Why is the GOP dismantling campaign finance law and advocating corporate rights?

Just one month after the Supreme Court struck down aggregate campaign contribution limits, Republican Party officials are set to join what may be the next big court challenge in the ongoing push to unravel campaign finance laws. The case has not yet been filed, but it already has a winning pedigree: The lawsuit was conceived by James Bopp, the Indiana-based lawyer who was behind Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and involved in McCutcheon v. FEC -- the last two major Supreme Court victories for those attacking campaign finance limits. The target of this new challenge is the ban on political parties soliciting and receiving unlimited contributions, known as "soft money," that was enacted in the 2002 McCain-Feingold law. The lawsuit aims to overturn that ban and more.

I would like to hear some opinions about the core values behind this initiative and I would like to understand the motivation for citizens to endorse this with their votes. This value set and a number of others is the reason I believe conservatives are remaking this country into the hunger games sans tacky clothing. --maybe that's next?

With America now in a post-constitutional era, primarily due to a rouge executive branch, bought legislators and a GOP heavy SCOTUS, how are you, as a GOP voter affecting the future of America? I wonder what the rationale is for voting for a group with the implicit goal of subjugating the citizenry and legalizing corruption.

It's quite remarkable to me. I wonder if "1984" should be required reading instead of that garbage that passes for literature, "Atlas Shrugged"

Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. "Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner 'influence over or access to' elected officials or political parties."

This is chief justice of SCOTUS regarding citizen's united. Does he really believe his own fiction? Anyone care to defend GOP values on this one? Randomly throwing out dogma and doublespeak is fine too. It's revealing in it's own way.

I started a thread last month about my complaints/ideas...
It got no traffic, so I'm reposting the text here:

Okay, I'm UTTERLY disgusted that the SCOTUS says corporate "persons" can donate however much. And individuals can donate as many $5,200s as they want to however many candidates they want. Basically setting the sickening precedent that Money = Speech as a standard.
I've talked before about doing away with lobbying and campaign donation; in my opinion, there should be NO lobbying, and NO donations, not even to Colbert's SuperPAC (though I did contribute $5 to that)...

Also, term limits, minimum wage, no pension, and selection by picking a pool of candidates like being called for Jury Duty (not necessarily picked, just called).

Give each candidate 15 minutes of air-time (Public Service Announcements) to be donated by the networks (TV, cable, and radio); no defamation of the other guy. Three month campaign trail. Period. No travelling. Just state your case, and have a seat. We'll get back to you.

Now - since that is decidedly NOT the system we have in place, and it's unlikely I'll be elected for anything ever, as an unemployed civilian female with no interest in politics except to hate them, what can I do?

Here is the question of the OP:

When you filed your taxes, and it had the question: Would you like to contribute $3 to the Presidential Campaign Fund? This will neither change your taxes nor your income. ...what did you select?

I, as per usual, checked, NO.

I can't imagine how it works in the retarded tax code...but suppose EVERY taxpayer said "Yeah, sure, whatever. No change out of my pocket, go ahead." Let's say there are 150,000,000 taxpayers (even without an income I got the choice to donate when we filed Married/Jointly). That's 450,000,000 million dollars.

So - nothing out of our pockets? Well, WHERE IS THAT MONEY COMING FROM? The US Treasury? Is there already a budget? If I say yes, who pays that $3 for my donation?

$450,000,000 should be PLENTY to run a Presidential Campaign season lasting only 3 months, even without the donated PSA slots from broadcast networks. And it wouldn't be 'deductible'. It actually could work!

Could we then get rid of lobbying altogether? And what if some people said "no" - do they then not get to vote? No, everyone gets to vote, regardless of how you decided about the $3. ("Beggars" I mumbled to myself as I checked "NO") So - you're not buying the right to vote, and you don't get to pick the candidate you want to donate to. It's just a general fund from which the candidates draw equal amounts to work with. Say we end up with 3 nominees. Each one gets $150,000,000, 15 minutes of free airtime, and the rest goes to....what?

