Citizens United Round 2

backseatLover12

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2014/04/02-0

Buying the U.S. Government
by Abby Zimet

Today's devastating Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, aka Citizens United Round 2, further cements our plutocracy, thus "opening the floodgates for the nation’s wealthiest few to drown out the voices of the rest of us." It features some truly mind-twisting arguments by John Roberts, who supports regulations that "target 'quid pro quo' corruption or its appearance" but not "the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies" and the reality that "candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to (their) concerns," which sure sounds a whole lot like quid pro quo to us, but of course we don't speak Supreme Court-ese so we could be wrong, thought, actually, we don't think we are. What a crock. What a travesty.

Sen. Bernie Sanders: “Freedom of speech, in my view, does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government…What world are the five conservative Supreme Court justices living in? To equate the ability of billionaires to buy elections with ‘freedom of speech’ is totally absurd. The Supreme Court is paving the way toward an oligarchic form of society in which a handful of billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson will control our political process.”

gimmesometruth27

consrvative supreme court will not stop until the government can be bought by a few rich individuals. that is the definition of plutocracy.

gimmesometruth27

if money is speech, does that make a millionaire's voice louder and more influential than an elderly person of a fixed income?

backseatLover12

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group.” ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt

unsung

Well the left has George Soros so it'll equal out.

I'll still be stuck with the Constitutionalists and Libertarians watching from the sidelines.

gimmesometruth27

george soros, one guy, can not compete with the koch brothers and sheldon adelson, and the dozens of millionaire gop donors.

unsung

And we both know that he isn't alone. He can call up Bill Gates to bail him out.

gimmesometruth27

are you really going to make this a tit for tat thing?

everybody knows that the vast majority of the financial big boys are republican donors. if the shoe were on the other foot, scalia would have found a way to make this unconstitutional. and that is a fact.

unsung

We can go and look at the money that Obama received this last election compared to Romney. Then you can tell me where the GOP mega-donors were.

mikepegg44

and people wonder why I want the gov't to have as little sway and power over us as possible.

rgambs

the banks fund both sides so you can't really count them in the equation...that being said, money in politics is bad umkay

gimmesometruth27

unsung said:

We can go and look at the money that Obama received this last election compared to Romney. Then you can tell me where the GOP mega-donors were.

romney funded a lot of his own campaign.

most of obama's money was from small donors.

gimmesometruth27

i find it hilarious that the kochs keep dropping millions and millions of dollars behind questionable candidates and they always lose. i wonder what the koch's returns on their investments are looking like. aside from the supreme court ruling in their favor time and again, they have not won anything.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 said:

i find it hilarious that the kochs keep dropping millions and millions of dollars behind questionable candidates and they always lose. i wonder what the koch's returns on their investments are looking like. aside from the supreme court ruling in their favor time and again, they have not won anything.

if they are still billionaires they are winning somewhere. You don't need them all to hit, just a few....kind of like always betting hardway in craps...if the pay out is 35:1 you can lose 33 times and still come out ahead.

backseatLover12

This affects us all. I wish people wouldn't resort to their party line defense moves as above, and look at it from a populace view. Pointing fingers does nothing but keep us arguing.

gimmesometruth27

plutocracy.

mikepegg44

backseatLover12 said:

This affects us all. I wish people wouldn't resort to their party line defense moves as above, and look at it from a populace view. Pointing fingers does nothing but keep us arguing.

do you think that Robert's argument is true? That unlimited amounts of expression (donations), even though viewed as reprehensible by many, is protected by the 1st just like nazi parades or other hate speech? I would argue that although he makes a solid point, and it follows logically, that an unlimited spending ability is a clear and present danger to our democracy, akin to yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.

If a service or power doesn't exist, it can't be bought...this is one of the many reasons I want much less gov't influence on my and your life. If you give them the power to grant rights, you implicitly give them the right to take them away. Gay marriage is a prime example...all this money spent to fight something that the gov't should not be licensing. It is a contract between two people, whoever they may be, but when you give them the power to grant a license, you then give them the power to deny it as well.

One good thing is that At least now there is a trail somewhat to the blatant bribery when before they did it in secret

backseatLover12

mikepegg44 said:

backseatLover12 said:

This affects us all. I wish people wouldn't resort to their party line defense moves as above, and look at it from a populace view. Pointing fingers does nothing but keep us arguing.

do you think that Robert's argument is true? That unlimited amounts of expression (donations), even though viewed as reprehensible by many, is protected by the 1st just like nazi parades or other hate speech? I would argue that although he makes a solid point, and it follows logically, that an unlimited spending ability is a clear and present danger to our democracy, akin to yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.

If a service or power doesn't exist, it can't be bought...this is one of the many reasons I want much less gov't influence on my and your life. If you give them the power to grant rights, you implicitly give them the right to take them away. Gay marriage is a prime example...all this money spent to fight something that the gov't should not be licensing. It is a contract between two people, whoever they may be, but when you give them the power to grant a license, you then give them the power to deny it as well.

One good thing is that At least now there is a trail somewhat to the blatant bribery when before they did it in secret

Hey, I agree with you. But shortly after the thread started, it turned into republicans vs. everyone else argument.

mikepegg44

backseatLover12 said:

mikepegg44 said:

backseatLover12 said:

This affects us all. I wish people wouldn't resort to their party line defense moves as above, and look at it from a populace view. Pointing fingers does nothing but keep us arguing.

do you think that Robert's argument is true? That unlimited amounts of expression (donations), even though viewed as reprehensible by many, is protected by the 1st just like nazi parades or other hate speech? I would argue that although he makes a solid point, and it follows logically, that an unlimited spending ability is a clear and present danger to our democracy, akin to yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.

