The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-02-2014, 09:59 AM   #1
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default SCOTUS Rolls With Plutocracy

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z1
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 04-02-2014, 10:32 AM   #2
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,244
Default

It's the right decision. You liberals may only like the first amendment when it suits your beliefs but unfortunatley you have to take the good with the bad.

You can't cherry protect what speach is protected.

Marketplace of ideas.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2014, 10:38 AM   #3
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
It's the right decision. You liberals may only like the first amendment when it suits your beliefs but unfortunatley you have to take the good with the bad.

You can't cherry protect what speach is protected.

Marketplace of ideas.
I noticed that, not only did the GOP fund and back McCutcheon on this case, but they are now applauding the result across the board. Why is that? Most people who believe in free elections and democracy see this for what it is, just another step on the descent to full-out corporate oligarchy.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2014, 04:32 PM   #4
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

I guess the Brookings Institution doesn't love it either:

Today's Supreme Court decision to overturn longstanding aggregate limits on individual contributions to federal candidates and political committees should not come as a surprise to those who have followed the path of campaign finance jurisprudence under the Roberts Court. That Court has moved steadily, in a series of cases following the replacement of Justice O'Connor with Justice Alito, to disassemble a regulatory system constructed over many decades and upheld as constitutional by prior Courts.

What remained was two worlds of campaign finance - one in which the source and size of contributions to candidates, parties, and traditional political committees are limited and disclosure virtually universal, the other a largely unregulated state of nature where almost anything goes, much of which escapes disclosure.

This latest decision knocks out one of the pillars supporting the first world of hard money. It issues an open invitation to the wealthiest and most willing donors to circumvent limits on contributions to candidates and political committees. In his dissent, Justice Breyer kindly provides a detailed map showing how politicians can persuade and accommodate generous donors to increase their contributions to individual parties and candidates from amounts denominated in thousands to millions. Justice Roberts writes that such efforts to circumvent the limits are purely hypothetical and remote. Political consultants and election law specialists know better.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas...b_5078683.html
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2014, 05:11 PM   #5
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,244
Default

Don't worry Democrats are rich also. It's not the welfare roll this law is for. At least the money has to be spent in the country. Think of the boost to the economy. Has anyone ever studied what elections bring to the economy?

The problem could be solved IMO by saying all meeting with lobbyist have to be recorded. They are public servents and IMO the court wouldn't give them a right to privacy there.

You would have to get the politicians to vote for it which they won't probably.

Whatever I guess if dems are really in power to stay they will win white house, hilliary will turn the court 5-4 for the dems and then all this could change?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2014, 05:38 PM   #6
barryr
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,971

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Democrats get more money from the wealthy anyway, but I know, that doesn't count.
barryr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2014, 05:53 PM   #7
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barryr View Post
Democrats get more money from the wealthy anyway, but I know, that doesn't count.
The Republicans must not agree with you. They're the ones who pushed this case through. I doubt they would do that if they thought it would benefit the other party. First redistricting and now unlimited donations. Looks like they're getting it locked down.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2014, 10:34 PM   #8
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

That flushing sound you hear is the republic of the United States going down the tubes.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2014, 10:42 PM   #9
baja
Headmaster
 
baja's Avatar
 
The Fixer

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 61,299

Adopt-a-Bronco:
C J Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
That flushing sound you hear is the republic of the United States going down the tubes.
That flush happened quite a while back. Been circling the bowl for what seems like an impossible stretch of time.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2014, 03:48 AM   #10
alkemical
Guerrilla Ontologist
 
alkemical's Avatar
 
rorrim|mirror

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Future
Posts: 43,093

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Prima Materia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
That flush happened quite a while back. Been circling the bowl for what seems like an impossible stretch of time.
...and we still have these ****tards yammering about liberal conservative. ..blahblahblah.

Bunch of dumb asses.
alkemical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2014, 06:48 AM   #11
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
That flush happened quite a while back. Been circling the bowl for what seems like an impossible stretch of time.
I think this McCutcheon v. ruling is the final flush. Chris Hedges is calling for open rebellion. Unfortunately, half the country has gone fascist.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2014, 07:22 AM   #12
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Here's the real bs about this ruling: The "originalists" on the court, like Scalia, Alito and Thomas, try to sell the idea to the American people that they are representing the original intent of the framers when it comes to Constitutional law. This is an out and out lie:

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.

