The last nail in Democracy in America's Coffin!

[emilynghiem]

I feel like trying to control political campaign spending is like trying to define an assault rifle. Both sounds good but neither is doable. I do have a real issue with people not having to take responsibility for funding ads. If the pharmaceutical companies are funding ads for the protection of mortgages the public has the right to know this.

I also agree this is not the problem or the solution.

This issue with Koch and other funders on the right (as well as Soros and other funders on the left) merely EXPOSES the whole problem of pushing agenda by PARTY and "relying on majority rule" only. Clearly this model is manipulated by control of the media and political propaganda, using money to wage bigger campaigns -- not based on solving problems, but by spinning image and perception.

If we made consensus on laws the standard for legislation and rulings, then NOBODY could be bought out politically or financially.

Either the different sides or views AGREE on a central policy, or they don't.

No amount of funding one side is going to solve the OBJECTIONS by the opposing side.

We need to enforce some policy on requiring conflict resolution for lawmakers, where any NO vote must be addressed with a correction to the objection, so that the parties reach an agreement freely, not by coercion, by RESOLVING the issue(s) causing rejection.

If we used consensus and inclusion as criteria for government decisions and leaders, then only the skilled mediators, selected by people of both sides to facilitate a solution, would have authority. Nobody would have any incentive to bully, since that doesn't change anyone's mind but makes them more defensive; so nobody would pay big dollars to bully.

Billions of dollars spent lobbying for one side against the other could better be invested DIRECTLY into solutions -- either by mutual agreement, or separately if they don't agree.

As long as people can win by fighting with bigger bullies, they will keep trying that tactic.
Instead, why not agree to stop abusing majority rule to bulldoze the opposition, and require that parties either reach a consensus on policy, that represents people of all views equally, or else separate and fund their programs separately to keep these conflicts out of govt.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Today a majority of the Court overrules this holding. It is wrong to do so. Its conclusion rests upon its own, not a record-based, view of the facts. Its legal analysis is faulty: It misconstrues the nature of the competing constitutional interests at stake. It understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions. It creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate's campaign. Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), today's decision eviscerates our Nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve"

From the Dissent: McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm'n, No. 12-536, 2014 BL 89958 (U.S. Apr. 02, 2014)

Read the entire decision here:

Bloomberg Law - Document - McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm'n, No. 12-536, 2014 BL 89958 (U.S. Apr. 02, 2014), Court Opinion

 

[Pennywise]

We don't live in a democracy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I feel like trying to control political campaign spending is like trying to define an assault rifle. Both sounds good but neither is doable. I do have a real issue with people not having to take responsibility for funding ads. If the pharmaceutical companies are funding ads for the protection of mortgages the public has the right to know this.

I also agree this is not the problem or the solution.

This issue with Koch and other funders on the right (as well as Soros and other funders on the left) merely EXPOSES the whole problem of pushing agenda by PARTY and "relying on majority rule" only. Clearly this model is manipulated by control of the media and political propaganda, using money to wage bigger campaigns -- not based on solving problems, but by spinning image and perception.

If we made consensus on laws the standard for legislation and rulings, then NOBODY could be bought out politically or financially.

Either the different sides or views AGREE on a central policy, or they don't.

No amount of funding one side is going to solve the OBJECTIONS by the opposing side.

We need to enforce some policy on requiring conflict resolution for lawmakers, where any NO vote must be addressed with a correction to the objection, so that the parties reach an agreement freely, not by coercion, by RESOLVING the issue(s) causing rejection.

If we used consensus and inclusion as criteria for government decisions and leaders, then only the skilled mediators, selected by people of both sides to facilitate a solution, would have authority. Nobody would have any incentive to bully, since that doesn't change anyone's mind but makes them more defensive; so nobody would pay big dollars to bully.

Billions of dollars spent lobbying for one side against the other could better be invested DIRECTLY into solutions -- either by mutual agreement, or separately if they don't agree.

As long as people can win by fighting with bigger bullies, they will keep trying that tactic.
Instead, why not agree to stop abusing majority rule to bulldoze the opposition, and require that parties either reach a consensus on policy, that represents people of all views equally, or else separate and fund their programs separately to keep these conflicts out of govt.

