Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Posted by dublinbay z6 KS (My Page) on
Wed, Apr 2, 14 at 10:52

The Robert's Court has struck down certain limitations on how much money rich folks can contribute to campaigns. I guess if I am a multi-billionaire, I can now contribute a spare billion to my favorite party? How is that not buying an election? Or is politics going to become nothing but competing millionaires/billionaires on both sides out-bidding each other to see who will be the next party in power?

Here is part of an AP article on yahoo.com on the topic:

The Supreme Court struck down limits Wednesday in federal law on the overall campaign contributions the biggest individual donors may make to candidates, political parties and political action committees.

The justices said in a 5-4 vote that Americans have a right to give the legal maximum to candidates for Congress and president, as well as to parties and PACs, without worrying that they will violate the law when they bump up against a limit on all contributions, set at $123,200 for 2013 and 2014. That includes a separate $48,600 cap on contributions to candidates.

But their decision does not undermine limits on individual contributions to candidates for president or Congress, now $2,600 an election.

Chief Justice John Roberts . . . said the aggregate limits do not act to prevent corruption, the rationale the court has upheld as justifying contribution limits.
. . . . . .
Congress enacted the limits in the wake of Watergate-era abuses to discourage big contributors from trying to buy votes with their donations and to restore public confidence in the campaign finance system.



I'm rather appalled at this ruling. How about you?

Kate

Here is a link that might be useful: High court voids overall contribution limits


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

We were posting at the same time. I will delete my post.

Here are my thoughts .

Just heard on the news that the Supreme Court has struck down any laws that limit how much an individual can give to a political campaign.

First it was corporation , now individuals. I would be very unhappy with this decision if I were an American. Now individuals don't have to hide behind PACS ...they can buy their candidates straight out.

Bye, bye to any thoughts of campaign reform...too bad.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

I agree, chase. To me, it sound like elections will become grand auctions--the politician going to the highest bidder.

In addition to being appalled, I'm shocked at the ruling. If anyone can think of a good side to the ruling, please do share your viewpoint. I can only see the negative.

Kate


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

It IS all negative... to the thinking person. No good can come of it... even though this has been ongoing, just a bit more discreet.

Down the crapper... over greed for money and power... as predicted.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Yup


 o
The rich can now buy any election

Oh yes.

Maybe they want to run for their position at SCOTUS - they could make out like bandits they are

It's sickening

We are going to be a third world banana republic soon.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Coming near you - a trillion dollar election.

All this money could be so better spent elsewhere.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Billions were spent in the last election and I didn't hear anybody but Ink questioning it.

Imagine how screwed up this country will be when and if the voters actually decide who wins.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

What's to be appalled about?

The consequences?

Perhaps.

Unlike many liberals, I am a conservative that knows that the job of the United States Supreme Court is to decide the merits of a case based on the United States Constitution.

Not politics, not an outcome, nothing else.
Not consequences--but the CONSTITUTION applied to the facts of the case.

At least this branch of our government seems to be working.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Wed, Apr 2, 14 at 13:16

"I don't remember anyone questioning..." Brushworks, is that like, "I don't believe tobacco is addictive?"

BTW, you personally are less powerful as a citizen than you were yesterday, but, sounds like you think congratulations are in order. Your "side"..."won."

Wrong. The winners here don't run with little people. The TPers and base are just a crowd of nuisances to be used and controlled.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Was Ink around still during the last election? I certainly might be mistaken, but I thought he had left by then.

I recall many threads about just that topic, Brush. Many.

If you dont remember anyone but Ink mentioning it, why didnt you, yourself speak up?


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

"Unlike many liberals, I am a conservative that knows that the job of the United States Supreme Court is to decide the merits of a case based on the United States Constitution.

Not politics, not an outcome, nothing else.
Not consequences--but the CONSTITUTION applied to the facts of the case. "

This was a 4/5 split decision amongst the Judges.

Seems to me that if four out of nine of the Supreme Court Judges can disagree with this ruling then so can the same percent of Americans.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

That pesky Constitution got in the way again!

The intent of that document was to limit GOVERNMENT, not the people. It was to tell the government what it cannot do, not tell the people what they cannot do.

I was all in favor of campaign limits of no more than $5 max from individuals or corporations. But my union overruled me.

Unions are corporations too, remember. So their limits are also removed. The Lawyers can now contribute a gazillion dollars to fight any insurance reform.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Wed, Apr 2, 14 at 14:25

The constitution is also intended to achieve a balance of powers. It was designed to protect the many from the tyranny of a few and also to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority.