In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court’s decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court’s attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the (Dartmouth College v Woodward) ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people’s message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state’s powers over “artificial bodies.”

But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation’s resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporat...rporations-us/

They are the servants of the internationalist corporatist machine.

Last edited by Rohirrim; 04-04-2014 at 07:26 AM..
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2014, 08:35 AM   #13
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Bernie Sanders:
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2014, 08:49 AM   #14
baja
Headmaster
 
baja's Avatar
 
The Fixer

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 61,299

Adopt-a-Bronco:
C J Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
I think this McCutcheon v. ruling is the final flush. Chris Hedges is calling for open rebellion. Unfortunately, half the country has gone fascist.
What I see is the masses have been so dumbed down that they just do not care. The movie idiocracy has become the reality;



Look at the outright murder by the Albuquerque police of a homeless man. His crime, sleeping in the park.

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE


At the end of the day the citizenry will get the most oppressive government that they are willing to accept.

I am encouraged to see people waking up in large numbers these days. Only an awakened active populous can throw off the tyranny imposed all these decades by the power elite.

They did not anticipate the results of human networking made possible by the Internet. God help us if they take that away......
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2014, 02:05 PM   #15
alkemical
Guerrilla Ontologist
 
alkemical's Avatar
 
rorrim|mirror

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Future
Posts: 43,093

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Prima Materia
Default

Baja - Despotism is where we are at. It's sad and frustrating. We have all these clowns here arguing which side of the con screws them less. It's this weird stockholm syndrome that i haven't figured out. Dumbed down, brainwashing, combination of all of the above. I don't know.
alkemical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2014, 04:47 PM   #16
baja
Headmaster
 
baja's Avatar
 
The Fixer

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 61,299

Adopt-a-Bronco:
C J Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alkemical View Post
Baja - Despotism is where we are at. It's sad and frustrating. We have all these clowns here arguing which side of the con screws them less. It's this weird stockholm syndrome that i haven't figured out. Dumbed down, brainwashing, combination of all of the above. I don't know.
It's all of the above and more. I think the biggest factor is people are so very invested in the "system" for there very life (as they see it) that the truth is just too frightening to face.

They need to believe things are OK and on the upswing. They can not see what is flaunted right in front of their eyes because the reality is too devastating

Last edited by baja; 04-04-2014 at 04:50 PM..
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2014, 08:48 AM   #17
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth. (Teddy Roosevelt)
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2014, 10:40 AM   #18
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,527
Default

Maybe if the Wall Street "suicides" escalate the banksters will do themselves in....

ANOTHER JPMORGAN INVESTMENT BANKER JUMPS TO HIS DEATH

MARCH 18, 2014

http://www.silverdoctors.com/another...-to-his-death/

Seriously, what do you think the odds are he was helped to jump?
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2014, 01:48 PM   #19
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

If wealth and income weren’t already so concentrated in the hands of a few, the shameful “McCutcheon” decision by the five Republican appointees to the Supreme Court wouldn’t be as dangerous. But by taking “Citizen’s United” one step further and effectively eviscerating campaign finance laws, the Court has issued an invitation to oligarchy.

Almost limitless political donations coupled with America’s dramatically widening inequality create a vicious cycle in which the wealthy buy votes that lower their taxes, give them bailouts and subsidies, and deregulate their businesses – thereby making them even wealthier and capable of buying even more votes. Corruption breeds more corruption.

That the richest four hundred Americans now have more wealth than the poorest 150 million Americans put together, the wealthiest 1 percent own over 35 percent of the nation’s private assets, and 95 percent of all the economic gains since the start of the recovery in 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent — all of this is cause for worry, and not just because it means the middle class lacks the purchasing power necessary to get the economy out of first gear.
It is also worrisome because such great concentrations of wealth so readily compound themselves through politics, rigging the game in their favor and against everyone else. “McCutcheon” merely accelerates this vicious cycle.

As Thomas Piketty shows in his monumental “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” this was the pattern in advanced economies through much of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. And it is coming to be the pattern once again.
Picketty is pessimistic that much can be done to reverse it (his sweeping economic data suggest that slow growth will almost automatically concentrate great wealth in a relatively few hands). But he disregards the political upheavals and reforms that such wealth concentrations often inspire — such as America’s populist revolts of the 1890s followed by the progressive era, or the German socialist movement in the 1870s followed by Otto von Bismarck’s creation of the first welfare state.

