"Democracy" Now On Sale To The Highest Bidder

[quade 4]

While the US was settled of corporations, by corporations, for corporations, at least until now there was a pretext of "The People" being in control. We have just been royally screwed by the 1%.

Quote

Supreme Court lifts overall limits on congressional campaign donations

By David G. Savage

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday freed wealthy donors to give more money directly to congressional candidates, extending its controversial 2010 Citizens United decision that opened the door for unlimited independent spending on political issues.

In a 5-4 decision, the court’s conservative majority struck down Watergate-era aggregate limits that barred political donors from giving more than $123,000 a year in total to candidates running for seats in the House of Representatives or Senate.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-campaign-funding-20140331,0,4470192.story

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

I remember when the First Amendment used to be zealously guarded by the left against abuses by the right.

Now it's the conservatives who abhor limits to speech.

I wonder whether Leland Yee would have resorted to gun running to pay iff his campaign debts if he didn't have to take out all those loans to run his campaign. Maybe Shrimp Boy could have just donated $100k to him right out for everyone to see instead of Yee dealing with under-the-table payments.

Yes, I can see how people think that others should not be allowed to participate.

But I also see the inherent belief of people that the public should not be allowed to grease poor, innocent, altruistic politicians who would never, ever do anything to line their own pockets if not for campaign contributors. Why, unless we limit campaign contributions and PACs, we may end up with the government going along with big lobbies and doing things like requiring the public to buy products and services from corporate dogs like health insurance companies.

How about zealously punishing and overseeing our civil servants? Naw. Can't do that. Limit the power of the People and we'll be fine.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Politicians are human. They are going to be beholding to whoever gives them the power to "win." This is not conjecture, this is a simple fact of life.

When we allow unlimited campaign contributions, we turn politicians from representatives of "The People" into representatives of "The Wealthy."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

quade

Politicians are human. They are going to be beholding to whoever gives them the power to "win." This is not conjecture, this is a simple fact of life.

When we allow unlimited campaign contributions, we turn politicians from representatives of "The People" into representatives of "The Wealthy."

I see a time coming when The National Razor will make a resurgence.

[rushmc 23]

Agreed
Now we might have a chance to take Democracy back

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/31/party-of-the-rich-in-congress-its-the-democrats/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

I remember when the First Amendment used to be zealously guarded by the left against abuses by the right.

Money != speech

- Dan G

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

Now it's the conservatives who abhor limits to speech.

Here are three scenarios for your consideration:

Scenario A: A politician is in a room with 20 constituents. Each constituent gets 5 minutes to speak without interruption.

Scenario B: A politician is in a room with 20 constituents. One of the constituents has a microphone and a sound system that renders anything else inaudible, and uses it to overwhelm anyone else who tries to speak.

Scenario C: Twenty constituents wait for a politician to arrive so they can speak to him. When the politician arrives, one of the constituents grabs his attention and whisks him off to an expensive lunch and an afternoon of golf, before any of the other 19 constituents can speak.

In your opinion, which scenario maximizes free speech? Which scenario results in the politician getting a better idea of the views of all of the constituents?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[lummy 4]

Quote

Money != speech

Not according to 5 Supreme Court Justices

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[lawrocket 3]

The wealthy? Like labor unions? Tell me, is there any more powerful lobby than labor unionns? Is there any more powerful individual entity than the SEIU? Is there another type of entity that can seize it's members' money for political purposes whether they like it or not and then, maybe, they'll get paid back AFTER the union has used it for it's political speech?

Yes. Money talks. Talks. Money talks. It's called "speech." More specifically, it's called "political speech." And the fact that you - and so many others - are so loaded with loathing of certain groups or viewpoints that you would want them effectively censored scares the hell out of me.

Picture a law that limits the total protest signage to 300x500 inches, but no one picketer can have a sign larger than 8.5 x 11, since any more that 8.5x11 may give that person too much of a voice. 100 people carrying 3x5 index cards satisfactorily conveys the message, since we don't want any person or group to have too much speech.

This is what campaign contribution limits do. Limit speech. Or how about protests must kept below 90 db at a distance of 10 yards? Maybe leafletting must be limited to 100 leaflets per day. Or blogs limited to 100 visitors per day.

Intensity of speech is as protectable as the speech itself. Because intensity of speech IS speech. If I've budgeted $10k for political conntributions, and I really want Joe schmo to win, why can't I give him all of it? He's the one I am most intensely behind.

