Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Limits on Campaign Contributions 4/2/2014


http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/06/a-little-story-about-an-anci...
Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Limits on Campaign Contributions 4/2/2014
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/high-court-voids-contribution-l...
Quote from article:
"In a 5-4 vote won by conservative justices, the court struck down limits in federal law on the total amount of money a contributor can give to candidates, political parties and political action committees.

McCutcheon v. FEC: Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Limits On Campaign Contributions
Read the full decision below:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/02/mccutcheon-v-fec_n_5076518.html

No votes yet

The Sheldon Adelson primary: Kissing the mogul's ring
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/national-interest/66376-the-she...
Quote from article:
"It's a good thing that what happens in Vegas doesn't stay in Vegas, because this weekend we learned anew how mogul-driven politics really works: The more money you have, the more speech you can buy - and the more speech you can buy, the more candidates will fly thousands of miles just to kiss your ring."

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson
To Samuel Kercheval - Monticello, July 12, 1816
Quote from letter:
" I have thrown out these as loose heads of amendment, for
consideration and correction; and their object is to secure
self-government by the republicanism of our constitution, as well as
by the spirit of the people; and to nourish and perpetuate that
spirit. I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the
rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve
their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual
debt. We must make our election between _economy and liberty_, or
_profusion and servitude_. If we run into such debts, as that we
must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and
our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and
our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must
come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of
fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily
expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we
must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to
think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to
obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the
necks of our fellow-sufferers. Our landholders, too, like theirs,
retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs,
but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs,
in foreign countries, and be contented with penury, obscurity, exile,
and the glory of the nation. This example reads to us the salutary
lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by
private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human
governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a
precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the
bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and
to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then
begins, indeed, the _bellum omnium in omnia_, which some philosophers
observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the
natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of
this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in
its train wretchedness and oppression."

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Why should there be any limit on what you can give to support a candidate's campaign? Don't you have the natural liberty to show support for anyone else?

The public right to regulate such things has long been fulfilled, in that such donations are reported. That should have been the end of it.

We don't want it. Your "natural liberty" won't be worth much if some rich behind the scenes tyrant is allowed to buy it up some day.

We already have Plutocracy. The lassitude of the public means no form of government will function, regardless of regulation and disclosure.

What I've implied is that natural liberties are still natural liberties and we should still honor them. A responsible public will take note of the "bought" politicians and shun them. An irresponsible public won't take note, or won't do anything even if they take note... so why exactly would you bother with restricting donations in that case?

Reducing the influence of money on our elections does not take away from natural liberty.

You're seeing a responsible public in action, but you are not recognizing it. Taking the steps to restrict the purchase of politicians is what a responsible public should do.

"Reducing the influence of money on our elections does not take away from natural liberty."

Oh, god. Nice Newspeak, pal... except that reducing the influence of money on our elections EXACTLY takes away our natural liberties. You have the right to influence a politician. That's what "support" means when you say you support Mr James T. Politician.

As long as this support is made public, then the public interests all around are served. Mr James T. Politician gets support. You support Mr James T. Politician. And the public knows Mr James T. Politician is supported.

It's that simple.

All politicians are bought. And since all politicians are bought, the only sensible form of government is a MINIMAL one. If you won't understand that, then you can't understand anything about the topic.

The concept of natural rights, which gained ground during the Enlightenment, was in direct opposition to the rule of kings. Or in other words, it was a concept that the common people had rights too. Letting the wealthy determine who has more power in an election is only going backwards.

Here's something for you to think about: you can pretend to have all the natural rights you think you deserve, but if you don't have a government that recognizes them you don't get to exercise them. That's why The Declaration of Independence clearly states "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". There are plenty of republics around the world that wouldn't give your rights the time of day. We are lucky enough to live in America where there is a democratic aspect to our republic. It is that democracy that stands to be damaged by allowing money to determine elections.

"Letting the wealthy determine who has more power in an election is only going backwards."

But that's not what happens when the electorate is responsible in the first place. The wealthy who pump up a candidate to do their bidding, just get a candidate who gets shunned by the responsible public... since the donations being public, reveal that the politician in question is just some bought weenie.

Ultimate power devolves to the people. That means you must trust the public to do the right thing. I'm picking up the idea that you don't trust the public. Perhaps you ought to consider what that means for a spell.

That would be nice, but what if the choice comes down to only candidates that have been bought and paid for? How does the responsible electorate do their shunning?

I trust the public wholeheartedly, but if the voting public's choices are limited to candidates beholden to a minority of rich donors it defeats the whole concept of the governed bestowing power upon the government. It ends up being the wealthy controlling our politicians. We don't need to make it any easier for money to influence our elections or control our elected officials, and that's exactly what this recent decision is doing.