OMG, did I link onto the wrong forum? A practical, common sense recommendation on SOLUTIONs sans finger pointing. Wow!

A great big thank you and a pos. rep is your due.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We don't live in a democracy.

Correct, we have been transformed into an Oligarchy, one wherein money buys influence and influence produces more money and power for the Oligarchs, and perks for the influenced. "We the People" are simply an afterthought; our representatives represent the needs of the few, many times at the expense of the many.

 

[emilynghiem]

We don't live in a democracy.

Correct, we have been transformed into an Oligarchy, one wherein money buys influence and influence produces more money and power for the Oligarchs, and perks for the influenced. "We the People" are simply an afterthought; our representatives represent the needs of the few, many times at the expense of the many.

As human beings we technically can live in whatever system we set up, by religious free choice, provided we do not impose on or violate the same rights of others.

Anyone can set up a church, business or school that runs on your own programs and administration you fund and elect yourselves.

If we all did this, we'd be too busy managing our own affairs locally to fight with or depend on govt.

There is nothing illegal about setting up your own democratically run network to handle all your business.
Anyone can live in a democracy to whatever extent we set up representation, either direct indirect or a mix of both.
Just like Christianity, Buddhism or any other religion -- you are free to set up and practice it to whatever degree you can expand and still manage the responsibility for the programs and membership.

 

[initforme]

The rich have it all now. Both sides. And there are some average hard working middle class Americans who don't see it this way. Unreal.

 

[Defiant1]

McCutcheon v. FEC; now the Koch Brothers can come out of the closet and buy members of Congress, Members of State Legislators and Members of City and County Boards and Councils around our nation with complete immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has legalized bribery and calumny from any civil or criminal penalty.

See: The Koch's 'secret bank' takes another step out of the shadows

Is this about Free Speech or fear of the masses and the desire to establish an oligarchy for the rich and powerful?

Please explain how you believe restricting how someone can spend their own money is freedom.

One short example might cause you to think through the issue:

You want a piece of property to be zoned for a business you would like to open. The business would provide an alternative to the only other same business in your town and you explain to the town council competition would be good for all.

Mr. Smith who operates the business which you will compete learns of your appeal and decides to donate $500 to each voting member of the council for their reelection campaign. Do you believe his freedom to spend his own money in this manner is fine?

It really is that simple, too bad CrusaderFrank is so partisan he can't see how the Supreme Court Rulings on election is harmful to all Americans.

Absolutely. In Florida we just raised the limit to $1000.

Is there proof the councilmen would vote differently if they didn't receive the donation?

The person wanting the zoning change can give them a donation or donate to the candidate running against them.

 

[william the wie]

We don't live in a democracy.

Thankfully, mob rule is not nice.

 

[whitehall]

Here's the dirty little secret; the left doesn't trust the Constitution or the law or even the people they recruit to represent citizens. Money ain't your enemy lefties. Education is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Holding: Because aggregate limits restricting how much money a donor may contribute to candidates for federal office, political parties, and political action committees do not further the government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of such corruption, while at the same time seriously restricting participation in the democratic process, they are invalid under the First Amendment.

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission : SCOTUSblog

It is neither the role nor responsibility of the Supreme Court to address and find a remedy to the problem of excessive money and its undue influence in the political process.

All the Court can do is determine the constitutionality of remedies the government sees fit to enact to solve the problem. And when the Court invalidates such acts, it does not do so with the intent or desire to allow the problem to persist, rather, it’s done to allow Congress to revisit the issue and find a remedy that passes Constitutional muster.

Consequently, this concerns the First Amendment, where it’s ultimately the responsibility of each citizen to educate himself as to the issues and candidates and vote in an informed manner.

 

[asterism]

McCutcheon v. FEC; now the Koch Brothers can come out of the closet and buy members of Congress, Members of State Legislators and Members of City and County Boards and Councils around our nation with complete immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has legalized bribery and calumny from any civil or criminal penalty.

See: The Koch's 'secret bank' takes another step out of the shadows

Is this about Free Speech or fear of the masses and the desire to establish an oligarchy for the rich and powerful?

Please explain how you believe restricting how someone can spend their own money is freedom.

