Greater need for honesty in politics since Citizens United case

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Mike in Texas Cedar City, Utah
    July 28, 2012 9:26 p.m.

    Procu... you didn't respond to my last question. I was just sure, given the boldness of your statement, that you must have the chapter and verse about Founding Father support for political contributions as speech right at hand.

  • Mister J SLC, UT
    July 28, 2012 3:43 p.m.

    per CHS 85 1:21 p.m. July 26, 2012

    Its been said there are two types of republicans; millionaires and suckers.

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    July 28, 2012 3:34 p.m.

    @ RedShirt 7/26 3:22p

    So? Switzerland, the Caymans, Bermuda, etc are charities?

    People like Mitt donate to the Sierra Club, Amnesty International, Greenpeace? Really!?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 27, 2012 7:42 p.m.

    Re: "If we don't pass this [anti-free-speech] amendment, political money will eventually destroy our representative democracy."

    If we ever DO pass such an amendment, leftist political thought will have already destroyed our representative democracy.

    Suggesting that the rich, or conservatives, or ANY segment of American society should be muzzled, forcibly outed, or in any way controlled politically is nothing more than a liberal scam to exercise political control over public discourse.

    Thankfully, at least 5 justices of the Supreme Court still recognize that.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 27, 2012 2:45 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal said:
    "Suggesting that conservatives can buy elections by disseminating valid, timely, important information is not just false, it's insulting to Americans."

    Say's the Birther guys
    Say's the Obama's a muslim guy
    Say's the Obamas a communist guy

    Yes, your quite "right" False information is insulting to Americans.
    Now if conservatives felt the same way they would turn off rush & sean and join the rest of the country in reality.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    July 27, 2012 2:43 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal will never understand this, but campaign contribution disclosure is nothing but a band aid. With Citizens United the Supreme court in its (un)wisdom has declared that such contributions are a form of speech and therefore protected by the Constitution. I seriously doubt that the framers were thinking of money when they discussed freedom of speech, but since the Supreme Court has 5/4 decided that it is, then the only solution is a constitutional amendment. If we don't pass this amendment, political money will eventually destroy our representative democracy.

    Procuradorfiscal could you cite us with some of those "anonymous(ly)" statements from the founders you mention who support of the notion that money is speech and that the constitution protects and guarantees the right of billionaires to gave candidates an advantage by funding their campaigns? And, do you think for a second that there is not a price to be paid, quid pro quo, for that financial support?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 26, 2012 9:41 p.m.

    Re: ". . . it has become paramount that the public at least know where the recent, huge influx of money is coming from . . . to make informed decisions on the veracity . . . ."


    If the ad's content is true, who cares where it came from? And, if it's not, it's more important to oppose the idea, than to politically or pecuniarily punish its proponent.

    This is nothing more than another liberal scam attacking free speech.

    Since the days of our Revolution, countless Americans, including Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, and many others spoke out anonymously against evils of their day, often to protect pecuniary interests from ethically-challenged opponents, who would use monetary clout to unfairly squelch valid political dissent.

    Like modern liberals are doing today to Chick-fil-A's president, Dan Cathy, though they have politically -- sometimes even statutorily -- insulated their own supporters in Big Labor, Big Academe, and Big Government from similar attack.

    Suggesting that conservatives can buy elections by disseminating valid, timely, important information is not just false, it's insulting to Americans.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 26, 2012 3:22 p.m.

    To "CHS 85" what about the hollywood elites that would all sleep with Obama if given the chance? Doesn't it bother you that the rich left wingers keep getting richer and richer while getting the poor to do their dirty work? You realize that the rich conservatives are the ones who donate to charities that help the poor while your liberal buddies donate to the local opera and ballet companies, assuming they donate anything at all.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    July 26, 2012 1:25 p.m.

    Those businessmen who benefited by government contracts - were they not required under the contracts to provide goods and/or services? Was there not a competative bid process?

    I would direct you to the SIGTARP reports to congress issued every quarter, wherein the SIGTARP reports on the status of TARP. the last three reports have shown that the treasury will MAKE money on the bank bailout.

    The collapse of wall street was facilitaed by the clinton administration's refusal to regulate derivatives when first proposed in 1997 - the head of the SEC at the time has since apologized for what he recongizes as a grave mistake.

    the bailout of the housing market (fannie and freddie) will never be recovered and was brought about by barney frank. Barney destroyed what had been a well-functioning secondary market.

    you got a FHA or VA mortgage? those are the only ones subsidized or guaranteed by the federal government.

