Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
NO you are wrong. Unlimited money yo a political campaign leads to corruption. I have so news for you. If someone gives millions to a campaign they expect something in return. I know. It's shocking.Obama was right, Alito was wrong: Citizens United has corrupted American politics
Ten years ago this week, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court overturned a century of campaign finance law, giving wealthy donors and corporations nearly unlimited ability to influence our elections. In his State of the Union address a week later, President Barack Obama said the controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision “will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Samuel Alito famously shook his head, mouthing “not true.”
A decade later, it’s clear that President Obama was right and Justice Alito was wrong. With its decision, the court threw out restrictions on corporate and union election spending, narrowed the legal definition of “corruption” and set the stage for an influx of undisclosed dark money spending on our elections.
Morally bankrupt empty suits are the cause of corruption regardless of the arena. Putting it on a national stage merely publicly exemplifies it.
Wrong.......having the government put limits on campaign spending is a violation of the 1st Amendment. As hilary v Trump showed, money doesn't win an election........
Well, that's backwards. They can exercise their individual rights individually. No need to do it collectively.
They choose to.
You have nothing to back that up, of course, so you just spout stuff. Got it.
Laugh away. Stupid people do that when they have nothing else of substance to say. You don't even seem to know how corporations work. CU allows for political biases of entire corporations to be controlled by shareholders, a small minority group of people. So, unless you poll every single employee of said corporation, you can't tell me anything about their collective political choice. This is common sense. Again, you just spout shit.
Bullshit....
Every organization that has membership generally has a theme and an identity.
Your proposal is positively stalinist. It seeks to examine each individual's thoughts and invade their privacy without their consent. Why do you people thrive on witch-hunts? This kind of thinking is born of the arrogance that only your viewpoint could possibly be correct and that all others must be investigated to the point where they are overturned.
Jo
I worked on Wall Street for 16 years; they run everything and look at us like we’re worker ants.Did you miss the part where I personally know dozens of Mortgage Bankers and Brokers across the US.?If none of this made the news, then where did the people you talked to get their information? If fact, it was all in the news and since that time several books have been written explaining the bizarre sequence of events that led to the financial crisis and the near collapse of the financial industry; all of them blame various actors in the financial industry either for stupidity or corruption, but none of them have pointed out any specific actions taken by the President or Congress that caused the crisis.That's because it didn't make the news; you have to talk to people.Both the banks and the government screwed up but I have not seen any evidence Wall Street's influence over government in this crisis.
I admit it's due to the Jew Connection.
We have our own Facebook Group where you have to provide the name of your Congregation's Rabbi before you're allowed into the group.
The Rabbi has to confirm you're a member of the Tribe.
I didn't want to go there, but it's not too hard to do Indeep....i'l politely claim these the globalists that are of influence levels the normal voter will never achieve...
~S~
Before electronic media, privately funded campaigns were fine.
People go a bit too far with the “Free Market”.I worked on Wall Street for 16 years; they run everything and look at us like we’re worker ants.Did you miss the part where I personally know dozens of Mortgage Bankers and Brokers across the US.?If none of this made the news, then where did the people you talked to get their information? If fact, it was all in the news and since that time several books have been written explaining the bizarre sequence of events that led to the financial crisis and the near collapse of the financial industry; all of them blame various actors in the financial industry either for stupidity or corruption, but none of them have pointed out any specific actions taken by the President or Congress that caused the crisis.That's because it didn't make the news; you have to talk to people.
I admit it's due to the Jew Connection.
We have our own Facebook Group where you have to provide the name of your Congregation's Rabbi before you're allowed into the group.
The Rabbi has to confirm you're a member of the Tribe.
I didn't want to go there, but it's not too hard to do Indeep....i'l politely claim these the globalists that are of influence levels the normal voter will never achieve...
~S~
well there's not much denying i'm a worker ant InDeep....probably the lot of us that frequent this place on the 'devil box'
a few thoughts on that....
