It blows my mind that anyone could, with a straight face, claim that unlimited
campaign contributions don't give rise to corruption, or even the
appearance of corruption.
You're all worried about the Two parties and their supporters...wait until
another country starts buying elections...SCOTUS is a disaster.
What I find in today's politics as disheartening is the dishonesty and
greed that is so prevalent today. Citizens who truly love this United States of
America are starving for someone that cares (honestly cares) about the American
people. Someone we can trust - someone who loves our country more than
themselves. They are few in numbers and that makes me sad.
Why shouldn't the obscenely rich have outsized influence in our
"people's government"?Just because they got their
wealth under the same rules as the poor, why is everybody so jealous. All
these liberals are just jealous that they're not extremely rich like all of
us Republicans. Try working harder liberals!The economic and
political playing field is level for the poor and for the rich, and only the
rich can see that fact.
Happy Valley Heretic -"By conservative logic, you should have 1
vote for each dollar your worth, cause corps are people, money is speech,
businesses can belong to a religion, why not grant personhood to money, the very
foundation of all conservative action."But will a dollar bill be
able to join the priesthood?. . . Or would it have to be a higher
By conservative logic, you should have 1 vote for each dollar your worth, cause
corps are people, money is speech, businesses can belong to a religion, why not
grant personhood to money, the very foundation of all conservative action.If Capitalism is the savior and only hope for America, than dollars are
it's devotees and measure a mans worth.
"Fact is, liberals always find illegal means to skirt the campaign finance
laws they put in place to limit conservative electoral impact."Paranoia is no way to live child. Always?By conservative logic,
you should have 1 vote for each dollar your worth, cause corps are people, money
is speech, businesses can belong to a religion, why not grant personhood to
money, the very foundation of all conservative action.If Capitalism is the
savior and only hope for America, than dollars are it's devotees and
measure a mans worth.
Re: "It's not a liberal vs conservative issue."Whenever
a liberal asserts something is "not a liberal vs conservative issue,"
you can safely bet the farm it's a "liberal vs conservative
issue."That's just their code for "no one should dare
to disagree with me on this."Fact is, liberals always find
illegal means to skirt the campaign finance laws they put in place to limit
conservative electoral impact. Their disingenuous, over-the-top blather about
this reasonable, clearly constitutional decision amounts to nothing more than
whining, now that conservatives can raise funds like liberals always have.
I wonder if Buffet and Gates might be convinced to enter the political fray with
sizable contributions to Moderate and Liberal PAC's and candidates?Wouldn't that be interesting?I think it's time for
these two sensible and moneyed leaders to make a BIG statement in the political
You can't buy elections. If you could, Ross Perot would be president. In
fact, there are no limits on unions for campaign contributions. This only gives
others a chance to be equal to unions.I agree with Justice Thomas.
I would have lifted all limits. As long as there is full disclosure, I think
anyone should have their First Amendment right to spend their money to support
any causes or candidates they want to. Unions shouldn't be the only ones
with this privilege.
I'm reading posts all over the place today and the Koch Brothers name is
coming up more and more. You libs are sure doing a good job of carrying the
water for the Democrat talking points. You can run against the Koch Brothers
all day long if you like. We have Obama to run against. That should win the
Republicans a lot in the next two elections. And it's funny that the great
Obamacare is now a hot potatoe (Dan Quayle version) many Dems are running away
A lot of you seem to think money, lots of it, in politics is a bad thing. And,
I presume most of you are on the political left. So just remember that it was
Obama who was the first to raise a Billion dollars to run for President. But my
biggest question to anyone who wants to limit money is, what would be the
alternative? How can a person campaign without buying advertising? You want
advertisers to work for free? You want to tell me or yourself that you
don't have a free speech right to say what you want, be it political, or
otherwise, by buying an ad on TV or radio ect? How about one of those signs I
often see that say something like "Persistance" Pass it On. The
Foundation for a Better World? Some of those I've seen could be construed
as a political statement. Where and how would you draw a line that could limit
money in politics? Seriously, inquiring minds would like to know.
Honestly at the end of the day I doubt this decision will have that much effect
on the long broken way we elect or officials.
YAY! May the candidate with the most votes...I mean...campaign contributions,
WIN! So grateful to live in an aristocracy where only the voice of a few is
@Tators: "Many democrat voters are receivers of government funds (low income
and low information) and thus not significant contributers to their party.
It's little wonder they are opposed to this ruling."The
people who receive the most benefit, dollar-for-dollar, are the very wealthy in
terms of tax breaks, kick-backs, subsidies, sweat-heart-contracts and so on.