"Well, Joe Schmo may give you what you want." Right. That's why I'm donating to him. Not to change his mind on an issue but because we are of like mind.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

quade

While the US was settled of corporations, by corporations, for corporations, at least until now there was a pretext of "The People" being in control. We have just been royally screwed by the 1%.

We've just been empowered!

Before the ruling our political landscape was controlled by non-natural people. For instance, to get laws and appointed officials helping them sell more bigger houses RPAC outspent all the other PACs for every election cycle since at least 1998 (that's where the opensecrets.org data stops) totaling $3,603,184 federal election candidate donations for the 2012 elections.

Now natural people like us stand a chance at having our voices heard in Washington!

[DanG 1]

Quote

Not according to 5 Supreme Court Justices

You're right. I heartily disagree with them.

The next time someone gets busted for trying to buy drugs or prostitutes, they should just say that they were engaging in speech, and are protected by the 1st Amendment.

- Dan G

[quade 4]

lawrocket

Tell me, is there any more powerful lobby than labor unions? (sic)

Unfortunately, the way the laws are currently structured, there's no way to tell! The unions have to state how much they contribute because they are beholding to their members. Billionaires don't have to tell anyone. They can funnel as much money as they want into 501(c)s (because "corporations are people") and they don't have to have their names sullied, but now with this, there isn't any legal reason to even do that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DanG 1]

Quote

Yes. Money talks. Talks. Money talks. It's called "speech." More specifically, it's called "political speech." And the fact that you - and so many others - are so loaded with loathing of certain groups or viewpoints that you would want them effectively censored scares the hell out of me.

What scares the hell out of me is that you, and at least five other lawyers, can't tell the difference between money and speech. Money is not speech. Money can be spent on expenses related to speaking, but it is not speech.

Quote

"Well, Joe Schmo may give you what you want." Right. That's why I'm donating to him. Not to change his mind on an issue but because we are of like mind.

If you truly believe that, then you are hopelessly naive. Should all bribery laws been struck down? What's the difference between campaign money, and bribery money? In your world, there doesn't appear to be any.

And this is not partisan for me. I believe the unions should be just as limited as the corporations.

- Dan G

[quade 4]

DanG

I believe the unions should be just as limited as the corporations.

Unions already are more limited because they are beholding to their membership whereas the 501(c) "corporations" don't have to disclose anything to anyone.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Let the suckage begin!

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-sheldon-adelson-suck-up-fest/360028/

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

quade

Let the suckage begin!

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-sheldon-adelson-suck-up-fest/360028/

Cool, now we can refer to those who worship their oligarchs Sheldon suckers as well as Koch suckers.

PUCKER UP BOYS

[rushmc 23]

quade

***I believe the unions should be just as limited as the corporations.

Unions already are more limited because they are beholding to their membership whereas the 501(c) "corporations" don't have to disclose anything to anyone.

Unions do not give a shit up wind what their membership thinks
I lived it for 15 years, I know first hand (IBEW)


The union leadership do just as much as ANY one in office to keep their power
There are laws that limit HOW they can spend money collected on political activities buy they, like the 501 (c) 3's that others here bitch about, have found ways around those laws
The reason the Democrats WANT money limits is becuase it gives them a leg up on spending BECAUSE of unions dollars
In the end, when it comes to public sector unions, it is just a big money skimming skeem
Pay those in unions more, then dues are larger therefore there is more money for these so called unions to give back to those who sign the large labor contracts that these public sector unions live on
This ruling just evens the playing field a bit IMO

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

quade

***I believe the unions should be just as limited as the corporations.

Unions already are more limited because they are beholding to their membership whereas the 501(c) "corporations" don't have to disclose anything to anyone.

You do know that these non-discloser laws you complain about here were put into place, by Democrat lawmakers, to keep those who donate from being harrased and targeted by the oposition
and now the Democrats use private IRS data to get those lists if the can, so they can harrass and target donors

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

The reason the Democrats WANT money limits is becuase it gives them a leg up on spending BECAUSE of unions dollars
In the end, when it comes to public sector unions, it is just a big money skimming skeem
Pay those in unions more, then dues are larger therefore there is more money for these so called unions to give back to those who sign the large labor contracts that these public sector unions live on
This ruling just evens the playing field a bit IMO

Let's try a little edit:

The reason the Republicans don't WANT money limits is becuase it gives them a leg up on spending BECAUSE of corporate dollars
In the end, when it comes to large corporations, it is just a big money skimming skeem
Give corporations larger tax loopholes, then profits are larger therefore there is more money for these so called "people" to give back to those who write the tax code that these large corporations live on

Can you spot the problem?

