Best
256 Comments
Post
  • #1
    !
    Limits on individual contributions but NO limits on corporation contributions. What's wrong with that picture?
  • #5
    !
    Sorry, but I thought this decision lifted the limits on the individual. Were you talking about what it was before challenged? Ah, I assume so.
  • #15
    !
    @Willozwisp
    The way I understand it individual contributions remain at $2600 per candidate but one can donate that amount to more candidates than before. 18 instead of 12?
  • #35
    !
    On an individual basis, since i rarely watch shows on TV live, I'll just fast-forward past the political ads as I usually do and the corps will just have wasted their money on at least one television set. I suspect that with the invention of Tivo and DVRs there will be millions of people making certain that their money will have been poorly spent. I think the only people who will even notice the increase in money spent will be the idiots who are addicted to the "news" channels, but then ads aren't the only propaganda that these brainwashing nightmares spew.
  • #45
    !
    @WMCOL "The Supreme Court Wednesday ruled, 5-4, that caps on the total amount of money an individual can give to political campaigns and PACs are unconstitutional." First Sentence of article. That is what I am going on since it was a suit brought by an individual.
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    !
    Republicans need to find their lost patriotism and join the rest of us in trying to end this nonsense or our Government will soon be completely a Government by the wealthy for the wealthy.
  • #48
    !
    Another sadly confused American. Right vs left minded easily manipulated. What politicians regardless of party wants less money given to them? Its the people who want money out of politics. Its the people who must bring change and demand our rights are once again respected. The congress, executive, and superior branch no longer fear a public uprising in response to there corrupt laws and blatant lies to the American people. People must relies its not anarchy its collective social change in a peaceful gathering to show will. Mass gatherings sever the people. Were not talking about overthrowing the government but forcing them to change from within. American people and our constitution are fine its are corrupt leaders not following the constitution or the will of the people. These problems have little to do with party affiliations.
  • #52
    !
    so you didn't read the article?

    The left is on board to get the money out of politics....the right is not.....hence my point.
  • #124
    !
    @NolanVoyd the left is on board to get money out of politics? So when corporations were given the rights as individuals and can now donate from company coffers to campaigns by the left. You felt the same way? Or just because this one particular article is telling you so?
  • #148
    !
    I have to wonder what the teachers unions and other labor unions think they're buying when they donate to the democrat party ... politicians, elections etc.
  • R Load more replies

  • #19
    !
    No limits on corporation contributions...this is insane....corporations are just selling us candidates like any other product...and the candidates all get their money from the corporations...so, that's the only ones candidates have any allegiance to....Orwell is starting to look like an optimist
  • #150
    !
    So, you are for limits on Union contributions also? How about the great corporation called George Soros? Limits? LOL - I sincerely doubt it, but you will bring up the Koch Brothers, the newest Boggie Man of the left. Pathetic hysteria and Drama Queen overreaction worthy of a Broadway Play.
  • #180
    !
    @Tralee
    Yes, I am for limiting all contributions...unlike conservatives I don't just want it to go to my side....both democrats and republicans are working for corporations at this point...republicans just make it more blatant...I figure a commercial mascots will soon be running this country (ie. Energizer Bunny, Kool-Aid Man,Ronald McDonald, Tony the Tiger, Toucan Sam, or Mr. Peanut)...and we will all bow and pray before it's corporate logo
  • #184
    !
    @happyhedon All campaigns need taxpayer funding only and a budget. That way everyone and every issue stands on it's own.
  • R Load more replies

  • #6
    !
    Actually no, way to assume though. Is this why you're for big money from corporations just bc you think those damn libs are all for big money from unions and you just have to be against whatever you think those damn libs are for? Or are you actually saying that our government being for sale is a good thing?
  • #9
    !
    @Gtiallday "Actually no, way to assume though.".... Maybe for you, I'm calling BS on the majority of lib voters as many of them only care "what their country can do for me." As for myself? I'm disgusted with all of our current government, all they care about is "what the citizenry can do for me." I vote against most libs on the "more handouts and less guns" issue. That and the "party of equality" is really the party of "specialty". The fact that "we" have to run to the scotus over this speaks volumes with the problems our country is facing. There is a simple remedy we can do on both sides, vote for the other guys that didn't receive"big money."
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #17
    !
    @arborweek brave words there computer tough guy. You libs don't know the meaning of fair. As for union donations look them up genius. Millions. I bet you think Democrats do not take millions in corporate or rich people donations? Get off your high horse, your Mommy and Daddy Democrats are just as crooked. Facts matter. https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontr...
  • #21
    !
    You're an idiot. Shelly Adelson and the Koch bros is where the $$ is coming from.

