No more campaign limits

[HaloFan85]

Things just keep getting better and better.

 

 

 

With McCutcheon Ruling, An Activist Court Opts for Full-On Plutocracy

 

http://www.thenation.com/blog/179132/mccutcheon-ruling-activist-court-opts-full-plutocracy

 

[acro2008]

Our  constitutional republic was dissolved long ago in 1933.  Bankruptcy induced Chapter 11 and the gold confiscation act. We are under corporate law not constitutional law.   Our government is useless. Those who act as if they are the real owners of this country couldn't make changes quickly or there would have been a revolution.  People find this hard to believe but the proof is in the changes we are seeing now. See Agenda 21.  Some cities are already implementing this.

[Taylor]

LOL @ Nancy Pelosi slamming the decision, as if she isn't part of the problem.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/03/nancy-pelosi-mccutcheon_n_5085400.html

Edited April 4, 2014 by Taylor

[Jay]

LOL @ Nancy Pelosi slamming the decision, as if she isn't part of the problem.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/03/nancy-pelosi-mccutcheon_n_5085400.html

 

what the hell is she babbling about

[Tank]

what the hell is she babbling about

 

you could pretty much say that about any comments she makes on any topic.

[Tank]

i'm baffled how & why our SCOTUS thinks we need to allow more corporate money into politics.

[HaloMagic]

i'm baffled how & why our SCOTUS thinks we need to allow more corporate money into politics.

The SCOTUS' job isn't to determine whether to allow more money. It is to determine whether it is Constitutional or not to disallow it.

Edited April 5, 2014 by HaloMagic

[Count Orlok]

If you say "Here's a bag of money, now go pass this law" it's an illegal bribe.

If you say "Here's a bag of money" and then a year later say "It would be pretty cool if I could use my mistress as a tax deduction. Remember that bag of money I gave you a while ago? Git er done." it's a legal campaign contribution. 

[Jason]

Good to know she won't be accepting much money from labor unions for her next election since she is really upset about it.

[mrwicked]

you could pretty much say that about any comments she makes on any topic.

 

yeah she is so annoying, and im in her district.

she is VERY good though at getting us more money. which is hilarious since its one of the wealthiest areas in the country.

but oh well, keep it coming nancy.

[Tank]

The SCOTUS' job isn't to determine whether to allow more money. It is to determine whether it is Constitutional or not to disallow it.

Then the SCOTUS needs to more heavily weigh the impact of who is donating the large amounts. You and I are probably limited to donating $100 give or take. That isn't going to sway any politician. But guys who can donate thousands and thousands are going to get more attention and by default have more influence over how that politician votes. When that money comes from people with a big interest/stake in how congress votes on something, how is that good for the country? Isn't that a big part of the problem we're in now with special interest groups and a ton of lobbyists? Removing or increasing donation amounts benefits very, very few people, and the SCOTUS needs to man up and change this. Reasonable limits should be the order of the court. No one is suggesting eliminating donations.

[Count Orlok]

No one is suggesting eliminating donations.

I am. If not eliminating them, then at least capping the limit at $100 or less. The less money they have the better. If their campaigns are so poor that they can only afford to campaign 3 months in advance instead of 6 years then everybody wins. On a semi-related note I'd also like the primary schedule to be randomized for that same reason. Right now Barack Obama's unborn grandkids are already campaigning in Iowa for the 2072 caucuses.

[mtangelsfan]

I have a way of not telling somebody how big of a check they can write and still limit how much money is spent on campaigns, which is by an measure obscene.  Too much time and money is spent on campaign therefore I propose to cap how much time and money can be spent on them.  

[arch stanton]

I don't know how you can describe this as anything other than legalized bribery. If nothing else happens we should limit what the national parties are able to spend on state or local elections and eliminate contributions from anyone not eligible to vote in a given election.

[Spirit]

I don't know how you can describe this as anything other than legalized bribery. If nothing else happens we should limit what the national parties are able to spend on state or local elections and eliminate contributions from anyone not eligible to vote in a given election.

 

We already have legalized bribery.  This merely takes the cap off of how much someone can pay for that bribe.  

[HaloMagic]

Then the SCOTUS needs to more heavily weigh the impact of who is donating the large amounts. You and I are probably limited to donating $100 give or take. That isn't going to sway any politician. But guys who can donate thousands and thousands are going to get more attention and by default have more influence over how that politician votes. When that money comes from people with a big interest/stake in how congress votes on something, how is that good for the country? Isn't that a big part of the problem we're in now with special interest groups and a ton of lobbyists? Removing or increasing donation amounts benefits very, very few people, and the SCOTUS needs to man up and change this. Reasonable limits should be the order of the court. No one is suggesting eliminating donations.

The SCOTUS' job isn't to determine how a law might impact the nation. They are only there to decide whether the law is Constitutional or not. The legislators (and to a lesser extent the executors) are responsible for determining the impact. A judge that considers anything except the legality is the very definition of an activist judge.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

The SCOTUS' job isn't to determine how a law might impact the nation. They are only there to decide whether the law is Constitutional or not. The legislators (and to a lesser extent the executors) are responsible for determining the impact. A judge that considers anything except the legality is the very definition of an activist judge.

 

Absolutely correct. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret a given law within the context of the Constitution. They can't change anything.

[Tank]

The SCOTUS' job isn't to determine how a law might impact the nation. They are only there to decide whether the law is Constitutional or not. The legislators (and to a lesser extent the executors) are responsible for determining the impact. A judge that considers anything except the legality is the very definition of an activist judge.

In this decision, the SCOTUS removed or increased the spending limit a donor could make to a candidate for office. Please help me understand how that was a constitutional issue that needed to be addressed, because i don't see it.

[HaloFan85]

In this decision, the SCOTUS removed or increased the spending limit a donor could make to a candidate for office. Please help me understand how that was a constitutional issue that needed to be addressed, because i don't see it.

Money = speech

[HaloFan85]

Jon Stewart:

 

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/zpxgap/april-3--2014---pele

[Vegas Halo Fan]

The cost of buying an election just went up many fold.

 

I like the idea of money only being put into campaigns by people who live in the district in which the election it taking place. Far too much money is being spent in campaigns by people with no direct interest in the outcome, only in trying to pack Congress with like-minded people, or people of their own party.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Vegas Halo Fan

[mp170.6]

No political candidate or PAC is under obligation to accept donations of any size.  

 

Besides, I doubt this decision changes anything.  Most politicians have been receiving large sums of cash under the table for decades. 

[Tank]

Jon Stewart:

 

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/zpxgap/april-3--2014---pele

I think Jon Stewart summed up my feelings very accurately.

"The donor-lobbyist industrial complex" is spot on.

[Tank]

Money = speech

That's a load of bull, too.

[mtangelsfan]

That is a convenient way to frame the argument.  Why should the government dictate how much I can write a check for and to whom I give it?