    I am not saying there is no benefit derived from the federal government. I think the CPP portion of TARP did more to stabilize our economy than anything since (the porkulus was a joke), but are you saying witch hunts on political foes are OK?

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    July 26, 2012 1:21 p.m.

    I find it very interesting how the rich and powerful have such influence over people. To watch the ultr-rich get the right-wing middle-class and lower-class do their bidding is amazing. They can sit back, rake in their billions off the backs of the workers and overseas investments and get others to defend them. What a racket.

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    July 26, 2012 11:34 a.m.

    If disclosure and transparency is what we really want lets include all organizations (not just companies and people) and volunteer time as well. Lets be totally transparent, and further lets place protections into the legislation that penalizes a sitting government from using the information for "enemies list" activities by that government on people and organizations. Like if there is a single instance of an extra audit, pulled contract, leaked government information, etc., then the incumbent would be eligible for re-election.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    July 26, 2012 11:06 a.m.

    @ lost in DC, at a recent political event, Romney was surrounded by businessmen who had, upon investigation, received a variety of benefits from the government, including contracts, subsidized loans, etc. I had a recent exchange with a mortgage company guy who was ranting out the government. I pointed out that he had made his money on making loans subsidized or guaranteed by the government, or used a secondary market set up by the government, and which is further subsidized by tax deductions and credits. Bankers? Bailed out by the government. Wall Street? Bailed out by the government. Defense contractors? Government money. Small business? SBA and other programs that make it possible. The list goes on and on. SO, yeah, I know connecting the dots is hard for some, but reality dictates it.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    July 26, 2012 11:00 a.m.

    JThompson: "Why does the left continuously try to take away our rights? Yesterday, they wanted to destroy our right to keep and bear arms. Today they want to limit speech!"

    Oh please.

    What rights have you lost? Be specific. Who has silenced you? Who has come to take your guns?

    Seriously - make a rational argument for anonymous corporate donations to political campaigns. I ask you to defend that.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 26, 2012 10:21 a.m.

    While Utah Mormons associate Gadiantons to merely "Democrats",

    The real Gadiantons - who are only about gain, $$$, and controlling and managing the power - play both parties for fools.

    This is how mony of "even the very elect" are being decieved and lulled away into Gadianton corruption.

    Selling our birth-right for a mess of pottage...

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    July 26, 2012 9:10 a.m.

    Excellent letter. The right of free speech and the alleged right to *anonymously* finance massive propaganda campaigns shielded by corporate entities is something else.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    July 26, 2012 9:04 a.m.


    Since when has Uncle Orrin shown much honesty?

    Citizens United is just one more way that ALEC and the Greedy Old Party will use to try to take American backward.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    July 26, 2012 8:54 a.m.

    Making side runs against our Constitutional right to speak, either from our own mouth, or from the mouths of those we pay to speak for us, is despicable. Why does the left continuously try to take away our rights? Yesterday, they wanted to destroy our right to keep and bear arms. Today they want to limit speech!

    Is their candidate so void of value that the only way they can win is to keep the opposition from stating the truth about Obama's "accomplishments"?

    If they're concerned about the money that WE individuals pay to organization to speak for us, why don't they open their wallets and pay an organization to speak for them; but that would go against their grain. They want the "rich guy" to pay for everything - including their diatribes against that "rich guy".

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 26, 2012 8:42 a.m.

    80% of all Super-Pac donations have come from just 200 people. These people expect to get a lot of value for their money, and they don't want us to know who they are.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    July 26, 2012 8:21 a.m.

    you're just too funny! government largess for Romney supporters? really? Vague insinuations intended to smear is the PERFECT description of both your posts.

    And why should we expect an honesty requirement from the SCOTUS that upheld Obamacare and shot down the stolen valor act?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    July 26, 2012 8:11 a.m.

    Many of the Romney donors complain about government, yet are recipients of government largesse. They know government handouts for them will increase with Romney. And he has shown he has no backbone to resist and to do what's right. Star Bright, you write fiction. Vague insinuations intended to smear.

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    July 26, 2012 7:12 a.m.

    Have you seen what has happened to 8 of the donors to Romney's campaign? Have you seen what is happening to the Idaho man who gave Romney money? If we had an honest administration instead of a president who can use the IRA and the justice department to discourage people from donating to his opponent. I've read on sites where people are concerned about domating to Romney but are doing it anyway, because of the power of this government!

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    July 26, 2012 6:51 a.m.

    Of course the GOP hates the Disclose Act.

    Where's the fun in buying the government if everyone can see you doing it?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    July 26, 2012 4:23 a.m.

    Think Gadianton Robbers.