But most significantly, what did you, the American Taxpayers tell them when you filed your mandatory return? And does anyone know how much they gather up during tax season? Are there any statistics of how much MORE they milk out of us besides our "taxes" (if we're not rich enough to avoid them altogether)?

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Cant be hunger games...that guy that was the leader or whatever bought enough horse to get a blue whale jaded.

Back on topic...are you really surprised? This one party system has been pushing for this for years. Ever since before the Revolution. Adam Smith. Wealth of Nations. Ditch the filial piety for rule by wealth rather than by birth. That was the Revolution. Eta Maybe throw in a little Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, But only wealthy scions would have even had access to these books or literacy for that matter. Look at the "Founding Fathers" plantation masters, a silversmith, lawyers...not exactly the common folk.

And now it has happened. And those in power will do anything to keep it. Even pretend to be a member of this party or that party in order to keep the semblance of a republic going. They have won. They even have the internet now.

Could we then get rid of lobbying altogether? And what if some people said "no" - do they then not get to vote? No, everyone gets to vote, regardless of how you decided about the $3. ("Beggars" I mumbled to myself as I checked "NO") So - you're not buying the right to vote, and you don't get to pick the candidate you want to donate to. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The $3 election fund collection is a waste of the $3, if you look at how federal elections are conducted. Neither of the two party monopoly would give up the cash raked in by lobbying. It just looks to me as if the GOP is successful, we could see things like, "weighted voting" by how much tax is paid or something like that. You might see corporations running for office. You might even see a corporation declaring itself a sovereign nation and seceding from the US. The GOP is already trying to manipulate voting laws to limit the voting potential of the poor. It's really out in the open isn't it?

I sincerely wonder about the core values of people voting for this? Do they think their position in life will be improved or what?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

"...and I think to myself, what a wonderful world"

Never going to happen. They won. Occupy was the last chance. But they owned the media and the whole "they can afford tattoos and piercings but are too lazy to work" "All under 30 feel "entitled" the trophy for everything generation"
Ruined a movement that was growing and about a million strong nationwide.
Maybe we should try again. This time with more conviction.

Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. "Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner 'influence over or access to' elected officials or political parties."

Does it matter much? Idiot who has risen to Chief Justice of the land or filthy liar who has risen to Chief Justice of the land.

Either way, he is in that position for LIFE. And he is only 59. Baring catastrophic variance in his health, this smirking chimp can hold this crucial position for another 25 years.

It is neither republican or democrat any more. The conservatives, especially the southern ones, still think the Republican party is about them and preserving their old way of life.

The Preamble of the Constitution, where "We the People" agreed to give representatives power under laws and justice and rights. That part is dead.

Our legislators have completely turned our constitution over to the Oligarchy in the last 30 years.

Very depressing.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

Could we then get rid of lobbying altogether? And what if some people said "no" - do they then not get to vote? No, everyone gets to vote, regardless of how you decided about the $3. ("Beggars" I mumbled to myself as I checked "NO") So - you're not buying the right to vote, and you don't get to pick the candidate you want to donate to. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The $3 election fund collection is a waste of the $3, if you look at how federal elections are conducted. Neither of the two party monopoly would give up the cash raked in by lobbying. It just looks to me as if the GOP is successful, we could see things like, "weighted voting" by how much tax is paid or something like that. You might see corporations running for office. You might even see a corporation declaring itself a sovereign nation and seceding from the US. The GOP is already trying to manipulate voting laws to limit the voting potential of the poor. It's really out in the open isn't it?

I sincerely wonder about the core values of people voting for this? Do they think their position in life will be improved or what?

It has more to tthe human condition of WANTING to belong to the crowd that seems to be more well to do financially. It's like Uncle George always said, "Think of the stupidest person you know, there are fifty percent of the people dumber than that"(paraphrased for ATS T&C).

People are easily duped. I find many of us on ATS are indeed above the curve, yet so many still cling to the old beliefs that the average person still matters and can make a difference. Those times are long gone. Sadly.