The balance and the integrity of our electoral process are severely undermined, the principle of one man, one vote kicked under a chair. We all know that. This is one more in a series of transfers of power from We The People to a wealthy few who want their wishes to outweigh those of everyone else.

We need a constitutional amendment. Bad. They're sorta hard to pass, though.

We could try something like THIS, though:

Here is a link that might be useful: An Elegantly Simple Way to Revolutionize Government


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on
Wed, Apr 2, 14 at 13:55

"Unlike many liberals, I am a conservative that knows that the job of the United States Supreme Court is to decide the merits of a case based on the United States Constitution.

Not politics, not an outcome, nothing else.
Not consequences--but the CONSTITUTION applied to the facts of the case. "

This was a 4/5 split decision amongst the Judges.

Seems to me that if four out of nine of the Supreme Court Judges can disagree with this ruling then so can the same percent of Americans.

*

Of course Americans can disagree, and obviously the court will not be unanimous in decisions.

Many Americans disagreed with Roe V Wade.

We will not all agree with the decisions, but this is the process, the process works.

However, unless a constitutional amendment is passed of the Court chooses to overrule itself, stare decisis stands.

Which means the ruling today is here to stay--at least for awhile.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Absolutely agree with the fact this is the process....and also agree that Americans can voice their opinion about that decision without being accused of not understanding what the job of the Supreme Court is.

"Unlike many liberals, I am a conservative that knows that the job of the United States Supreme Court is to decide the merits of a case based on the United States Constitution.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Speaking as a long-suffering resident of a swing-state, if last election is any barometer, the end result is a disgusted populace. When every. single. commercial break on TV and radio is 3 slimy attack ads one after the other, more money isn't going to make any difference one way or another, on one side or the other.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Not politics, not an outcome, nothing else.

Very few decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are unanimous, so different interpretations of what is constitutional are the norm, both in and out of the court room. Once can see legal experts playing the pundit on any number of topics, and while not in agreement, all basing their opinions on their interpretation U.S. Constitution.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Wed, Apr 2, 14 at 18:12

Since Corporations have been elevated to "people" status I have to wonder what status have we now become?


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

I don't think this will make a bit of difference.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Employees were already being referred to as "units" back when the pimply faced, ink not yet dry on diploma econ graduates started being hired on to kick off the inexorable downsizing process a couple of decades ago.

"Units" is probably still in use and is as dehumanizing today as it was back then.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Wed, Apr 2, 14 at 19:06

Dissent was reportedly based on a lack of lower court rulings examining this issue in action and also on an extremely narrow definition of "corruption." The conservative majority limited it to a literal "quid pro quo" exchange of money for political favor.

The dissent was concerned with corruption of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Justice Breyer, "Where money speaks enough, the public voice will not be heard."


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

As long as political money flows from the top down, there is not going to be a good political result for average citizens.

The remedy is to take political action as a civic duty, and begin to organize from the ground up.

In most states, political party representation at the precinct level is voted on in the primaries. People need to familiarize themselves with who is representing them on the local level, and find someone else if the current rep ("committeeperson") is not sufficiently politically aware.

Then, local people must work to financially support candidates, instead of expecting the political process to be a freebee.

As stronger local organizations utilizing the knowledge of politically active locals builds, a counterbalance to this decision will develop.

Each person still has one vote.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

"Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard.”

I like this. I know it applies to this decision as a dissent but it could apply to so many situations - not just in the U.S. but in my country as well.

You guys are going to be listening to so many more ads with the freeing up of the quantity of them - which will be the result with the increase in aggregate spending to preserve the freedom of political speech - too bad the Supreme Court can't improve the quality of them at the same time.

- eibren - "Then, local people must work to financially support candidates, instead of expecting the political process to be a freebee."

How will the poor be able to maintain a presence in the voting process?


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

"How will the poor be able to maintain a presence in the voting process?"

How do "the poor" maintain a voting presence right now; how will that change? I don't see how it will change. Right now, the voting poor are given promises and maybe something free. Maybe if there's more money floating around they will get more extravagant promises and better stuff.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Posted by nancy_in_venice_ca SS24 z10 CA (My Page) on
Wed, Apr 2, 14 at 15:29

Not politics, not an outcome, nothing else.

Very few decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are unanimous, so different interpretations of what is constitutional are the norm, both in and out of the court room.

*

The only interpretation of import of what is constitutional is what the US Supreme Court says it is in their opinion.

They have spoken.

Dissenters don't win.