Economic Slavery under the guise of American Capitalism (Updated for 2019–2020)
~S~
People go a bit too far with the “Free Market”.I worked on Wall Street for 16 years; they run everything and look at us like we’re worker ants.Did you miss the part where I personally know dozens of Mortgage Bankers and Brokers across the US.?If none of this made the news, then where did the people you talked to get their information? If fact, it was all in the news and since that time several books have been written explaining the bizarre sequence of events that led to the financial crisis and the near collapse of the financial industry; all of them blame various actors in the financial industry either for stupidity or corruption, but none of them have pointed out any specific actions taken by the President or Congress that caused the crisis.
I admit it's due to the Jew Connection.
We have our own Facebook Group where you have to provide the name of your Congregation's Rabbi before you're allowed into the group.
The Rabbi has to confirm you're a member of the Tribe.
I didn't want to go there, but it's not too hard to do Indeep....i'l politely claim these the globalists that are of influence levels the normal voter will never achieve...
~S~
well there's not much denying i'm a worker ant InDeep....probably the lot of us that frequent this place on the 'devil box'
a few thoughts on that....
Economic Slavery under the guise of American Capitalism (Updated for 2019–2020)
~S~
People go a bit too far with the “Free Market”.I worked on Wall Street for 16 years; they run everything and look at us like we’re worker ants.Did you miss the part where I personally know dozens of Mortgage Bankers and Brokers across the US.?If none of this made the news, then where did the people you talked to get their information? If fact, it was all in the news and since that time several books have been written explaining the bizarre sequence of events that led to the financial crisis and the near collapse of the financial industry; all of them blame various actors in the financial industry either for stupidity or corruption, but none of them have pointed out any specific actions taken by the President or Congress that caused the crisis.
I admit it's due to the Jew Connection.
We have our own Facebook Group where you have to provide the name of your Congregation's Rabbi before you're allowed into the group.
The Rabbi has to confirm you're a member of the Tribe.
I didn't want to go there, but it's not too hard to do Indeep....i'l politely claim these the globalists that are of influence levels the normal voter will never achieve...
~S~
well there's not much denying i'm a worker ant InDeep....probably the lot of us that frequent this place on the 'devil box'
a few thoughts on that....
Economic Slavery under the guise of American Capitalism (Updated for 2019–2020)
~S~
Free to off-shore and increase the pool of unemployed Americans forcing our government to redefine Unemployed so the numbers of unemployed are smaller than the reality.People go a bit too far with the “Free Market”.I worked on Wall Street for 16 years; they run everything and look at us like we’re worker ants.Did you miss the part where I personally know dozens of Mortgage Bankers and Brokers across the US.?
I admit it's due to the Jew Connection.
We have our own Facebook Group where you have to provide the name of your Congregation's Rabbi before you're allowed into the group.
The Rabbi has to confirm you're a member of the Tribe.
I didn't want to go there, but it's not too hard to do Indeep....i'l politely claim these the globalists that are of influence levels the normal voter will never achieve...
~S~
well there's not much denying i'm a worker ant InDeep....probably the lot of us that frequent this place on the 'devil box'
a few thoughts on that....
Economic Slavery under the guise of American Capitalism (Updated for 2019–2020)
~S~
I'll wager there's a world of opinion you could probably add to that InDeep
hint hint...
~S~
Funny how nobody complained when Hillary was getting a quarter of a mil each for a couple of mystery speeches to Wall Street bankers. Which is better, that kind of corruption or above board accountable donations from corporations?
NO you are wrong. Unlimited money yo a political campaign leads to corruption. I have so news for you. If someone gives millions to a campaign they expect something in return. I know. It's shocking.Obama was right, Alito was wrong: Citizens United has corrupted American politics
Ten years ago this week, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court overturned a century of campaign finance law, giving wealthy donors and corporations nearly unlimited ability to influence our elections. In his State of the Union address a week later, President Barack Obama said the controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision “will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Samuel Alito famously shook his head, mouthing “not true.”
A decade later, it’s clear that President Obama was right and Justice Alito was wrong. With its decision, the court threw out restrictions on corporate and union election spending, narrowed the legal definition of “corruption” and set the stage for an influx of undisclosed dark money spending on our elections.
Morally bankrupt empty suits are the cause of corruption regardless of the arena. Putting it on a national stage merely publicly exemplifies it.
Wrong.......having the government put limits on campaign spending is a violation of the 1st Amendment. As hilary v Trump showed, money doesn't win an election........
