Published: Thursday, April 3 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
Using the logic in this case, how than can you limit the amount of free speech
on one candidate? Is that the next free speech/ campaign finance wall to be torn
Wow. The DN must have received a new supply of rose-colored glasses. Courtesy of
This decision will enhance the already overwhelming power of the tiny group of
people who own most of the private wealth in the United States. It spells the
end of what's left of participatory democracy by those of modest means.
The massive media saturation by the right-wing wealthy (which you often quote)
will drown any opposition to them, because it costs a lot of money to win an
election. Even a little Utah house race can consume $20,000 easily. Anyone who
has run for office (I have) knows that big donors pay for access - and they get
it. The little guy can't pay for access - and doesn't get it. So
what if the limit for one candidate is $2300. Funds are fluid and the wealthy
can orchestrate an array of donations to maximum effect.I marvel at
your position on this matter. You deal with legalisms. I study power and this
represents a massive, truly massive, concentration of power.
I believe that the Citizens United Ruling is terrible for our country. However,
I do not disagree that the ruling was correct.More money in politics
is not a good thing. Mr hatch says "Today’s decision will
help ensure the robust political participation and debate that our
nation’s Founders envisioned.”I sincerely doubt that the
founders envisioned or would support the amount of corporate, union and lobby
money in today's politics.People argue over Citizens United.
It is a done deal. I suggest a grass roots effort by both R and D to push for a
constitutional amendment to limit the amount of money in politics.Seriously, who doesn't think that our country would run better if our
politicians were not bought off?
Former BYU professor, and one of Utah's wisest men, Quinn McKay, has
written and taught much on the law of obligation. Every time a political
representative accepts a gift, he is obligated to reciprocate. How can more of
this be good for the electoral process? The parallel examples of repugnant free
speech offered by Chief Justice Roberts are apt. Voices will be heard - the
"The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to
identify all churches or organizations of whatever name or nature—whether
political, philosophical, educational, economic social, fraternal, civic, or
religious—which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from
God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God."========= Corporations?The very few, ruling over the masses
-- due to their riches?Unlimited Free Speech because of money and
influence?Babylon?Isn't this that very definition of
Gadianton Robbers?And the Deseret News supports this?
Those who lament the SCOTUS's decision don't seem to mind that there
is no limits on union donations to Democrats! They seem only concerned about who
can donate to the GOP!
LoveleyDeseret makes a great point: the next domino to drop will be as Judge
Thomas suggested - eliminating the limits on single candidates.In
this new world where money = free speech, it's starting to become possible
that laws against bribery could be struck down. When you think about it,
bribery is just a communication between two parties, an agreement. It's
just free speech. The old adage that "money talks" may no
longer be relegated to TV shows about corruption - it may become a legally
sanctioned way of doing business in politics.
So -- The Deseret News by supporting this ruling, feels that
the more money a person has, the more Free Speech and more say so to the
Government you have.That the "Open Book" policy is actually
a CHECK book.I whole heartedly DISagree with the Deseret News on
Senator Hatch said "Today’s decision will help ensure the robust
political participation and debate that our nation’s Founders
envisioned.”Joe Blow said "I sincerely doubt that the
founders envisioned or would support the amount of corporate, union and lobby
money in today's politics."I think Joe has possibly
purposefully stumbled on what many believe is wrong with todays conservatism and
that is it negates or denies 250 years of change and tries to interpret the
constitution and laws as though the country was still a small, highly
segregated, agrarian society. I not only think the founders would
not support corporate, union, and lobby money in campaigns but I firmly believe
they could never have imagined what todays society and economy would look like.
Realizing that they created a document with flexibility that has
served us well most of the time when the SCOTUS has been wise enough to realize
this isn't the 1770's. With this decision and citizens
united the SCOTUS has with it's originalism re-established the societal
segregation that took others 200+ years to do away with.
Obviously it's time to get some sensible Big Hitters on board with
financing PACS that promote reasonable solutions.Sure, Right Wingers
have the Koch brothers and others who are always willing to advance some
ridiculous Right Wing notions through applying a few million dollars here and
there, but the obverse is true as well.It's time for DECENT
influential people to start contributing to PACS, people like Bill Gates and
Warren Buffet.A few billion dollar strategically placed could be of
tremendous help to this nation by countering the tremendous damage racked up by
the Koch brothers and their kind.