This post was edited by demifloyd on Wed, Apr 2, 14 at 20:17


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

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,” Roberts wrote in the ruling. “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 pure, utter bulls*it. I can't believe that Roberts and the other four justices who joined in the opinion, actually believe this. If they do, I have some great water-rich land in Florida I'd like to sell them. If they don't believe it, it shows that they don't care about our republic and the ordinary people that benefit from it, only about the extraordinarily wealthy people who want the "best" Congress their money can buy.

This really makes me sick. I don't for one minute believe this was decided on constitutional issues but on political beliefs and support of plutocracy. After all, Roberts and his ilk are part of that upper layer of people interested only in their own well-being. As long as they've got theirs, the rest of us are on our own.

Yes, I believe we are fast becoming a third-world country. It's only a matter of time before we are. I just hope I'm not alive to see it happen in its totality.

Edited to change democracy to republic.

This post was edited by dockside on Wed, Apr 2, 14 at 23:21


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

I have often felt that campaign donation limits were an unrealistic device. IMO it was like placing a dam before a river it was too weak to hold back.

Politics is an alternative to war. People need to underwtand this. In all out war there are no artificial limits.

The wealthy won in this round, and they will continue to win as long as the rest of us do not participate fully and effectively in our democracy.
In case anyone didn't understand why it is so important to have the presidents keep a balance in the Supreme Court, they should now.

The poor still have their votes, if they choose to use them. Often they have chosen not to, and have suffered as a result.

People that think politics is disgusting and something which they wish to avoid can learn by watching how people of wealth deal with it. Plan or be planned upon. Control or be controlled.

In a democracy, abstinence is not a virtue.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

The battle of the oligarchs is on!


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Chase said: "Seems to me that if four out of nine of the Supreme Court Judges can disagree with this ruling then so can the same percent of Americans."
*************
Roe V Wade was 5/4 too.

Here's the deal. The limits on donations to any one candidate are still in place. So Moe Thackery still cannot donate $1,000,000 to Joe Plaintiff, who's running for Congress. Those limits stay in place.

But now he can donate that maximum to as many candidates as he wants.

There never were any limits placed on donations to political parties. George Soros always could give the Democrat party $50 billion if he wanted.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Roe vs Wade was 5/4 too...doesn't stop a large number of Americans from thinking that was a wrong minded decision.

That's all my point was. If the Supremes can disagree on a ruling so can the American public.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

I rather agree that this ruling will make no appreciable difference to the current status quo of elections - but I disagree that the "poor" have no voice in elections. They work for their candidates and vote for them even when they cannot support them with a substantial amount of money. All together the poor gave quite a bit to Obama's election war chest and played a large role in his election and reelection - so don't count them out even though they are not mighty as individuals - when they resolve to band together, governments topple - one way or another.

It just takes enough pressure from the top to harden the resolve of those at the bottom. Big money making its presence known even more blatantly than in the past - with actual names attached - may just provide that pressure.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Thu, Apr 3, 14 at 8:27

What's all this "poor" people stuff? This is about us. If ONLY it were only poor people who didn't vote.

Our problem not only isn't poor people, it's not even right-left division because there's always enough overlap agreement to take the predators exploiting us down. Most of us are unhappy about it, and we can wipe them right off the field with our vote. Any time we choose.

The problem is the very large number of irresponsible, lazy, citizens who always insist nothing can be done, there's always been corruption, nothing will ever change, etc. ad nauseum.

They let their national roof leak while they ignore it, walls grow mold while they complain that others are incompetent, weeds grow tall in cracks in the national driveway while they insist it'll always be that way, and sit and watch while the national house is burgled again and again because nothing can be done.

We all know dozens of the type. There are some right here, on a political forum no less. THEIR acceptance of corruption and refusal to take personal responsibility is the reason we haven't put a stop to it.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

This morning on Morning Joe (MSNBC), the point was made that this ruling somehow opens up contributions to the parties and makes them stronger. They had been losing power in the past because the previous laws created a situation which multiplied super-PACs and most of the money went to them--the point being that PACs were rogue players, all over the place and no one to control them. Therefore, this present ruling which lowers the incentive to donate to super-PACs and encourages contributions to parties means that there will be more direction and control by the parties.

I have to admit, I don't quite understand how and why that works that way, but my first reaction was that it is good to strengthen the political parties rather than having all the rogue super-PACs running their own separate campaigns attacking certain candidates (I'm still furious over the job they did on John Kerry when he ran for president)--but then I got to thinking about each party depending on big money from a couple filthy rich donors on each side, and I'm not sure strengthening the parties that way is necessarily a good thing either.

Can't wait for wall-to-wall ads on my TV this upcoming election cycle!

