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."
The typically deep and thoughtful comment by our "steamed" senator Orin
Hatch regarding the latest Supreme Court antics leads one to ask an equally deep
and thoughtful question: Where did Orin Hatch?
@ Thid Barker, you are wrong about unions, parroting a tired deception from thge
GOP. Unions do have limits, and besides, they are weaker now than at any point
in our lifetimes. Perhaps this is why the middle class is losing and falling
backwards for the first time perhaps in our country's history. I am amazed
how some middle class people seem pleased with the rising disparity in income
and wealth that is now ubiquitous. Those people don't care about you, Thid
Barker, they use you and then they will crush you.
"Today's decision will help ensure the robust political participation
and debate that our nation's Founders envisioned." ~ Utah Senator
Orrin Hatch========= You mean, The same Founding
Fathers who fought a bitter bloody war to throw off the shackles of a system of
Government made up entirely of the RICH and the priveleged?Who based
our Nation on ALL being equal - rich and poor, and each CITIZEN [not
Corporation] had 1 voice and 1 vote?I can hadly imagine the founding
Fathers approving of Corporations and foreign influences via MONEY cannkering
our entire political system as being GOOD.Please help me understand
how more money, and more outside influence can possibly be a GOOD thing?
From now on, expect all public policy in this country to cater to the interests
of the very rich, and align your interests with theirs wherever you can. For
instance, try to live on peanut butter sandwiches as much as possible to free up
money to buy stock.
@ SCfan: Well said, powerfully stated and you nailed it!
Don't stop at the idea that the decision is correct. Ask, too, if it will
make things better. I fear it will not.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but:Didn't the Gadianton
Robbers; bribe Government officals with Money, Had them change
the laws in their favor, Gave them the upper hand and political advantage,
thereby taking sole control and Management of the Government OVER the
People?and here we have the Deseret News SUPPORTING this?Is this the turning were the once good rightesou Nephites are finally seduced
[ticked, lulled] into doing the bidding for the Gadianton's?And
I thought it was bad when the Deseret News supported GW Bushs's Wars of
OFFENSE, and supported his Patriot Act.All I can say is --
Woe unto this people!
Well, the DN proved once again that it is an organ of the Republican Party and
favors plutocracy over democracy. My vote just got diluted again. Not that it
was worth much in Utah anyway. Take the blinders off, folks.
Quotes taken directly from the SCOTUS opinion..."...Money in
politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the
First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag
burning, funeral protests,and Nazi parades—despite the profound offense
such spectacles cause—it surely protects political campaignspeech despite
popular opposition...". The five conservative members associate
money in politics with flag-burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades...The five conservative members define money in politics as political
campaign speech. "...The line between quid pro quo corruption
and general influence must be respected in order to safeguard basic First
Amendment rights, and the Court must “err on the side of protecting
political speech rather than suppressing it...".The line between
quid pro quo corruption and general influence must be respected?The
Court must err on the side of protecting quid pro quo corruption because some
might equate general influence as quid pro quo corruption?14 April,
1970, an observer intoned... Houston... we have a problem...When the
SCOTUS issues an opinion characterized by the thought processes attributed to
direct quotes taken from the SCOTUS opinion...Critical thinking
skills would determine...America...we have a problem...
Campaign finance has always been screwy.......it was only unfair to the
Democratic Libs yesterday when the SCOTUS leveled the playing field.........big
money from foreign investors was given to Obama in 12 and others before. Now
unions are not the only ones who can sway an election! This is a great article
and they are spot on!
I'm not surprised the DN supports the few oligarchs that run this country.
It has decidedly done so for the past 20 years or so. I guess might makes
right.This is why this country desperately needs a multiple party
system. Political parties exist to lead the unknowing party dupes to support
the rich donors. Time and time again congress votes in favor of the agenda of
the rich few .... for the good of the country of course. However, the more
political parties there are, the more of a chance the rest of us will have to
actually have our agenda heard and followed. True competition in the political
sphere is the only answer. So, here's to toppling the republicans and the
democrats - the two parties of the rich.
This ruling will throw another log on the populism fire that is brewing in our
country. The masses will flock to those politicans who champion their needs not
to the politicans with the richest supporters. Societies become more socialist
as they mature, and America is on the same course. This ruling along with
Citizens United soldifies the American poplulace to support candidates who
protect and expand the social safety net. Billionaires like Sheldon Adelson and
the Koch brothers will be throwing their money away. Think Mitt Romney, Newt
Gingrich or the numerous candidates they supported and how that worked out for
If Republicans want to win elections, They need to come up with better
ideas -- Not, Find ways to short-cut, sneak, jimmy and
gerryrig our Political system to open bribery and financial obligations to
financial "donors" -- er, uh I need to be more clear here: King-men, Masters and Handlers, I should say.Sad Day for America.
I'm not sure what SCFan and Mountainman are agreeing upon and enthusiastic
about.It seems like their primary reaction is that liberals are
hypocrites because there are wealthy liberals who also support campaigns, ala
Spielberg, Barbra Streisand, etc.So, stepping back a couple of feet,
is this a desirable situation?The Koch Brothers vs George Soros, and
may the most polished & persuasive political / marketing teams win?With this ruling, certainly business interests and the wealthy will
"invest" more in various political candidates to their liking, both
Republican and Democrat. Should the LDS church open up its
considerable coffers and monetarily support candidates that align with its
positions?Besides some conservatives who are happy to point out the
hypocrisy among some liberals, it seems the most elated people should be
advertising executives and campaign strategists.
