Yet somehow entities like corporations are different than unions...

union money comes from the contributions of actual people... large numbers of them.

Corporations are made up of large numbers of what? Turnips?

unlike the 8 people

What 8 people?

i know that the right likes to compare the two.

Of course... Comparing apples to apples is what I do...

but... that said, if we're honest... we'd admit there shouldn't be ANY money in politics and the Supremes destroyed our ability to make that happen with Citizens United.

I know that must warm the cockles of rightwing hearts.

Citizens United leveled the playing field...

Losing union money frightens the leftwing hearts...

 

[Dick Tuck]

The Supreme Court struck down a Montana law.

So much for states rights, right boys?

they only care about states rights when they want a different result than federal law allows.

imagine that.

States rights do not trump the First Amendment. Right, "counselor"?

Only if you believe Robert's argument that some marginalia confers citizenship on an inanimate construct of a corporation.

 

[peach174]

How about the public educating themselves on the issues and not believing political ads that mislead and spin on both sides?
Just because CPAC's have more ads this year, doesn't mean that the public has not become more educated and more aware of what is going on than they have ever been before. They have.
This is just another excuse from the butt hurt left.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Here are a few thoughts about campaign finance reform:

Limit the the amount any candidate can spend on their campaign to the total amount they will earn doing the job while if office. For instance: the term of office is four years, annual salary is $10,000. Total permissible campaign spending: $40,000.

All donations are limited to individuals. While corporate or other group entities (unions and political parties) are comprised of individuals, they are not individual by nature and are therefor prohibited from contributing to any campaign. There should be no limit on the amount an individual can donate, as long as the candidate has not yet collected his/her limit (see above).

All individual donations can only come from the specific geographic area that the candidate will represent. For instance: Mary Jane and Charlie Mack are running to represent District 6 in the AK Senate. Contributions for either candidate can only come for bona fide residents of District 6. This applies to all candidates running for any public office, be it local dog catcher or POTUS.

The problem inherent in any type of reform, though, is that the proverbial foxes guard the hen house. How do we get those who profit the most from this graft and corruption to change the laws so that it will be prevented? All three branches of our government are rotten to the core. They are all three in collusion to perpetrate the crimes they commit against the very people they should serve. Daunted by a housecleaning task to rival the Augean stables, we the people allow it to continue.

 

[gallantwarrior]

It's funny that the democratics, lovers of union money, would likely wither away if that cash cow went dry... Yet somehow entities like corporations are different than unions...

union money comes from the contributions of actual people... large numbers of them.

unlike the 8 people

i know that the right likes to compare the two.

but... that said, if we're honest... we'd admit there shouldn't be ANY money in politics and the Supremes destroyed our ability to make that happen with Citizens United.

I know that must warm the cockles of rightwing hearts.

Union money is extorted from people who do not always agree with how the unions spend that money, especially when it comes to politics. It's quite a stretch to describe union dues as "contributions" when the only way to keep your job is to cough up the cash.

 

[gallantwarrior]

It's funny that the democratics, lovers of union money, would likely wither away if that cash cow went dry... Yet somehow entities like corporations are different than unions...

union money comes from the contributions of actual people... large numbers of them.

unlike the 8 people

i know that the right likes to compare the two.

but... that said, if we're honest... we'd admit there shouldn't be ANY money in politics and the Supremes destroyed our ability to make that happen with Citizens United.

I know that must warm the cockles of rightwing hearts.

large groups of people work for corporations too my dear.

That's an inconvenient truth for dems because they see corporations as an enemy. Funny how many dems in office hide their corporate connections while waving their pitch forks and torches and screaming for the prols to burn the house down.

 

[gallantwarrior]

It's funny that the democratics, lovers of union money, would likely wither away if that cash cow went dry... Yet somehow entities like corporations are different than unions...

union money comes from the contributions of actual people... large numbers of them.

unlike the 8 people

i know that the right likes to compare the two.

but... that said, if we're honest... we'd admit there shouldn't be ANY money in politics and the Supremes destroyed our ability to make that happen with Citizens United.

