Citizens United: One Year Later

[MarcATL]

What's funny is, despite this partisan ruling...Obama will win EXACTLY like he did the last time...with money from The American People. Our $5's, $10s, and $20s will STILL defeat the millions pouring in from the likes of Dick Armey and the Koch Brothers.

Watch.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

What's funny is, despite this partisan ruling...Obama will win EXACTLY like he did the last time...with money from The American People. Our $5's, $10s, and $20s will STILL defeat the millions pouring in from the likes of Dick Armey and the Koch Brothers.

Watch.

It wont happen sorry.
The bloom is off the rose.

 

[MarcATL]

It wont happen sorry.
The bloom is off the rose.

In the echo chamber that about 20% - 25% of the country resides in...maybe, but to the rest...nope.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Depends on what he means by transparency. He has never had a problem with massive campaign spending when the Democrats benefit, and I need proof before I would equate spending with purchased candidates.

You've completely missed the point of not only this thread but my post. You're living up to the second part of your username for sure. I think it's pretty clear what I mean by transparency. Goldcatt seemed to know pretty well what exactly I was talking about.

What is the point of you post? The more money was spent independently in such ways that if favored Republicans? How much of that money was spent in such a way that it directly supported a Republican candidate, and how much was spent against an incumbent in general? How much of that money was spent against Obama's policies, and not only benefited Republicans, it also benefited anti Obama Democrats?

You can't talk about a lack of transparency and not exhibit transparency yourself. You consistently post anti Republican rhetoric, and run from anyone who pins you down with facts. I guess you thought I didn't have any facts this time, or you would have just run from me.

 

[Modbert]

What is the point of you post? The more money was spent independently in such ways that if favored Republicans? How much of that money was spent in such a way that it directly supported a Republican candidate, and how much was spent against an incumbent in general? How much of that money was spent against Obama's policies, and not only benefited Republicans, it also benefited anti Obama Democrats?

You can't talk about a lack of transparency and not exhibit transparency yourself. You consistently post anti Republican rhetoric, and run from anyone who pins you down with facts. I guess you thought I didn't have any facts this time, or you would have just run from me.

The only battle here seems to be the one you're fighting in your own mind. I want to see more transparency on the issue of Corporate and Special interest donations from both parties. This has nothing to do with the fact the Republicans got more money last cycle. In 2008, Obama got far more than McCain and Democrats got more in 2006 plus overall 2008 as well I'm sure.

This has nothing to do with Anti-Republican rhetoric or anything else you're imagining.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What's funny is, despite this partisan ruling...Obama will win EXACTLY like he did the last time...with money from The American People. Our $5's, $10s, and $20s will STILL defeat the millions pouring in from the likes of Dick Armey and the Koch Brothers.

Watch.

What is really funny is that you actually believe that BS. If you go back through the records you will see that well more than half of the donations that Obama collected in 2008 did not come form little people, it came from corporations. He is the single largest beneficiary of corporate donations in history. If he had actually been concerned with you or the other little people who supported him he would have kept his promise and accepted public financing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is the point of you post? The more money was spent independently in such ways that if favored Republicans? How much of that money was spent in such a way that it directly supported a Republican candidate, and how much was spent against an incumbent in general? How much of that money was spent against Obama's policies, and not only benefited Republicans, it also benefited anti Obama Democrats?

You can't talk about a lack of transparency and not exhibit transparency yourself. You consistently post anti Republican rhetoric, and run from anyone who pins you down with facts. I guess you thought I didn't have any facts this time, or you would have just run from me.

The only battle here seems to be the one you're fighting in your own mind. I want to see more transparency on the issue of Corporate and Special interest donations from both parties. This has nothing to do with the fact the Republicans got more money last cycle. In 2008, Obama got far more than McCain and Democrats got more in 2006 plus overall 2008 as well I'm sure.

This has nothing to do with Anti-Republican rhetoric or anything else you're imagining.

Why don't you call for it from the Democrats then? They have been sitting around for 2 years talking about transparency and doing the exact same thing. It is easy to say you want it from both sides after getting called out about your partisanship. Maybe you should look for sources that go against your beliefs instead of just looking for things you agree with. Unless, that is, you really believe Public Citizen is a non partisan group.

 

[Avatar4321]

Is it really shocking that free speech benefits Republicans and restricted speech benefits Democrats?

Seriously?

 

[MarcATL]

What is really funny is that you actually believe that BS. If you go back through the records you will see that well more than half of the donations that Obama collected in 2008 did not come form little people, it came from corporations. He is the single largest beneficiary of corporate donations in history. If he had actually been concerned with you or the other little people who supported him he would have kept his promise and accepted public financing.

