Obama to [possibly] take on Citizen United

[nat4900]

Ironically, both sides of the aisle should agree with this, on principle, if nothing else and unless you're a huge federal contractor, you should have no problem in backing Obama in this effort. Of course, it takes an open mind and a heart devoid of hatred for right wingers to ever agree with Obama, especially if he uses his executive orders' power to ward off our slippery slope into plutocracy................Please read the excerpts from a NYT article, below:

Of all the individuals and groups aiming to curry favor and buy influence, perhaps none are more motivated than private-sector federal contractors. The United States spends about half a trillion dollars each year on goods and services from corporations large and small.

Each one of hundreds of corporate contractors and subcontractors has an incentive to contribute to political candidates and their parties because, quite simply, pay-to-play works. In a recent report the Sunlight Foundation, a watchdog group, tallied the lobbying and campaign expenditures of 200 companies from 2007 to 2012. In all, the companies spent a total of $5.8 billion and were awarded $4.4 trillion in federal business and support, or $760 for every $1 spent.

More at link:

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...obama-could-unmask-big-political-donors/?_r=0

Edited for copyright compliance - link added

 

[The Rabbi]

And you think this will end corporate contributions? LOL!!!!
Totally unconstitutional and of course an infringement of rights.

 

[Obiwan]

Damn, give a monkey a typewriter and enough time, he just might finally type something that makes sense. Tell Obama we're proud of him. It took him 6 years to do it, but he's finally on to something .

Of course, he needs to get Congress on board and get something enforceable. You know, it never hurts to have adults involved.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Long past time to ban the money. The government sold to the highest bidder is an outrage, not a democratic republic.

 

[nat4900]

Foolish of me, though, to think that Obama would get some support from the same people who, before the last elections, promised to "compromise" on what was good for the country.

 

[bendog]

It's not a ban. And Citizens United noted requiring disclosure is not unconstitutional. BUT, the cynicism of the decision is the Justices all knew that neither side wants THEIR contributors disclosed. McCain Feingold was a balancing act in which both parties essentially agreed to take a hit for the betterment of the country. Politicians were still for sale, but the price was capped, essentially.

The scotus was right in Citizens United that people are smart enough to figure out partisan stuff and what Pols are selling IF they know who's doing the buying. The scotus was either naïve, or supported the plutocracy, when Kennedy understated how much money was going to be unleashed. (my vote is for the latter and not naïve)

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Foolish of me, though, to think that Obama would get some support from the same people who, before the last elections, promised to "compromise" on what was good for the country.

If they wanted what was good for the courty, they'd leave.

 

[g5000]

I don't think you can force a company to reveal the donations it has made to a 501(c)(4) that is not required to reveal its donors.

I do not see how an EO to that effect could possibly be enforceable.

Is the campaign finance situation utterly corrupted? Hell yes. Those 501(c)(4)'s are not supposed to have political advocacy as their primary mission, but no one is stupid enough to believe it isn't. Especially since the IRS was flooded with 501(c)(4) applications after Citizens United.

Actually, I give the tards too much credit. Of course they are stupid enough to believe all those 501(c)(4)'s are just doing the Lord's work with only a little political shenanigans on the side. They have deliberately been blinded by their shepherds to what is really going on.

But the root of the problem is that the federal government has concentrated power at the top, and money flows to where the power is. You can't demand the federal government be given more power and then whine when it gets captured by people with big checkbooks. It's your fault. You made it easier for them to grab it by monopolizing all that power into a single franchise.

One stop shopping.

 

[The Rabbi]

Foolish of me, though, to think that Obama would get some support from the same people who, before the last elections, promised to "compromise" on what was good for the country.

And Citizens was the best thing to happen to the First Amendment in this century.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Foolish of me, though, to think that Obama would get some support from the same people who, before the last elections, promised to "compromise" on what was good for the country.

And Citizens was the best thing to happen to the First Amendment in this century.

The Founders would have disagreed, vehemently. Like Adam Smith they would have kept corporations illegal.

 

[konradv]

And you think this will end corporate contributions? LOL!!!! Totally unconstitutional and of course an infringement of rights.

Being against ending Citizens United is like being against net neutrality. It gives the bulk of the power to those with the most money. Instead of a democratic republic, we'll develop into a plutocracy. Like most elites, they'll then try their hardest to keep others from joining the club.

 

[g5000]

I have no problem with unlimited campaign donations.

I do have a problem with "dark money". I would like to know where a politician got his bribes campaign donations from. And I would bet most Americans feel the same way.

Those corrupt individuals who have the rubes blinded to what is going on are going to screw the pooch.

 

[The Rabbi]

And you think this will end corporate contributions? LOL!!!! Totally unconstitutional and of course an infringement of rights.

Being against ending Citizens United is like being against net neutrality. It gives the bulk of the power to those with the most money. Instead of a democratic republic, we'll develop into a plutocracy. Like mo0st elites, they'll then try their hardest to keep others from joining the club.

The alternative is an inherited oligarchy that shuts out every new comer. No thanks.

 

[konradv]

Being against ending Citizens United is like being against net neutrality. It gives the bulk of the power to those with the most money. Instead of a democratic republic, we'll develop into a plutocracy. Like most elites, they'll then try their hardest to keep others from joining the club.

The alternative is an inherited oligarchy that shuts out every new comer. No thanks.

NO, the alternative is a democratic republic where what matters is what you know and do, NOT from which birth canal you came or how much money you have.

 

[nat4900]

[QUOTE="The Rabbi, post: 11060981, member: 20947.

The Founders would have disagreed, vehemently. Like Adam Smith they would have kept corporations illegal.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, Wealth of Nations is a plutocratic dream.

 

[g5000]

Wealth of Nations was capitalism's kindergarten.

Financial and political innovations have since left that wonderful work in the dust.

 

[nat4900]

I have the hardest time trying to figure out in that relationship between corrupt politicans and huge corporations' "donations" [bribes], as to who are the whores and who are the pimps.

Keep in mind, good folks, that the "donations" made from these government contractors are TAX-PAYERS' hard earned dollars....sort of buying your own rope to hang oneself.

 

[depotoo]

Union money?

Damn, give a monkey a typewriter and enough time, he just might finally type something that makes sense. Tell Obama we're proud of him. It took him 6 years to do it, but he's finally on to something .

Of course, he needs to get Congress on board and get something enforceable. You know, it never hurts to have adults involved.

 

[g5000]

I have the hardest time trying to figure out in that relationship between corrupt politicans and huge corporations' "donations" [bribes], as to who are the whores and who are the pimps.

Our politicians are the whores. The have what the customer wants: power.

The special interests who buy their favors are their johns.

The lobbyists are the pimps. They connect the whores to the johns and reap the most profit.

 

[nat4900]

QUOTE]
Our politicians are the whores. The have what the customer wants: power. The special interests who buy their favors are their johns.
The lobbyists are the pimps. They connect the whores to the johns and reap the most profit.[/QUOTE]

In other words, our federal government is not much more than a fancy, tax-payers' funded, brothel.....Agreed.