Kate


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Yes, Kate, and maybe drones flying over you with political banners as you garden, lovely...


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Kate, I listened to that on Morning Joe, also.

Rosie, I agree with you.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Well, rosie, that is why my first reference to poor was in quotes - after all nearly everyone I know qualifies in that regard when compared to the Kochs and Adelsons of the world.

And not everyone who struggles financially in more difficult circumstances than most of us relative poors do is a simpleton after all - just because one is not handy with money does not relegate one to the status of mindless and clueless.

The fact that the richie riches are trying so hard to keep large segments of the population from voting is a tribute to the power of "little" people. I for one have never failed to vote my conscience in an election (I even come out for midterms!) and I believe the next few elections may indicate that the numbers of those who feel as I do are swelling.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

I was shocked and disturbed when I heard this news. It can only add to the corruption which already exists in our nation, as we drift down the slippery slope from democracy toward oligarchy.

The superPACs were an awful concept, too, but this is no better.

FFIW, rosie, I agree with all your points.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Oh, tobr--tell me that, at least, they will keep the volume turned down on the loudspeakers--please! My roses don't like loud noises!

Kate


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

christopher, you seem to be fact-challenged lately. Roe v. Wade was decided by a 7-2 majority.

Here is a link that might be useful: Source, of course


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Thu, Apr 3, 14 at 11:14

Not meaning YOUR "poors," Lottirose. :)

I so agree with your, "The fact that the richie riches are trying so hard to keep large segments of the population from voting is a tribute to the power of "little" people." Absolutely! And, boy, are they trying. They know a true ungerrymandered, untampered vote would now topple many kingdoms.

Just last week or so yet another billionaire was associating national disapproval of their giant sucking machine with Nazis and the Holocaust. Awareness of their vulnerability is increasing in them at least, and they're finally getting nervous about the passive giant they've been stomping on.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Posted by lottirose (My Page) on
Thu, Apr 3, 14 at 9:57

The fact that the richie riches are trying so hard to keep large segments of the population from voting is a tribute to the power of "little" people.

*

Can you please state the source of your information, or the facts on which you base that conclusion?

Exactly who are these "richie riches" that you contend are trying to prevent exactly which segments of people from voting?

Where is this taking place?

How is it taking place--how are rich people preventing segments of society from voting when they have a right to vote?

In what elections?

Thanks.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Thu, Apr 3, 14 at 12:25

Demi, enough with the games. Sources have been presented many times over. You want to refresh your own memory, go pull them up and start reading.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
Thu, Apr 3, 14 at 12:25

Demi, enough with the games. Sources have been presented many times over. You want to refresh your own memory, go pull them up and start reading.

*

Rosie, enough with not knowing what you are talking about when it comes to me.

Unless you've been made forum monitor kindly refrain from chastising me when I asked a perfectly legitimate question(s) of a poster that made specific statements.

I want to know what Lottirose meant--exactly, and I asked nicely and succinctly.

Lottirose, not you--she made the statements.

This post was edited by demifloyd on Thu, Apr 3, 14 at 13:02


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

At the link are some comments from long-time lobbyists and donors who routinely max out their contributions every year, however now, with the limits removed, they figure they'll be hassled continuously by all the fund raisers.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

How is it taking place--how are rich people preventing segments of society from voting when they have a right to vote?

It's been in the press, going on a couple of years now.

I thought demands for answers were considered "shooting at feet " and "demanding to dance" so I'm surprised to see the inquisitor model being used.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

I'm wondering about that statement (Lottirose's at 9:57) also. The post says "The fact that the richie riches are trying so hard to keep large segments of the population from voting..."

I don't accept that as a fact. That's a pretty outrageous accusation, for both its sweeping scope and lack of hard evidence.

We all know better than to say with impunity that because we think something seems true, it is a fact. I'm surprised that this is being defended; I thought it was a figure of speech and nothing more.

I'll defend Lottirose's right to free speech, but that doesn't make every statement she posts a fact.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Posted by elvis 4 (My Page) on
Thu, Apr 3, 14 at 20:35

I'm wondering about that statement (Lottirose's at 9:57) also. The post says "The fact that the richie riches are trying so hard to keep large segments of the population from voting..."

I don't accept that as a fact. That's a pretty outrageous accusation, for both its sweeping scope and lack of hard evidence.

*

Good.

That's at least two of us, Elvis.

And to think Nancy told me it's been "in the press, going on a couple of years now."

Ironic that's not the standard used until I request an explanation for such a statement.

Hey--such answers work for Barack Obama, why not try them on us, eh?

