Obama to [possibly] take on Citizen United

[g5000]

The House of Representatives are your street corner hookers. A cheap lay.

Senator are your call girls. They cost a lot more, but they make house calls.

 

[nat4900]

Union money?[QUOTE="Obiwan, post: 11060887, member: 54099"]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.

[/QUOTE]

Although I'm against "unions'" contributions also, at the very least, most of that money is going to try to help common workers......Huge corporations' "contributions" go to make a relatively few board members and CEOs filthy rich .

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Good luck in Utopia. Because money will always play a part. The incumbent always has an advantage and the only way to overcome that is advertising. And that's expensive.

 

[nat4900]

The House of Representatives are your street corner hookers. A cheap lay.

Senator are your call girls. They cost a lot more, but they make house calls.

I'm sorry, I just had a revolting vision of McConnell in high heels, cheap lipstick and gaudy perfume knocking at some hotel suite....(LOL)

 

[g5000]

There was a comedian who once said politicians should have to wear coveralls with sponsor patches on them like race car drivers, so you would know who owns them.

I really like that idea.

 

[g5000]

The House of Representatives are your street corner hookers. A cheap lay.

Senator are your call girls. They cost a lot more, but they make house calls.

I'm sorry, I just had a revolting vision of McConnell in high heels, cheap lipstick and gaudy perfume knocking at some hotel suite....(LOL)

You would be shocked at how much time a Congressman spends every day begging for cash. Your vision is not very far off the mark.

 

[depotoo]

You don't think the employees benefit when corporations do well? Are you not aware of all the union corruption?
Top Organization Contributors OpenSecrets

Although I'm against "unions'" contributions also, at the very least, most of that money is going to try to help common workers......Huge corporations' "contributions" go to make a relatively few board members and CEOs filthy rich .

 

[nat4900]

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.

Good luck in Utopia. Because money will always play a part. The incumbent always has an advantage and the only way to overcome that is advertising. And that's expensive.

Well, actually Utopia really means "no-place" and rather than belittling the possible effort by Obama to stem this corruption, you should join others in signing the petition for Obama to take action.

(and castigate the SCOTUS for joining in the corruption.)

 

[konradv]

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.

I have no problem with lobbyists per se. Our representatives need info from all sides to come to a decision. My concern is that when there's money attached in the form of campaign donations, info goes out the window in favor of pumping up the campaign coffer. That's why I favor public financing of elections. It would eliminate the buying and selling of votes and would our representatives would have more free time to actually read a few bills. It's more important to me than term limits. I feel that leads to a lot of novices in government and takes away my freedom to vote for whomever I wish.

 

[hipeter924]

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)

You have to give him a thumbs up, if he does go after Citizens United.

Though does he really stand much of a chance of success, or is this just a decision of the moment for publicity thing that goes nowhere?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Good luck in Utopia. Because money will always play a part. The incumbent always has an advantage and the only way to overcome that is advertising. And that's expensive.

Well, actually Utopia really means "no-place" and rather than belittling the possible effort by Obama to stem this corruption, you should join others in signing the petition for Obama to take action.

(and castigate the SCOTUS for joining in the corruption.)

You dont understand. I am for more money in politics. I am against forcing non profits to disclose donors, which is unconstitutional in any case. Why would i want to support Obama's attempt to suppress freedom and democracy?

 

[g5000]

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.

I have no problem with lobbyists per se. Our representatives need info from all sides to come to a decision. My concern is that when there's money attached in the form of campaign donations, info goes out the window in favor of pumping up the campaign coffer. That's why I favor public financing of elections. It would eliminate the buying and selling of votes and would our representatives would have more free time to actually read a few bills. It's more important to me than term limits. I feel that leads to a lot of novices in government and takes away my freedom to vote for whomever I wish.

One of the great freedoms we have in this country is freedom of association. You can donate your pennies and dollars to any organization you choose, and thereby have your voice amplified a thousand times over.

You would have that freedom completely undermined.

There is a difference between bribing someone into doing something they would not have otherwise done, and rewarding someone for doing something they were going to do anyway. The battle is to reduce the former and encourage the latter.

You would eliminate the former at the cost of sacrificing the latter.

If there are two ideas competing for the hearts and minds of Americans, our collective donations to the organizations which support our views are a way of voting. The more popular idea gets the most cash and therefore has the best chance of winning.

Whether you like it or not, money IS speech.

You would eliminate this fair contest in the mistaken belief that all ideas, good and bad, deserve an equal footing.

So hell no to your plan.

 

[SwimExpert]

The only way you can "take on" Citizens United is to amend the constitution. It's something we should do, but probably won't.

 

[konradv]

If there are two ideas competing for the hearts and minds of Americans, our collective donations to the organizations which support our views is a way of voting. The more popular idea gets the most cash and therefore has the best chance of winning.

Wouldn't the plutocrats win the vote the overwhelming number of times? You're talking pennies vs. dollars. More dollars DOES NOT mean more popular, it just means more dollars.

 

[nat4900]

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)

You have to give him a thumbs up, if he does go after Citizens United.

Though does he really stand much of a chance of success, or is this just a decision of the moment for publicity thing that goes nowhere?

I sincerely do not know if Obama will follow through...although as one who has little to lose, Obama, may just say, "the hell with it" and take the heat for acting on his own through EOs. Mindful, however, that he has once before spoken out against the SCOTUS decision.

 

[The Rabbi]

If there are two ideas competing for the hearts and minds of Americans, our collective donations to the organizations which support our views is a way of voting. The more popular idea gets the most cash and therefore has the best chance of winning.

Wouldn't the plutocrats win the vote the overwhelming number of times? You're talking pennies vs. dollars. More dollars DOES NOT mean more popular, it just means more dollars.

Ask Kay Hagen how that worked out for her.

 

[nat4900]

No, I don't equate money with speech....in the same way that if someone can yell louder, such does not mean that that someone is "right" by simple default.

 

[hipeter924]

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)

You have to give him a thumbs up, if he does go after Citizens United.

Though does he really stand much of a chance of success, or is this just a decision of the moment for publicity thing that goes nowhere?

I sincerely do not know if Obama will follow through...although as one who has little to lose, Obama, may just say, "the hell with it" and take the heat for acting on his own through EOs. Mindful, however, that he has once before spoken out against the SCOTUS decision.

He must realize that a lot of his base is turning away, and that a lot of Democrats are just giving up, till 2016 that is.

So maybe he wants to boost his popularity ratings, and give the Democrats a slight boost.

Whatever the reason, if Obama wants to make some kind of legacy for himself, then the time is running out.

 

[nat4900]

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.

Good luck in Utopia. Because money will always play a part. The incumbent always has an advantage and the only way to overcome that is advertising. And that's expensive.

Well, actually Utopia really means "no-place" and rather than belittling the possible effort by Obama to stem this corruption, you should join others in signing the petition for Obama to take action.

(and castigate the SCOTUS for joining in the corruption.)

You dont understand. I am for more money in politics. I am against forcing non profits to disclose donors, which is unconstitutional in any case. Why would i want to support Obama's attempt to suppress freedom and democracy?

Rabbi, no one will ever "accuse" you of being too bright....

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

I care more about stopping the money than having a way to find out who gave it.

That would require people to find that information out. And you know how that goes