By the way. To those who believe that powerful unseen forces with all this
"right wing" money are a threat to democracy, consider this. We
don't need government regulation on how much money is spent. What we need
is 100% openness as to who, how much, and to whom it is given for a political
office or cause. That way if say the Koch Brothers were to give 100 million
dollars to some guy to run for city council of Elbow Lake Minnesota it would be
public knowledge and the voters could vote accordingly. Likewise if some ballot
measure is funded by interest groups, that would be public knowledge too. So an
organization like People for the American way supporting a proposition with a
certain amount of money would be known to all the voters before they cast their
vote. Openness as to where the money comes from and who donates it would be the
best answer to any worry about the buying of elections. FT
Don't forget that Obama raised over a billion dollars to run. Wasn't
like he didn't use the system too.
To "airnaut" I think you forgot that just a couple of days ago we read
that the Democrats represent the districts with the greatest wealth. So, using
your logic, doesn't that mean that Demcrats are bought and paid for by the
Gadiantons that you despise.I hate to keep bursting your bubble, but
Congress is already a den of millionairs. Just look at the net worth of so many
of them. The most interesting thig is how they were able to get wealthy through
investments. Until recently they could engage in insider trading legally.Have you seen all of the reports of Democrats being caught in finance
scandals. Doesn't that show you many of the Gadiantons are hiding.One thing you forget about the Gadiantons is that they wanted a powerful
central government. Did you know that liberals and Democrats push for policies
that establish a powerful central government? Did you know that Conservatives
are pushing for policies that strip power away from the central government?
Tell me, why do you keep supporting the Gadiantons?
@SCfanclearfield, UTBy the way. To those who believe that powerful
unseen forces with all this "right wing" money are a threat to
democracy, consider this.======== This is the problem
with some of you...You are so partisan, you become to Right
vs. Wrongit's always a Left vs. Right thing.Re-Read
the POSTS.Those of us on the Left, are upset for ANY money going to
doesn't matter.What matters is Right and Wrong, and this
is clearly WRONG, And here we have you guys out dancing in the
Streets like some sort of Vicotry dance.It's not.It's a Sad day in America.Especially for the 99% of us, who's
voices just got silenced.
To me, the strongest sign of this being problematic is when you realize that
bribery hardly seems necessary these days when you can wield so much influence
through legal campaign contributions to candidates or super-pacs.@Thid Barker"Those who lament the SCOTUS's decision don't
seem to mind that there is no limits on union donations to Democrats!"I'm perfectly fine with seeing everyone limited in campaign
contributions including unions.
To everyone who opposed Count My Vote because of concern that only well-funded
candidates would be able to win... do you also oppose these decisions allowing
so much money to be put in by billionaires, corporations, unions, secret
Re: ". . . Republican Party . . . favors plutocracy over democracy."Any argument advanced regarding Republican attitudes towards big money
donors would apply equally, or more so, to Democrats. It is inarguably true that
Democrats raise more money from fewer actual people than do Republicans. This is
particularly true, since massive trade-union donations can honestly be
attributed only to union bosses, not to the rank and file.If
catering to big-money contributors illustrates Republican attitudes toward
plutocracy, the Democratic Party's real attitude -- as opposed to its
disingenuous blather -- must be even more partial to plutocracy.
Re:procuradorfiscal"It is inarguably true that Democrats raise more
money from fewer actual people than do Republicans"I would like
to know the source on which you make that claim.On the other hand,
The Washington Post reported:"Nearly half of the donors to
Obama’s reelection campaign in 2011 gave $200 or less, more than double
the proportion seen in 2007, according to the analysis from the Campaign Finance
Institute, which tracks money in politics.Just 9 percent of donors
to GOP front-runner Mitt Romney, by contrast, came from the lowest end of the
contribution scale, the study shows. Obama raised more money in aggregate from
small donors — $56.7 million — than Romney raised overall.Additionally, Opensecrets reported for the 2012 election, 32% of Obama's
funding came from small individual contributions, while 17% of Romney's
fundraising came from small individual contributions. 0% of Obama's funds
came from PACs while .2% of Romney's funding came from PACs.
“On Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court struck down another limitation on
participation in the political process.” According to DN,
those with the most money deserve more political power than anyone else. The day
before yesterday, that was illegal. Now it’s OK.The Deseret
News says we should celebrate the fact that “the U.S. Supreme Court struck
down another limitation on participation in the political process.”We aren’t stopping there, are we? Plenty of other limitations
have not yet been removed.There are laws against using kidnapping,
extortion, and force of arms to influence politics. Are we getting rid of those
limitations next? It makes just as much sense as letting money dictate policy.
Guns, bombs, poison, suicide vests, and a willingness to use them are almost as
politically effective as bribery. Just ask Al Qadah.Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision essentially subverts Democracy in
America. It is an act of domestic terrorism perpetrated against the nation by
Right Leaning “Conservatives,” but DN says that’s wonderful
because it removes “limitations on participation in the political
process.” And we certainly don’t want any limitations
on participation in the political process.
Inconvenient thing, that Constitution. Perhaps it shouldn't grant freedom
to all citizens. Maybe we can get around it when we don't like its
guarantees of freedoms to everyone.
factspleaseThis may come as a surprise, but pacs are people too.