This is disappointing. The original ruling rested, in part, on the idea that there was no evidence of money corrupting politics. Montana had plenty of evidence of money corrupting politics there - I'm surprised they didn't even really take the case and listen to the argument.
And once again Air demonstrates that he doesn't understand politics/Supreme Court. Or government. Or really, anything in general. Another victory for free speech.
Are you American? Did you take American History? Did you pass it? The constitution never explicitly gave the courts the power they enjoy today. Google Marbury v Madison The supreme court has a long list of very stupid decisions they have made and in 50 years this will be regarded in the same light.
We're a better country than this. Super PAC Contributions Top $300 Million, Most Goes To GOP Groups WASHINGTON -- The Republican presidential campaign of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan got another boost from big donors in July. Republican super PACs, particularly the pro-Mitt Romney Restore Our Future and the Karl Rove-founded American Crossroads, both of which are spending big to help the Romney-Ryan ticket, continued to dominate in fundraising after raising $19.4 million in July, compared to $9.73 million raised by their Democratic counterparts. After pulling in nearly $30 million in July, super PACs have now raised more than $300 million for the 2012 election. Mega-donors giving $500,000 or more to these unlimited money groups remain the biggest source of funds, accounting for 68 percent of all contributions.
Parity hurts, doesn't it? Maybe we should just move to direct, unlimited (but full reported) donations directly to candidates, and only to candidates. That said, I think it's hysterical how you guys are all up in arms simply because Obama doesn't have his crazy monetary advantage anymore. It wasn't that long ago that his campaign was bragging about how they were going to spend $1 billion on his re-election campaign.
I think it's hysterical how you believe this debate is over Obama having or not having a monetary advantage.
It is about Obama losing his money advantage. Just admit it, the catharsis will make you feel better.
Right, that's why people have been outraged about it since January 2010 and why the decision has been universally reviled by the public. They were specifically worried that Romney might outraise Obama in August 2012 due to something something time machine blah blah blah. Oh and no, clown, you cannot borrow our time machine.
I'm sorry, maybe I should have said DEMOCRAT monetary advantage. Citizen's United turned the tide of money in politics. Suddenly, businesses had a seat at the table and could support candidates that would represent them. You guys have been incensed about it because in one fell swoop, capitalism was finally able to strike back. It's a beautiful thing and may go down in history as the single most important cog in saving our country from the soft tyranny of liberalism.
Actually no, direct corporate contributions and independent expenditures sanctioned by Citizens United haven't changed very much in the grand scheme- the problem is actually anonymous donations that are laundered via citizens united-style 501(c)'s...much like 527's in 2004. YOu should actually learn something about campaign finance/election law in order to not appear ignorant about it to strangers on the internet. Though honestly, saying "hallelujah businesses now control the elections!" makes it appear as if that might not be a concern for you...is it?
I absolutely find delight in the liberals crying about how the Republicans are raising more money than they are. The right has the momentum!
It doesn't matter in the long run who wins - Romney or Obama. Romney will accelerate an American collapse to be sure - as he is weak and will capitulate to his base whereas Obama has some ability to work with conservatives and stand-up to liberals in his party. The amount of money overshadows both of these guys and threatens to change the very nature of our democracy. Don't think all this money in politics is "benefiting the GOP" - it is in fact benefiting the rich. Handing more and more power to the very very few. Today, that will be the GOP, but ultimately, the Dems will move towards those positions to get more access to the money in order to stay competitive. In fact, both sides will move even more to get that money as it becomes clear they can not win elections without it. And then our democracy becomes a shame and really we are actually plutocracy. And that should worry you. That the laws in this country, that every facet of what happens, will purely be driven by what is good for the profits of a few. That might be fine if you are rich yourself, and if you don't have kids, because at some point, some of your descendants are likely to be middle class. And you are really screwing them over big time.
I offered a compromise solution. Unlimited donations to candidates which must be fully reported. Outside group campaigning then made completely illegal. Free speech with full disclosure.
Did you seriously just write that? Obama is the WORST I've ever seen at working across the aisle. He's likely the worst in history at it. He doesn't even try.
The biggest problem with that is that few voters are going to read the reports and realize that their politicians are being bought off. Does anyone know how other countries combat oligarchy?
