Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

Isnt that what Tom Perkins wanted? That rich people who supposedly pay higher taxes should have more votes?

The only thing I have ever done the last 4 or 5 years is just laugh at the absurdity of all of this.

[vt]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

Actually one identity group has nothing to do with Democracy. Hitler was elected in a free election with a homogeneous population. Today's Russia is homogeneous. china is homogeneous.

The problem in the United States is a leader that doesn't respect the constitution or the rule of law. He does not enforce the immigration laws on the books, favoring one small ethnic group over all of the others; for political reasons of course. (The overwhelming % of illegal immigrants come from countries which in total make up about 6% of the global population)

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the countries of origin for the largest numbers of illegal immigrants are as follows (latest of 2009):^[7]

Mexico	6,650,000	62%	+42%
El Salvador	530,000	5%	+25%
Guatemala	480,000	4%	+65%
Honduras	320,000	3%	+95%
Philippines	270,000	2%	+33%
India	200,000	2%	+64%
Korea	200,000	2%	+14%
Ecuador	170,000	2%	+55%
Brazil	150,000	1%	+49%
China	120,000	1%	-37%
Other	1,650,000	15%	-17%

The Urban Institute estimates "between 65,000 and 75,000 undocumented Canadians currently live illegally in the United States."<sup>[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal...kdown_by_state

This does not imply these individuals are bad. They come looking for a better life and do jobs other won't do for less. However, if we were to stop illegal immigration and let double the amount of legal immigrants come in from the rest of the world then the labor would be available, and this would be much fairer. We are actually discriminating against Asians, Africans, and Europeans by favoring Mexicans and Central Americans.</sup>
America is a melting pot. From Many One. We are all mutts (Women are mixed Pedigree)

[charliebrown]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

With the internet we hardly need any money at all. If candidates would post their positions on the web. Have a few broadcast public debates. For those who don't have internet, they could go the the library. (Think of the libraries we could build with 2B dollars). That's really all I need. I don't need 50 commercials a day on TV with mindless platitudes, and character assignations.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

With the internet we hardly need any money at all. If candidates would post their positions on the web. Have a few broadcast public debates. For those who don't have internet, they could go the the library. (Think of the libraries we could build with 2B dollars). That's really all I need. I don't need 50 commercials a day on TV with mindless platitudes, and character assignations.

Some problems are not solved because powerful people do not want them solved.
Thomas Edison learned that with his very first invention, called "the Electrographic Vote-Recorder"
Below is from Rutgers University at their Thomas A. Edison Papers Project (emphasis mine) http://edison.rutgers.edu/index.htm

Edison's first patented invention was a vote recorder for use by legislative bodies such as Congress… In Edison's system, each legislator moved a switch ……. Dials on either side of the machine recorded the total number of yeas and nays. Edison was issued U. S. Patent 90,646 on 1 June 1869. A fellow telegrapher … took it to Washington, D.C. to exhibit to a committee of Congress. The chairman of the committee, unimpressed with the speed with which the instrument could record votes, told him that "if there is any invention on earth that we don't want down here, that is it." The slow pace of roll call voting in Congress and other legislatures enabled members to filibuster legislation or convince others to change their votes. Edison's vote recorder was never used.

[jpatter666]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

Some problems are not solved because powerful people do not want them solved.
Thomas Edison learned that with his very first invention, called "the Electrographic Vote-Recorder"
Below is from Rutgers University at their Thomas A. Edison Papers Project (emphasis mine) http://edison.rutgers.edu/index.htm

Article written by the individual who brought the lawsuit. http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...4.html?ml=po_r

Other opinions: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...7.html?ml=po_r

One of the interesting things I read was that many lobbyists are horrified. Why? Because they could use the aggregate limit as an excuse to refuse donations (sorry, we've hit the limit). Now, they know the donation wolves will come pounding to their door and a refusal could have potential consequences.

[Woodsman]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

Article written by the individual who brought the lawsuit. http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...4.html?ml=po_r

Other opinions: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...7.html?ml=po_r

One of the interesting things I read was that many lobbyists are horrified. Why? Because they could use the aggregate limit as an excuse to refuse donations (sorry, we've hit the limit). Now, they know the donation wolves will come pounding to their door and a refusal could have potential consequences.