One short example might cause you to think through the issue:

You want a piece of property to be zoned for a business you would like to open. The business would provide an alternative to the only other same business in your town and you explain to the town council competition would be good for all.

Mr. Smith who operates the business which you will compete learns of your appeal and decides to donate $500 to each voting member of the council for their reelection campaign. Do you believe his freedom to spend his own money in this manner is fine?

It really is that simple, too bad CrusaderFrank is so partisan he can't see how the Supreme Court Rulings on election is harmful to all Americans.

I'd rather have private money involved in campaigns than have media bias and government micromanagement.

If the $500 to each voting member is the cost of doing business then so be it. Currently without spending a dime the GOP gets free airtime on Fox and talk radio while the DNC gets free airtime on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and most of the large newspapers.

 

[Darkwind]

So one must suppose that CrusaderFrank believes the Supreme Court has acted in good faith and in support of the freedom for all Americans. I wonder though, which brand of Kool-Aid he consumes (we can assume it is only red)?

Do you believe in the freedom of ALL Americans? Or just those you approve of? Because they ruled in favor

BTW...the SCOTUS has been getting rulings wrong for a half decade, but every now and again, they get one right. I'm not saying this one is right as I haven't read the particulars, but occasionally, they manage to get one right for the people. And for your edification, the Koch brothers are people too.

 

[Darkwind]

Holding: Because aggregate limits restricting how much money a donor may contribute to candidates for federal office, political parties, and political action committees do not further the government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of such corruption, while at the same time seriously restricting participation in the democratic process, they are invalid under the First Amendment.

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission : SCOTUSblog

It is neither the role nor responsibility of the Supreme Court to address and find a remedy to the problem of excessive money and its undue influence in the political process.

All the Court can do is determine the constitutionality of remedies the government sees fit to enact to solve the problem. And when the Court invalidates such acts, it does not do so with the intent or desire to allow the problem to persist, rather, it’s done to allow Congress to revisit the issue and find a remedy that passes Constitutional muster.

Consequently, this concerns the First Amendment, where it’s ultimately the responsibility of each citizen to educate himself as to the issues and candidates and vote in an informed manner.

Wow. Very good.

 

[asterism]

We don't live in a democracy.

Correct, we have been transformed into an Oligarchy, one wherein money buys influence and influence produces more money and power for the Oligarchs, and perks for the influenced. "We the People" are simply an afterthought; our representatives represent the needs of the few, many times at the expense of the many.

How is today any different than the 1950s when it was much easier to literally buy politicians?

The Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) created the first PAC during World War II, after Congress prohibited organized labor from influencing politics via direct monetary contributions. In response, the CIO created a separate political fund that it called the Political Action Committee. In 1955, after the CIO merged with the American Federation of Labor, the new organization created a new PAC, the Committee on Political Education (COPE). Also formed in the 1950s: the American Medical Political Action Committee (AMPAC) and the Business-Industry Political Action Committee (BIPAC).

The number of PACs peaked in 1988 at 4,268. At that time, corporations accounted for 43% of all PACs; non-connected PACs accounted for 26%. The FEC reported 4,234 PACs on 1 January 2008. Corporate PACs had dropped to 38% of the total; non-connected PACs had increased to 31%.

Although PACs are perceived to be a major force in elections, they account for less than 1% of the funding in presidential elections. In Congressional races they are more important, although that importance is on the decline.

In the preliminary data from the 2006 election cycle, contributions from individuals were the largest source of receipts (61%). PAC contributions accounted for only 28% of the total. Candidates themselves contributed or loaned a total of $86.8 million to their campaigns, which was 8% of all receipts. (The agency did not produce an end-of-the-year report in 2006.)

What Is A Political Action Committee (PAC) - Campaign Finance Explained

 

[Wry Catcher]

We don't live in a democracy.

Thankfully, mob rule is not nice.

Sadly you've bought the Kool-Aid; do you ever think through what you post? The vast middle citizens of our great nation don't consider, "We the People" to be a mob. Only the power elite fear those of us who toil, raise our families and worship as we please and those who have been 'educated' by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, et al.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

McCutcheon v. FEC; now the Koch Brothers can come out of the closet and buy members of Congress, Members of State Legislators and Members of City and County Boards and Councils around our nation with complete immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has legalized bribery and calumny from any civil or criminal penalty.

