SCOTUS beyond People's United, Money = Free Speech!

[bugeye]

Last week the SC did oral arguments on the constitutionality of the 'Arizona clean electrion act'. As near as I can tell from the orals, the 5 Republican appointed Judges are going to overturn this sate law. They are going to declare that money = free speech, and that more money = more free speech. Anyone can spend anything on an election even giving directly to candidates. The righties on the SC are deciding, in effect that the constitution supports the open buying of elected officals and related brainwashing of the general public.

This decision will be the extension of the inital policy from People's United that I have warned you about. In short, campaign finace reform is dead, long live the republic of the money! I guess these 5 activists feel that the money has lacked influence in our current system, and that has created most of our problems! However, I can't find anything in the constitution that says the votes of representative can, and should rightfully, be sold to the higest bidder.

Campaign-finance Reform and the Supreme Court : The New Yorker

Read More

 

[Wheeler44]

On a related note I read that the current POTUS announced his candidacy in April because he hopes to raise one TRILLION dollars for his re-election......Yep.....Sold to the highest bidder is accurate

 

[Kevatc]

To me it's one thing for a candidate to raise huge sums of money for their re-election campaign. Is a trillion obscene for the current POTUS or for that matter anyone running against him? You bet. It's disgusting. But as bugeye has pointed out it's really bad news to have someone like Bill Gates or the Koch brothers be able to throw in huge sums of cash into a race. One person can have an incredible amount power over an election. Who is Obama going to listen to (read as owe favors back to): me with a relative pittance of a contribution or Bill Gates with a million dollar contribution? Me with a small contribution to (insert repub candidate here) or one of the Koch bothers with a million bucks?

The whole idea of "more money = more free speech" is just another version of class warfare.

 

[salmonriverjohn]

Well i guess its incumbant upon you to be able to see through all the BS then isnt it Bugeye?

 

[elsullo]

On a related note I read that the current POTUS announced his candidacy in April because he hopes to raise one TRILLION dollars for his re-election......Yep.....Sold to the highest bidder is accurate

Um, you know, you can't just believe everything you read. I don't know your "source" but somebody was either lying or joking with you. Then you reported it here as if it was factual, and probably somebody will believe you and give more life to the lie..............................elsullo

 

[Wheeler44]

Um, you know, you can't just believe everything you read. I don't know your "source" but somebody was either lying or joking with you. Then you reported it here as if it was factual, and probably somebody will believe you and give more life to the lie..............................elsullo

So....Callin' me a liar huh....swell..... Are you gonna eat those words when I review the last 150 pages of text that I've read this weekend and trot out the link ...Or do you know for a fact how much he intends to raise this election cycle??

I fully expect the clowns on the other side of the aisle to attempt to raise just as much...

The finest President that money can buy ...indeed.....

w44

ps...elsullo...I don't ride a party....they both suck....but callin' me a liar is BS... You'd better be fact checkin' on your posts from now on.

 

[Trlsmn]

Eight of the current Supreme Court Justices are known for their zeal in questioning lawyers. That tendency was on display last week during the oral argument over the constitutionality of an Arizona law known as the Citizens Clean Elections Act, a law that attempts to do a little something about campaigns in which one candidate has a great deal more money than the others. Roughly, the law says that the ones who are outspent should receive a modest subsidy from state funds.

Welfare for politicians? no thanks! and thank you conservative Supreme court justices, you've done well!

 

[Kevatc]

The finest President that money can buy ...indeed.....

w44

Exactly. Seems the only people that are for campaign finance reform are ordinary average folks. Politicians (and apparently some SCOTUS "justices") of every stripe and flavor are against it in their heart of hearts. For the sake of argument though let's not limit this to the current POTUS as we know that if a Con/Repub could raise a trillion they will do it.

 

[MountainBear]

Exactly. Seems the only people that are for campaign finance reform are ordinary average folks. Politicians (and apparently some SCOTUS "justices") of every stripe and flavor are against it in their heart of hearts. For the sake of argument though let's not limit this to the current POTUS as we know that if a Con/Repub could raise a trillion they will do it.

As long as campaign finance reform is about giving politicians who don't raise as much as their opponents money from taxpayers, then I will remain an ordinary average person who is against it.

I am not in favor of wealthy individuals being able to buy an election, but honestly, if people were simply smart and paid attention to the actual candidate and not their advertising, then I believe we'd be better off. But I'm not willing to fund a candidates smear campaign with public funds just because he couldn't raise it from private donors...

 

[Father of four]

I am not in favor of wealthy individuals being able to buy an election, but honestly, if people were simply smart and paid attention to the actual candidate and not their advertising, then I believe we'd be better off.