    Back to your bunker. You came for my vote, sure as heck I'm gunning for your guns.
  • R Load more replies

  • #31
    !
    We know how much the Dear Leader wants to shut up and punish his enemies. And people thought that Nixon was bad. Nixon was a piker by comparison.
  • #10
    !
    Money in politics will be the end of America if we the people don't stop it. We can not count on anyone in power, they have shown that they do not care what the people think anymore, and if you think that people in power are gonna put any system in place even a single one bc they want to share that power with you, you're crazy.
  • #36
    !
    Money, in and of itself, isn't evil. BUT..Having money IS power.. The more you have the more power you possess. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Corporations ARE NOT people..! I'll believe they are when you can hang one..
  • #32
    !
    To remove money from politics you have to get rid of what attracts money to politics.
    Which is the Tax Code and excessive regulation.

    The voter wants regulation and taxes on business and the rich, which causes business and the rich to spend money on politics to influence taxes and regulations. Blame the voter.

    Excessive regulations and a convoluted Tax Code are the seeds of an oligarchy; they are the sperm and egg.

    If you count on the Government to do it or over regulate it, it will be hijacked by special interest groups (Unions, Financial Industry, Oil Industry, Farmers, Multi-National Corporations, Religious Groups, Environmentalists, AARP, etc.), so it invites more corruption than solutions. People are given a false sense of security. A very good reason to keep Government to a minimum and one of the reasons the Constitution is set up to constrain it.

    Blame the voter for the existence of lobbyists.

    First step to a solution:

    Support politicians that promise to get rid of laws and regulations that are obsolete or ineffective, instead of the ones that promise to enact more laws and regulations.

    Second and third steps:

    Repeal the 16th Amendment, abolish the IRS and the Tax Code, and enact the Fair Tax. Less money will go into politics because there will be no Tax Code to manipulate. There will be much less for the special interest groups to hijack.

    Reduce regulations to the minimum necessary. Less money will go into politics because there will be less to manipulate. There will be less for the special interest groups to hijack.

    Fourth step:
    Pass and ratify an Amendment to the Constitution to require a 60% supermajority in the House to pass any new legislation and a simple majority to repeal any legislation.

    In a system of fighting for government programs and benefits, the very rich will usually win and we get Crony Capitalism (USA) and if somehow the poor win we get socialism (Venezuela). The easiest way to fix this is for government to adhere to the Constitution and to be very limited. So the only way for the rich or the poor to get many benefits is to provide something of value to the free market.

    If you look to government to provide things, you are playing on a field in which the players are wasting resources fighting each other and the results will be lopsided. If government is limited and a limited field exists, then there is a smaller fight and there are much less wasted resources and the results will be more level.
  • #64
    !
    Excellent post. Government (both parties!) benefits from the mass of regulations and the complex tax code. And as long as we voters remain apathetic they will keep adding regulations and taxes......all to their profit.
  • #84
    !
    @BobSmith 60% to pass, 51% to repeal. Which one will politicians try to accomplish to say they did something?
  • #94
    !
    I would add to require bills to be limited to one topic and to reference which article of the constitution empowers them to pass such a bill.
  • #99
    !
    "First step to a solution:

    Support politicians that promise to get rid of laws and regulations that are obsolete or ineffective, instead of the ones that promise to enact more laws and regulations."

    The problem is that pro-corporate politicians insist, no matter how little sense it makes, that ALL regulations are obsolete or ineffective.

    "Second and third steps:

    Repeal the 16th Amendment, abolish the IRS and the Tax Code, and enact the Fair Tax."

    Those are quite possibly the WORST things that could be done. The "Fair Tax" is the opposite of fair.

    "Reduce regulations to the minimum necessary. Less money will go into politics because there will be less to manipulate. There will be less for the special interest groups to hijack."