I know that must warm the cockles of rightwing hearts.

Do you believe this total utter BS??????!

Yeah, those "actual people" in the unions aren't forced to pay dues and then about "eight people," decide where to donate those funds.

No, they have a big ELECTION and let ALL those unions members decide.

Are you so full of it, you no longer care if other people see you are full of it?

And OF COURSE! There are not "real people" at corporations! Corporations are now totally run and staffed by machinery.

You run with that. Are liberals just trying to sound stupid???????

They don't have to try very hard, do they?

 

[ClosedCaption]

They don't care because it's not their responsibility to care. It's their responsibility to interpret the law, not to keep money out of politics.

It's our responsibility to keep money out of politics. If you don't like candidates being bought off with big money, then don't vote for candidates who are.

actually, it is their responsibility to care.

because it's their responsiblity to look at what the result of their decisions are.

otherwise plessy v ferguson would still be law.

The result of their decision is that free speech is still allowed and americans are still easily led idiots.

I notice you never address the topic of how this is good for democracy. You just defend it without knowing why or caring of the result.

 

[ClosedCaption]

If politicians were all given $1.50 to campaign will they would STILL SPEW PROPAGANDA to get elected. When in the hell will people figure this out?

Yeah, a buck fifty is just like a Million...it's all money right...FOH

 

[ClosedCaption]

Yeah, but it's okay if UNIONS throw their money into politics!

Liberals! Hyporcrisy is they name!

No idiot this law allows UNLIMITED money from UNIONS AND CORPORATIONS dumbass

 

[ClosedCaption]

The Dem's would be just fine with it if cpacs was going more to them.
They had the unions for years and it always outsourced the Repubs.

Stupid Partisan doesn't understand that tides change. No matter who gets more donations how is it good for democracy and the average citizen?

The Dems have had money in their favor for over 40 years,
Did not hear a peep out of how lop sided it was.

Uh, this is about Citizens United dumbass. You guys cant answer a fucking question without saying Obama or Dems when I havent brought up either one. And no one, not dem, repub or libertarian can explain how this is good for democracy. You just auto-defend

 

[The Rabbi]

What the hell?
What do you think that word means?
You don't think that advocacy groups and unions that give money to the dem's are not a plutocracy?
Look the word up occupied. It's not just Corporations.

It is in this case, Unions and advocacy groups are hardly a match for cash and ruthlessness.

Not even in the neighborhood. Advocacy groups = grass roots politics. Unions = grass roots politics. In both instances, they are like-minded citizens pooling their money to get more clout. Anyone surprised that the rw's are against that?

And Citizens United was, what? An aerospace company?
Drooling moron

 

[teapartysamurai]

union money comes from the contributions of actual people... large numbers of them.

unlike the 8 people

i know that the right likes to compare the two.

but... that said, if we're honest... we'd admit there shouldn't be ANY money in politics and the Supremes destroyed our ability to make that happen with Citizens United.

I know that must warm the cockles of rightwing hearts.

Do you believe this total utter BS??????!

Yeah, those "actual people" in the unions aren't forced to pay dues and then about "eight people," decide where to donate those funds.

No, they have a big ELECTION and let ALL those unions members decide.

Are you so full of it, you no longer care if other people see you are full of it?

And OF COURSE! There are not "real people" at corporations! Corporations are now totally run and staffed by machinery.

You run with that. Are liberals just trying to sound stupid???????

They don't have to try very hard, do they?

No, they don't!

And it's ALL TOO OBVIOUS what this op is about.

The FACT is, people are NOT donating to Democrats like Democrats thought they would.

Dems were living in a fantasy world where 2010 was just "an anomoly" and the American people really were behind their radical leftism, and outright MARXISM displayed by the "Occupy Movement."

Now reality is hitting them. The American people are NOT as behind them as they thought. People are NOT donating to Obama like they thought. Some are even donating to . . . (gasp!) ROMNEY!

Expect more of this whining up to November.