Got Link?

 

[The Rabbi]

What is the point of you post? The more money was spent independently in such ways that if favored Republicans? How much of that money was spent in such a way that it directly supported a Republican candidate, and how much was spent against an incumbent in general? How much of that money was spent against Obama's policies, and not only benefited Republicans, it also benefited anti Obama Democrats?

You can't talk about a lack of transparency and not exhibit transparency yourself. You consistently post anti Republican rhetoric, and run from anyone who pins you down with facts. I guess you thought I didn't have any facts this time, or you would have just run from me.

The only battle here seems to be the one you're fighting in your own mind. I want to see more transparency on the issue of Corporate and Special interest donations from both parties. This has nothing to do with the fact the Republicans got more money last cycle. In 2008, Obama got far more than McCain and Democrats got more in 2006 plus overall 2008 as well I'm sure.

This has nothing to do with Anti-Republican rhetoric or anything else you're imagining.

Why don't you call for it from the Democrats then? They have been sitting around for 2 years talking about transparency and doing the exact same thing. It is easy to say you want it from both sides after getting called out about your partisanship. Maybe you should look for sources that go against your beliefs instead of just looking for things you agree with. Unless, that is, you really believe Public Citizen is a non partisan group.

Because the issue of "transparency" is a canard invented by Democrats. Ask them where funds for NPR come from and they invoke privacy laws. It isn't a bad answer, but it is hypocritical (typically, Democrats are th e biggest hypocrites on the planet) to turn around and talk about transparency in campaign finance.

 

[goldcatt]

What is the point of you post? The more money was spent independently in such ways that if favored Republicans? How much of that money was spent in such a way that it directly supported a Republican candidate, and how much was spent against an incumbent in general? How much of that money was spent against Obama's policies, and not only benefited Republicans, it also benefited anti Obama Democrats?

You can't talk about a lack of transparency and not exhibit transparency yourself. You consistently post anti Republican rhetoric, and run from anyone who pins you down with facts. I guess you thought I didn't have any facts this time, or you would have just run from me.

The only battle here seems to be the one you're fighting in your own mind. I want to see more transparency on the issue of Corporate and Special interest donations from both parties. This has nothing to do with the fact the Republicans got more money last cycle. In 2008, Obama got far more than McCain and Democrats got more in 2006 plus overall 2008 as well I'm sure.

This has nothing to do with Anti-Republican rhetoric or anything else you're imagining.

Why don't you call for it from the Democrats then? They have been sitting around for 2 years talking about transparency and doing the exact same thing. It is easy to say you want it from both sides after getting called out about your partisanship. Maybe you should look for sources that go against your beliefs instead of just looking for things you agree with. Unless, that is, you really believe Public Citizen is a non partisan group.

Did we read the same article? Nobody's talking about transparency from the parties. The words "independent organizations" are the object. You know, the ones that made expenditures under CU.

The fact is, transparency stops at the name of the organization with these expenditures. They are generally not required to divulge their source of funds. Ignore your chip against Bert and you might stop overlooking the real issue here. It's a good question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The only battle here seems to be the one you're fighting in your own mind. I want to see more transparency on the issue of Corporate and Special interest donations from both parties. This has nothing to do with the fact the Republicans got more money last cycle. In 2008, Obama got far more than McCain and Democrats got more in 2006 plus overall 2008 as well I'm sure.

This has nothing to do with Anti-Republican rhetoric or anything else you're imagining.

Why don't you call for it from the Democrats then? They have been sitting around for 2 years talking about transparency and doing the exact same thing. It is easy to say you want it from both sides after getting called out about your partisanship. Maybe you should look for sources that go against your beliefs instead of just looking for things you agree with. Unless, that is, you really believe Public Citizen is a non partisan group.

Did we read the same article? Nobody's talking about transparency from the parties. The words "independent organizations" are the object. You know, the ones that made expenditures under CU.

The fact is, transparency stops at the name of the organization with these expenditures. They are generally not required to divulge their source of funds. Ignore your chip against Bert and you might stop overlooking the real issue here. It's a good question.

I am talking specifically about transparency from Modbert.

As for corporations, nothing in Citizen's United prohibited Congress from making reasonable laws about disclosure. Blaming the lack of transparency on a single case when the truth is that the lack of disclosure is part of the political culture is dishonest. If bert really wanted to talk about disclosure he would point out that the only time either party supports disclosure is when the money is being spent on anti incumbent political advertising, they have no problem with obfuscation when it is in their favor.

 

[Modbert]

I just have to say it's pretty sad that Quantum can't let go whatever grudge he has against me and has to try and ruin a perfectly good thread that people from both sides of the political spectrum should agree with on this issue.

