Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Supreme Court votes to keep big money in politics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Supreme Court votes to keep big money in politics

    This is just so crazy. If you were ever hoping for the day where we could get special interests and big money out of politics, the Supreme Court today took a step to make sure that will be almost impossible. If Citizens United wasn't bad enough, this now will open the flood gates for money flowing into politicians pockets.

    The ONLY thing this ruling does is allow the wealthy to contribute even more, continuing the unfair influence advantage the wealthy have over our nations politics compared to average working folks and the poor. No matter how rich or poor you are, we all should have equal influence over our nations interests. The Supreme Court can twist the words how they want but this is only going to invite even more special interests, corruption and bribing in our politics. Let's be real here. Money IS influence. You're either blind or stupid if you don't believe that.

  • #2
    lol at poor folks thinking they're PEOPLE. People get moar freedom of speech, n00bs.

    Comment


    • #3
      So much for the American Dream.

      Comment


      • #4
        Could be worse. Could be nominating these donors for cabinet positions.


        Oh wait...

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't think you've read the actual decision Zona, but I had the same initial response.

          Comment


          • #6
            This expands the hard money limit but not the soft money limit. I don't really have a problem with it. If someone wants to give money to more than nine political candidates, they should be able to do so. They can still moderate the amount given to each candidate.

            Comment


            • #7
              Thread title should really say "Supreme Court upholds Freedom of Speech in Elections".

              Why should one person be limited in how much they can say about and election? Seems pretty straight forward to me, but I don't have wealth envy.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Kaylore View Post
                This expands the hard money limit but not the soft money limit. I don't really have a problem with it. If someone wants to give money to more than nine political candidates, they should be able to do so. They can still moderate the amount given to each candidate.
                Precisely

                "The government's argument in support of aggregate limits was based on the notion that an individual could circumvent base limits by giving to parties and PACs funds earmarked to go to a candidate. This is currently prohibited by law and any such earmarked contribution would count against that donor's base limit for a candidate. Therefore, aggregate limits did little to nothing to dissuade this activity. "



                http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-536_e1pf.pdf

                This is from a poster on another forum.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mountain Bronco View Post
                  Thread title should really say "Supreme Court upholds Freedom of Speech in Elections".

                  Why should one person be limited in how much they can say about and election? Seems pretty straight forward to me, but I don't have wealth envy.
                  Money should not equal speech, and that's the problem I have with the ruling. I have NO problem with any millionaires or billionaires making money...NONE. I would like to be a millionaire or billionaire, someday. The point is using that money to get politicians to "see their point of view". Senators and Representatives are supposed to represent ALL their constituents, not just the ones who can fork over the most cash...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Crushaholic View Post
                    Money should not equal speech, and that's the problem I have with the ruling. I have NO problem with any millionaires or billionaires making money...NONE. I would like to be a millionaire or billionaire, someday. The point is using that money to get politicians to "see their point of view". Senators and Representatives are supposed to represent ALL their constituents, not just the ones who can fork over the most cash...
                    Agreed. This has NOTHING to do with Freedom Of Speech. My god you have to be drinking the Koolaid to fall for that. Money is not Speech.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Money corrupts. This helps the establishment grow stronger by giving them the ability to bribe all of the establishment candidates, while imposing limits on contributions to one individual (like if one candidate is trying to fight the establishment).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I do think the people (politicians) who are sputtering the most about it are the people who will benefit the most from it.

                        Interesting, the things you learn the older you get.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Arkie View Post
                          Money corrupts. This helps the establishment grow stronger by giving them the ability to bribe all of the establishment candidates, while imposing limits on contributions to one individual (like if one candidate is trying to fight the establishment).
                          Yeah, you could say this is "party" money. While the limits are established on 1 individual, this allows for virtually unlimited money to be donated to a specific party so to speak. And while both parties will get benefits from this, we all know it's really more geared towards the Republicans. I just wish our political system could find a way to not allow the super wealthy to influence our politicians into making/changing law to fit their agenda, the agenda of the 1%.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ZONA View Post
                            Yeah, you could say this is "party" money. While the limits are established on 1 individual, this allows for virtually unlimited money to be donated to a specific party so to speak. And while both parties will get benefits from this, we all know it's really more geared towards the Republicans. I just wish our political system could find a way to not allow the super wealthy to influence our politicians into making/changing law to fit their agenda, the agenda of the 1%.

                            Everyone has an agenda. The idea that somehow 1% of the populace is to be demonized and ostracized (unless it is election time...then our dear politicians beg for funding) is dangerous. Also surprised how quickly the occupy propaganda has been normalized and considered part of political speech.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I think more and more people are either locked in to their party, or say F it and vote Third Party like I did.

                              soooo the more that changes the more that stays the same I say.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X