And if Romney wins (Lord willing) expect a LOT OF WHINING. You think that laughable whining that Scott Walker had the money advantage in Wisconsin and that's why the Union really lost, was funny.

JUST WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE FIRST TUESDAY IN NOVEMBER!

If Romney wins, the butt hurt is going to rise to hysterically entertaining levels.

I suggest if Romney wins, the day after election day we all pop some popcorn and watch the fun.

It will be fun to watch if it all works out like we hope!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Here are a few thoughts about campaign finance reform:

Limit the the amount any candidate can spend on their campaign to the total amount they will earn doing the job while if office. For instance: the term of office is four years, annual salary is $10,000. Total permissible campaign spending: $40,000.

All donations are limited to individuals. While corporate or other group entities (unions and political parties) are comprised of individuals, they are not individual by nature and are therefor prohibited from contributing to any campaign. There should be no limit on the amount an individual can donate, as long as the candidate has not yet collected his/her limit (see above).

All individual donations can only come from the specific geographic area that the candidate will represent. For instance: Mary Jane and Charlie Mack are running to represent District 6 in the AK Senate. Contributions for either candidate can only come for bona fide residents of District 6. This applies to all candidates running for any public office, be it local dog catcher or POTUS.

The problem inherent in any type of reform, though, is that the proverbial foxes guard the hen house. How do we get those who profit the most from this graft and corruption to change the laws so that it will be prevented? All three branches of our government are rotten to the core. They are all three in collusion to perpetrate the crimes they commit against the very people they should serve. Daunted by a housecleaning task to rival the Augean stables, we the people allow it to continue.

I agree with every word of this post

 

[Wacky Quacky]

actually, it is their responsibility to care.

because it's their responsiblity to look at what the result of their decisions are.

otherwise plessy v ferguson would still be law.

The result of their decision is that free speech is still allowed and americans are still easily led idiots.

I notice you never address the topic of how this is good for democracy. You just defend it without knowing why or caring of the result.

So take the money out of politics. Guess what, americans will still be easily led morons who continuously vote for corrupt assholes, all in the name of beating the opposition.

We, the people, are the problem. Americans need to shut the fuck for once and take a good hard look in the mirror.

"Have I voted for people who I knew took money from big business"

"Have I voted for people who are in-step partisan hacks"

"Have I voted for someone that I didn't like, but wanted to beat the opposition"

"Have I voted for someone based off of one minute commercials"

"Have I voted for someone based off of what they said now, even though it flies in the face of what they've said and done in the past"

Our government, as corrupt, dysfunctional, and divided as it is, is exactly what "we the people" have been voting for. We could easily and simply vote for people who don't take money from big business, but we won't because we care more about winning and beating the opposition party. Buyers regret doesn't mean shit if you keep what you regret.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

actually, it is their responsibility to care.

because it's their responsiblity to look at what the result of their decisions are.

otherwise plessy v ferguson would still be law.

The result of their decision is that free speech is still allowed and americans are still easily led idiots.

no. the result of their decision is that you get what you want...which is unlimited unobstructed propaganda from corporations with no accountablity.

So the american people have no fault in this? It's not our fault for falling for obvious propaganda year after year after year?

if those same PAC's gave money to democrats, you'd be squealing like a stuck pig.

You're assuming I'm republican?

I don't care about PACs to either party because I'm not stupid enough to fall for anything they put out. I, unlike the rest of the idiotic masses, research candidates before voting for them.

the result of their decision is perversion of our electoral system... where the "voices" of 8 people can drown out everyone else.

Your voice is your vote. If you don't use your voice, or you voice the way someone else told you to, that's on you.

 

[DGS49]

There are already plenty of laws against public corruption, and many ways to OUT a politician who has his hand in th till. Campaign spending limits are mainly attempts by INCUMBENTS to prevent other candidates from taking away their positions at the public trough.

As a bizarre tangent to this, I work for a company that is foreign owned (Japanese), so they can't make political contributions. My former employer was headquartered in Luxembourg, the one before that was in France, and before that, South Korea, then Italy.

What's wrong with me? Why can't I get a job with an American company?