They pony up the contributions and they expect a return on their investment. Middle class Republicans vote for politicians who promise to protect
them from the poor, but those politicians have been bought by the super-rich and
will act to benefit the super-rich and only the super-rich. Do you
really think ALEC and the Koch Brothers have anything but disdain for the middle
class? @RickH: "Now more than ever we need term limits for
Supreme Court justices."Campaigns for Supreme Court justices
every few years would mean candidates for the job pandering to whatever special
interest ponied up the most money. Not a positive solution in my book.
@@procuradorfiscal It's not a liberal vs conservative issue. This is an
issue with the wealthy having disproportionally more influence over elected
officials than average citizens. Also, money is not speech, it is merely a
commodity and a value store to conduct transactions.
Apparently, many on the left just don't get it, or at least pretend not to
get it. Special interests have been significantly effecting
elections throughout history and probably always will. Obama is obviously
beholding to education and other big unions. Hence, the reason he's against
school vouchers, even when they obviously allow inner-city kids a chance at a
much better education and thus overall life. Statistics don't lie.He's also beholding to environmentalists. Hence, the Canadian oil
pipeline is still not signed off on, even though studies prove it will not have
any significant detrimental environmental effects. In the meantime, we are still
forced into energy dependence on avowed enemies of the United States for our
oil. Loyalty over common sense. Russia is currently demonstrating just how
dangerous that can be by holding the Ukraine and Europe hostage and without any
political action leverage. Many democrat voters are receivers of
government funds (low income and low information) and thus not significant
contributers to their party. It's little wonder they are opposed to this
@procuradorfiscal"The only reason liberals hate this decision is that
it empowers law-abiding conservatives the same opportunity to do what scofflaw
liberals have been doing for years."Don't pretend that the
Koch brothers couldn't already do what Soros does. I don't like ANYONE
having that much influence, the only reason I tolerate it from the left is
because unilateral disarmament is foolish but I'd like to see the influence
of all of these people, left or right, reduced. Then maybe we'd have a
Congress that'd work for their constituents rather than their big money
The voter has to make correct decisions independent of the influence of money -
as long as we protect the secret ballot
Maybe Adelson should simply BUY the whole GOP. The new "blood oath" for
office holders will be to oppose all internet gambling. Anyone who breaks the
oath gets sold (cheap) to Donald Trump and assigned cleanup duty. That should
bring out candidates with lots of integrity.
Re: "The court did not heed warnings from [Obama's] Solicitor General .
. . that donors would be able to funnel large amounts of money to a favored
candidate . . . ."You mean like what self-interested trade
unions, empty-headed Hollywood celebrities, and the disingenuously named and
supported shell 501(c)(4)s of guilt-ridden, ultra-rich liberal donors, like
George Soros, already do?The only reason liberals hate this decision
is that it empowers law-abiding conservatives the same opportunity to do what
scofflaw liberals have been doing for years.
At the end of the day it is the people who vote, not just the rich. What we
need is transparency in campaign finance. The voters need easy,
up-to-the-minute information on campaign finance / contributions. That way the
voters can see who bought which campaigns.
We just knew the left would go apoplectic over this. Leftists have very little
tolerance for free speech...unless it's their own.Good ruling!
Well... this should cut down on bribery of officials; after all, who needs
bribery when you can just give them checks legally? It's no coincidence
that Governors Perry and Jindal wrote letters to Congress urging them to pass a
ban on internet gambling days before they're going to meet billionaire
donor (who spent 90 million dollars on Gingrich, Romney, and others in the 2012
campaign) casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Guess what his pet issue is?Is this what we want? Wealthy people on either side of the aisle buying off
members of Congress?
So the Supreme Court thinks that people and businesses should be able to buy
elections. Sad for the country and its people.
Now more than ever we need term limits for Supreme Court justices.
I get the free speech argument, but this undermines the "we're all
equal" principle because clearly, when it comes to $$$, some are far more
equal than the rest of us!So it sounds like what is needed is to
re-think the entire process of funding elections. Those who already have
outsized wealth and influence likely won't care to see this change, but I
can dream. I propose a Presidential election season that is just 4 months long
and a Congressional election season that is just 2 months long. Funding: All
public and capped at $10 million each for Presidential candidates, $5 million
for Senate candidates, and $3 million for House of Rep. candidates. How well
they spend this money in the service of their cause may even tell us something
about how they will approach the federal budget.