Well it doesn't and still do not have answers.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Demi, we have discussed the attempts to restrict access to voting various times at HT. It's been in the news for different states. I don't see why Lotti should be responsible for your lack of knowledge of current events.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

"we have discussed the attempts to restrict access to voting various times at HT. It's been in the news for different states"

True, some have seen voter ID requirement as an impediment to the convenience of some voters, and that certainly has been a subject for speculation because of the controversial nature of the subject. There has also been discussion of polling place hours, etc.

It's never been established as a fact that any of these items was an attempt to restrict voting, or that rich people were responsible for said alleged attempts.

"I don't see why Lotti should be responsible for your lack of knowledge of current events."

Me neither, but Lottirose is responsible for her posts. Ask Jill. Something about "owning one's words," something to that effect.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Posted by nancy_in_venice_ca SS24 z10 CA (My Page) on
Thu, Apr 3, 14 at 21:07

Demi, we have discussed the attempts to restrict access to voting various times at HT. It's been in the news for different states. I don't see why Lotti should be responsible for your lack of knowledge of current events.

*

The support of voter ID laws--which is not limited to "the richie rich" is NOT equal to" the richie riches trying so hard to keep large segments of the population from voting is a tribute to the power of "little" people."

Support of voter ID laws is not just for poor people, and not only rich people support voter ID laws.

Talk about a stretch--I'd be ashamed to make that paltry and far reaching response to my questions of Lottirose' statement.

"I don't see why Lotti should be responsible for your lack of knowledge of current events."

Nancy, I would also be ashamed of that little unnecessary dig because no one has still answered my questions.

Lottirose made specific accusations against specific groups of people--the rich--trying to keep large segments of the population from voting.

Various news gossip and stories aside, those are serious charges and very vague--I wanted clarification.

Throwing out such charges without specificity or backing them up with facts is tantamount to a crime when others do it, why are you so eager to slam me trying to take up for Lottirose by diverting from my questions?

She is responsible for her statement, I'd like to know exactly who it is that is trying to keep a large segment of the population from voting, who they are, how they are doing it, to whom they are doing it, when they are doing it and where they are doing it, and how is it proven?

Elvis:

Me neither, but Lottirose is responsible for her posts. Ask Jill. Something about "owning one's words," something to that effect.

*
That's only for conservatives.

The peanut gallery slams and insults conservatives for even questioning wild and unsubstantiated charges.

We got our answer, Elvis.

There aren't any facts to back up those allegations.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

It's never been established as a fact that any of these items was an attempt to restrict voting,

There was the quote from the PA Republican that was repeated ad nauseum during the 2012 election cycle that was very specific in which voters were the targets of restrictions. I believe there were inadvertent admissions in another state as well -- North or South Carolina.

Demi, as someone who refuses to answer others' questions of you -- shooting at my feet I believe you call it -- I wonder why you are insisting that others respond.

And there is the possibility that Lottirose has a full life outside this forum, and is enjoying herself elsewhere.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

"And there is the possibility that Lottirose has a full life outside this forum, and is enjoying herself elsewhere."

Well, it is Spring at least temporarily in North Carolina so I have been out with my machete - well, OK ,my Felco shears, and that is where I will be found doing some sort of grunt work for the foreseeable future since at this establishment I am the head gardener, the chief cook and bottle washer, the laundress and the zoo keeper.

I do not as a rule respond to trolling nor to those who sound rather like the hectoring hyenas in The Lion King. (My boys called them hyneenas back when we watched that movie together and I have always thought it a perfect name for those who hector for effect.)

My opinions are not linked neatly to various sources on the web nor should anyone be surprised if I speak strongly without ever referencing a link particularly when I am addressing a subject that is well known in the world in general and which I currently view with shame here in North Carolina.

In addition to omnivorous reading my source for much of my opinions is my life's experience out in the world where I have lived for more years than I care to own. And since I do not think my personal life would be all that fascinating to those who know me only by a name, which is my own by the way - given to me by my mother and coupled with the name of one of my passions for a screen name, I will spare you the personal stories in so far as I can restrain myself.

The efforts of our current governor and legislature in regard to voter suppression has been well reported and are readily available for anyone who is truly curious.

However, in my experience the sort of calling out that was made in my direction yesterday does not have to do with desire for information but rather is the invitation to the dance (or the fight as it is more accurately named) and I being by and large a non-dancer will most likely not respond and certainly will not become involved in the mindless back and forth and endless repetitions that are so dear to some on this forum.

