What does this primary cycle say about Citizens United?

[Kosh]

peach174

Money has no influence when the majority of the people are well informed about the issues.

No? No influence?

gawd, the intellectual standards at usmb have fallen even lower than anyone could have predicted

Who is influencing the Trump campaign?

Can you show the list of donors that has influence in his campaign?

I bet the far left drone spouts nothing but far left religious dogma!

 

[Dante]

peach174

Money has no influence when the majority of the people are well informed about the issues.

No? No influence?

gawd, the intellectual standards at usmb have fallen even lower than anyone could have predicted

Who is influencing the Trump campaign?

Can you show the list of donors that has influence in his campaign?

I bet the far left drone spouts nothing but far left religious dogma!

What world do you live in?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wry Catcher

CU and McCutcheon have their greatest influence on members of Congress and State Legislators.

Spending lots of money on POTUS candidates is wasteful, the bulk of the money will be spent once each party has adopted a standard bearer.

It's then that the bulk of the money is spent, mostly by Super PACS and mostly on negative campaigns and character assassination.

???

Adopted a standard bearer? You mean adopt a POTUS candidate out of the primary field? The chosen candidate coming out of any convention is still a POTUS candidate, no?

Do you have any links that evidence this "CU and McCutcheon have their greatest influence on members of Congress and State Legislators."???

The Standard Bearer is the one the party selects to run for POTUS. Last time it was Obama and Romney.

I don't have links to prove CU and McCutcheon have a greater influence on the Congress and St. law makers other than Empirical Evidence.

Congress and CA St. Law Makers vote almost 100% along the party line, few members of the Republican Caucus will ever vote to increase a tax or support gun control.

In the latter instance the two members of the Colorado Legislature who supported a gun control bill were defeated in the following primary races by candidates who highlighted their support of gun control. Money from the NRA and its members had a direct influence on that defeat.

"Standard bearer' is a term used for the leader of the party. During a presidential election season, it is the candidate who wins the primary and is nominated during a convention as the Standard bearer, the party candidate.

But my comments went to the confusion in your post where you referred to POTUS candidates during the primary becoming the Standard bearer after the convention, as if the Standard bearer is no longer a POTUS candidate:

"Spending lots of money on POTUS candidates is wasteful, the bulk of the money will be spent once each party has adopted a standard bearer." -

Huh, I don't understand. The Standard Bearer is the party nominee after the convention, this is when most of the money will be spent, to elect the parties nominee for POTUS.

 

[Kosh]

peach174

Money has no influence when the majority of the people are well informed about the issues.

No? No influence?

gawd, the intellectual standards at usmb have fallen even lower than anyone could have predicted

Who is influencing the Trump campaign?

Can you show the list of donors that has influence in his campaign?

I bet the far left drone spouts nothing but far left religious dogma!

What world do you live in?

And the far left drone proved my point!

 

[Kosh]

Wry Catcher

CU and McCutcheon have their greatest influence on members of Congress and State Legislators.

Spending lots of money on POTUS candidates is wasteful, the bulk of the money will be spent once each party has adopted a standard bearer.

It's then that the bulk of the money is spent, mostly by Super PACS and mostly on negative campaigns and character assassination.

???

Adopted a standard bearer? You mean adopt a POTUS candidate out of the primary field? The chosen candidate coming out of any convention is still a POTUS candidate, no?

Do you have any links that evidence this "CU and McCutcheon have their greatest influence on members of Congress and State Legislators."???

The Standard Bearer is the one the party selects to run for POTUS. Last time it was Obama and Romney.

I don't have links to prove CU and McCutcheon have a greater influence on the Congress and St. law makers other than Empirical Evidence.

Congress and CA St. Law Makers vote almost 100% along the party line, few members of the Republican Caucus will ever vote to increase a tax or support gun control.

In the latter instance the two members of the Colorado Legislature who supported a gun control bill were defeated in the following primary races by candidates who highlighted their support of gun control. Money from the NRA and its members had a direct influence on that defeat.

"Standard bearer' is a term used for the leader of the party. During a presidential election season, it is the candidate who wins the primary and is nominated during a convention as the Standard bearer, the party candidate.