See: The Koch's 'secret bank' takes another step out of the shadows

Is this about Free Speech or fear of the masses and the desire to establish an oligarchy for the rich and powerful?

This is the complacent ignorance that could kill us.

We have seen the last election in the US. We're for sale and the poor do not have the money to compete. The working/poor classes work to support the 1%. That is their function, and idiot rw's like Frank sold his own future and the future of his children/grand children for next to nothing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Holding: Because aggregate limits restricting how much money a donor may contribute to candidates for federal office, political parties, and political action committees do not further the government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of such corruption, while at the same time seriously restricting participation in the democratic process, they are invalid under the First Amendment.

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission : SCOTUSblog

It is neither the role nor responsibility of the Supreme Court to address and find a remedy to the problem of excessive money and its undue influence in the political process.

All the Court can do is determine the constitutionality of remedies the government sees fit to enact to solve the problem. And when the Court invalidates such acts, it does not do so with the intent or desire to allow the problem to persist, rather, it’s done to allow Congress to revisit the issue and find a remedy that passes Constitutional muster.

Consequently, this concerns the First Amendment, where it’s ultimately the responsibility of each citizen to educate himself as to the issues and candidates and vote in an informed manner.

I don't think I could disagree more, "THE LIFE OF THE LAW HAS NOT BEEN LOGIC; IT HAS BEEN EXPERIENCE"
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Human nature and recorded history suggests your comment is naïve and factually incorrect. We have a representative democracy and expect those who represent us, in all three branches of our government, to govern fairly and without bias - the Roberts Court fails that test.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Holding: Because aggregate limits restricting how much money a donor may contribute to candidates for federal office, political parties, and political action committees do not further the government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of such corruption, while at the same time seriously restricting participation in the democratic process, they are invalid under the First Amendment.

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission : SCOTUSblog

It is neither the role nor responsibility of the Supreme Court to address and find a remedy to the problem of excessive money and its undue influence in the political process.

All the Court can do is determine the constitutionality of remedies the government sees fit to enact to solve the problem. And when the Court invalidates such acts, it does not do so with the intent or desire to allow the problem to persist, rather, it’s done to allow Congress to revisit the issue and find a remedy that passes Constitutional muster.

Consequently, this concerns the First Amendment, where it’s ultimately the responsibility of each citizen to educate himself as to the issues and candidates and vote in an informed manner.

I don't think I could disagree more, "THE LIFE OF THE LAW HAS NOT BEEN LOGIC; IT HAS BEEN EXPERIENCE"
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Human nature and recorded history suggests your comment is naïve and factually incorrect. We have a representative democracy and expect those who represent us, in all three branches of our government, to govern fairly and without bias - the Roberts Court fails that test.

And I couldn’t disagree more – for the law to retain its legitimacy it must be applied consistently, where the sole role of the judiciary is to subject laws to review and determine whether or not they are repugnant to the Constitution.

To safeguard our civil liberties laws that fail to meet a given standard of judicial review must be invalidated, placing necessary and proper restrictions on the state.

The problem, therefore, is subjective partisanism, not the rulings of the Court.

This is why rulings such as Citizens United and McCutcheon are similar to Roe v. Wade; in Roe the Court invalidated laws that sought to deny a woman her right to privacy. Just as it was not the role or responsibility of the Roe Court to ‘solve’ the problem of abortion, so too was it not the responsibility of the Citizens United Court to solve the problem of campaign financing.

In both Roe and Citizens United the Court made the correct determination, safeguarding citizens’ civil liberties at the expense of the state – leaving their respective problems to the people to resolve via the democratic process, where the people were disallowed to violate their fellow citizens’ Constitutional rights pursuing ‘remedies’ offensive to the Founding Document.

 

[Staidhup]

It would be advisable to do a little research before you disclose just how full of crap you are. Koch brother contributions are not even close to that of your Soros gang, Democrat PAC boys, and union thugs. Your attempt to silence any and all opposition to your twisted progressive garbage is an affront to the right to freedom of speech as guaranteed under the Constitution, but then again, your distaste for the Constitution, empowerment of the people, and self determination is old news. But then again the left has always attempted to quell opposing viewpoints, its the socialist way.