Goodbye PACs, Hello JFCs

[boedicca]

Last Presidential election, Sheldon Adelson spent AT LEAST $98 million trying to buy himself some politicians...that's like you or I donating $40.

Now they can spend even more to have Scott Walker kiss their ass when they aren't even in the room?!?! Awesome!

How much did unions spend?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The First Amendment is clear. If you want to defend a person's right to burn a flag, be a Nazi, or have a gay pride parade, then you must allow an individual to employ his wealth as speech. So, I advise liberals here to swallow their pride and move on. You lost.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

Fast forward 1 year and watch how many "waaaa politicians are corrupt and dont represent us" posts you drum up.

Yep,

All this does is make the nobility the far right supports more powerful over the little guy. OF COURSE they're never for the little guy!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Money is speech, so those with the most money have the loudest voices.

95% of financial gains during the economic recovery went to the richest 1%.

And the mouth-breathing gun owners in this country support the drug war and the police state, so the chance of revolution is nil.

It's kind of funny that these idiots for limited government and guns are the very people that support shit like this. Personal freedom and small government my ass!

Is it not personal freedom to be allowed to spend your money the way you want to? Or do you need the law telling you how much you can give to one individual or another? Actually, this melds with personal freedom and small government quite nicely.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

Fast forward 1 year and watch how many "waaaa politicians are corrupt and dont represent us" posts you drum up.

Yep,

All this does is make the nobility the far right supports more powerful over the little guy. OF COURSE they're never for the little guy!

What this also does is allows far right nobility to do the same, namely Hollywood stars and people like George Soros.

Or are you always this one sided, Matt?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

Fast forward 1 year and watch how many "waaaa politicians are corrupt and dont represent us" posts you drum up.

Yep,

All this does is make the nobility the far right supports more powerful over the little guy. OF COURSE they're never for the little guy!

Thats the thing about it. They complain about a bullet in their foot then applaud putting more bullets in the gun that is still pointed at their foot.

Then guess what they do..Complain when the gun goes off again

 

[boilermaker55]

Does this mean money will influence campaigns more than ever? Who is most likely to gain?

The decision gives rich people more power to influence campaigns. It expands the influence of people who have a lot of money to give. The end of the $123,200 overall limit means that people who have even more money to spend have more ways to spend it. "Jeffrey Toobin"


Venture Capitalist Says "War" on the Rich Is Like Nazi Germany's War on the Jews

Makes one wonder.

 

[TemplarKormac]

On the other hand though, I don't like this ruling. Not one iota. If men are ruled more by money than their convictions, we are doomed to failure.

 

[ClosedCaption]

On the other hand though, I don't like this ruling. Not one iota. If men are ruled more by money than their convictions, we are doomed to failure.

Here's how you find out. Between Money and Convictions which one can buy stuff?

Thats the one that will always ALWAYS win. Every man has his price.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Oh blather.

Liberals LOVE to defend "free speech."

Except, apparently, when it means that the ones they loathe the most, those evil "rich" one percent types, might get to use their money to engage in free speech against the likings of the liberals.

This is purely a freedom of speech issue boys and girls.

Spin it all you want, but you cannot change that immutable FACT.

The worst part of this decision was that there are some SCOTUS Justices who simply do not value the First Amendment in "some" cases. Liberals who bemoan this decision ought to turn in their liberal/progressive/socialist cards. Disgraceful liberals are disgraceful.

 

[bendog]

Does this mean money will influence campaigns more than ever? Who is most likely to gain?

The decision gives rich people more power to influence campaigns. It expands the influence of people who have a lot of money to give. The end of the $123,200 overall limit means that people who have even more money to spend have more ways to spend it. "Jeffrey Toobin"

I'm not sure it does that, and if you look at pages 35-40 (approx.) I think there's a good case to say it does not. But, perhaps it's more of "oh for god's sake it can't get worse than it already is." (-:

And pols on both sides have interests in this, and not the same as our interests. So, I'm not being partisan.

But its a step closer to Koch or Soros walking into an office and handing over two million in untraceable currency and saying "you are mine now."

 

[TemplarKormac]

Money has a way of both encouraging and stifling speech. Remember that.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Oh blather.

Liberals LOVE to defend "free speech."

Except, apparently, when it means that the ones they loathe the most, those evil "rich" one percent types, might get to use their money to engage in free speech against the likings of the liberals.

I thought the Dems were the party of the rich and Dems have all the rich guys. Now you're reversing that? Or what?

This is purely a freedom of speech issue boys and girls.

Spin it all you want, but you cannot change that immutable FACT.

The worst part of this decision was that there are some SCOTUS Justices who simply do not value the First Amendment in "some" cases. Liberals who bemoan this decision ought to turn in their liberal/progressive/socialist cards. Disgraceful liberals are disgraceful.

Wow thanks for that in depth commentary that was covered on page one.

 

[BlindBoo]

Oh blather.

Liberals LOVE to defend "free speech."

Except, apparently, when it means that the ones they loathe the most, those evil "rich" one percent types, might get to use their money to engage in free speech against the likings of the liberals.

This is purely a freedom of speech issue boys and girls.

Spin it all you want, but you cannot change that immutable FACT.

The worst part of this decision was that there are some SCOTUS Justices who simply do not value the First Amendment in "some" cases. Liberals who bemoan this decision ought to turn in their liberal/progressive/socialist cards. Disgraceful liberals are disgraceful.

I think it's more about access to Power, rather than freedom of speech.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Oh blather.

Liberals LOVE to defend "free speech."

Except, apparently, when it means that the ones they loathe the most, those evil "rich" one percent types, might get to use their money to engage in free speech against the likings of the liberals.

This is purely a freedom of speech issue boys and girls.

Spin it all you want, but you cannot change that immutable FACT.

The worst part of this decision was that there are some SCOTUS Justices who simply do not value the First Amendment in "some" cases. Liberals who bemoan this decision ought to turn in their liberal/progressive/socialist cards. Disgraceful liberals are disgraceful.

I think it's more about access to Power, rather than freedom of speech.

This just granted more power to the nobility to control our "republican democracy". This doesn't help the lower and middle class that gets the raw in of this deal.

 

[Mustang]

Why don't we skip the preliminaries and simply move to a system where each person gets to vote with his or her net worth. So, one person with a net worth of $1 Million would get the same vote influence as 10 people with a net worth of $100,000 each. But no matter what, even if you're as poor as a church mouse, you'll be counted as being worth the value of a six pack of beer (American made). We'll call that the Joe Sixpack vote.

 

[blackhawk]

Someone can give as much money to a candidate as they like if I don't agree with that persons views and policies I won't be voting for them.

 

[boedicca]

Someone can give as much money to a candidate as they like if I don't agree with that persons views and policies I won't be voting for them.

This is the correct motorcycle.

 

[bripat9643]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Yes. Do you know where the "money is speech" meme comes from?

It comes from the Bill of Rights.

 

[Plasmaball]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

no it isnt..