Elites Win Another Round: Court Strikes Down Donation Limits

page: 1
16
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   
The Supreme Court has decided that there should be no limits on personal campaign donations. So it would seem that the election process is available to the highest bidder. So we 'normal' folk get to bid against Warren Buffet for favorable political outcomes. Country gets better every day...

Story




posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


Thats ok because soon they wont be able to bribe federal politicians anymore. TYT is pushing hard with their 'Wolf-Pac" campaign to call for a convention of states to make an amendment to the constitution to get money out of politics. Soon the system will change.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
yes, corporate money is free speech
go figure...
but
When it comes to buying free speech
I would have thought it was far cheaper to just get a chimp to hack a voting machine



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Actually, this is a win for the "little" politician. The elite have no problem navigating the complex campaign finance laws, creating Super-PACs, and even funneling donation money out of those organizations and into their own pockets, but the small time politician, even if he has a lot of local support, cannot swim in the seas with those big fish.

With this ruling, a small-time politician, with the right supporters, can have a national presence and impact.

I know this looks bad, but I think it is actually a good thing.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


I wonder where 'campaign contributions' becomes bribing?

Because I think a bribed politician is a traitor and should be punished by firing squad, as should the briber. And you can start off with the Supreme Court members who gave the Presidency to Bush the Lesser, AKA Bush the Nazi's grandson. People don't seem to realize it, but we've been under a covert martial law ever since.

Nothing is going to improve in the U.S. until the Federal Reserve is ended (and all its 'owners' eliminated and their assets clawed back) and everyone who has voted for war, made money off war, or lied to the American people in any way, shape or form is dealt with severely as the war criminals they so absolutely are.

Just think how Wall Street might be a bit different now, if instead of a cushy prison cell, Bernie Madoff had been publicly executed? Because how many lives do you have to ruin before it's in essence murder?



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   

3shadesofblack
Actually, this is a win for the "little" politician. The elite have no problem navigating the complex campaign finance laws, creating Super-PACs, and even funneling donation money out of those organizations and into their own pockets, but the small time politician, even if he has a lot of local support, cannot swim in the seas with those big fish.

With this ruling, a small-time politician, with the right supporters, can have a national presence and impact.

I know this looks bad, but I think it is actually a good thing.


How can people being able to buy elections be a good thing? Also why would the elite pump millions into a small time politician? Because he will only do what they want and work to pass the laws they write. It is no surprise that only the conservative judges would support this travesty.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

3shadesofblack
Actually, this is a win for the "little" politician. The elite have no problem navigating the complex campaign finance laws, creating Super-PACs, and even funneling donation money out of those organizations and into their own pockets, but the small time politician, even if he has a lot of local support, cannot swim in the seas with those big fish.

With this ruling, a small-time politician, with the right supporters, can have a national presence and impact.

I know this looks bad, but I think it is actually a good thing.


I agree, I would prefer a wholesale repeal of campaign finance limits but, I'll take what I can get, it is still progress.




posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

signalfire
reply to post by jtma508
 


I wonder where 'campaign contributions' becomes bribing?



When it becomes tit for tat.

As long as nothing is promised in return, then it is not bribing, but we all know that something will always be given in return. Maybe it is just friendship. Maybe it is just good politicking, or maybe it is some convenient zoning or flood-mapping like we've seen recently with FEMA.

Regardless, this opens the door for a more competitive political environment, because a politician with a few key supporters can mount a campaign without mainstream party support. This is a wonderful thing.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by signalfire
 




I wonder where 'campaign contributions' becomes bribing?


When pacs and super pacs were made legal along with the donations remaining anonymous bribing was made legal.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


They are already buying elections, but currently only mainstream party support and Super-PACs can buy elections. With this development, a local guy with a couple of upper-middle-class friends can make a splash!

The "elite" won't support a small-time politician, but a decent guy with a few millionairre friends can get up there and go toe to toe with the elite franchise.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

3shadesofblack
With this ruling, a small-time politician, with the right supporters, can have a national presence and impact.

aka, any puppet with the backing of a billionare...

I say we choose our politicians from twitter..let them spend next to nothing on a campaign and win people over with ideas and ideals alone..
Might be a day down the line when the net is the biggest factor in politics..no television ads, radio blitz, etc....just good ole reddit interviews and tweets.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

buster2010
How can people being able to buy elections be a good thing? Also why would the elite pump millions into a small time politician? Because he will only do what they want and work to pass the laws they write. It is no surprise that only the conservative judges would support this travesty.