If a service or power doesn't exist, it can't be bought...this is one of the many reasons I want much less gov't influence on my and your life. If you give them the power to grant rights, you implicitly give them the right to take them away. Gay marriage is a prime example...all this money spent to fight something that the gov't should not be licensing. It is a contract between two people, whoever they may be, but when you give them the power to grant a license, you then give them the power to deny it as well.

One good thing is that At least now there is a trail somewhat to the blatant bribery when before they did it in secret

Hey, I agree with you. But shortly after the thread started, it turned into republicans vs. everyone else argument.

I am pretty sure a thread about peanut butter and jelly would turn into that

unsung

mikepegg44 said:

Gay marriage is a prime example...all this money spent to fight something that the gov't should not be licensing. It is a contract between two people, whoever they may be, but when you give them the power to grant a license, you then give them the power to deny it as well.

Any government big enough to give you what you want is big enough to take it all away.

unsung

gimmesometruth27 said:

are you really going to make this a tit for tat thing?

everybody knows that the vast majority of the financial big boys are republican donors. if the shoe were on the other foot, scalia would have found a way to make this unconstitutional. and that is a fact.

Both of Romney's and Obama's biggest supporters were employed by big companies. Obama had the tech giants and Romney had the banks.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/

It's worth noting that lawyers and lobbyists went overwhelmingly for Obama too. Their spending was nearly equal. $1.1B vs $1.2B Keep telling me either of them represents ANY of us. You would be foolish.

Meanwhile, my guy Ron Paul received five times the amount of donations from the military over all other candidates combined. You want to talk about individual contributors? Ron Paul would win. Ron Paul didn't have the corporate backing because unlike these other two clowns RP wouldn't have played their game. Ron Paul's biggest contributors were the US Army, Navy, and Air Force. Obama's was University of California and Romney's was Goldman Sachs.

Please stop trying to pit me on the side of the GOP, I'm calling out the facts that both Obama and Romney were bought and paid for by huge corporate sponsors.

backseatLover12

When will you people realize that there is only one side and that is the side of the system. While you folk are arguing sides, the higher ups are laughing at you yet satisfied that you'd rather spend your time discussing minute issues while they're jerking the chains. They are all ONE. And the lone scapegoat at the top? Just a scapegoat to the greater and almighty SYSTEM.

Now can we get back on track and discuss the subject?

mikepegg44

I will ask again because I think it got glossed over, does anyone agree that suppressing the amount of spending one is doing on an election is a violation of the first amendment and that, as deplorable as it may be, it needs to be protected akin to hate speech? I think Roberts is probably right to the letter of the law, but it definitely shows how there need to be sweeping constitutional changes to election law and unfortunately I don't ever see it happening until the whole system fails.

polaris_x

mikepegg44 said:

I will ask again because I think it got glossed over, does anyone agree that suppressing the amount of spending one is doing on an election is a violation of the first amendment and that, as deplorable as it may be, it needs to be protected akin to hate speech? I think Roberts is probably right to the letter of the law, but it definitely shows how there need to be sweeping constitutional changes to election law and unfortunately I don't ever see it happening until the whole system fails.

i would say the constitution has been shat upon since the beginning of its existence and that using it as a justification to further erode the democratic principles in the US is pitiful ... this is not about protecting freedom of speech ... it's like arguing the genital mutilation of a child is ok because of religious freedoms ...

the corporatization of america continues ... the people have lost ...

gimmesometruth27

we lost a long time ago.

since money is now speech, i guess it really talks and bullshit walks.

brianlux

Plutocrazy, pure and simple. The will of the few to do whatever the f they want.

rgambs

robert reich said something like...it doesn't matter who the donors are, a few billionaires having an arguement is not democracy.

mikepegg44

polaris_x said:

mikepegg44 said:

I will ask again because I think it got glossed over, does anyone agree that suppressing the amount of spending one is doing on an election is a violation of the first amendment and that, as deplorable as it may be, it needs to be protected akin to hate speech? I think Roberts is probably right to the letter of the law, but it definitely shows how there need to be sweeping constitutional changes to election law and unfortunately I don't ever see it happening until the whole system fails.

i would say the constitution has been shat upon since the beginning of its existence and that using it as a justification to further erode the democratic principles in the US is pitiful ... this is not about protecting freedom of speech ... it's like arguing the genital mutilation of a child is ok because of religious freedoms ...

the corporatization of america continues ... the people have lost ...

I agree, I think that elections should be publicly funded. I don't believe you should be able to donate one penny to an elected official.

That is what I meant when I said there needs to be sweeping constitutional changes to the election laws in the US. We always knew that elected officials were for sale, at least now it is out in the open.
If they are going to allow unlimited amounts of money to be spent, then there needs to be much more stringent restrictions on the truthfulness of adds. The more I think about it the sadder I get. I think this is the final nail for me in terms of caring about the political process

polaris_x

but at least now you know who the real evil culprits are ... the big corporations and 1% ...

gimmesometruth27

just think how much these rich pricks could help their fellow men if they wanted to. they could give that money to charity or to medical research or something. instead they give their millions of dollars to buy people only to benefit themselves and their financial/business interests.

rgambs

trillions of dollars just sitting around doing jack shit...i think western individualism is among the highest ideals, but it will be the downfall of humanity.