Campaign financing was NOT protected by the first amendment until the Citizens United case said it was. It needs to be reversed.
Free to off-shore and increase the pool of unemployed Americans forcing our government to redefine Unemployed so the numbers of unemployed are smaller than the reality.People go a bit too far with the “Free Market”.I worked on Wall Street for 16 years; they run everything and look at us like we’re worker ants.I didn't want to go there, but it's not too hard to do Indeep....i'l politely claim these the globalists that are of influence levels the normal voter will never achieve...
~S~
well there's not much denying i'm a worker ant InDeep....probably the lot of us that frequent this place on the 'devil box'
a few thoughts on that....
Economic Slavery under the guise of American Capitalism (Updated for 2019–2020)
~S~
I'll wager there's a world of opinion you could probably add to that InDeep
hint hint...
~S~
Free to bring in unqualified Business Visas and...
Free to not guard our borders...
Free to sponsor radio and TV shows that explain how wonderful it is to be unemployed and have opportunities open up for you even though 100,000 other people (your direct competition) living in the same region have also been laid off.
Free to tell America how you can start a major corporation by selling the $278.57 worth of garbage in your coat closet.
Yep...I’ve heard it all and it’s all bullshit.
NO you are wrong. Unlimited money yo a political campaign leads to corruption. I have so news for you. If someone gives millions to a campaign they expect something in return. I know. It's shocking.Obama was right, Alito was wrong: Citizens United has corrupted American politics
Ten years ago this week, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court overturned a century of campaign finance law, giving wealthy donors and corporations nearly unlimited ability to influence our elections. In his State of the Union address a week later, President Barack Obama said the controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision “will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Samuel Alito famously shook his head, mouthing “not true.”
A decade later, it’s clear that President Obama was right and Justice Alito was wrong. With its decision, the court threw out restrictions on corporate and union election spending, narrowed the legal definition of “corruption” and set the stage for an influx of undisclosed dark money spending on our elections.
Morally bankrupt empty suits are the cause of corruption regardless of the arena. Putting it on a national stage merely publicly exemplifies it.
Wrong.......having the government put limits on campaign spending is a violation of the 1st Amendment. As hilary v Trump showed, money doesn't win an election........
Campaign financing was NOT protected by the first amendment until the Citizens United case said it was. It needs to be reversed.
You can't give millions to a campaign. You are restricted to the amount one can give to a campaign. The ruling did nothing about how we fund a candidates campaign.
All citizens are "special interests" and have the constitutional right to free speech and to contribute to their causes.
That groups of citizens choose to exercise these rights in a collective manner is supported by the same constitutional amendment.
Foreign contributions are a separate issue, and responsibility for accepting such contributions should sit solely with the candidate receiving them.
True, but corporations should not be considered citizens in regard to the Bill of Rights.
They are by definition a collection of citizens, exercising individual rights collectively.
Never thought I would see the day when you would be defending the nefarious actions of those who work in the dark, under the name of "collectivism."
nice.
Nope, sorry, these organizations, in no way should be allowed to have the same rights as sovereign citizens. Fuck the elites, fuck Soros and Koch. Fuck them to hell.
We need to know who they are, what they do, and have their names publicized. Each. And. Every. One.
No the underlying problem and the root of corruption is;This, is the underlying problem, and the root of the corruption.
Morally bankrupt empty suits are the cause of corruption regardless of the arena. Putting it on a national stage merely publicly exemplifies it.
Foreign nations don't give a shit. They will be purposely "morally bankrupt."
Under this decision, you can hide the origin of the contribution.
Your understanding of this decision really needs work man.
Go back to university.
Hell. . . Billy thinks it was an Amendment, not a SCOTUS ruling? wtf?!Do you folks even know what you are talking about?
This decision benefited Obama, Clinton and the swamp.