I say get as much money influence out of politics as possible, even to the point of having campaigns financed through taxes. We should really rethink the way we elect our public servants in this country.

"That would be nice, but what if the choice comes down to only candidates that have been bought and paid for? How does the responsible electorate do their shunning?"

Allow me to necessarily turn that around on you: Why would a responsible electorate let that happen? A responsible electorate by definition is politically active. Hence you'll have a lot of candidates to choose from, from all walks of life. It's unlikely at best that all those will be bought men.

"I say get as much money influence out of politics as possible"

This is a capitalist system. There's no way to do what without invoking socialism.

"even to the point of having campaigns financed through taxes."

... aaaaaaand there it is. Bad idea. Why does the government (hence, the people) need to fund elections in addition to everything else? We're broke.

So, no, the solution is the same as it ever was: The electorate needs to stop pointing fingers and get back to work in the political process. In other words, a political process that's too big to manage, is too big and must therefore be downsized. Fewer government functions. Fewer officials. Less of everything, with which less is done. Do less with less.

In one of your previous posts on this thread you wrote "All politicians are bought". Now your saying "A responsible electorate by definition is politically active. Hence you'll have a lot of candidates to choose from, from all walks of life. It's unlikely at best that all those will be bought men". Aside from that being rather contradictory, it ignores my question to you: what if the choice comes down to only candidates that have been bought and paid for? You yourself recognize that this can happen since you stated "All politicians are bought".

To me, reducing the influence of money would be a good place to start. I also think that tax financed elections would put more power in the hands of the people. Usually those who are paying the bills have the power. Then, at least we would know who is buying the politicians, and it would be We The People.

There's no contradiction in there. All people are biased. That's what 'bias' means: You're an individual with your own ideas. Anyone seeking public office is there to enact an ideology. As long as we know what that ideology is, then you can select as it pleases you.

Even if a candidate didn't need the money to support his campaign effort (which is impossible to get around, since there's a private sector where people naturally exist), he still has his own socio-economic interests which he'll defend or support.

"To me, reducing the influence of money would be a good place to start."

I must respectfully point out the sheer impossibility of doing that. We live in a highly capitalist system. Money figures into almost every social decision. That's why I commonly use the term "socio-economics", and I tend to use it instead of using the word it replaces, that being "politics".

Of course, at this stage, it would be nearly impossible to get money influence out of politics altogether. But, with so much of it existing already, why take steps that add more influence? As individuals, elected officials will naturally have interests they support, but their first interest should be to We The People, above and beyond donors. I don't think it's healthy for our elected officials to be beholden to the richest donors. To me, it creates a conflict of interest. I think it takes away from what our founding fathers envisioned for this county.

"I don't think it's healthy for our elected officials to be beholden to the richest donors."

And once again, why would that be the case with a responsible electorate? Corporate tools posing as populist candidates, should naturally fail to make any gains at the ballot box. After all, as a common person, unless the corporate tool's backers have policies which you enjoy, you'd find their agenda offensive, hence you'd find their backed candidate to be offensive, hence Mr Styled Hair or Mr Rictus Grin ends up losing to the populist candidates who aren't backed by the rich minority.

I must note at this juncture there's nothing intrinsically wrong with being rich. It's only when the rich person tries to re-form society so that it's socio-economically smooth as glass for himself and his ventures, and socio-economically rough as bark for everyone else, that said rich person turns into a rich fucker who merits all our rightful spite.

The nation's concerns naturally belong not to those who merely own a lot of capital, or those who merely collect welfare. It largely belongs to those who labor... said labor being to build or maintain the nation itself. We should not reward laziness (since it's wasteful), and we should not reward risk (since profit rewards it already). Gainful labor is the only Human activity which merits reward.

"Corporate tools posing as populist candidates, should naturally fail to make any gains at the ballot box"

Your whole argument assumes there will always be the choice of a candidate that has not been bought off. If all candidates on the ballot are in the pocket of some big donor, then a candidate in the pocket of a big donor will win. They're not going to call off the election due to too many scum bags. How is the responsible voter to stop it, not vote?

By the way, I have nothing against the rich. I'm talking about influence over elected officials. That is what I'm against here. If a union had a strong influence over a politician I would be against that too.

"Your whole argument assumes there will always be the choice of a candidate that has not been bought off."

Correct.

"If all candidates on the ballot are in the pocket of some big donor[...]"

Why would that be the case if there's a responsible electorate? A responsible electorate fields its own candidates. They don't just vote 2-3 times a year and do nothing otherwise.

