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.
The total spending in the 2010 elections was fairly even between repubs and dems, and Obama is expected to raise close to a billion dollars this time. Why shouldn't we have an even playing field, I thought equality was what you guys are all about.
Not to mention GE, the near entirety of the corporate media, etcetera.....How could any logical person think that Citizens United gives corporations and unions "equal" political power? That's like saying unions are as powerful and rich as corporations.
I cannot believe you are saying this after all the political power the unions have shown over the past 2 years.
Kinda dodged the issue a little bit there. Don't you think it oughta be relatively even between the dems and the repubs in terms of money?
What are you suggesting? That there should be some kind of arbitrary level playing field here? The answer is NO if it means that the big money donations are buying undue access at the expense of regular working people.
So it's okay for the unions to spend hundreds of millions on dem campaigns, for which they are rewarded by Obama and the dems, but the GOP cannot get equally as much money from the big corps?
Undue access? You gotta be shitting me, you don't think the unions are getting undue access to the WH? Your credibility is taking a huge hit, man.
What are you suggesting? That there should be some kind of arbitrary level playing field here? The answer is NO if it means that the big money donations are buying undue access at the expense of regular working people.
So it's okay for the unions to spend hundreds of millions on dem campaigns, for which they are rewarded by Obama and the dems, but the GOP cannot get equally as much money from the big corps?
Undue access? You gotta be shitting me, you don't think the unions are getting undue access to the WH? Your credibility is taking a huge hit, man.
Unions and corporations have always been bound by the exact same rules that held corporations to about the same level of spending unions were capable of, now they can leave unions in the dust, congratulations, the oligarchs won.
change the channel or turn off the TV.
Corporate personhood will be the downfall of what democracy we have left and this guy washing his hands of the matter does not excuse his role in the matter. We know what he enabled and we know why he did it.
So it's okay for the unions to spend hundreds of millions on dem campaigns, for which they are rewarded by Obama and the dems, but the GOP cannot get equally as much money from the big corps?
Undue access? You gotta be shitting me, you don't think the unions are getting undue access to the WH? Your credibility is taking a huge hit, man.
Unions and corporations have always been bound by the exact same rules that held corporations to about the same level of spending unions were capable of, now they can leave unions in the dust, congratulations, the oligarchs won.
Again, what are you talking about? The spending was about even in 2010, probably will be the same this year. Obama is looking to get a billion bucks, how do you figure the unions got left in the dust?
Republicans call this guy an "intellectual".
Scalia: Constitution does not protect women against discrimination
The total spending in the 2010 elections was fairly even between repubs and dems, and Obama is expected to raise close to a billion dollars this time. Why shouldn't we have an even playing field, I thought equality was what you guys are all about.
Populism is what I am all about, If our elections become a contest between corporate interests vs. the rest of us then the rest of us lose. We as a people have no chance to politically prevail against unlimited spending. Every man has his price, especially politicians, CU just made it ever so much easier to buy influence, congratulations, this Faustian bargain is going to land us in a very bad place.
U.S. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia has a simple solution for people who don't like all the political advertisements unleashed by the court's decision two years ago that ended limits on corporate contributions in political campaigns change the channel or turn off the TV.
Unions and corporations have always been bound by the exact same rules that held corporations to about the same level of spending unions were capable of, now they can leave unions in the dust, congratulations, the oligarchs won.
Again, what are you talking about? The spending was about even in 2010, probably will be the same this year. Obama is looking to get a billion bucks, how do you figure the unions got left in the dust?
Take few minutes and peruse the various groups spending money on super PACs.
2012 Outside Spending, by Groups | OpenSecrets
You might notice that unions are a small part of total spending here, they are hardly even in the running.
The total spending in the 2010 elections was fairly even between repubs and dems, and Obama is expected to raise close to a billion dollars this time. Why shouldn't we have an even playing field, I thought equality was what you guys are all about.
Populism is what I am all about, If our elections become a contest between corporate interests vs. the rest of us then the rest of us lose. We as a people have no chance to politically prevail against unlimited spending. Every man has his price, especially politicians, CU just made it ever so much easier to buy influence, congratulations, this Faustian bargain is going to land us in a very bad place.
Wait a minute, if the money is about even then aren't you overstating the case a little bit? Tell you what, let's talk about this again a year from now when we'll know how much each side spent. If it comes out fairly close like it did in 2010, then you really don't have a leg to stand on.
Again, what are you talking about? The spending was about even in 2010, probably will be the same this year. Obama is looking to get a billion bucks, how do you figure the unions got left in the dust?
Take few minutes and peruse the various groups spending money on super PACs.
2012 Outside Spending, by Groups | OpenSecrets
You might notice that unions are a small part of total spending here, they are hardly even in the running.
The total spending shows 18.6 million spent against repubs, to 16.7 for. What's your point again? Dude, unions got no reason to spend much money now, you know that. Why don't you check the numbers after the election is over, then bitch about CvU. I'm thinking you guys will have spent more money than the repubs will, even with their unlimited contributions.
Populism is what I am all about, If our elections become a contest between corporate interests vs. the rest of us then the rest of us lose. We as a people have no chance to politically prevail against unlimited spending. Every man has his price, especially politicians, CU just made it ever so much easier to buy influence, congratulations, this Faustian bargain is going to land us in a very bad place.
Wait a minute, if the money is about even then aren't you overstating the case a little bit? Tell you what, let's talk about this again a year from now when we'll know how much each side spent. If it comes out fairly close like it did in 2010, then you really don't have a leg to stand on.
Total spending is not the issue I have a problem with, small donations from private citizens are just fine in my book, as are limited donations from corporations and special interest groups and lobbyists. It is the unlimited part that troubles me, we all know huge donations are a sure way to buy access to politicians. It's the unequal access that is the central concern here. If a candidate is unable to match in small private donations then there is a problem right off the bat that no amount of influence buying will solve.
By JEFFREY COLLINS
COLUMBIA, S.C. -- U.S. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia has a simple solution for people who don't like all the political advertisements unleashed by the court's decision two years ago that ended limits on corporate contributions in political campaigns change the channel or turn off the TV.
Scalia said the blame for this type of system shouldn't fall on the Supreme Court, which he said decides merely whether the system is legal under the U.S. Constitution. Instead, he said the ones who have to change things are the politicians who created the system and the voters who often reward the candidates who spend the most money.
"If the system seems crazy to you, don't blame it on the court," Scalia said, during a discussion in front of South Carolina lawyers that lasted for more than an hour.
More: Justice Scalia On Unlimited Political Ads: Turn Off The TV
Wait a minute, if the money is about even then aren't you overstating the case a little bit? Tell you what, let's talk about this again a year from now when we'll know how much each side spent. If it comes out fairly close like it did in 2010, then you really don't have a leg to stand on.
Total spending is not the issue I have a problem with, small donations from private citizens are just fine in my book, as are limited donations from corporations and special interest groups and lobbyists. It is the unlimited part that troubles me, we all know huge donations are a sure way to buy access to politicians. It's the unequal access that is the central concern here. If a candidate is unable to match in small private donations then there is a problem right off the bat that no amount of influence buying will solve.
I'm still not getting it, you want unions to be able to spend hundreds of miilions for the dems but the corps can't do the same for the repubs. Sounds like you're the one who wants unequal access.