But my comments went to the confusion in your post where you referred to POTUS candidates during the primary becoming the Standard bearer after the convention, as if the Standard bearer is no longer a POTUS candidate:

"Spending lots of money on POTUS candidates is wasteful, the bulk of the money will be spent once each party has adopted a standard bearer." -

Huh, I don't understand. The Standard Bearer is the party nominee after the convention, this is when most of the money will be spent, to elect the parties nominee for POTUS.

It is funny to watch you far left drones believe you have an actual choice in your nominations!

The far left is anything but pro choice!

 

[Dante]

Wry Catcher

CU and McCutcheon have their greatest influence on members of Congress and State Legislators.

Spending lots of money on POTUS candidates is wasteful, the bulk of the money will be spent once each party has adopted a standard bearer.

It's then that the bulk of the money is spent, mostly by Super PACS and mostly on negative campaigns and character assassination.

???

Adopted a standard bearer? You mean adopt a POTUS candidate out of the primary field? The chosen candidate coming out of any convention is still a POTUS candidate, no?

Do you have any links that evidence this "CU and McCutcheon have their greatest influence on members of Congress and State Legislators."???

The Standard Bearer is the one the party selects to run for POTUS. Last time it was Obama and Romney.

I don't have links to prove CU and McCutcheon have a greater influence on the Congress and St. law makers other than Empirical Evidence.

Congress and CA St. Law Makers vote almost 100% along the party line, few members of the Republican Caucus will ever vote to increase a tax or support gun control.

In the latter instance the two members of the Colorado Legislature who supported a gun control bill were defeated in the following primary races by candidates who highlighted their support of gun control. Money from the NRA and its members had a direct influence on that defeat.

"Standard bearer' is a term used for the leader of the party. During a presidential election season, it is the candidate who wins the primary and is nominated during a convention as the Standard bearer, the party candidate.

But my comments went to the confusion in your post where you referred to POTUS candidates during the primary becoming the Standard bearer after the convention, as if the Standard bearer is no longer a POTUS candidate:

"Spending lots of money on POTUS candidates is wasteful, the bulk of the money will be spent once each party has adopted a standard bearer." -

Huh, I don't understand. The Standard Bearer is the party nominee after the convention, this is when most of the money will be spent, to elect the parties nominee for POTUS.

"Spending lots of money on POTUS candidates is wasteful, the bulk of the money will be spent once each party has adopted a standard bearer." - your words

 

[Dante]

oops!

I see Wrycatcher.

 

[Care4all]

As long as we allow corporations to donate and get involved in political parties, they will have an influence....not so much on Presidents, but certainly on the law makers.

We still need to go back to where our founders and earlier Father's felt and thought of corporations, and it was ILLEGAL for corporations to get involved in any of the political process through the 1800's, why we let that change is beyond reason.

I agree except you lose me when you appeal to the American colonists. Going back to a world we would not recognize? They could not have imagined what our world today is like, so how could they have a position on things now?

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• 
  
  
  • Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
  • Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
  • Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
  • Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
  • Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
  • Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

much more here: Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

 

[Wry Catcher]

How can you say "money isn't buying influence with voters" when politicil spending is the highest in history? The dirty little secret is that TV spots do work as well for selling ideas and agendas as they do for selling deodorant.

Or drugs!!!

 

[Mac1958]

Ah, so they're way ahead of me.

Well, I wasn't exactly in front on that one.

Why are you so upset about this?
.

Upset? Is this a projection? Can I safely assume when you catch an untruth or bullshitter you are upset when you respond? Can you consider any other motive, emotion, angle I would be coming from? I suspect like Trump with the videos and Hillary with the airport danger, you are misremembering things you may have already read or heard

I suspect like Trum

What in the world are you talking about?

Are you drunk?
.

Why do you ass-ume people are mad or angry or upset when they post? Reflections?

By the words they use.

If you have a point, whatever the hell it is, make it.

I made a simple, civil observation and you went full drama queen.
.

Mac1958
So, you can mysteriously see how people are emoting or reacting by their printed words alone? Does the CIA know about this?

Yes.
.

 

[The Rabbi]

It doesn't seem money is buying much by way of influence with voters.

A fluke...or the new reality of the internet age?

Discuss...

It hasnt had any effect. CU was never about leveling the playing field or getting money out of politis or anything else. It was always about controlling free speech. This is why the progressives hate it so much. They are opposed to free speech. They are opposed to citizens advocating. They are opposed to any viewpoint not their own. And they will suppress those viewpoints regarldess of legality.