But I do own my words and will never make a statement for which there is not ample support in my experience and in the factual world from which my experience is gleaned. And if I find myself too busy with real life to play the game as some think it should be played - well, I will just call myself lucky, I suppose.

Now I must return to the thicket that I call a garden lest I wind up the way I used to tell my father he would end - with a cane grown in the window and wrapped around his neck while he slept.

Have a nice day all.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Fri, Apr 4, 14 at 10:20

I am so disgusted -- To pretend so dishonestly that many groups on the right, including GOP, have not been attempting to suppress and steal elections across the nation for some years now.

These efforts, which outraged everyone but the subversives who supported them, probably lost the right the election -- and for those subversives very deservedly so.

More, it is critical to the future of our republic that would-be election thieves lose, and keep losing. That definitely goes for people on this forum who support election theft. You must fail for the good of our country.

People in Florida 2012 making sure those who would destroy our democracy failed.

Other states, and there are thousands more.



 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Fri, Apr 4, 14 at 11:15

Another answer to sophistry:

"This report looks into the groups, empowered by the Citizens United decision, that are propagating their pro-corporate agenda. Many originated in the aftermath of Citizens United and directly point to the ruling as essential to their founding; others have been active for years but have gained new prominence as a result of the decision. What they all have in common is a relentless desire to discredit progressive ideas and elect pro-corporate candidates to office across the country. As discussed below, they also share an alarming level of dishonesty and distortion.

Common Thread of Misleading Ads
Not only are huge amounts of corporate and special interest money being poured into the elections this cycle, but the ads being underwritten are irresponsibly deceptive. As Greg Sargent writes in The Washington Post, “the sheer scale and dimension of dishonesty and distortion coming from the conservative” groups is both astonishing and irresponsible. PolitiFact even declared that ads “from ‘super PACs’ and other political groups targeting the 2010 midterm election are overwhelmingly spreading exaggerations and falsehoods.” Indeed, television stations in Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Kentucky have already refused to run attack ads which are patently false. Unfortunately, however, due to the enormous amount of spending by pro-corporate groups, many of the distortions and mistruths found in these ads will go mostly unchallenged before voters go to the polls.

The fourteen groups profiled in this report frequently employ the same dishonest, deceptive, and misleading claims in their ads, which are bankrolled by multimillionaire donors and corporations, and in some cases, secret donors. Especially with respect to health care reform, energy reform, and budget and jobs issues, the common thread of deception is apparent."

This nation has over 40 billionaire political investors, and the Koch brothers by themselves aren't even the biggest investors. Some 85% of the money went to GOP candidates and causes.

Here is a link that might be useful: After Citizens United: A Look into the Pro-Corporate Players in American Politics


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

My thanks to Lottirose and Rosie.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Here, here, Nancy!


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

My appreciation as well to both, who elevate this forum with their contributions as well as being clear and concise, well spoken and accurate.

Both in their own unique ways remind me somehow of Ohiomom's manner, who's thoughts and opinions as expressed here are missed by a lot - especially me.

This post was edited by mylab123 on Fri, Apr 4, 14 at 13:14


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Unlike many liberals, I am a conservative that knows that the job of the United States Supreme Court is to decide the merits of a case based on the United States Constitution.

Ah, I see. When liberals give their opinion on a SCOTUS ruling, you see that as not understanding the constitution, and therefore you have the right to criticize liberals for...wait for it...giving their opinion.

But, if a liberal disagrees with your opinion and states that fact, we get the usual long winded matra about you just giving your opinion on a subject.

Double standard, much?

but Lottirose is responsible for her posts. Ask Jill. Something about "owning one's words," something to that effect.

Yes, elvis, we should own our words. How, exactly, did lotti not do that? Or do you not understand what that statement means?


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

•Posted by lottirose (My Page) on Fri, Apr 4, 14 at 8:46

My opinions are not linked neatly to various sources on the web nor should anyone be surprised if I speak strongly without ever referencing a link particularly when I am addressing a subject that is well known in the world in general and which I currently view with shame here in North Carolina.

In addition to omnivorous reading my source for much of my opinions is my life's experience out in the world where I have lived for more years than I care to own. The efforts of our current governor and legislature in regard to voter suppression has been well reported and are readily available for anyone who is truly curious.

However, in my experience the sort of calling out that was made in my direction yesterday does not have to do with desire for information but rather is the invitation to the dance (or the fight as it is more accurately named) and I being by and large a non-dancer will most likely not respond and certainly will not become involved in the mindless back and forth and endless repetitions that are so dear to some on this forum.

But I do own my words and will never make a statement for which there is not ample support in my experience and in the factual world from which my experience is gleaned. And if I find myself too busy with real life to play the game as some think it should be played - well, I will just call myself lucky, I suppose.

