[Yeti]

The U.S. Supreme Court today continued a recent trend of loosening political campaign finance restrictions. People can now donate much more money to a politician, whereas before the law had prohibited donations over a certain amount from individual people.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26855657

This follows a 2010 case in which the Supreme Court had previously also loosened regulations - a clear trend. I wonder what comes next.

Often what is our strength proves a concomitant weakness - on paper, the U.S. legal system provides strong support for freedom of expression. That is, the right to make yourself heard, which in the eyes of the Supreme Court means whom you choose to support via campaign contributions. Personal expression is great (women especially feel the need to 'express themselves'). But the end result of today's ruling is that moneyed interests have even more power to influence the American political landscape, and the world as a result.

Freedom of expression in the U.S. is a misnomer because although it may be protected by the government, this applies only in the public sphere. The U.S. is a conformist, corporate-dominated, political correct country in which you can't voice personal opinions in the workplace. Nor even really in the private sphere, because the U.S. government is spying on everyone, even outside its borders. You really have to watch what you say, which means that our right to freedom of expression is really not that protected after all.

This is a big ruling.

[placer]

(04-02-2014 12:11 PM)Yeti Wrote:  

The U.S. Supreme Court today continued a recent trend of loosening political campaign finance restrictions. People can now donate much more money to a politician, whereas before the law had prohibited donations over a certain amount from individual people.

Support:

• Roberts (Bush II)
• Scalia (Reagan)
• Kennedy (Reagan)
• Alito (Bush II)
• Thomas (Bush I; Concurring opinion)
  

Oppose:

• Breyer (Clinton)
• Ginsburg (Clinton)
• Sotomayor (Obama)
• Kagan (Obama)
  

Here is something which I want posters here to note: Every single justice that supports this abomination was appointed by a Republican and Every last justice that opposed this abomination was appointed by a Democrat. It was the same with Citizens United in 2010.

There is a lot I do not like about the Democratic party: I don't like the way they support feminism and atheism. But, I would rather deal with feminists and atheists than live in a plutocracy. The "both sides are the same" line is a bunch of malarkey; when Democrats get people in the supreme court, we have justices which allow people to try and stop Big Money from having too much control of politics. Republican justices do everything in their power to support Big Money at the expense of the average taxpayer.

[Vicious]

I SEE NO PROBLEMS WITH THIS.

[j r]

Why assume that campaign finance laws don't support the plutocracy as well? In the absence of outside money into a campaign, incumbents and establishment candidates have a huge advantage over independent candidates trying to break into the field. In some situations, money is an equalizer.

[SheriffBart]

Placer, you're assuming that the Democrats are voting that way because they somehow see injustice or disagree with the principle involved. The most likely reason they voted against this is because it favors their party less than the other.

Indeed, both sides are the same.

[lskdfjldsf]

What is legal, and what is morally right, are two different things. Republicans vote out of principle, Democrats vote with emotions and feelings. In a way, both are right, and both are wrong.

If "freedom of expression" dictates the legality of the ruling, politicians and the American public are free to change it. Alcohol was banned, no reason other amendments can't be added or modified with enough public support.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

The shameful slide into a government-for-hire continues...

[lskdfjldsf]

Money influences votes, but it doesn't buy them.

With that in mind, what's the bigger problem - the fact that corporations and PAC's can purchase TV advertisements, or that the majority of the public is dumb enough to vote based on them?

[Samseau]

(04-02-2014 12:44 PM)j r Wrote:  

Why assume that campaign finance laws don't support the plutocracy as well? In the absence of outside money into a campaign, incumbents and establishment candidates have a huge advantage over independent candidates trying to break into the field. In some situations, money is an equalizer.

Exactly. I never understood how the campaign finance law was supposed to level the playing field.

All the law did was make it so big organizations would need to find loopholes in order to donate to their selected candidates, such as one big organization secretly making and funding 1000 smaller organizations that each meet the campaign limit of donating no more than 120K or whatever the limit is.

This ruling doesn't even get rid of the 120K limit; all it does is remove the restriction of how many people you can donate to. There will still be plenty of shady shit political organizations will need to do in order to get money moved to the candidates of their choice.

I'm pretty sure the reason Democrats support these laws is because they know that most people will not be able to figure out how to get around these laws, thus placing themselves in a position to exploit the rules in favor of their candidates.

Republicans, on the other hand, at least recognize by allowing large organizations to act freely, at least the money can be tracked and followed easily.

[j r]

I also don't think that money matters all that much in an election past a certain point. You need a certain amount of money to be in the game, but above that threshold having more money will not guarantee you a victory.

People aren't as stupid as we like to think. They don't just vote blindly based on how many commercials they see.

[iknowexactly]

(04-02-2014 12:50 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

The shameful slide into a government-for-hire continues...

At this point, our government is just the PR branch of the corporations/owning class.

The only saving grace is their lives are so exquisite they don't want chaos and will thus govern accordingly.

Ahhh, 9+ hooker/wives, kids in Harvard, big-assed sailboats in the summer off Martha's Vineyard.

And unlike third world countries, you're not hated but admired. Rich people don't even have bodyguards for the most part, they wander about like favorite spoiled children. What a life!

I didn't grow up in it, but I was close enough to smell it, and believe me they don't want to upset THAT applecart...