In America of the late nineteenth century, the lackeys of robber barons literally deposited sacks of money on the desks of pliant legislators, prompting the great jurist Louis Brandeis to note that the nation had a choice: “We can have a democracy or we can have great wealth in the hands of a few,” he said. “But we cannot have both.”

Soon thereafter America made the choice. Public outrage gave birth to the nation’s first campaign finance laws, along with the first progressive income tax. The trusts were broken up and regulations imposed to bar impure food and drugs. Several states enacted America’s first labor protections, including the 40-hour workweek.

The question is when do we reach another tipping point, and what happens then?

Robert Reich
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2014, 10:59 AM   #20
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

An oligarchy, Webster’s dictionary tells us, is “a form of government in which the ruling power belongs to a few persons.” It’s a shame that the Republican majority on the Supreme Court doesn’t know the difference between an oligarchy and a democratic republic.

Yes, I said “the Republican majority,” violating a nicety based on the pretense that when people reach the high court, they forget their party allegiance. We need to stop peddling this fiction.

On cases involving the right of Americans to vote and the ability of a very small number of very rich people to exercise unlimited influence on the political process, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his four allies always side with the wealthy, the powerful and the forces that would advance the political party that put them on the court. The ideological overreach that is wrecking our politics is now also wrecking our jurisprudence.

The court’s latest ruling in McCutcheon et al. v. Federal Election Commission should not be seen in isolation. (The “et al.,” by the way, refers to the Republican National Committee.) It is yet another act of judicial usurpation by five justices who treat the elected branches of our government with contempt and precedent as meaningless. If Congress tries to contain the power of the rich, the Roberts Court will slap it in the face. And if Congress tries to guarantee the voting rights of minorities, the Roberts Court will slap it in the face again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...b08_story.html
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2014, 11:06 AM   #21
crush17
"Born A Broncos Fan"
 
crush17's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 5,963

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Rick Upchurch
Default

I wish Robert Reich would run for pres.

Been following that guy for a long time now.
crush17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2014, 08:58 AM   #22
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

First, the Court doubled down on its insistence in Citizens United that the definition of "corruption" only extends to quid pro quo transactions -- political contributions for official action, otherwise known as bribery. "Ingratiation and access are not corruption," the Court wrote. "They embody a central feature of democracy -- that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be respon­sive to those concerns." In other words, not only can the government not try to prevent special relationships from forming as a result of political contributions, but such relationships are to be applauded.

This vision of democracy is absurd. Until the Citizens United decision four years ago, the Court understood corruption to mean "a subversion of the political process" through which our elected representatives are encouraged "to act contrary to their obligations of office by the prospect of financial gain..." So, Congress and the states could put reasonable limits on campaign contributions to prevent elected officials from being unduly influenced by the wishes of their richest supporters.

Now, under the Roberts Court's doctrine, even the basic contribution limits -- which prevent individual donors from giving more than $5,200 to any candidate for federal office -- are at risk as impermissible government efforts to regulate "influence" and "access."

Even more bizarrely, the Court conflates "donors" with "constituents," suggesting it is constitutionally important for a candidate to be responsive to the concerns of donors -- even those who cannot vote for them. McCutcheon wasn't about "constituents" supporting candidates they could potentially vote for. It was about an outsider spending money to support many candidates he couldn't vote for. In fact, under the old aggregate limit, Shaun McCutcheon could have contributed the maximum amount to the three candidates for which he would be constituent (the president, one House member, and one senator two out of three election cycles) with plenty of room to spare.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...b_5107405.html
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2014, 09:00 AM   #23
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

You know how I know this signals the end of this republic? Because, outside of a few columnists and talking heads, nobody really gives a ****.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2014, 09:00 AM   #24
baja
Headmaster
 
baja's Avatar
 
The Fixer

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 61,299

Adopt-a-Bronco:
C J Anderson
Default

For you Ro;

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/manipulation/
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2014, 09:40 AM   #25
kappys
Ring of Famer
 
kappys's Avatar
 
“It will be of little avail to the

Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
You know how I know this signals the end of this republic? Because, outside of a few columnists and talking heads, nobody really gives a ****.
Because it doesn't really matter. Citizens United did all that was needed to destroy the political process in Washington. I actually like this ruling in some respects - why bother with the farce of forming a 403c to which you can donate unlimited funds to be used as you choose in a political race instead of just directly donating the funds. The effect is the same.
kappys is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:39 PM.


Denver Broncos