And who is the person who brought the suit? What or who does he represent?

He is a dedicated Republican from suburban Birmingham, Alabama who is the CEO of Coalmont Electrical Development, an engineering firm that specializes in the mining industry. According to Bill Armistead, the chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, McCutcheon is a sincere and dedicated Republican activist. Armistead told The Daily Beast that Shaun is “a great guy . . . who really loves supporting conservative candidates, getting conservatives elected to office.” He’s so dedicated that Armistead couldn’t recall ever discussing “extracurricular activities” including a subject as important in his home state as the Alabama-Auburn rivalry.

And who is he working with?

McCutcheon first broached the idea of his lawsuit at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference. He has since partnered with the RNC in his lawsuit and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has joined in the suit as an outside party and will have his own set of lawyers arguing on his behalf before the Court.

This is a GOP, right-wing enterprise. That the Democrats will also benefit from the windfall accounts for their meek, barely perceptible protests.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

One of the interesting things I read was that many lobbyists are horrified. Why? Because they could use the aggregate limit as an excuse to refuse donations (sorry, we've hit the limit). Now, they know the donation wolves will come pounding to their door and a refusal could have potential consequences.

Thanks, JP, I did read both those articles.
I hope you are right that dismantling campaign finance regulations might ultimately have a good outcome.

[Techdread]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

It makes sense that more Mexicans are brought in, your country did take their best land and you share a very long border with them.
Also if you ever have a free trade zone with Canada and Mexico why not allow the free movement of people with the free movement of goods, just like the EU?

Or does that go against the fascist sentiment's of the posters on this thread.....

[jpatter666]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

And who is the person who brought the suit? What or who does he represent?

And who is he working with?

This is a GOP, right-wing enterprise. That the Democrats will also benefit from the windfall accounts for their meek, barely perceptible protests.

Personally, I'm conflicted. You can see the argument that it's OK to donate to 17 candidates but the 18th is somehow tempting corruption? On the other hand, it's ridiculous to *not* assume that this opens the door to some possibly corrosive processes. Yes, the individual limits are still in play, but subtle forces can be brought to bear on behalf of someone who supports so many politicians. But wouldn't a large PAC donation be roughly equivalent? This allows the donor to support those politicians they want to support instead of letting the PAC decide.

At this point, I don't know enough to make an informed decision -- I'll be reading everyones opinions.

[DSpencer]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

Personally, I'm conflicted. You can see the argument that it's OK to donate to 17 candidates but the 18th is somehow tempting corruption? On the other hand, it's ridiculous to *not* assume that this opens the door to some possibly corrosive processes. Yes, the individual limits are still in play, but subtle forces can be brought to bear on behalf of someone who supports so many politicians. But wouldn't a large PAC donation be roughly equivalent? This allows the donor to support those politicians they want to support instead of letting the PAC decide.

At this point, I don't know enough to make an informed decision -- I'll be reading everyones opinions.

I'm in the same boat. I don't want a corrupt government, but I'm not sure that a different ruling in this case would change anything by a noticeable degree. The real corruption seems to be the revolving door. I am also afraid of government financed elections because how is the money divided? Does every 3rd party get the same amount as the D's and R's? I certainly don't want to entrench the two party system any more than it already is.

I am also afraid of the precedent set by limiting any citizens' rights. As the majority decision says, the other protections granted by the 1st amendment may have the consequence of allowing things like nazi parades but I still support the protections even if I don't support what they protect all the time.

What I don't understand is: If I want to exercise my free speech/money donation rights by giving $10 million to a homeless street preacher, I better be prepared to pay the government a hefty gift tax. Yet for political donations they are tax free. Why?

In any case it certainly seems like we have a conflicted situation. If you have a constitutional right to give unlimited total donations, what is the logic on per candidate donations? Maybe that is the next limit to fall.

Maybe a new amendment is in order?

[Polish_Silver]

Are contributions speech?