    In other words, give the corporations everything they want and that way they won't have to bother with buying politicians? Your "cure" is worse than the disease.
  • R Load more replies

  • #20
    !
    As I said before, when George Soros and his sponsored groups, the UAW, General Electric, Mass Media providing free positive reports, Wall street and big banks stop giving to the dems then maybe these contributions the dems are complaining should also be scrutinized.
  • #25
    !
    Or maybe if you're so concerned about that the left will take advantage of this you should be against it, but let me guess, your aren't.
  • #38
    !
    No I'm not, you are a seer. Dems have outspent the Repubs in the last couple of elections. Do they really want
    to balance things out?
  • #158
    !
    Which party does George Soros contribute to..... I have heard once that he's a big contributor to the democrat party, I bet if its true that George Soros and his organizations are big contributors to the democrats that the democrats will certainly want to put a stop to this right away.
  • #173
    !
    Soros is the 19th richest American at $19 billion dollars. Most of his giving is not political, and he is a major media whore. If he gives a dollar, he want credit for it and his name in news. The Kochs are tied at #4 as the richest Americans with $36 billion each and are firm believers in dark money. The do everything they can to hide their donations through a series of shell organiztions. Even in their non-political giving, they make sure they still have a poitical bent and they have political control. Donate to open a business school at a university? The Kochs take control of what is taught and who is hired. FSU is a prime example. Four of the Walton family are numbers 6-9, all big right wing donors, with a total of $136 billion. Maybe you need to turn off Glenn Beck, with his hard on for Soros, and look at the real numbers and facts.
  • #192
    !
    @Bodhisattva FYI ; I don't watch Glenn Beck. My political views precede Rush, Fox, and Regan.
    No don't get baqck with a snide remark about that. I wasn't brought up with public schools or TV News.
    Soros is the sponsor of many groups which in turn kick in the cash and get out the vote for your guys. The Koch brothers are pikers compared with Soros. By the way the Koch brothers support many charities and hire more people in the private sector. Beck but don't
  • R Load more replies

  • #11
    !
    When the government is no longer empowered to redistribute other people's money, people will no longer be interested spending money to own it.. As it stands now, government is an investment. The more you own, the more you make.
  • #28
    !
    And you don't think that's redistribution? You don't think they have bought the govt for the last 30 years to see that distribution go up instead of out?
  • #60
    !
    Of course that's redistribution. That's why the only answer is to prevent the government from having the ability to redistribute people's wealth.
  • #7
    !
    Soros? Koch? Seems that money is always tied in...like only one party has money or donors. For the government to limit the speech or contributions of politics is fraught with constitutional issues. This is again about the voter. They have a choice. They are not bought by the money of donors. They are bought by the entitlement "contributions" and inducements of your congresscritters. They have figured out that the biggest pot of money for buying elections is the one they already control.
  • #26
    !
    Both parties take money from donors, however only one party advocates this as protected by the first amendment.
  • #47
    !
    @AceLuby Advocates what? Free Speech? An individual brought suit. The Supremes ruled. Seems that they found it constitutional. Seems that bribing voters with money from the public coffers passes muster.
  • #50
    !
    I guess free speech is only free speech if you.....? Can't speak more or louder? Have to hire a Town Crier? Can't take out ads, use TV, Radio or give your opinion within a certain time frame around an election. This protects whom? The politicians. The great unwashed incumbents. Look at the average wealth of the politicians in office. Your congresscritter is someone to fear more than someone spending money on ads. Not buying votes. Want to protect the voter from whom? Not much faith in our system.
  • #213
    !
    @Willozwisp "And while the Supreme Court just struck down limits on campaign contributions to federal candidates, the new Reason-Rupe poll finds Americans are actually more concerned about how elected officials misuse their power and taxpayer money once they’re in office than they are worried about campaign contributions. "
    http://reason.com/poll/2014/04/03/americans-s...
  • #2
    !
    Another partisan decision by the right wing activist court. These kinds of decisions are why America should NEVER elect a conservative President who has the power to make SC appointments.

    This is another last gasp attempt to help elect republicans because most of the big money donors swing (R). However much like Florida's attempt to disenfranchise black voters in 2012 it will probably come back to bite the republicans in the face.

    Either way it was another in a long line of bad decisions from the right wing partisan court
  • #42
    !
    Im curious why you blame everything on the right? This is the same court that upheld the Democrats health care act. This is the same court that says NDAA is constitutional. Both bills signed into law by a democratic official. Do you blame the right so you feel less betrayed by the left?
  • #43
    !
    @fayban Liberals are against the NDAA. PNWest puts country over party. Clinton was wrong on NAFTA, Obama wrong on NDAA. I have always spoken out in favor of those things that are good for America and against those things that are bad - regardless of party.

    Roberts got cold feet when it came to overturning Obamacare. Otherwise the conservatives would have won. Roberts was worried about his reputation as a partisan hack. He also thought that if they overruled such an obviously constitutional law that the American public would see the blanket partisanship that makes up today's SC. It's no surprise that public faith in the SC is at all time lows since the SC installed GW Bush in spite of blatant conflicts of interests of several of the members of the court who should have recused themselves.
  • #63
    !
    Do you need a box of tissues mailed to you ?

    What, not bipartisan enough for you ?

    Aaahh, too bad ! How bout's you go put on your p-jams while I make it a nice hot cup of bosco, afterwards we can read about once upon a time when John McCain offered to campaign within limits, Obama agreed and then didn't make good on that promise.

    You know, for all you guys crying you're getting no sympathy across the divide at all.

    Ain't karma a bitch !
  • #72
    !
    @PNWest " since the SC installed GW Bush"

    The Electoral College did that. Bush would have won Florida either way.
  • #74
    !
    @BobSmith The SC stopped the recount so we do not know what the final results would have been. Several of those who voted to install Bush had been appointed by the man's father and one had a son who was actually a Florida Bush campaign manager. That is clearly conflict of interest and had a judge in a lower court not recused himself under those conditions he would have been rightly overruled at any higher level court. Bottom line is that the SC installed Bush regardless of how the recount would have turned out. By doing so they subverted the American Presidential Election in 2000 and directly led to 8 of the darkest years the country has ever suffered through.
  • R Load more replies

  • #56
    !
    Well Democrats will be sounding off bat shit crazy now about how unfair this is, but then that's been Democrat SOP ever since Obama shut the government down.

    Sound bites ought to be delicious from this when looped over Obama's record collections from campaign contributions.

    "Oh, those wascally Kwoch brwuthers have gone and done it again, time to call Wuncle Soros and the Wokefeller Fwoundation.
    They'll fix those wascals !"
  • #98
    !
    Somebody who thinks that Obama shut the government down is calling other people "bat shit crazy". That's funny.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #122
    !
    @Cal In U.S. politics, a government shutdown is the name for the process the Executive Branch must enter into, when the Congress creates a "funding gap" by choosing not to or failing to pass legislation funding government operations and agencies. If interim or full-year appropriations are not enacted into law, the United States Constitution and the Antideficiency Act require the federal government begins a "shutdown" of the affected activities.

    "A government shutdown is the name for the process the Executive Branch must enter into..."

    The president does the shut down.
  • #125
    !
    @daclark1911
    The House approved a budget that funded everything except the ACA. Then the Senate passed an amended version of that House budget, restoring the ACA funding. The House then refused to vote on the Senate's version OR to hold a conference committee to reconcile the different versions. Since no budget passed by both houses of Congress reached Obama's desk, he had no say in the government being shut down.
  • R Load more replies

  • #37
    !
    Let's see ... No to big government but Yes to Big Coporations and Big Spenders as a way of upholding the first amendment? Is this really a win for participation in the democratic process or a really Big Win for participants in the oligarchic process (see above ... Koch wins Koch wins!)?
  • #129
    !
    No problem as in the last few elections the Democrats are the ones that profited most by these contributions. they will continue to do it as well.
  • #59
    !
    This is simply wrong...money is not free speech...period. What we have going forward in the good ole USofA, is the Robert's Court deciding that an oligarchy (like the one our founding White men set up) is preferable over a democratic republic. Until we take this kind of Supreme nonsense (starting with Citizens United) out of our political system, we now have the best government rich people can buy. The rest of us can go pound sand.
    "This is another victory for liberty and for more competitive political campaigns." One would have to be a complete idiot to accept that sentence as true. It's a victory alright; a victory for Sheldon and the Koch Brothers who have obviously bought off the majority of the Supremes. This is disgusting...
  • #67
    !
    Our founding fathers set up an Oligarchy??? ROFLMMFAO..... 90% of our problems are from us ignoring what those men said and created.
  • #111
    !
    @raindropsonros amen. They don't WANT to follow the constitution. The founders set the constitution up to LIMIT the power of gument, yet liberals want an all powerful gument.
  • #114
    !
    @Ets101592 To bad both parties are pretty liberal in the way they read the Constitution... One group disguised as two parties.
  • #121
    !
    I frankly don't know what else to call a system where only White land owning men could vote. Black folks were 3/5 of a person...women were chattel...and farm hands and renters were also excluded, What would you call that system? It's no wonder the White men on that court (and one want-to-be-White-man) love the founders. The rest of us are simply trailer trash and trouble makers. If it looks like and oligarchy, it walks like an oligarchy, and it functions like an oligarchy...yup, its an oligarchy alright. Take a look for yourself...http://teachingamer icanhistory.org/convention/chr isty/
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more comments...
Post