SCOTUS Does it Right, Strikes Down Limits on Campaign Contributions

Just stop wasting oxygen already

 

Unions shouldn't have any rights to donate to campaigns. Nor should corporations. Only people should have the right. And the amount of their contribution should be limited to $25,000. Perhaps even lower.

 

I don't think it requires that much effort to type a few paragraphs...

 

I meant breathing.

 

This is because you live in a fascist country

Who wins and who loses an election is not your business but the business of the entire electorate , you should not be allowed to play with people's minds .
Where money can decide elections there can be no democracy and no republic .

Last time i checked 90% of Americans want money out of politics , how can such a crashing majority being wrong ?

 

That should also make you a fascist as well for taking their position.

If it is not my business, then it cannot be anyone else's business, either. Every individual has their right to advocate for any particular candidate, party or campaign. And every individual has the right to spend money for the advocacy of the defeat for any candidate in their runs for office. And every individual has the right to make up their own minds when it comes to who to vote for.

And all this nonsense about keeping money out of politics has not work one bit, but only helped to insure career politicians remain in office for longer periods of time.

Something is right simply because a majority agrees. We've been over this many times before in history. The Supreme Court normally does not intervene with the laws enacted by the people. The only time it does when it has a legitimate right to question the objectivity and fairness of the majority, which the Courts have already on many occasions.

 

It seems to me that SCOTUS has just sold democracy to the highest bidder. Recent reports of the Adelson duo, suggest it may have been sold out to gambling interests.

How long before the American Revolution now. Remember when Marie Antoinette uttered those famous words that changed France forever. How long before Mrs Adelson or an Adelson 'hanger on' utters a similar unfortunate phrase.

 

Obviously it does no good to repeat myself, since you are just repeating talking points you believe is true.

Read my suggestion again. It clearly says $100 per eligible voter. That means if a rich person runs for office, they can only contribute $100 to the cause as well. It is the voters who need to be courted and catered too not the rich/elites. If the average voter has a hard time coming up with a campaign contribution it clearly shows how un-prosperous the economy is, and maybe just maybe elected officials will actually address the situation.

It isn't 'laundering' money unless the money was obtained illegally, or from the ill-gotten gains of a criminal act. Like drug dealers laundering their money through the Bank of America. In fact, HSBC, Western Union, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase&Co, Citigroup, Wachovia amongst many others have allegedly failed to comply with American anti-money laundering (AML) laws. The government knows they are taking in hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, but only fine them pennies on the dollars profits. It is the epitome of what is wrong with the country's government and the relationship it has with the corporate banking industry. Anyone else caught doing this would be charged and convicted as a participant of organized crime, lose all their personal assets, and go to jail for a very long time. Nobody involved with these corporate entities has been found personally liable for anything, and the elected officials, and courts will not hold them accountable since they are obviously just as involved.

What Tom Delay, the republican party, and democrat party alike do on a regular basis is what lawyers and their ilk is affectionately refer to in the legal biz, as a “legal” (wink, wink) loophole. A loophole is a legal way of getting around or circumventing a law built into most legislation for the sock puppets real masters.

And save me the BS about limits that can be donated per individual. There are so many ways of getting around that law, it turned to butter over 3 decades ago. Do you remember Al Gore and his rich buddies donating maximum donation in the name of nuns, so they could funnel him money, bypassing the silly laws nobody follows anyway? And you want to give them more access to big money?

And how about all those fund raisers and dinners where people don’t donate money but they buy a plate for $25,000.00 each? If a normal person tried to defy the intent of the law in such a manner they would be under a jail someplace, but when a lawmaker does it, nobody even gives it a second thought. In fact it is condoned by people like you, and then you sit around wondering why everything is so (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up, but your plan is to stop corruption by adding more opportunities for corruption to happen.

Money needs to be limited, not expanded and the only ‘people’ (not places or things) who should be legally involved in an election process is the eligible voters, period. Allowing other nouns to become involved in the election process to manipulate the outcome or tamper with the results is and should be criminal, and only undermines the voter. The only reason it isn’t is because the criminals (democrats and republicans) are the ones who have the oversight, and they are not going to cut their own throats. You and your kind are the enablers the the corruption.

 

That is how they do it in Great Britain. Everyone has the same amount and they also limit the amount of campaigning days.

 

Let's not get into political theory since it requires something you have very short, logic.

The republic grants you the right to elect and get elected, thats it .
The republic does not grand you the right to influence other's decisions with your money , it this was the case only the rich would be able to run for office and in this case you don't elect a president / pri-minister but a Doge .
Seriously!