Unlike doomsayers, I don't even think they're that evil. I don't hear about people IN THE US disappearing, that kind of stuff unless you really get in their faces and ask for it, like that DC hooker that "suicided." If you run around in the mountains of Asia trying to RPG our troop trucks, well...how's that re-establishing the Caliphate going there in that mud hut?

[Quintus Curtius]

More concentration of wealth in the hands of the few

More control of the system by the super-rich.

More legal rationalizations for oppression and stacking the deck in favor of top 1%

Business as usual in America, circa 2014.

[samsamsam]

How did Rome fall again?

[Dusty]

Unions ( especially gubmint employee unions) are among the top campaign contributors always. These unions support left wing candidates. They fund the Democrat party. The Democrats including the Obama and Clinton appointees on the Supreme Court want the big campaign bucks to be spent on Democrats exclusively, with no opposition. This is what this is all about. Some speech is freer than other.

[K Galt]

Quote:

There is a lot I do not like about the Democratic party: I don't like the way they support feminism and atheism. But, I would rather deal with feminists and atheists than live in a plutocracy. The "both sides are the same" line is a bunch of malarkey; when Democrats get people in the supreme court, we have justices which allow people to try and stop Big Money from having too much control of politics. Republican justices do everything in their power to support Big Money at the expense of the average taxpayer.

What makes you think Democrat justices don't support Big Money at the expense of the average taxpayer?

Dumbocrats and Republicons don't just support Big Money, they are ALL owned by Big Money (Banksters 2Big2Fail) lock, stock and barrel.

The entire "9 votes" is a charade and simply divide and conquer theater at it's finest.

Note....despite a 5 to 4 "advantage" for the "Republican" appointees for well over a decade, most of the progressive/liberal rulings that have been opposed by conservatives for decades now, remain the law of the land.

Every last one of those Republiconned appointees where nominated by supposedly pro-life Repub Presidents with substantial "pro-life" lobbyist groups playing major supporters for the party and those nominations.

And yet, Roe v. Wade has yet to be overturned.

Stop watching the charades. The Supreme Court rules exactly how THEY want them too. The so called dissenting opinions are all part of the game to keep the base progressives and base conservatives mollified and invested in continuing to believe that "voting is important" and that "WE" can still make a difference!

[Dubby]

Average American: "Ugh, the Very Wealthy, the Banks, and the Corporations all have the ears of Congress. They REALLY run the show. They control BOTH the Democrats and Republicans. They work against us average Working Class Americans, through union busting, raising our taxes and lowering theirs, outsourcing our jobs, attacking my Social Security and Medicare. It's a DISGRACE......That's why we need Capitalism!"

[kdolo]

Would please people stop saying that both parties are the same.

They are not, although both are largely influenced by big bank money.

Democrats are at heart socialists or communists.

Republicans at heart have a sociopathic instinct.

this decision was a result of that sociopathic instinct in republicans. might makes right.survival of the fittest. law of the jungle (until the law of the jungle works against them that is)

[Van Zan]

The problem isn't money in politics buying favors, it's that the government is large and powerful enough to grant them.

[Tail Gunner]

(04-02-2014 04:57 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Unions ( especially gubmint employee unions) are among the top campaign contributors always. These unions support left wing candidates. They fund the Democrat party. The Democrats including the Obama and Clinton appointees on the Supreme Court want the big campaign bucks to be spent on Democrats exclusively, with no opposition. This is what this is all about. Some speech is freer than other.

Exactly. All this ruling did was level the playing field against union money.

In a free country anyone should be able to do whatever they wish with their money.

[Dusty]

(04-08-2014 11:25 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 04:57 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Unions ( especially gubmint employee unions) are among the top campaign contributors always. These unions support left wing candidates. They fund the Democrat party. The Democrats including the Obama and Clinton appointees on the Supreme Court want the big campaign bucks to be spent on Democrats exclusively, with no opposition. This is what this is all about. Some speech is freer than other.

Exactly. All this ruling did was level the playing field against union money.

In a free country anyone should be able to do whatever they wish with their money.

Top campaign contributors from 1989-2014 and how they lean politically. A lot of donkeys. A lot of unions.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

The Goldman Sachs (and especially to whom it donates) is especially revealing.

[Samseau]

Damn, look at ActBlue, the perfect scam.

https://secure.actblue.com/

Donate anonymously through the web. Who the fuck knows how many big names and rich donors used ActBlue to fund millions to the democratic party in order to circumnavigate the campaign finance laws. 99% of ActBlue goes to Democrats, hilarious.

[EisenBarde]

I've got a scam I've been working on that will benefit from this.

What we gotta do is find a congressional district that leans heavy one way, get one of us on the ballot, hire Tuth as our head of PR, then start trolling the party into giving the campaign millions.

[Libertas]

(04-02-2014 12:11 PM)Yeti Wrote:  

The U.S. Supreme Court today continued a recent trend of loosening political campaign finance restrictions. People can now donate much more money to a politician, whereas before the law had prohibited donations over a certain amount from individual people.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26855657

It's not really a recent trend. This trend stretches back at least to Buckley v. Valeo in 1976.

This ruling isn't really as big as people are making it out to be. Citizens United was of much more importance.