********************************************************************
Lottirose post are always aligned with the liberals and democrates so as all will notice she received back-up and thumbs up for this statement.

I believe I made a similiar statement once that my opinion was fact.......to my way of thinking since I also have lived a long life and have retained much of what I have read and lived.
It is still mentioned MANY times and rediculed by the usual bunch and used as a yard stick to non-liberals to
link link link facts.................only applies to non-liberals.

I am lol here .
So typical.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

I believe I made a similiar statement once that my opinion was fact

Yes, you did, and yes, you were criticized for it. However, that is in no way similar to what lotti said. But, I don't expect you to understand that given that you think chance means 50-50. Yup, another one of your statements that gets brought up again and again.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Can you please state the source of your information, or the facts on which you base that conclusion?

Exactly who are these "richie riches" that you contend are trying to prevent exactly which segments of people from voting?

Where is this taking place?

How is it taking place--how are rich people preventing segments of society from voting when they have a right to vote?

In what elections?


There is a current thread that proves this point.

Here is a link that might be useful: Vote Theft.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

citywoman, opinions and facts are not the same thing (nor did Lottirose say they were).

Facts can be verified; opinions are what you make out of the facts, the interpretation you give to the facts, what you think the facts mean.

Kate


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

"Facts can be verified; opinions are what you make out of the facts, the interpretation you give to the facts, what you think the facts mean.

Kate"

Agree. so prove this:

"The fact that the richie riches are trying so hard to keep large segments of the population from voting..."

It probably would be less lame to those of us who understand this about facts: as Kate said above, "facts can be verified."

I think it's unfair to pin the allegation that anyone is trying to prevent anyone else from voting, let alone "large segments," on any one group. That is, without proof. The way it's phrased demonizes all wealthy people, and that's just not right. When making slanderous statements about a particular person or group it's a real good idea to back up your (public) statements with facts.

Most if not all of us know wealthy people. As far as I am concerned, Lottirose's statement is meant to include all of them, and they don't deserve that.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

I have no dog in this fight, so I don't know why you are challenging me to "prove" an assertion I did not even make.

However, I would guess--without too much effort--that Lottirose has the Koch brothers and Adelson and their types in mind (since she mentions them) so I don't see what the big mystery is about as far as you are concerned.. Surely you have read the numerous references (and facts!) to them and about them on this forum. And while you may not agree that limiting voter access to the polls is intended to be a suppression of certain categories of Democratic voters, we have cited Republican politicians in the past who publically declared that was what they hoped to accomplish.

Am I going to go look them up and post them for you to read? No. This is well-traveled ground on this forum--even if you somehow missed it--and I'm not going over the same old stuff again and again just for your convenience. If it were truly new info, I would provide some sources for it--but this is old stuff and can be readily found on many posts on this forum.

All I was doing here tonight was making a minor point to citywoman. I have not the slightest desire to engage in arguments just for the sake of arguing.

Kate


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Koch Brothers is the marching order outrage du jour and week from Harry Reid.

SO predictable.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Koch Brothers is the marching order outrage du jour and week from Harry Reid.
SO predictable.

Are we to ignore the other stories including Charles Koch's own Op Ed in the WSJ this week as a factor or the other stories that are even higher in a Google search. The Reid story wasnt even one of the top six stories but the false ads by the Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity and a story at Salon about the Koch's and government health care among others were.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Koch Brothers is the marching order outrage du jour

The influence of the Kochs has been discussed in HT for three to four years; their involvement with the funding of the Tea Party, ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), etc. and their attempts to influence elections in California by pouring money into the state in 2010 and 2012 for campaigns on state-wide proposition 23, 30, and 32. (Hands were slapped by CA's fair elections committee for 2012 activities.) Their activities are what makes the Kochs and their contributions discussed here.

What is too predictable is dismissing more than three years worth of concern about their activities as if none of those threads had ever happened.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

I just read the full WSJ op ed piece.

Charles Koch - another self-styled "victim". There's something predictable in that too.

In his own words - or that of his ghost writer: " Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.)"

Here is a link that might be useful: Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Posted by nancy_in_venice_ca SS24 z10 CA (My Page) on
Sat, Apr 5, 14 at 0:28

Koch Brothers is the marching order outrage du jour

What is too predictable is dismissing more than three years worth of concern about their activities as if none of those threads had ever happened.

*

And how many times have we heard the tired old mantra, thrown out by one and the mantel echoed by the peanut gallery, "outrage du jour" when conservatives bring up concerns, like convicted felon George Soros' millions to buy Barack Obama?

