has the citizen's united ruling backfired on republcans

AMA is the guilty party

 

In addition Cruz probably makes money by selling his list so his folks can continue buying such products as penis enlargers, gold certificates, survivalist supplies, the latest cancer cures that doctors won't tell them about, etc.

 

Thanks for proving the opposite-- that they are the problem. Medicare runs at about a 2% for the same service i.e, that is providing insurance that allows folks to go to the doctors and hospital.s The, say extra 13 to 18% could cover everyone.

 

This morning the Roberts Court doubles down on Citizens United.

Supreme Court strikes down another key campaign finance pillar

By a 5-4 ruling, the court ruled that aggregate limits on campaign contributions are an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.

 

Democracy sure was nice, huh?

 

What's the point of elections anymore? Welcome to the oligarchy of America.

Somewhere the Koch brothers are giggling.

 

SCOTUS = Kangaroo Court

 

Obama's completely inappropriate scolding of the Supreme Court Justices during the SOTU a couple of years ago pretty much solidified this outcome. Actions have consequences. When you try to talk down to the third branch of government and intimidate them, it can backfire on you.

 

I know. Just look at how President Bloomberg bought the last election, or how Rudy Giuliani crushed McCain in the 2008 primary, or how Howard Dean bought the 2004 Democratic nomination, or how Carly Fiorina defeated Barbara Boxer with her war chest. Clearly a sign of the insidious hold that money has on politics.

Oh wait.

 

Citizen's United happened before that dumbass.

Can't you break out of your petty little world and see that this is not good for the country no matter the party?

 

You clearly have a low regard for the SCOTUS.

 

So, anyone else ready to give up on the two party ballot box "democracy" and ready to start advocating for direct action and real democracy?

 

So you are admitting the right wing of the SC has a political agenda?

 

You're being deliberately flippant. I don't care which shade of the ideological spectrum you fall on, this is bad for fair elections on every scale.

Money has the ability to drown out voices in a media dominated by paid space. If you haven't seen it, I encourage you to watch Frontline's documentary "Big Sky, Big Money" about the massive influx of untraceable, outside dollars into Montana's Senate election.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/big-sky-big-money/

If you believe that people deserve representatives who truly represent their communities and local interests, you should be in favor of stricter campaign finance laws. When unlimited, unaccounted-for money is allowed to flow into Montana from out of state, you can be assured that the donors do not care about the local community's interests. They care about power and maintaining a national status quo.

When candidates in local and statewide elections are beholden not to their constituents, but to the largest donors from New York, Wichita or San Francisco, they are representatives in name only.

And if you say "Bad candidates like that will be voted out," I grant you the possibility. However, count me among the pessimists who believe that any unpopular incumbent can simply be replaced by another candidate willing to take unlimited funds and parrot talking points all the way to Washington.

This is not a conservative or liberal issue. It's a fundamental American one. When the influence of our voices are drowned out by paid-for "representatives" we all lose.

 

and George Soros.

 

A terrific ruling for free speech.

Thomas said this didn't go far enough and that individual caps should also have been struck down as unconstitutional. I think that will be the next challenge.

These caps were designed to limit how much speech individuals could produce, a clear 1st Amendment violation.

 

Ridiculous, money is not speech.

Why don't we just dispense with elections and let offices go to the highest bidder?

 

Freedom of speech! Unless you disagree with someone's bigotry. Then you should just shut up and quit being a bully!!!

 

That would be more honest, so, I say we do that.

Perhaps if we remove the illusion that government is the manifestation of the people's will, or that either political party actually represents or cares about the people (instead of the interest of their big money doners) -- then perhaps the populous will see the need to abandon those two political parties and stop respecting the validity and authority of this government.