". . . .However, a single individual or group can create both types of entity and combine their powers, making it difficult to trace the original source of funds.[32][33] ProPublica explains: "Say some like-minded people form both a Super-PAC and a nonprofit 501(c)(4). Corporations and individuals could then donate as much as they want to the nonprofit, which isn't required to publicly disclose funders. The nonprofit could then donate as much as it wanted to the Super-PAC, which lists the nonprofit's donation but not the original contributors."[32] In at least one high-profile case, a donor to a super PAC kept his name hidden by using an LLC formed for the purpose of hiding their personal name.[34] One super PAC, that originally listed a $250,000 donation from an LLC that no one could find, led to a subsequent filing where the previously "secret donors" were revealed.[35]
During the 2016 election cycle, "dark money" contributions via shell LLCs became increasingly common.[36] The Associated Press, Center for Public Integrity, and Sunlight Foundation all "flagged dozens of donations of anywhere from $50,000 to $1 million routed through non-disclosing LLCs to super PACs" backing various presidential candidates, including Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, and Carly Fiorina.[36]. . . . "
Dark money - Wikipedia
I would have more sympathy for your position if I thought you were actually looking for clean politics. What always appears in the underpinning of such an objective is the non-stop drive to control the actions and even the thoughts of other people without their consent. By your reasoning no group activity would be legal. It would be illegal for two people to help each other out on election day cutting lawns if they were both voting for the same candidate. I'm sorry no.... You like everyone else will have to offer your ideas to the public who will then decide whether or not they will support them. Intimidation such as you seek has no place in the process.
Jo
NO you are wrong. Unlimited money yo a political campaign leads to corruption. I have so news for you. If someone gives millions to a campaign they expect something in return. I know. It's shocking.Obama was right, Alito was wrong: Citizens United has corrupted American politics
Ten years ago this week, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court overturned a century of campaign finance law, giving wealthy donors and corporations nearly unlimited ability to influence our elections. In his State of the Union address a week later, President Barack Obama said the controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision “will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Samuel Alito famously shook his head, mouthing “not true.”
A decade later, it’s clear that President Obama was right and Justice Alito was wrong. With its decision, the court threw out restrictions on corporate and union election spending, narrowed the legal definition of “corruption” and set the stage for an influx of undisclosed dark money spending on our elections.
Morally bankrupt empty suits are the cause of corruption regardless of the arena. Putting it on a national stage merely publicly exemplifies it.
Wrong.......having the government put limits on campaign spending is a violation of the 1st Amendment. As hilary v Trump showed, money doesn't win an election........
Campaign financing was NOT protected by the first amendment until the Citizens United case said it was. It needs to be reversed.
You can't give millions to a campaign. You are restricted to the amount one can give to a campaign. The ruling did nothing about how we fund a candidates campaign.
You see, this is what bothers me, folks that are lay people, that haven't gone to school for this sort of thing, that haven't educated themselves on this issue, telling other folks something they KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.
It is dangerous.
THINGS HAVE CHANGED.
NO you are wrong. Unlimited money yo a political campaign leads to corruption. I have so news for you. If someone gives millions to a campaign they expect something in return. I know. It's shocking.Obama was right, Alito was wrong: Citizens United has corrupted American politics
Ten years ago this week, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court overturned a century of campaign finance law, giving wealthy donors and corporations nearly unlimited ability to influence our elections. In his State of the Union address a week later, President Barack Obama said the controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision “will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Samuel Alito famously shook his head, mouthing “not true.”
A decade later, it’s clear that President Obama was right and Justice Alito was wrong. With its decision, the court threw out restrictions on corporate and union election spending, narrowed the legal definition of “corruption” and set the stage for an influx of undisclosed dark money spending on our elections.
Morally bankrupt empty suits are the cause of corruption regardless of the arena. Putting it on a national stage merely publicly exemplifies it.
Wrong.......having the government put limits on campaign spending is a violation of the 1st Amendment. As hilary v Trump showed, money doesn't win an election........
Campaign financing was NOT protected by the first amendment until the Citizens United case said it was. It needs to be reversed.
You can't give millions to a campaign. You are restricted to the amount one can give to a campaign. The ruling did nothing about how we fund a candidates campaign.
You see, this is what bothers me, folks that are lay people, that haven't gone to school for this sort of thing, that haven't educated themselves on this issue, telling other folks something they KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.
It is dangerous.
THINGS HAVE CHANGED.
Are you trying to say I am wrong? If so you are going to have to try a little harder and explain where I am wrong.