You poor folks one day will regret your ideas about “there all the same” GOP and democrats.

The same like the difference between cancer and a head cold.

On a NWO perspective level of international politics, such as both dems and GOP kiss the hind part of Israel, indeed they are very similar. BUT, as the OP so eloquently points out, such as in this domestic issue of campaign finance (AND OTHER ISSUES WE ALL KNOW) the GOP is in the hands of the devil himself!

And just go on down the line of domestic issues from medicaide for the poor, universal health care, environment, racial issues, immigration, the GOP are a party that is taking the human race back to the time of the cave man

They will be at the vanguard in the very destruction of the human race

a reply to: Willtell

Bleh. The only difference is who they play up to in terms of their respective bases. That's it. If you're part of the ever shrinking middle class, you've got a boot on your neck and for the life of me I can't figure out why people care who's foot is in it.

The only thing to do at this point is to observe it as the circus-like theater of the absurd that it's become. You might as well get some entertainment value out of it, because the ultimate collapse of the whole mess is virtually inevitable.

You might just for the hell of it, read up on Elizabeth Warren, not that she has a prayer for elective office beyond the Senate. Too much substance.

a reply to: MrDesolate

What’s your point? I like Warren, she has a humanistic approach.

But your right she won’t get far in this corporate age where austerity is the Shariah of the western elite.

All we can do is try to be practical and elect the half human democrats versus the no human GOP, BASED ON ISSUES.

Once anyone moves the conversation from ISSUES they move in with stuff like:
There all the same.
I hate Obama’s 2nd amendment laws
Socialism, communism

Then the conversation gets emotionalized so much that the average middle of the roader might then go out and vote against their own interest and vote for a GOP candidate that has not one practical issue that that voter actually belives in.

It works

But now the Obama victories have proven, even though Obama is a big bust, that the GOP has lost the issues argument so therefore the only way for the GOP and their serfdom agenda to win is by stealth.
Supreme Court, ALEC, stopping people from voting, destroy campaign finance, etc
In other words cheat and lie.

originally posted by: Willtell
All we can do is try to be practical and elect the half human democrats versus the no human GOP, BASED ON ISSUES.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

If you think Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are any more human than the most debased, venal Republican, then you're kidding yourself, which you're free to do if it makes you feel any better. You can also pick out a pro wrestler to root for if you want.

Given where we're headed, I don't begrudge anyone some delusions if it helps pacify the spirit. When you've already fallen off the cliff, you can either freak out, or lay back and accept the inevitability of a hard landing. End result is the same, but no point making it worse for yourself.

a reply to: MrDesolate

You see there you go…right into the pit of ignorance.

I wonder do you do it deliberately or you are as clueless as you sound.
“Lord forgive them, for they know not what they do”

Forget personalities and names it’s the Issues

ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES

Cant that get through the wall of your programmed hatred?

a reply to: Willtell

You've already negated 'issues' as a criterion by suggesting the answer is to NEVER VOTE GOP, ALWAYS VOTE DEMOCRAT. That's hardly an issues-centric stance.

That's ok, though. Vote those eeeevil Republicans out. See how you like them Democrat apples. I'll take my ignorance over your delusion.

Issues.

a reply to: MrDesolate

That’s not true. If issues that GOP candidates all support such as war, no lifting minimum wage, no health care, support for Koch brothers’ interest, etc., are what they support and dems just happen to be against such issues then I vote for the dems. Its about issues not personalities.

Of course there will be times when dems and GOP are together in evil, such as the Iraq war, and on Israel, still the ISSUES that help me most are mostly on the dem side so I would vote FOR THEM…simple.

The gop is catering to its base and the base isn't you. They are the elitist party bought and paid for and the government that rules over you is also bought and paid for.

I have brought this up time and time again, if you compare red state governments with blue state governments, its crazy that any average citizen would vote for republican. Look up education rankings then wonder why McDonald and walmart are the biggest employers in the country, slashing education budgets at the state level has had its effect. Education is investing in your future, if you don't invest you end up with a service based economy.