 

[The Rabbi]

I just have to say it's pretty sad that Quantum can't let go whatever grudge he has against me and has to try and ruin a perfectly good thread that people from both sides of the political spectrum should agree with on this issue.

It appears that Quantum is kicking both your sorry asses in this debate by pointing out relevant facts.
As I stated, the "transparency" issue is a canard. Go ask NPR for a lsit of their contributors and see where that goes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I just have to say it's pretty sad that Quantum can't let go whatever grudge he has against me and has to try and ruin a perfectly good thread that people from both sides of the political spectrum should agree with on this issue.

I don't have grudges, I am just pointing out you complete hypocrisy. You seem to, like every single politician in office, only want transparency for people that oppose them.

 

[JBeukema]

ISS - One year after Citizens United

A new report released by Public Citizen this week surveys the results:

* Spending by outside groups jumped to $294.2 million in the 2010 election cycle, a nearly four-fold increase from the $68.9 million spent in 2006, the last mid-terms. Nearly half of that ($138.5 million) came from just 10 groups, with the biggest share by far benefiting Republicans.

* In 60 out of 75 congressional races, the candidate benefiting most from outside spending won the race -- a remarkable 80 percent win rate.

* The source of the money flooding into elections after Citizens United largely hidden: Because many of the independent groups aren't required to disclose their donors, barely a third -- 34 percent -- of the groups reported which people and groups gave them money.

As Public Citizen notes, the cloak of secrecy surrounding corporate campaign spending goes against the Supreme Court thinking behind Citizens United, which was that massive corporate spending was acceptable as long as the public knew about it:

Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion for the majority was based in part on the assumption that any dangers posed by the new flood of corporate spending in elections would be mitigated by disclosure. "This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages," Kennedy wrote.

The DISCLOSE Act, a bill that would have required non-profit groups to reveal the donors behind their election war chests, failed by one vote last spring in the face of a Senate Republican filibuster.

More after the jump. I would think that all of us can agree that more transparency is a good thing, especially when it comes to which interests are buying candidates.

One the one hand: all good fascists accept the principle of one dollar, one vote

On the other hand: that political success depends so much on money and not at all on policy seems proof positive that democracy doesn't work and
Americans are too stupid to govern themselves

 

[JBeukema]

We clearly have the best government that money can buy.

If the american people are too stupid to vote based on actual policies, maybe they don't deserve to govern themselves in the first place

 

[goldcatt]

Why don't you call for it from the Democrats then? They have been sitting around for 2 years talking about transparency and doing the exact same thing. It is easy to say you want it from both sides after getting called out about your partisanship. Maybe you should look for sources that go against your beliefs instead of just looking for things you agree with. Unless, that is, you really believe Public Citizen is a non partisan group.

Did we read the same article? Nobody's talking about transparency from the parties. The words "independent organizations" are the object. You know, the ones that made expenditures under CU.

The fact is, transparency stops at the name of the organization with these expenditures. They are generally not required to divulge their source of funds. Ignore your chip against Bert and you might stop overlooking the real issue here. It's a good question.

I am talking specifically about transparency from Modbert.

As for corporations, nothing in Citizen's United prohibited Congress from making reasonable laws about disclosure. Blaming the lack of transparency on a single case when the truth is that the lack of disclosure is part of the political culture is dishonest. If bert really wanted to talk about disclosure he would point out that the only time either party supports disclosure is when the money is being spent on anti incumbent political advertising, they have no problem with obfuscation when it is in their favor.

You're not usually this obtuse, QW. If not for that single case and the nature of the right established, there would be no expenditures and no need for disclosure. 529s and other political organizations in existence prior to CU have reporting requirements. The decision made it very clear that those under CU need disclose the name of the organization and only the name of the organization in the advertisement itself.

The dissent points out very clearly the inherent pitfalls here. I happen to agree with that dissent. Even reporting wouldn't serve to avoid those pitfalls, because CU makes foreign contributions perfectly legal so long as the organization is formed on US soil. But it would be nice to know who's really behind these expenditures and where the money is coming from, don't you think?

Maybe not. But for me...the answer is "yes".

 

[JBeukema]

Think about it: when anyone complains about any money and where it might come from- they're saying they don't trust the American public to look past the number of times they see a commercial and vote based on the issues

 

[goldcatt]

Think about it: when anyone complains about any money and where it might come from- they're saying they don't trust the American public to look past the number of times they see a commercial and vote based on the issues

Look at it this way, JB. There are people on this thread who can't see past who posted the OP and pick out the issue. I'm assuming they vote. You do the math.