Perhaps it's Ka-Ching.
In 2010, the Kangaroos on the Roberts Court ruled essentially that corporations spending money to influence elections and public officials is no longer corruption or influence peddling; it's freedom of speech.
Now in 2014, the same Kangaroos have just ruled that the current individual election cycle spending limit of $123,200-- including a $48,600 cap on total candidate contributions-- simply wasn't enough free speech. With the new ruling in MCCutcheon v. FEC, joint fundraising committees can now accept $3.7 million from a single individual in each election cycle.
Okay, now some of you may be worried about corruption. Well, don't be.
I mean, surely a wonderful person like former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown didn't insert a special loophole for Wall Street banks into new regulatory measures for Wall Street banks, just because Wall Street banks had been stuffing his pockets with cash for weeks. Fuck no. That was just a coincidence.
If that doesn't reassure you, surely the profound, worldly, not-stupid wisdom of Chief Justice Roberts will:
"Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner "influence over or access to" elected officials or political parties." - Chief Justice John Roberts, (p. 19) MCCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
See? There you have it, folks. Not only does spending large sums of money on campaign contributions NOT give rise to quid pro quo corruption, it's not even possible that individuals who do so will have any influence over elected officials. The Chief Kangaroo himself has ruled. It must be true!
I encourage you to read the entire ruling. If you do, set aside a couple of hours and at least one barf bag. A good deal of it reads like the passage above; a complete fool or a gifted liar twisting reality to ensure the outcome he wanted.
In Canada there is a very strict limit placed on how much an individual and organization can donate to political parties and an even lower limit on funding election campaigns. In the end the government compensates parties by giving them the equivalent of one dollar for every vote they receive. This results in a "relatively" reasonable amount of money spent on campaigns and also that alternative parties can get some financing that big companies would never give them.
The current conservative government would love to end all limits today though they aren't bold enough yet to do so. Their current agenda is to scrap the one dollar per vote (about ten million dollars every four years or how much the prime ministers office spends on first class flights).
Political donations are usually so dirty and toxic I don't know how any respectable judge could link them to "free speech".
The best way to practice democracy these days is by NOT voting. Sad but true. George Carlin says is better.
Actually, not voting is the best possible way to destroy our democracy. By not voting, you are allowing the system to run your ass over. But it's not the presidential vote that really matters, it is you local votes that matter. If we allow these blood-sucking, totalitarian pieces of shit to rule out towns, counties and states, then of course we get shit for presidents. The ONLY way that democracy even has a chance is if we all stand up for ourselves, if we demand that local politicians represent US and not the fucking banks and other big businesses.
Isn't this the same Supreme Court you've told me (and others) we have to unquestioningly accept as correct, when it's something like civil rights law or Obamacare? With a "now sit down and shut up" attitude?
This too is "settled law." Suck it.
Show me where I told you (and others) that the Roberts Supreme Court must be 'unquestioningly accepted as correct'. Find these instances. Link to them here.
It did not happen. You're lying.
I didn't say you had asserted the Roberts Supreme Court must be, etc., etc. You added the word "Roberts." Of course this is merely a minor misquotation on your part, so I won't return the favor you just paid me and accuse you of lying. Probably just a Freudian slip of some sort, on your part.
In any case I finally found the thread I was thinking of when I made this accusation and read through it carefully.
Although some of your argumentation did appear to go to "the courts say so," (as Unseen pointed out) not all of it does (and the reasons for my initial confusion on this point would be OT, even for this digression), so I am going to withdraw that accusation and tender my apologies.
Steve: This too is "settled law." Suck it.
Gallup: I didn't say it's not settled law. I said it's a horrible decision that's harmful to democracy. This is about ramifications.
Good. That could conceivably be an interesting conversation. In any case since my "Suck it" was based on the same premise I found to be false before, I apologize for it as well.
Unless, of course, you would care to defend Roberts' position-- this time without the strawman fabrication-- that rich people shoveling big money into election campaigns has no possibility of influencing politicians and political parties, or giving rise to corruption.
I wasn't attempting to defend Roberts; he has proved in the past that he is capable of atrocious "reasoning" (though you would probably disagree on the instance I am thinking of--but you've already declared that off-topic for this thread.) The statement you have quoted in the OP in isolation certainly seems to be another example of such, and I will say more about that below.
I think the worst part about this, like the fairly recent "revelations" that the government is actually spying on the US public, is the apathy that we're going to see about it. "Oh, businesses and really rich people can buy an election? How terrible. I think I'll go take a nap." And yet, I'm not even sure what route is the best way to go to fix this corruption problem :/
Government is force. And the more we ask it to do, the more force we are asking it to use. The more force is used, the more people will want to influence that. Some will use it to get ahead, and others (their victims, oftentimes) will even be cornered to the point where it's sheer self preservation to do so.
People who want the government to do everything for them and to others don't realize that the inevitable consequence of getting what they want will be corruption.
Amen to that, brother.
Was this intentionally left blank? Because I see literally no text there.
Ah yes, thank you. That clarifies things greatly.
Weird, I don't see it, either. In this or your response post. Very wonky. But I do see this text:
"It's there. Here it is again, same post exactly:" in the reply. Maybe you have some special character that the board doesn't know how to parse?
It is sad, but in my opinion true, that simply voting the scoundrels out and replacing them doesn't work. The replacement is no different from the one being replaced.
The only real solution is a constitutional amendment that does the following:
1. Strict term limits ( one term )
2. Public financing of campaigns
3. Absolutely no private donations
4. Limit the time for campaigning. If two months is not enough, then you have nothing to say.
5 Elimination of any benefits whatsoever for a person elected to Congress. Provide a per diem expense and a modest compensation for the time spent doing the job.
After serving the one term, the person then goes home to their regular job.