It has not work because money are not kept out of politics ... too bad logic does not come in pills.

When a majority reaches 90% we are not talking about something being right but about something being (*)(*)(*)(*)ing obvious ....logic?
We all know who appoints the supreme court and who appoints those who appoint the supreme court.

 

Political theory doesn't require much logic. All it requires is a point of view. You have yours and I have mine, but so far, one of us is more correct than the other.

The entire purpose of a political campaign is to gain influence. Most people already know who they are going to vote for, so political campaigns are not geared towards these types of people. Political Campaigns are geared towards individuals who have no idea who they want to vote for, and no idea if they are even voting. Setting up an outreach for these types of people cost money, as well as complying with all of the Rules, Regulations, and Finance Laws required of any politician running for higher office.

There are your personal opinions of what politics should be, and then there are just the cold hard facts. You seem to choose the latter.

Is it possible for me to have a map for that sentence?

You're right. We should just undo years and years of progress for the majority. Voting rights for women ,desegregation of Public Schools, marriage rights for gay couples.

After all, it's just (*)(*)(*)(*)ing obvious...

Do you?

 

So i studied a point of view for 4 years , whatever.

Wait , now you are saying that millions of money are spent to appease the ignorant , the naive and the uninterested ?
Yes political capaigns are about influence for as long as all parties start from the same point , have equal air time and so on otherwise what was wrong in Saddam Husein or what is not to admire about Kim Un ? they are just good enough to win 99% of the electorate!

Personal opinions? well i guess Sarkozy has to visit the court over a personal opinion.... In advanced republics campaign funds are restricted and controlled.

I quick qoogle search shows 45.000 results for restricted "money wins presidency" , what you need the

Touchy but it has nothing to do with the topic , you can even give human rights to snakes and allow urban guys to marry their goats and still have money deciding elections .

 

Aren't there rich people on both sides? Not sure I get why this is a problem...

 

As they do it in Britain there are I think only 50 days for campaigning limited by law and every candidate has the same amount of money, as you said.

Now to me that is fair, but it still doesn't stop candidates like Tony Blair from getting into power to satisfy his own hubris. Britain is now and has been suffering ever since from his profligacy.

We don't have a fair system now that money is so embeded in the system.

 

As long as you received a good job out of it.

You didn't really think these campaigns were geared towards people like you, did you? America has one of the worst election turnout rates in the advanced world.

Just how long were you a spectator in American politics?

Contrary to popular belief (or your belief, apparently), it is a race. Everyone is not going to have equal footing up until the finish line. Some candidates will be more likable than others. Some candidates will have a greater track record than others. Some candidates will have greater accomplishments than others.

When it comes to getting your message across, everyone has equal air time, as far as the major candidates go. These candidates are looking to find unique and clever ways to get their message across, and guess what, that cost money.

So now we are relying on Google to make our decisions for us?

It has everything to do with the topic, as you believe that majorities should decide everything. Because if most people says something is true, then it must be true.

 

My studies have nothing to do with my job

I am reading that in latest municipal elections in France the turnout is less than 20% , this is not because the campaigns are bad it is because people are got sick of politicians and parties . The turn outs can be similar in very different cases , from one hand you have a somewhat advanced French society which is kind of conservative for European standards and from the other primitive Americans on the liberal side of the French .
I am following American politics for like 10-12 years , interesting to see how a society will try to make the spoon bigger without even try to escape it.

It is not my belief, it is part of the Greek constitution which is right and yours is wrong . If a channel refuses to give equal air time to 30th party as they did with the 1st they get their license removed .
The debate here is not about the record of candidates but how fundrising comes on top of everything.

LOL "clever" you just admitted that the messages are directed to idiots .

No i am using google to point you to the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing obvious 90% of your nationals agree , money in politics are wrong and they should be kept out.

Yes , i am a communist and i believe that majorities should decide everything under direct democratic procedures without national states, parties and/or governments . People will make false judgments yes but this is part of the learning process , what you people do is finance campaigns of (*)(*)(*)(*)ty representatives under false premises and keep on financing them to keep up with the falsehoods for as long as plutocracy benefits.

Such great choices in your last elections : a tax evader vs a community organizer , i know that you bet on people being dumb and trapped into partisan BS but this is just ridiculous.

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/03...d-koch-brothers-elections-patently-false.html

And for those on the right for saying that this ruling is a victory for freedom of speech and the first amendment; come back later when this ruling comes biting you in the butt.