Right, And not voting for the Democrat or Republican party just for the parties sake. Or for the less of the two evils.

 

[drew]

Right, And not voting for the Democrat or Republican party just for the parties sake. Or for the less of the two evils.

There's also the option of not voting for an office if you dislike all the candidates enough. I've always thought the voting for the lesser evil philosophy is like asking which limb you'd prefer to lose. The answer is always a compromise of some sort and far from ideal.

 

[deen_ad]

The original campaign funding bill was written SPECIFICALLY to stop the NRA from having so much influence on elections. This was from one of the original sponsors of the bill. When it became apparent to the lawmakers that if the NRA opposed the bill it would not pass so an exemption was written for them (NOT at the NRA'S request).

If spending limits are unfairly written or enforced then they are indeed illegal. Right now, there is equality, everyone can choose which group to support or not. Now, if we could just stop Soros his front groups (the Joice Foundation comes to mind and Obwan was a board member) and minions!

8 US Presidents have been NRA members. They are: Ulysses S. Grant,
Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower,
John F. Kennedy, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

80 MILLION gun owners didn't shoot anyone today, a few criminals did!!

----------------------------------------------------------

The "Feedback Score" is low by 4, not everyone posts it I guess.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
Washington Arms Collector member

 

[Bigfoot]

On a related note I read that the current POTUS announced his candidacy in April because he hopes to raise one TRILLION dollars for his re-election......Yep.....Sold to the highest bidder is accurate

He's hoping to raise one billion $.

 

[MountainBear]

He's hoping to raise one billion $.

Because there isn't a better use for one billion dollars than telling us how good a job they'll do, or more specifically how the country will fall apart if we don't elect a certain candidate. I don't care which candidate, they all do it.

 

[drew]

Because there isn't a better use for one billion dollars than telling us how good a job they'll do, or more specifically how the country will fall apart if we don't elect a certain candidate. I don't care which candidate, they all do it.

I find political attack ads horrible, vile tools to avoid rational debate. Unfortunately, they work. If they raise the money, what should they do with it? I'm sure they could donate it to charity or concentrate less on fundraising. I'd also like to see independent organizations barred from viciously attacking an opposing candidate.

 

[Stomper]

He's hoping to raise one billion $.

+1... that's what I heard on some news program (can't remember which one) running in the background the week it was announced Obama filed for re-election.

 

[Kevatc]

Right now, there is equality, everyone can choose which group to support or not. Now, if we could just stop Soros his front groups (the Joice Foundation comes to mind and Obwan was a board member) and minions!

How do you figure on the "equality" issue? Seems to me there was a recent SCOTUS decision that basically sees an individual and a corporation in the same light in terms of campaign contributions. Hardly seems fair or equal to me. Basically prices the average Joe right out of the equation. The SCOTUS decision allows for those with lots of money to have undue influence on an election. As Bugeye mentioned in the OP "more money = more free speech". BTW, why is it that a corporation is viewed on the same playing field with a individual person in terms of donations to a campaign but when it comes to taxes the same business gets a pass??? GE had 14.2 billion in profits and didn't pay a penny in taxes and in fact got a 3.2 billion tax benefit. My wife and I paid $9k in taxes in 2010 and yet we had campaign contribution limits imposed on us that GE is allowed to skirt around. Equality??? Bullocks.

 

[Stomper]

GE had 14.2 billion in profits and didn't pay a penny in taxes and in fact got a 3.2 billion tax benefit. My wife and I paid $9k in taxes in 2010 and yet we had campaign contribution limits imposed on us that GE is allowed to skirt around. Equality??? Bullocks.

I agree... and guess who is bestest buddies with the current White House? General Electric

 

[baada]

In a capitalist society, we not only vote at the ballot, we also vote with our dollars. Be offended if you want that someone with far, far greater resources than you or I gets to have more of a say than we do, but keep in mind that you and I put that person in a position to have that say. We decided to buy their product, which gave them more money to have more say. In essence, we have "elected" them to speak for us, like the democratic republic we are, except we elected that representative with our patronage.

Don't like it? Tough. You should have known this by now. Your parents should have taught you this, and you most certainly should be teaching your kids that this is how it works. Think about it next time you go into Big Box Store to make a purchase. What exactly is your dollar buying you?

 

[Kevatc]

I agree... and guess who is bestest buddies with the current White House? General Electric

So you would be fine with making sure corporations have to pay whatever the appropriate corporate tax level is (currently 35% as I recall)? And you would be even happier with a reversal of the SCOTUS decision that equates a corporation and an individual?