See the rest here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us...ions.html?_r=0

The constitution protects speech. But does it protect campaign contributions?

People involved in politics claim the money matters, so this is an important question.

You can't have speech without some economic cost. So some economic input is required. But not very much.

So "protecting speech" would be consistent with a $50 annual limit on individual contributions.

You could try "no corporation, union, or group contributions of any kind."

But then what is to prevent a corporation from buying a TV station and filling it with staff who will promote a particular view?

What is to prevent a group from running an ad with a particulare view point? Is that a contribution?

Corporations could probably be prevented from running adds in 3rd party media or making contributions. To be "corporations" they have to abide by certain rules.

You could decentralize the ownership and control of FCC regulated institutions, which would make the infiltration more difficult, but not impossible. You could try to impose a "fairness doctrine". Are there any examples of that working?

[Polish_Silver]

What is "objective?

This is why my proposal to have a limit on money for any party, and have it provided by the government. Say $50 million for Presidential and $75 million for Congress each election.

This would apply to any political party, non-profit, corporation, individual, union, etc.

Obama raised $1 billion and Romney a bit less. This would be prohibited under my proposal. No more Koch, Soros, Federal unions, other unions, corporations, individuals, and NO foreign funds. Nothing. Only government funds.

TV and radio would have to find other sources of revenue. TV and radio news would have to be objective in coverage. Too bad for MSNBC and FOX, plus most of the MSM.

Who gets to decide what is "objective" ?

You?

Me?

God?

And suppose I run an add in the local paper calling for legalization of marijuana, and there just happens to be someone running on that platform. Is that a "contribution" ?

Laws have to deal with all these gray areas.

What is a contribution?

Anything that helps a candidate win?

Anything that helps him win and costs money?

What about city employee unions campaigning for a mayoral candidate? There is no money changing hands.

Maybe that sort of thing shouldn't be restricted. At least it requires mass participation. I think we are worried about a few people having an outsized influence "one dollar, one vote" kind of thing.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

another 5/4 decision - weeha - the Citizens United case was the victory bell for the Corptocracy

forget the legal sophistry - are we not a government by, of, and for the PEOPLE?

Hypothetical (although somewhat irrelevant to the current topic): Should a resident of FL be able to contribute to a candidate running in NY for: a) federal office and b) state office.

This has always perplexed me: why should a representative of a state be able to be backed by someone from another state (ok, I can at least see the argument for Fed office but don't agree with it)?

Think about how you would restrict it. You can't contribute directly, so you send money to a "friend" who contributes in his own name and takes a 5% cut. money is fungible. It's really hard to control where it goes.

[Penguin]

Re: What is "objective?

Good points Polish Silver. There are gray areas and to deny that they exist is to deny reality.

BUT, and it is a big one that deserves capital letters, that is no reason why we should accept the SCs proposal that money equals speech or its brother, that corporations are people. These are such great perversions of the founder's vision that I cannot for the life of me understand how a supposedly intelligent group of scholars could arrive at such a conclusion. My god, corporations had existed for hundreds of years prior to the founding of this nation and there is not one single reference to them in the constitution.

Not one single time does the word "corporation" appear in our founding document. Not once.

Now are we to believe that the framers actually believed that these business entities were to be given a pretty damned large portion of the rights reserved to citizens (in some cases they even exceed them) and yet neglected to mention them one single time? They wished to have corporations enjoy a protected status similar to that of actual human beings and yet left them to the vagaries and wishes of state legislatures?

Even the thought of it makes me blush in shame. At times it is difficult to believe the depths to which depravity can take over a mind and lead it to believe things it ~wishes~ were true in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

I'm getting off my pulpit now and will open the floor to other opinions.

Will

[vinoveri]

Re: Supreme Court to American People: "F You!"

Think about how you would restrict it. You can't contribute directly, so you send money to a "friend" who contributes in his own name and takes a 5% cut. money is fungible. It's really hard to control where it goes.

True but I was speaking to principle and policy not enforcement. I'm not ready to dismiss rules based on equity simply b/c cheats will attempt and perhaps succeed in circumventing.