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.

Tags: COMMISSION, ELECTION, FEDERAL, MCCUTCHEON, v.

Views: 317

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

On first impression, this is only noteworthy for its lack of support and meaning. No cited evidence. Not a single case study. No statistics. Nothing specific. There's not even a proper noun.
But on second impression, it's not just notable for its meaningless and content-free qualities, but for exaggeration and insult as well; "people who want the government to do everything for them". That one's a classic.
That was one well-executed recitation of party ideology, Steve. I don't know what it means, but still, great job.
Recite it again. I'll toss you a fish.

Was this intentionally left blank?  Because I see literally no text there.

Was this intentionally left blank?  Because I see literally no text there.

It's there. Here it is again, same post exactly:

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.

On first impression, this is only noteworthy for its lack of support and meaning. No cited evidence. Not a single case study. No statistics. Nothing specific. There's not even a proper noun.
But on second impression, it's not just notable for its meaningless and content-free qualities, but for exaggeration and insult as well; "people who want the government to do everything for them". That one's a classic.
That was one well-executed recitation of party ideology, Steve. I don't know what it means, but still, great job.
Recite it again. I'll toss you a fish.

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.

I am sympathetic to some of these points.

Assuming you adopted this, what would you do if someone decided to spend his own money running his own ads in favor of candidate Smith?

I know that at one point, this was unacceptable under campaign finance law.  People got around the restriction by not putting the words "Vote for" in the ad, but when the ad says Jones is a sleazebag who voted to kill puppies, or that Smith's farts smell like roses, the message as to whom one should vote for was pretty clear. 

Hopefully the elder Ginsberg will be somehow cajoled into resigning in time for a replacement during the current presidential cycle. The scales will tip, maybe topple, too far otherwise.

Hold on to your hats, folks.  While I'm not necessarily fond of his rhetorical style, I confess I am in complete agreement with @Gallup.  McCutcheon and Citizens United are two of the most poorly reasoned and fundamentally destructive rulings SCOTUS has made in my living memory (and that goes back a fair ways). 

Every generation has challenges to liberty and democracy.  Whether it's here or in Russia, it seems that the challenge of this generation is to combat invasive, government-sponsored oligarchy.  Some of us old folks, and even many of us theists will help, but this is going to be a prolonged fight. 

For those of you in Canada and Australia and other places, don't think for a moment that the U.S. isn't going to export these ideas and this behavior to you.  I apologize for that.

Look, I'm from West Virginia...the Unhappiest State In the US of A...and the problem is the same one we faced in the Sixties.  There has to be a nationwide party that represents the people of the lowest classes.

I'm one of these people.  I call them "Bus People" because of the class they're in.  Class structure in the United States...a topic you don't hear discussed much anymore...is based on monetary gain.  That seems to be oxymoronic to those living in the early years of to 21st Century, but there was a time when the rich were roundly condemned in this country.  During the build up and crash of the stock market in '29 the Capitalist were the bad guys.  It's only since the Libertarian movement began in the 1950s...for more on that subject try to find a copy of "Radicals for Capitalism:  A freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian movement"

http://www.amazon.com/Radicals-Capitalism-Freewheeling-American-Lib... 

A remarkable book that was written by Brian Doherty...an editor or Reason magazine and an old school Libertarian...in 2007 right before the Libertarians adopted their policy borrowed from the Fabians of Scotland which triumphs the 'virtue' of not letting anyone know what you really believe or intend to do with the power you're asking to give to them...Radicals For Capitalism gives the best history I've ever read of Libertarianism, their beliefs and their ultimate goals.

So we have a secretive group of Anarchists who have gained political power in this country.  A group that despises Democracy.  And this group has become a major player in the democratically elected State.

They don't believe in Democracy...they should be fought against by both conservative and liberal...Democrat and Republican...parties in this country.  But the conservatives are getting what they want in the short term and they don't seem to really understand that this is a battle for the soul of this country.

If you watched the Star Wars Prequel, it dies with "thunderous applause."

RSS

  

Forum

Your kid's friends

Started by Belle Rose in Atheist Parenting. Last reply by GTWilco 2 minutes ago. 2 Replies

World conflict and problems other than Israel-Palestine.

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Gallup's Mirror 5 hours ago. 54 Replies

Is Anything Worth Saying Anymore?

Started by Ari E. S. in Small Talk. Last reply by Fragile Nokia 14 hours ago. 5 Replies

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 4 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service