In a sweeping campaign finance decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down aggregate limits -- or rules for how much an individual can give in one campaign cycle
A split Supreme Court Wednesday struck down limits on the total amount of money an individual may spend on political candidates as a violation of free speech rights, a decision sure to increase the role of money in political campaigns.
Social Show
The 5 to 4 decision sparked a sharp dissent from liberal justices, who said the decision reflects a wrong-headed hostility to campaign finance laws that the court’s conservatives showed in Citizens United v. FEC , which allowed corporate spending on elections.
There is more verbal diarrhea at the link.
Really all this does is bring the money out front so you can see who is buying your Congressman.
As the saying goes, we are done arguing about what you are, now we are just haggling the price.
If you ever entertained any thoughts about trying to save this country, I believe it is beyond redemption at this point. The Oligarchy just had it announced to make it official.
Money talks and bullshit walks.
I hope you have sturdy shoes.
3 comments:
The folks being bribed still have to get the votes. No votes = no election.
There needs to be a movement here in this country that we start voting for the best person for the job, not the person who collected the most bribes err "campaign contributions". We kind of started here in California -- there was a couple of rich Silicon Valley CEO's who tried to buy a senatorship and the governorship, both lost -- but we need to roll it out nationwide. Because in the end we get the government we want -- and deserve.
Are you seriously saying CA has some kind of moral spine in voting in someone who is not a republican? Sorry, but both Meg and Carly are big R republicans and it was purely knee jerk reaction by CA voters to caste their votes for the liberal on the ticket. As for rolling anything out statewide, you can keep it. I am from CA, as in used to be, left and don't care to go back because it is a wickedly stupid place. It once could claim to be Paradise on Earth, but no longer. Now stupidity reigns.
As for the SCOTUS ruling on limits, have you taken a look at how much the wealthiest give and the percentage of contributions they represent, like in 2012? Taking the limits off is no win for the average citizen. It only serves to make the playing field even more of a joke. We just keep rolling on to the one world government. Just like Barry planning to hand over Internet control to the uuggg! UN.
Meg and Carly both tried buying their way into office. It failed, because in the end buying your way into office works only if the voters kind of like you anyhow. Which Meg and Carly never managed to do, in much the same way that Mitt Romney never managed to convince the majority of voters that he wasn't a reptilian overlord from Planet Sociopath.
My point, though, was that the reason money matters at all in elections is because it allows candidates to sell themselves like laundry soap and *people buy it*. If people ignored all those idiotic campaign ads and instead focused on the candidates and their backgrounds and accomplishments and who would be the best person for the job, money would be meaningless. But the voters keep voting for the candidate who accepted the most bribes in 95% of the cases. In the end I think the American voter needs to look in the mirror for who's to blame for our lousy government.
Regarding California, I've lived in a number of places. California of the states I've lived in is somewhere in the middle. The best thing about California is the economy -- they're throwing mad money at me to stay here. MAD money. Ridiculous amounts of money. Money that anywhere else in the United States would be enough to buy a house with cash just on what I save up in a couple of years. Which is why I'm saving up, 'cause I don't intend to stick around once I retire...
Post a Comment