Yep--Democrats are getting ready for the elections by getting stuck on Koch.

I don't think most people know or care about them.

They care about if they get to keep their doctors and their insurance and if they have a full time job again.

But hey--we'll see, won't we?


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sat, Apr 5, 14 at 8:50

Now that Corporations are "People" maybe the Supreme Court should change the preamble to the Constitution too...

"We the Corporations of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"We The Corporations" would be the last nail in the peoples coffin.

Those 5 conservative morons who are supposed to defend the Constitution should be impeached if at all possible.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Completely agree, vgkg.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

"Those 5 conservative morons who are supposed to defend the Constitution should be impeached if at all possible."

I don't have any problem with that, either.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Demi, the Kochs have been inserting themselves into the politics of states where they do not reside -- ALEC being a prime example -- for years.

While for you it may just be partisan gotcha politics, those of us who take a deeper look into the situation see a threat to our democratic process. The subversion of democracy, in its more recent forms to out maneuver campaign finance restrictions, is a cause for genuine concern, no matter which political strain one supports.

There's been a redistribution of wealth to the top, and then the top has no restraints in inserting itself, by financing, in the political process and thereby controlling it. Hard-won advances in civil and voting rights, women's equality, environmental protection are now at risk, in part due to the Kochs and the influence of their billions. While you love to push your pom-poms for the elites, you seem unaware that these same so-called job creators are in no hurry to see immigration reform. A steady supply of undocumented workers for business to exploit suits them just fine. We can expect to see the amplification of privatization of profits, and socialization of expenses, just like in the Global South.

In my opinion, those that defend the actions of the Kochs by minimizing their importance are shallow thinkers, unable to conceptualize the consequences of plutocratic rule of the U.S. Or recognize the harm that plutocracy has already brought to us.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Posted by nancy_in_venice_ca SS24 z10 CA (My Page) on
Sat, Apr 5, 14 at 13:48

n my opinion, those that defend the actions of the Kochs by minimizing their importance are shallow thinkers, unable to conceptualize the consequences of plutocratic rule of the U.S. Or recognize the harm that plutocracy has already brought to us.

*

Not flapping hands is not defending.

I see nothing to defend, however.

It's a free country.

I'm pretty sure you think any conservative that disagrees with you on this topic is a shallow thinker.

Or most others.

That's a common and predictable insult lately from your camp.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Nancy I appreciate you in particular for your contributions regarding the Koch family and the negative influence and impact they have had on this country.

As far as the average American goes, being educated regarding this particular family and it's history, forewarned is forearmed


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

Demi, if you do not see the implications of unlimited campaign contributions, and the use of special interest groups such as Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks (to name only two), I suspect that you do not fully understand (or perhaps even care about) the dynamics of what the Kochs and their allies have been doing. My guess is that until it adversely affects you and your state of residence, you will be happy with plutocracy replacing our democratic republic.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

There actually is a process for the impeachment of a Supreme Court justice, but it requires the cooperation of both the House and the Senate, and proof of criminal wrongdoing. In other words, almost impossible.

It might be worth the attempt even so, to put them, on notice that they are not operating in the best interests of the countgry as a whole.

Petitions aren't that difficult to circulate, which can be delivered th House and Senate representatives for possible future action.

The powers that be don't like too many signs of discontent.

Maybe there are already some attempts in progress.


 o
Is the Supreme Court Impeachable?

There actually is a process for the impeachment of a Supreme Court justice, but it requires the cooperation of both the House and the Senate, and proof of criminal wrongdoing. In other words, almost impossible.

It might be worth the attempt even so, to put them, on notice that they are not operating in the best interests of the countgry as a whole.

Petitions aren't that difficult to circulate, which can be delivered th House and Senate representatives for possible future action.

The powers that be don't like too many signs of discontent.

Maybe there are already some attempts in progress.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

It might be worth the attempt even so, to put them, on notice that they are not operating in the best interests of the countgry as a whole.


*

Petitions don't mean squat when it comes to the U S Supreme Court.

What country do you think this is?

The best interests of the country as far as the U S Supreme Court is concerned is to apply the facts of a situation to the Constitution.

Nothing more, nothing less.

They do not operate by public opinion.

Leave the one remaining bastion of freedom alone, the executive and legislative branch operate by public opinion and personal agendas.


 o
RE: Supreme Courts Rule: Can the rich now buy an election?

I believe the petition Eibren is referring to is one to your Government to impeach one of the Supreme Court Justice's....not a petition to the Supreme Court.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here