"How is the responsible voter to stop it, not vote?"

No, he stops it by fielding his own candidate, by showing his financial support (which you just said you want to stop), volunteering during campaigns, even running for office himself.

Well, I wish your candidate the best. I hope he or she can get financial backing, get their message out, become elected, and do a good job for the informed electorate. That's the way it is supposed to work. That's the way I want it to work too.

But, just remember, according to this latest decision from The Supreme Court, if some big corporation with unlimited funds wants someone they own to win instead, they deserve to get their message out more than your candidate. Money is speech according to the ruling. And, since there should be no limit on speech, there should be no limit on donations. In other words, those with the most money deserve the most speech. Your little guy candidate has a limit, but the big rich donor's candidate does not by comparison. I don't think this is a good way to handle elections, but maybe you're fine with it.

Saying this in another way.- In a sense, political greed results in equilibrium in the long run, with the short run demanding that parties clean up after one another. Unfortunately, cleaning seems to clear the wa y for another mess.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Top 25 political donors over the last 25 years (1989-2014) and how they’ve broken between parties. http://www.policymic.com/politics Click on SCOTUS Hands Democrats a Major Win — Liberals Start Pulling Their Hair Out

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

(dupe post - sorry folks)

BINGO.

I support unlimited donations, but all donations should be COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT, so if the Koch Brothers or Soros or Joe Sixpack give money it has to be through a clearinghouse that publishes it ASAP to a website. That includes donations to any of these 527 groups or anything else, and the books of the 527s and so on are also made transparent. Knowing exactly who was bought for how much and who paid for it is the only other alternative to reducing the influence of money on elections.

Duplicate deleted

Reducing the influence of money on our elections does not take away from natural liberty.

You're seeing a responsible public in action, but you are not recognizing it. Taking the steps to restrict the purchase of politicians is what a responsible public should do.

It's called plutocracy.
Submitted by payingmyway on Wed, 2014-04-02 17:10.
We don't want it. Your "natural liberty" won't be worth much if some oops> rich behind the scenes tyrant is allowed to buy it up some day. And where are your commas...

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Actually, I'm thinking hyphens would have been more in order: as in "some rich-behind-the-scenes- tyrant is allowed to buy it up some day". What do you think?

OBJECTION! Objection, Your Honor! Evidence of DTOM actually having a brain or other substrate with which to think has not been produced.

Move to Amend's Toledo affiliate is organizing a rally to protest this latest outrageous supreme court decision. The rally will take place in front of the Federal Courthouse, 1716 Spielbusch, Toledo, OH at 5:15 PM. Here is a link to the FB event:

https://www.facebook.com/events/539173762868590/

About thirty in attendance at the courthouse. The Toledo Blade photographer took a few pictures. No interviews, no 13 or 11 reporters. No WSPD. Looks like the Blade will be doing a national piece with local photos attached. These rallies were held across the nation with little advance notice. A few notables were there, Pete Silverman, Terry Lodge, some occupy Toledo protesters, Union officials, office workers, and postal employees. You know your average Americans.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Move to Amend's Toledo affiliate is organizing a rally to protest this latest outrageous supreme court decision. The rally will take place in front of the Federal Courthouse, 1716 Spielbusch, Toledo, OH at 5:15 PM. Here is a link to the FB event:

https://www.facebook.com/events/539173762868590/

This is terrible news. Until now money has had virtually no effect on our elections. American politics will never be the same.

Patience is a great virtue.

McCutcheon...Billionaires win Again

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/big-sky-big-money/?utm_campaign=...

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/big-sky-big-money/?utm_campaign=...


William Clark: A Little Story About an Ancient Montana Plutocrat
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/06/a-little-story-about-an-anci...

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Thanks for posting that. I had forgotten about the copper king. I hope all our conservative friends take the time to read your post.

I posted this as a reminder of the robber baron era where most Americans worked long hours with little pay and no political power. This is history and not some propaganda piece. Folks we've returned to that day and this issue should united both conservative and democrats together against the plutocracy that has a hold of our once democracy.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

What political power do you think we have now? When the government commonly adds $7000 to $11000 per year per tax-paying household in fresh federal debt? Each year?

All you're going to inherit after your little democratic scheme is in place, is a bankrupt nation, an impoverished people. The very right to private property will have to be revoked, or the consumerist/globalist model will collapse, and if you don't think you're going to suffer from that, buddy, you're fucking delusional.

Repost glitch is still with us!

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

No it's NOT. It's a poster/hacker who is ONLY doing it to annoy FG.

MikeyA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.