 

[Care4all]

Money has no influence when the majority of the people are well informed about the issues.

Ahhhhhh, but it's the Money, that "informs" them......

conflict of interest perhaps?

 

[Tehon]

It doesn't seem money is buying much by way of influence with voters.

A fluke...or the new reality of the internet age?

Discuss...

It hasnt had any effect. CU was never about leveling the playing field or getting money out of politis or anything else. It was always about controlling free speech. This is why the progressives hate it so much. They are opposed to free speech. They are opposed to citizens advocating. They are opposed to any viewpoint not their own. And they will suppress those viewpoints regarldess of legality.

It's about our right as living breathing people to own our own political process free from the influence of artificially created entities.

 

[The Rabbi]

It doesn't seem money is buying much by way of influence with voters.

A fluke...or the new reality of the internet age?

Discuss...

It hasnt had any effect. CU was never about leveling the playing field or getting money out of politis or anything else. It was always about controlling free speech. This is why the progressives hate it so much. They are opposed to free speech. They are opposed to citizens advocating. They are opposed to any viewpoint not their own. And they will suppress those viewpoints regarldess of legality.

It's about our right as living breathing people to own our own political process free from the influence of artificially created entities.

Bullshit.
The political parties are already articially created entities. So you're wrong from step one, unless you are advocating abolishing the parties.
Citizens do not lose their rights of free speech simply because they choose to associate via a corporation.

 

[Tehon]

Citizens do not lose their rights of free speech simply because they choose to associate via a corporation.

Denying corporations a right to interfere in our political process does not deny any citizen their right to free speech. Try again.

 

[The Rabbi]

Citizens do not lose their rights of free speech simply because they choose to associate via a corporation.

Denying corporations a right to interfere in our political process does not deny any citizen their right to free speech. Try again.

Wrong.
Corporations are people, my friend.

 

[Tehon]

Citizens do not lose their rights of free speech simply because they choose to associate via a corporation.

Denying corporations a right to interfere in our political process does not deny any citizen their right to free speech. Try again.

Wrong.
Corporations are people, my friend.

Not really, they are made up of people, people who have a say in our political process just the same as me. I see no reason to give them added influence in the political process based on an economic association.

 

[The Rabbi]

Citizens do not lose their rights of free speech simply because they choose to associate via a corporation.

Denying corporations a right to interfere in our political process does not deny any citizen their right to free speech. Try again.

Wrong.
Corporations are people, my friend.

Not really, they are made up of people, people who have a say in our political process just the same as me. I see no reason to give them added influence in the political process based on an economic association.

Well too bad for you the Supreme Court disagreed. They held that citizens do not lose rights simply by banding together i a corporation.
So la di da.

 

[Tehon]

Citizens do not lose their rights of free speech simply because they choose to associate via a corporation.

Denying corporations a right to interfere in our political process does not deny any citizen their right to free speech. Try again.

Wrong.
Corporations are people, my friend.

Not really, they are made up of people, people who have a say in our political process just the same as me. I see no reason to give them added influence in the political process based on an economic association.

Well too bad for you the Supreme Court disagreed. They held that citizens do not lose rights simply by banding together i a corporation.
So la di da.

No, the supreme court said that certain citizens have additional rights based on an association. They said that certain associations are in fact people, with constitutional rights, independent of the individuals that comprise the association. It's absurd.

 

[The Rabbi]

Citizens do not lose their rights of free speech simply because they choose to associate via a corporation.

Denying corporations a right to interfere in our political process does not deny any citizen their right to free speech. Try again.

Wrong.
Corporations are people, my friend.

Not really, they are made up of people, people who have a say in our political process just the same as me. I see no reason to give them added influence in the political process based on an economic association.

Well too bad for you the Supreme Court disagreed. They held that citizens do not lose rights simply by banding together i a corporation.
So la di da.

No, the supreme court said that certain citizens have additional rights based on an association. They said that certain associations are in fact people, with constitutional rights, independent of the individuals that comprise the association. It's absurd.

Wrong.
They held individuals do not give up their 1A rights simply because they associate via corporation. Go read the decision so you dont sound like a dumbass.