You do understand that the reason corporations are afforded the equal protection of the laws is because of US code, and this entire issue has nothing at all to do with judges? Judges don't write the law.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   

SaturnFX

3shadesofblack
With this ruling, a small-time politician, with the right supporters, can have a national presence and impact.

aka, any puppet with the backing of a billionare...

I say we choose our politicians from twitter..let them spend next to nothing on a campaign and win people over with ideas and ideals alone..
Might be a day down the line when the net is the biggest factor in politics..no television ads, radio blitz, etc....just good ole reddit interviews and tweets.


Sure. I'd be a big fan of eliminating campaign advertising altogether! Let the politicians beat the streets like the old days. Let them stump and speak and let the voters do their own research on what a politician stands for.

Or, we could to it American Idol or Survivor style. Put all the politicians on a reality show, and put them up to some challenges to test their wit and fortitude, and let the voters watch it all for a few weeks and then vote online, LOL!

Of course, if we put them all on a deserted island, the temptation to abandon them there might be too much to bear!



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Still no limit on corporations, just regular people. Most rich people either own corporations or are well connected to the leaders of the corporations.

All this does is to limit those who do not know of the loopholes from getting any control of the system. Don't think that generously donating to the Republican party or democratic party doesn't get you any clout. These parties are one with their candidates, Candidates are part of the whole. Of a kind people think and work together.

So this ruling changed nothing, yet some people probably think it did because they did not understand exactly what was said. They interpreted this article the way they wanted to in their mind. Many people will see this ruling as fixing something when in fact it did very little of anything. Life in America is sure interesting. I wonder who is behind engeneering all this deceit. I sure would like to meet these people steering society, it would be fun.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
What a depressing thing to read first thing in the morning. ):

So which politicians condemns this Supreme court decision?
Any others?


In a statement Sen. Sanders said, “Freedom of speech, in my view, does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government…What world are the five conservative Supreme Court justices living in? To equate the ability of billionaires to buy elections with ‘freedom of speech’ is totally absurd. The Supreme Court is paving the way toward an oligarchic form of society in which a handful of billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson will control our political process.”

source

Looks like the court bowed to their owners:
source
article on justices ties to Koch brothers
edit on 2-4-2014 by AlaskanDad because: fixed link
edit on 2-4-2014 by AlaskanDad because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   

rickymouse
Still no limit on corporations, just regular people. Most rich people either own corporations or are well connected to the leaders of the corporations.

All this does is to limit those who do not know of the loopholes from getting any control of the system. Don't think that generously donating to the Republican party or democratic party doesn't get you any clout. These parties are one with their candidates, Candidates are part of the whole. Of a kind people think and work together.

So this ruling changed nothing, yet some people probably think it did because they did not understand exactly what was said. They interpreted this article the way they wanted to in their mind. Many people will see this ruling as fixing something when in fact it did very little of anything. Life in America is sure interesting. I wonder who is behind engeneering all this deceit. I sure would like to meet these people steering society, it would be fun.


I have personally benefited financially from McCain-Feingold as a software developer, I think I may be the only class of people in America who have. Trust me, this has not helped but, I'm still keeping the money.


And you are completely right, there should be no limit on individual candidates either.
edit on 2-4-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
The little guy with a few millionaire friends making campaign donations is still going to be a loser. It's all about exposure at the national level, and if the corporate media keep you out of the spotlight then you don't get the message out. I am sure those big media corps are all donating to the "right" candidates!



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 


I agree. If talking about a US Senate, or Presidential run, then a little guy stands no chance.

BUT, maybe with this development a little guy could make a decent US House run, and then get the right exposure to infiltrate the party power structure. It is certainly not the solution to all the political problems, but it is a crack that we can get a fingernail in and start clawing our way to the top.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by 3shadesofblack
 


you are right. If the right "little guy" used the tactic of " hey, he got 800 million from x corp to try to make me look bad" it could work.

Maybe it already exists in full disclosure, but we should know who has given any money to any politician.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   

tinner07
reply to post by 3shadesofblack
 


you are right. If the right "little guy" used the tactic of " hey, he got 800 million from x corp to try to make me look bad" it could work.

Maybe it already exists in full disclosure, but we should know who has given any money to any politician.


Keep in mind that the repeal of campaign finance limits in no way hinders the disclosure requirement of funding sources.

I think that may be a point of misunderstanding here.





new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join