NO you are wrong. Unlimited money yo a political campaign leads to corruption. I have so news for you. If someone gives millions to a campaign they expect something in return. I know. It's shocking.Wrong.......having the government put limits on campaign spending is a violation of the 1st Amendment. As hilary v Trump showed, money doesn't win an election........
Campaign financing was NOT protected by the first amendment until the Citizens United case said it was. It needs to be reversed.
You can't give millions to a campaign. You are restricted to the amount one can give to a campaign. The ruling did nothing about how we fund a candidates campaign.
You see, this is what bothers me, folks that are lay people, that haven't gone to school for this sort of thing, that haven't educated themselves on this issue, telling other folks something they KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.
It is dangerous.
THINGS HAVE CHANGED.
Are you trying to say I am wrong? If so you are going to have to try a little harder and explain where I am wrong.
You stated this;
"You can't give millions to a campaign. You are restricted to the amount one can give to a campaign. The ruling did nothing about how we fund a candidates campaign."
You obviously DO NOT UNDERSTAND what DARK MONEY is, and have not read any of the links I have posted, otherwise, you would not have made such a grossly inaccurate statement.
1) Yes, you CAN give millions to issues, if the campaign implies those issues are tied to it. This is generally done AFTER primary season.
NO you are wrong. Unlimited money yo a political campaign leads to corruption. I have so news for you. If someone gives millions to a campaign they expect something in return. I know. It's shocking.
Campaign financing was NOT protected by the first amendment until the Citizens United case said it was. It needs to be reversed.
You can't give millions to a campaign. You are restricted to the amount one can give to a campaign. The ruling did nothing about how we fund a candidates campaign.
You see, this is what bothers me, folks that are lay people, that haven't gone to school for this sort of thing, that haven't educated themselves on this issue, telling other folks something they KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.
It is dangerous.
THINGS HAVE CHANGED.
Are you trying to say I am wrong? If so you are going to have to try a little harder and explain where I am wrong.
You stated this;
"You can't give millions to a campaign. You are restricted to the amount one can give to a campaign. The ruling did nothing about how we fund a candidates campaign."
You obviously DO NOT UNDERSTAND what DARK MONEY is, and have not read any of the links I have posted, otherwise, you would not have made such a grossly inaccurate statement.
1) Yes, you CAN give millions to issues, if the campaign implies those issues are tied to it. This is generally done AFTER primary season.
Bite me. You don't get to change the discussion and then claim I was wrong.
I replied to a statement about someone giving millions to a candidates campaign. You can NOT do that.
You can't give millions to a campaign. You are restricted to the amount one can give to a campaign. The ruling did nothing about how we fund a candidates campaign.
You see, this is what bothers me, folks that are lay people, that haven't gone to school for this sort of thing, that haven't educated themselves on this issue, telling other folks something they KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.
It is dangerous.
THINGS HAVE CHANGED.
Are you trying to say I am wrong? If so you are going to have to try a little harder and explain where I am wrong.
You stated this;
"You can't give millions to a campaign. You are restricted to the amount one can give to a campaign. The ruling did nothing about how we fund a candidates campaign."
You obviously DO NOT UNDERSTAND what DARK MONEY is, and have not read any of the links I have posted, otherwise, you would not have made such a grossly inaccurate statement.
1) Yes, you CAN give millions to issues, if the campaign implies those issues are tied to it. This is generally done AFTER primary season.
Bite me. You don't get to change the discussion and then claim I was wrong.
I replied to a statement about someone giving millions to a candidates campaign. You can NOT do that.
If you need so badly to be correct that you are standing on semantics? Fine, I'll tell you that you are right.
It still won't change the millions that are going to be fed into the system by trade groups, international finance, Big Pharma, Insurance industry, Org. Labor, etc.
. . . and the dozen oligarchs that run the place.
More money, less transparency: A decade under Citizens United
CHART2 by Open Secrets - Infogram
"OpenSecrets' original research indicates:
- Despite fears that elections would be dominated by corporations, the biggest political players are actually wealthy individual donors. The 10 most generous donors and their spouses injected $1.2 billion into federal elections over the last decade. That tiny group of major donors accounted for 7 percent of total election-related giving in 2018, up from less than 1 percent a decade prior.