Elections can be bought and sold -- via unlimited funding, from just
about any source.And the Deseret News fully condones and supports
this?Amazing!I am shocked and stunned beyond all belief![It's bad enough that American Billionaires can "donate" to
causes without disgression. But, does this newspaper also realize that
Billionaires in Communist China and Russia can form a U.S. "Corporation"
and bribe and buy our elected officals with total impunity?! No, I didn't
We should appreciate this represents a new and terrible phase in our politics.
With this concentration the process of becoming more like Chile and Argentina
will accelerate. Think Chile del Norte. Think Pinochet. Think torture and the
rest. Remember Chile is the country with the most top heavy distribution of
wealth and power. We will close to that.Those who have so feared
loss of freedom under Obama now will face a terrible irony. They will get
constraints they have so feared, not primarily through Obama, but instead
through the financial oligarchy to which they have paid scant attention.
"Those who lament the SCOTUS's decision don't seem to mind that
there is no limits on union donations to Democrats! They seem only concerned
about who can donate to the GOP!"I don't see that. In fact
I included unions in my post.I am for getting ALL big money out.
That includes donations to either party by any entity. I believe that our
political system would run much better if only individuals could make campaign
donations, and they should be limited.Any liberals out there who
think that Union contributions are ok, even though they strongly favor the dems?
What say you?How about you Thid? Do you think unlimited corporate,
individual or union money helps or hurts the system?
"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the
rulers."(Aristotle)"We can have democracy in this
country, or great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't
have both."(Louis Brandeis)
You bet, we deserve the best political pawns that money can buy. Certainly a
billionaire casino owner should be able to buy any right-wing Presidential
candidate who agrees to make online gambling illegal, so that the profits of his
casinos are not threatened. What could be more American than such a noble effort
to get your own laws by buying the dupes who write them.And if you
believe that, I have a Nigerian bank account that has been willed to you, just
send me all your financial details. Come on people, you are being lied to and
ripped off by the amoral upper class. They have no higher values than money in
any way possible. Do you share those values, or do you have higher ethics than
these greedy evil-doers?
250 years only rich white men could vote. Welcome to the eighteenth century.
Next up on the conservative agenda, personhood for money, and 1 vote per dollar
DesNews, surely you jest. You can't be serious. The only way you could
agree with the Court is if you don't believe in a democracy where a well
informed public makes decisions in their self-governance. The Court has
perverted the notion of free speech, giving power to those with vast resources
to control the public dialogue and manipulate the people. The threat to this
country and to our freedom is coming like a train from the super rich, as they
gain more control of public policy. They pretty much own Washington. They
literally buy elections. They are centralizing money and power. Soviet
Communism was never the threat to our freedom as this is - not even close. The
fact that this newspaper supports the rise of the new Gadianton Robbers suggests
that either you have been fooled, or you are part of the scheme. I am not some
crazy extremist. I have experience directly in the centers of power, and I am
not naive. I have no interest in advancing the interests of partisan interests.
Mark this as a warning, Deseret News. This is a threat to all of us.
If any issue shows the intellectual division between conservative and liberal,
this is it. We live in America, where money rules everything. Yet, liberals
seem to want government to regulate the money flow to the political arena. And
Harry Reid. "The Koch Brothers are buying our democracy." Not George
Soros. Not Steven Spielberg. Not Oprah Winfrey. Not George Clooney. Not Bill
Gates. Not Warren Buffett. Not JayZ and Beyonce. Not Mark Zuckerberg. Not
Teresa and John Kerry. Not the Kennedys. Not Jeffrey Katzenberg. Not David
Geffin. Not, Not, Not........ NO, It's those Koch Brothers. What a laugh.
When all those liberals agree to give up their billions in donatiions to
politics and left wing political causes, then maybe I'll listen. Until
then, say it with me, "Don't insult my intelligence Harry."
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments