The beat goes on. Those with the most money control our political system. Everything is rigged. It’s a club of rich pricks and you ain’t in it. Elections are meaningless. Opt out.
Supreme Court ends overall cap on political donations
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – The Supreme Court on Wednesday voted 5-4 to eliminate overall caps on how much individuals can donate to political candidates, parties and interest groups. The ruling, however, left in place the $2,600 limit on how much a citizen can donate to any one candidate for Congress or the presidency. Under the court ruling, individuals can make campaign contributions to any number of candidates or groups without being subjected to a limit on total spending. Current law capped overall contributions per individual at $123,000, though political candidates themselves are allowed to spend as much as their own wealth as they like. The court’s decision is likely to be welcomed by Republicans and opposed by Democrats. Republicans have a fund-raising advantage in the 2014 election cycle, and several very wealthy donors have given tens of millions to conservative candidates and causes.
The supreme court is in a race to beat congress to the lowest rating out of everything. This includes hemorrhoids, cancer, bird flu, etc.
I can no longer agree with any conservative or liberal views. The liberal views were always a bit of a stretch but now….
Sheldon Adelson approves this ruling. Hell, he probably paid for it.
Even the Head Nigger In Charge hates the Men In Black Robes …. when it’s convenient.
“Ultimately I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an UNELECTED GROUP OF PEOPLE would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”
—— HNIC, April 2, 2012 Press COnference
Sheldon Adelson is going to fund Gene Simmons for President
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wEbhdNJqw4g
“Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power and the love of money Separately each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but when united in view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent of effects. Place before the eyes of such men, a post of honor that shall be at the same a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it….
And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable pre-eminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your Government and be your rulers. And these too will be mistaken in the expected happiness of their situation: For their vanquished competitors of the same spirit, and from the same motives will perpetually be endeavoring to distress their administration, thwart their measures, and render them odious to the people.”
Benjamin Franklin, 1787
Spotted: Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman meets with John McCain
Stephen Schwarzman just loves visiting Washington.
That’s about all the chairman, CEO and co-founder of private-equity firm Blackstone Group BX would tell MarketWatch on Wednesday after being spotted on the Senate side of the Capitol. Schwarzman was being shown around by Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican to whom the CEO has donated in the past.
McCain said Schwarzman “was in town and he asked to have lunch,” but was similarly tight-lipped about what the two men discussed.
Schwarzman wouldn’t answer a question about proposals in Washington to tax private-equity profits at a higher rate – something both President Barack Obama and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp have both proposed to do.
Could Schwarzman be gearing up to support McCain again? McCain hasn’t said if he’ll run for Senate again in 2016 but is set to headline an April 24 fundraiser at a Phoenix hotel in April, the Arizona Republic reported last month.
– Robert Schroeder
Thank God for wealthy people willing to counterbalance ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, NYT, WaPo, every single union and 95% of the TV and movie industries. The Google Industrial Complex is aligning itself with the democrat party to create a US version of Mexico’s PRI, destined to reign for seven straight decades and we’re supposed to worry about a few rich guys funding the equivalent of the National Action Party? Fuck that. The Evvvillll Koch Brothers’ campaign contributions pale in comparison to those of rich leftist donors, but that doesn’t stop the left from braying “Koch suckers” the way they bray “Boooosh”. Let a thousand flowers bloom. If malevolent donors have “too much influence”, let the other side make the “malevolent donors” a campaign issue. What part about “congress shall make no law..abridging the freedom of speech” do people not understand?
Expect More Divisive Politics
These rulings will result in more extreme candidates on both sides of the aisle, essentially the worst candidates money can buy.
Unions and union advocates will promote extreme-left candidates while the war-mongers and the religious wrong will promote their brand of politics.
Expect “litmus” tests from each party when doling out campaign funds. Those in the middle will find fewer and fewer candidates to chose from.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Swimming against the tide is hard enough. Leave it to the “Supremes” to throw shit in your face as they go by in a powerboat.
What a fucking joke this “Republic” has become. Does anyone outside of the two coasts think we are a country “ruled by law” anymore.
FUCK I am so pissed off, I wanna scream!
Goodnight, America..
MA
During my commute I often listen to one of the neocon radio stations (as if there were any others here). Most of the radio hosts are local guys I’d never heard of. In the evening is Michael Medved’s show. His signature line is “America, the greatest country on God’s green earth.”
I’ve never really been much of a fan of this guy and as my views have evolved, I like him less and less. However I wonder what purpose does it serve to tell his audience what they would most like to believe? Is this true anymore (or was it ever?). I don’t think so. America had it’s high and low points, but I see absolutely nothing positive to be gained by attempting to lead anyone to think anything good of it in it’s present incarnation whatsoever.
The only good thing America ever offered to the world was a nation founded, not on conquest, not on religion and not on race or ethnicity but on an idea. Liberty. That’s why it was called The American Experiment. Well fuck, that experiment ended a long time ago.
I think I just listen to this station to piss me off.
PS. Fuck America
Zarathustra says:
“PS. Fuck America”
Wait a few years and historians will reveal that these were the best of times in the best of all possible countries. The truth is the past is all a fantasy, Hoover sent out the goons to disperse the bonus army, FDR had his detractors. A chief executive has the responsibility to secure the state, insure trade and suppress strong foreign nations. The Tao guide to governance suggests keeping the populace fat, dumb and happy. We’re almost there.
I am torn on this issue.
The first amendment covers freedom of speech and the right to petition. Courts have equated the right to petition as the right to lobby. Courts have equated freedom of speech to be include the right to support campaigns of candidates financially.
I do not absolutely believe the right to petition means the right to lobby. An option would be for paid lobbyists to be outlawed. But if that is done, unions will have a huge advantage. So I do not have the answer.
IF political donations are allowed under the First Amendment, then it is CLEARLY un-Constitutional to limit that allowance – either it is allowed, or it is not. And there are to be be NO laws made that infringe on the freedom of speech. That is CLEARLY what the First Amendment says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
So the question is, are donations covered? They have been deemed so. I think that is a mistake. I think ALL donations should be disallowed. I do not see them covered explicitly, so a case to disallow ALL political donations. That is the decision that needs to be made.
However, that would give TOTAL control of information flow to the media.
And that would suck sweaty balls. So maybe disallowing donations is very bad indeed.
So, I have no answer, no solution, no advice.
This isn’t American anymore, Z, it’s the USSA, the United Socialist States of America. More people in the socialist state of Illinois are on welfare than work jobs. Everywhere you go here, people that try and work for a living are angry and complaining about all the lazy piles of shit that sit on their asses all day long and suck on the government tit.
Oh, it’s not Obama’s fault is the standard MSM reply, but he increased welfare spending by 45%, made it so anyone can get on welfare, and encourages people to get on welfare and food stamps. He’s absolutely destroyed any unity that once existed in this country. Everyone is at everyone else’s throat. He’s spread hate, distrust, and anger across this land. And Obama and the liberal progressives are trying to run every aspect of our lives.
This ain’t America any more, bucko, it’s gone. With the debt Obama’s run up, I don’t see how we’ll ever recover. It will take at least a decade to undo the damage he’s done, it that’s even possible. There is nobody to advocate for “the people” any longer, the democrats have a majority of the FSA, Mexicans and other minorities, and even millenials that think big government and socialism is the way to get ahead in life.
The saving grace for this country is that the socialists will run out of other people’s money some day. The dollar will be worthless after the Fed has inflated into nothingness, and printed trillions and trillions more so the socialists can continue to spend trillions on their social programs, entitlements, and welfare state. It’s all going to collapse into a smoldering heap that we’ll never recover from. History will wonder how and why people stood by and let Obama destroy this country. There’s always some asshole that ruins and destroys the empire.
I’m not good at charades, AWD. What are you trying to say?
I read the comments, and all I see is that the decision is “bad”.
No one addresses whether the decision follows the Constitution.
Well, does it? If it is un-Constitutional, make your fucking case.
I posted the First Amendment for your reading pleasure. Do people have a right to donate, per the First? Yes or no. If the answer is no, then how do you reconcile the right to petition, and the right to free speech? If the person cannot donate directly, can they pay millions, or billions, if they have the money, for their own ads favoring a candidate? Clearly, the First amendment gives that right.
What about a person organizing a whole political run – they pay for staff, for ads, for whatever in support of a candidate, but the candidate has no authority over the expenditure. Surely that is legal – again it is in pursuit of Freedom of Speech. Additionally, it could be called Freedom of the Press, too, I imagine.
Where are the professed libertarians? Do you or do you not believe in the Constitution?
Either you believe and want to uphold the Constitution or you do not. Criticizing the decision without mentioning whether or not the decision reflects the Constitution is bullshit.
I would be far more worried about the 4 that somehow have interpreted a right to limit the First Amendment. They will have drawn some very convenient left-wing political conclusions to support their votes.
I’m torn, too, Llpoh. On one hand, I see occasional benefits to the ‘right to petition,’ even when it includes the use of lobbyists (the bad ones have given the profession a bad name, just like lawyers, but there are good ones that do enormous ‘good’ by knowing how to work the system).
The issue I have with the SC’s decision is that — while I understand they see it as a First Amendment right — it creates a new “class” of citizen. Those that can afford to seek political favor, intend to influence the process with donations, clearly have an advantage over those who do not.
But, isn’t that a function of our current, dysfunctional political system? If we had stuck to the campaign finance laws established by Congress prior to the 2008 election, we may have restricted these donations. If candidates could only work with defined amounts provided by Congress, there would be a more “fair” system where the candidate with the largest war chest wouldn’t stand an advantage. But, guess who threw that concept out the window? Because he could, even though all his speeches prior to then decried funding inequalities.
The second issue I have with this decision is that it builds on the Citizens United decision that created “corporations as persons” in that they could have recognized rights under the First Amendment to begin with. Again, this establishes a dual-level citizenry debate that centers around whether those who have more money have more access, a higher influence in the process.
I think we can all agree that money = results in today’s political system. That’s the very reason why we must break it down and reform it, as happens in 4Ts. I just hope we retain the good things about that system, instead of replacing it with a more monarchistic / totalitarian one, which seems to be the way we’re headed.
Sorry; didn’t see your follow-up post until after I finished mine. I’d love to debate this — as a Constitutional issue — here, if possible. It’s easy to claim “it’s all bad” but I think the issue is more complex than that.
llpoh, you are missing the primary issue. Yes, I agree that anyone, even an evil billionaire like Adelson should be able to do whatever the fuck he prefers with his money, including wasting it on republicans. It’s his money and it’s his free speech.
However, if we had a very small government with very limited powers, as the constitution enumerates, no billionaire would bother since it wouldn’t advance his agenda, whether ideological or economic in any way.
What we have is this fucked up version of “america” that is so distorted beyond the constitution that nobody can make any sense of it. Given that reality, what is the right thing to do?
My answer is that the constitution is nothing but a piece of paper and means nothing. Give us the government that we had in 1780 and I couldn’t care less who donated anything to what…okay scratch that, I regard the constitution as illegitimate and illegal and that the legal authority of the United States resides in the Articles of Confederation.
Meet John Hanson, the first President of the United States:
http://www.marshallhall.org/hanson.html
Thinker – it is a Constitutional issue.
The fact is, it truly seems to me that the ruling abides by and supports what the Constitution says. The previous campaign laws were likely un-Constitutional and may well have failed a challenge.
If that is the case, what is the option? A Constitutional Amendment. And that is not happening.
And even if it did, how would the other issues be addressed? Too much media or union power, and people financing ads and such individually?
The only solution is honest politicians. And that is not happening either.
I am starting to think that the world/US is simply too big to govern. That no system can provide a solution, and that all are doomed to fail simply because of the vast numbers of people and the propensity for corruption at all levels.
Z – I agree with your comment except for the last paragraph. a lot of wisdom there, but I disagree completely re the Constitution. We need to stop fearing it, and rather need to uphold it.
Good point, Llpoh, but a question — did you agree with the Citizens United decision that said corporations can be considered “people” under the Constitution, with the same rights?
I think today’s decision hinged very much on that one… that, by considering corporations as people, then they need to be granted the same rights as The People as individuals.
I equate this to the debate over State’s rights (10th Amendment), which was significantly altered after the Civil War. These decisions keep favoring ever-broader interpretations of what is considered citizenry in the United States. They keep saying that broader powers of ‘society’ over the individual is favored in lieu of the individual’s rights. This is a core part of the legal argument for NSA surveillance as well.
How far do we go on this track before there is no longer any recognition of individual rights? We start with campaign finance favoring “society” over individuals, but what happens when it becomes 2nd Amendment rights? Because you know they’re going to work that to their advantage… that’s the whole point of Progressivism.
Thinker – that to my understanding is not exactly what was said.
Basically, corporations are deemed to have the same legal rights and obligations as people. This has been the case for many, many years. Citizen United simply confirmed what is essentially long-standing law. In Citizens United, the ” United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.” It was not a decision solely re corporations. It affirmed the right of unions to do what they have long done, and granted the same rights to corps and other associations.
Without having the legal rights of people, corps cannot/could not enter into contracts, be sued, etc. Corps are obliged to follow all laws, same as people.
Given that corps are owned by people, and that those owners have the right to dictate the policies and procedures of the corp, it seems not too long a bow to draw that corps be able to exercise similar rights with respect to the First Amendment. Those rights are being exercised, presumably, for the benefit of and on behalf of their owners.
I really have no problem with the decision. It seems consistent with established law, and seems consistent with the First Amendment.
I would be far more afraid of the lefty Justices and how they would have bent the ruling to favor unions, but to exclude corporations.
As Z saaid, it is the scope of govt that is the issue, and the rampant corruption that is so pervasive. I am not afraid of the Constitution. I simply want established law to be followed, and that corrupt politicians, unions and corporations be made to pay for their crimes. That is the issue.
And the most despised cranky old rich bastard has the last laugh
[img
[/img]
Llpoh, with all due respect, what’s with this “torn” bullshit? If the New York Times uses its freedom of speech to endorse DeBlasio and someone else wants to say that DeBlasio is a statist asshole, what’s that someone else supposed to do – print off a bunch of black and white 8.5 X 11 copies and staple them to telephone poles? No – the only effective way to have your say these days is via paid media. Speech costs money, at least if you want to have any hope of that speech being heard. Even if you wanted to staple flyers to telephone poles, you might pay someone to do the stapling. And trying to limit donations to candidates as opposed to “independent expenditures” is a distinction without a difference. Virtually all campaign spending goes into advertising, aka speech. Why should the New York Times, Inc. be able to endorse an entire slate of candidates, with each endorsement being worth untold sums, while Llpoh would (under the recently thrown out scheme) be limited to giving $2,500 each to 18 candidates? Why should the New York Times, Inc. get to have more free speech than Llpoh? They shouldn’t. Fuck all of this censorship bullshit. I can’t believe how many people seem to think that censorship is fine as long as we only censor the “right” people and only just the right amount of censorship.
Seems to me a person needs to be paying Fed taxes to get a Fed vote. Otherwise, what is happening will continue to happen, but moreso:
The Free Shit Army will increasingly vote for more free shit, and those that produce will be forced to provide even more free shit each day. Once the Free Shit Army is large enough – it is now large enough – it will become unstoppable.
Iska – I am torn because fact is money is buying politicians, and I would love to see the end of that.
But in the end, I come down on the side of the Constitution.
And I did point out the point you are making that without the ability of individuals to fund elections/whatever, the power would entirely vest in the media, which I think I said would suck sweaty balls or somesuch.
Nevertheless, I am not happy re the influence of money over elected officials. So I am torn.
If we could have a $5 poll tax things would be better. Literacy tests were also declared unconstitutional, but I don’t think they addressed numeracy tests. Those would be good. If you can add two 2-digits numbers, you get a ballot. If not, you walk out of the polling place hanging your head in shame.