- The balance of political power shifted from political parties to outside groups that can spend unlimited sums to bolster their preferred candidates. Election-related spending from non-party independent groups ballooned to $4.5 billion over the decade. It totaled just $750 million over the two decades prior.
- Even political candidates found themselves dwarfed by independent groups that in many cases morphed into effective arms of political campaigns and parties. Outside spending surpassed candidate spending in 126 races since the ruling. That happened just 15 times in the five election cycles prior.
- Despite promises from the court that monied interests would be required to reveal their political giving, the ruling gave new powers to dark money organizations. Groups that don't disclose their donors flooded elections with $963 million in outside spending, compared to a paltry $129 million over the previous decade.
- Major corporations didn't take full advantage of their new political powers. Corporations accounted for no more than one-tenth of independent groups' fundraising in each election cycle since the ruling. But secretly funded nonprofits and trade associations that influence elections take money from major companies in amounts that are mostly unknown.
- The ruling didn't reverse the ban on foreign money in elections, but it provided opportunities for foreign actors to secretly funnel money to elections through nonprofits and shell companies.. . . "
You see, this is what bothers me, folks that are lay people, that haven't gone to school for this sort of thing, that haven't educated themselves on this issue, telling other folks something they KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.
It is dangerous.
THINGS HAVE CHANGED.
Are you trying to say I am wrong? If so you are going to have to try a little harder and explain where I am wrong.
You stated this;
"You can't give millions to a campaign. You are restricted to the amount one can give to a campaign. The ruling did nothing about how we fund a candidates campaign."
You obviously DO NOT UNDERSTAND what DARK MONEY is, and have not read any of the links I have posted, otherwise, you would not have made such a grossly inaccurate statement.
1) Yes, you CAN give millions to issues, if the campaign implies those issues are tied to it. This is generally done AFTER primary season.
Bite me. You don't get to change the discussion and then claim I was wrong.
I replied to a statement about someone giving millions to a candidates campaign. You can NOT do that.
If you need so badly to be correct that you are standing on semantics? Fine, I'll tell you that you are right.
It still won't change the millions that are going to be fed into the system by trade groups, international finance, Big Pharma, Insurance industry, Org. Labor, etc.
. . . and the dozen oligarchs that run the place.
More money, less transparency: A decade under Citizens United
CHART2 by Open Secrets - Infogram
"OpenSecrets' original research indicates:
- Despite fears that elections would be dominated by corporations, the biggest political players are actually wealthy individual donors. The 10 most generous donors and their spouses injected $1.2 billion into federal elections over the last decade. That tiny group of major donors accounted for 7 percent of total election-related giving in 2018, up from less than 1 percent a decade prior.
- The balance of political power shifted from political parties to outside groups that can spend unlimited sums to bolster their preferred candidates. Election-related spending from non-party independent groups ballooned to $4.5 billion over the decade. It totaled just $750 million over the two decades prior.
- Even political candidates found themselves dwarfed by independent groups that in many cases morphed into effective arms of political campaigns and parties. Outside spending surpassed candidate spending in 126 races since the ruling. That happened just 15 times in the five election cycles prior.
- Despite promises from the court that monied interests would be required to reveal their political giving, the ruling gave new powers to dark money organizations. Groups that don't disclose their donors flooded elections with $963 million in outside spending, compared to a paltry $129 million over the previous decade.
- Major corporations didn't take full advantage of their new political powers. Corporations accounted for no more than one-tenth of independent groups' fundraising in each election cycle since the ruling. But secretly funded nonprofits and trade associations that influence elections take money from major companies in amounts that are mostly unknown.
- The ruling didn't reverse the ban on foreign money in elections, but it provided opportunities for foreign actors to secretly funnel money to elections through nonprofits and shell companies.. . . "
It wasn't semantics. It was simple facts. Do you have a problem with a discussion being based upon actual facts?
I think what he wants is a government like Venezuela or North Korea where no public citizens have any input.All citizens are "special interests" and have the constitutional right to free speech and to contribute to their causes.
That groups of citizens choose to exercise these rights in a collective manner is supported by the same constitutional amendment.
Foreign contributions are a separate issue, and responsibility for accepting such contributions should sit solely with the candidate receiving them.