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

The reason the Democrats WANT money limits is becuase it gives them a leg up on spending BECAUSE of unions dollars
In the end, when it comes to public sector unions, it is just a big money skimming skeem
Pay those in unions more, then dues are larger therefore there is more money for these so called unions to give back to those who sign the large labor contracts that these public sector unions live on
This ruling just evens the playing field a bit IMO

Let's try a little edit:

The reason the Republicans don't WANT money limits is becuase it gives them a leg up on spending BECAUSE of corporate dollars
In the end, when it comes to large corporations, it is just a big money skimming skeem
Give corporations larger tax loopholes, then profits are larger therefore there is more money for these so called "people" to give back to those who write the tax code that these large corporations live on

Can you spot the problem?

I didnt say it was good
I just said it helped keep the playing field level
Can YOU spot the problems?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Now it's the conservatives who abhor limits to speech.

Here are three scenarios for your consideration:

Scenario A: A politician is in a room with 20 constituents. Each constituent gets 5 minutes to speak without interruption.

That's speech. Now imagine aa federal law limiting the constituents to 60 seconds each.

[Quote]Scenario B: A politician is in a room with 20 constituents. One of the constituents has a microphone and a sound system that renders anything else inaudible, and uses it to overwhelm anyone else who tries to speak.

The heckler's veto. Happens all the time. Want the government banning megaphones? Or would you simply eject the person into a free speech zone to stand on the street corner and megaphone a non-captive audience.

Again, this is private conduct. One person drowning out opposite-minded people. Instead of campaign contributions, which is not a zero-sum game.

[Quote]Scenario C: Twenty constituents wait for a politician to arrive so they can speak to him. When the politician arrives, one of the constituents grabs his attention and whisks him off to an expensive lunch and an afternoon of golf, before any of the other 19 constituents can speak.

Again, private conduct. So the politician gets the vote of the one constituent and lost 19 votes in the process. One would think. But you are assuming speech is finite. Political contributions to a candidate ($100k from A and 10 bucks from B) accomplish the same thing. Political speech is not a zero sum game in this
[Quote]In your opinion, which scenario maximizes free speech? Which scenario results in the politician getting a better idea of the views of all of the constituents?

I think you've reversed my viewpoint. I'm not about maximizing speech. I'm against the government LIMITING speech. The government saying there's a quota. A limited amount of political activity in which a person may participate. A limit in a person's participation in the process.

The government shouldn't be involved in speech redistribution. "Can't run ads against Joe Schmo within 30 days of an election. It might affect the outcome!" Yeah. No shit.

Let's say I'm all about God and lower taxes and want to give $100k to the tea party candidate for Senate. "Can't donate hard money to a tea party candidate. She may take a stance in favor of christianity and lower taxes. Plus, your $100k will also mean that a hundred other people donating $100 won't have the same voice."

Both thoughts are pretty ludicrous because in the case of political donations, speech is not a zero sum game.

Of course, one way to get money out of politics is to limit the power of politicians. And to punish those who abuse the public trust. Putting all this donation stuff out in the open, I think, is the best of sunshine laws. No need for the candidate to take under-the-table payments to skirt the rules. It's now open and notorious.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said the ruling, along with Citizens United, "eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws."

I find this statemnt puzzling

thoughts?

It is not the role of the SC to do just this if the law is found unconstitutional????

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jclalor 12]

rushmc

Quote

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said the ruling, along with Citizens United, "eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws."

I find this statemnt puzzling

thoughts?

It is not the role of the SC to do just this if the law is found unconstitutional????

I understand that this ruling is going to help your side win more elections, God only knows that you folks need something different, but in your heart of hearts, does this decision really leave you a warm and fuzzy feeling?

[rushmc 23]

jclalor

***

Quote

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said the ruling, along with Citizens United, "eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws."

I find this statemnt puzzling

thoughts?

It is not the role of the SC to do just this if the law is found unconstitutional????

I understand that this ruling is gong to help your side win more elections, God only knows that you folks need something different, but in your heart of hearts, does this decision really leave you a warm and fuzzy feeling?

No, it does not, but that said,
Neither does the power given the unions
As I stated before, all this does is level the playing field
It takes away a Democrat advantage they have enjoyed for decades

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

BTW
My side in not the republican side

My side is the side of the people
Big government is not an advocate of the people in general

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln