(Mike Licht after Norman Rockwell)
USA Today‘s story (4/3/14) on the Supreme Court’s eliminating cumulative campaign contribution limits in the McCutcheon decision began with this:
The way the Supreme Court sees it, Americans’ free speech rights are more important than stopping US elections from becoming ever more expensive.
Well, no—the point of contribution limits isn’t to make elections cheaper; it’s to limit the ability of the very wealthy to dominate politics. Framing the issue as a choice between the First Amendment and frugality is a good way to put a thumb on the scale. (To be fair, the article goes on to acknowledge that the decision will “boost the influence of money in politics and the power of wealthy donors and party leaders.”)
Likewise, the Chicago Tribune (4/3/14) distorted the concerns of advocates of limits on contributions when it editorialized:
Election years might be less noisy or irritating if less money were spent by people who want to spread a message.
The worry is not that elections will be more “noisy” or “irritating”—it’s that our society will be more oligarchic.
The US spent 5 billion dollars in its involvement in Ukraine politics.
Maybe the US should openly invite foreign money into US politics to reduce the trade imbalance of its political “contribution” deficit.
Besides, many of the largest US corporations make big money from their foreign subsidiaries in places like China, so they are not really “true blue” Americans anyway, and spend more on political contributions than on taxes.
Maybe corporations should be compelled to take loyalty oaths before being allowed free speech rights in the USA. Of course, laws of this type would be too much to expect from America’s sold out legislators.
You wish you could laugh at this shit
But when the joke’s on us …
“The US spent 5 billion dollars in its involvement in Ukraine politics.”
Any how many millions interfering in Venezuela? The Carter Center acknowledges that Venezuela has a good electoral system, and the government has won all but one of more than a dozen votes in the last 15 years, but Canada and the U.S. keep sending money and training to the Venezuelan opposition to ‘promote democracy.’
Canada’s Harper regime, BTW, is pushing through a greatly despised electoral reform bill that would increase spending and donation limits, and disenfranchise perhaps more than 100,000 voters. Of course the sectors they’re targeting, in a Rovian way, tend not to vote Conservative, so it’s all good. (Greg Palast, come north!)
Canada and the U.S. are model democracies, aren’t they?
In the end, it is all we can do sometimes is laugh; and not lose Hope.
“” – Election years might be less noisy or irritating if less money were spent by people who want to spread a message.- “” the article
I disagree, it would be less noisy because when more and more money is spent, the hubbub of Vox Populi is lost, all that is heard is the pure dulcet tones of unadulterated Greed.
Frankliin put it best in his letter against paying the Executives and Congress a salary and elections.
“” 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.””
Apart from the usual fatuity by you know who, the comments here, though thoughtful, are wide of the mark. Five members of the Supreme Court have willfully replaced the American democracy with a plutocracy, and there is nothing to stop a foreign power, or a cabal of foreign powers, from buying up the administration, the congress, and the courts.
The Corporate Media is the big winner of this decision. Most of that money goes into political ads.
Conservative electoral politics in a nutshell: Greatly increase the participation of money; cut back on the participation of Blacks.
Mo’ Money, Less Negroes!
Got it.
The middle class understands the roll that wealth plays in protecting the privileges of the rich, and the poor understand how middle class wealth has left the poor with no voice in the public arena, absolutely no representation in government.
Iv’e said it several times before, but I will say it again. We have to get money out of elections. There are many different opinions, none of which, say that Money is good or appropriate, that it will improve the grid lock, or elections, but seem to think there is no way the practice will go away. I think it will, If enough Citizens continue to raise a rumpus over it. Let’s show the Supreme Court we are fed up with their conservative viewpoint. Justice is what they are there to give. We expect them to earn their salary.
This is a simple problem made very complex by people who want to muddy the waters(for the most part both sides).Not to get into the nuts and bolts but as an example every American should be able to give lets say $100.00.Every business,corporation,union…. up to $5000.00.Only US citizens and corps can donate.Period.What is so hard here.
@ michael e: Your simple solution is to allow corporate looters to bribe politicians 50 times a much as an individual can.
This will take a bit of work, but——corporations do depend on consumers——–so, as long as voting is for sale, then the consumers should use marketing too! : ) although, we consumers should be priceless and refuse to buy certain corporates products.
For example, with the Koch Bros: don’t buy these items;
Angel Soft, Quilted Northern ( hmmm lots of toilet paper! That’s funny; turn voting into S***and then sell us toilet paper. : )
Also look into Lycra, and Stainmaster, Zee, Brawny, Invista, American Greeting, Georgia Pacific( this is very sad as the pollution coming from this place has so decimitated the river, that many citizens in the area have a high incidence of cancers……..( hey that’s why we need health insutance.. Koch Bros: .oh the irony. )
Also add to this list Dixie, and Sparkle too. I’m sure there’s lots more, BUT if the Koch Bros want to OUTspend, then we, of the consumer, by the consumer and for the consumer, should refuse to buy. anything from them : )
All true, but making elections less noisy and irritating would be a great thing, too. :-)
This is a simple problem made very complex by people who want to muddy the waters(for the most part both sides).Not to get into the nuts and bolts but as an example every American should be able to give lets say $100.00.Every business,corporation,union…. up to $5000.00.Only US citizens and corps can donate.Period.What is so hard here.
————————————————
That is what they already do, it is called Campaign Finance reform; however folks like the Kock Brothers walk around it by donating to “secret clubs” that donate as “anonymous” so that people can not easily track where they have spent hundreds of millions on buying their politicians.
No, the simple solution is that everyone gets their name published when you donate. No Anonymouos, no secret clubs, no third party donating for second parties to donate to first parties. You pay, you play, you get named. And everyone’s name get published. For every politician who gets dollar donated, they have to declare where it came from. If you join a club, your name goes in with the club.
Then and only then will we see the actual pattern of who is donating to whom, and it won’t be anything like Tush Limburger or Glen Beckerhead thinks it will be either.
Padre I will just bet you want people who donate to be listed”.Black listed” I think its called.Today if you state an opinion about gay marriage for instance you loose your job.We know the lefts game.Destroy anyone who disagrees with you.And have you read the wall street article examining the Koch brothers.They found that out of the top twenty donors,17 were unions.Out of the top fifty almost all are lefties.The Kochs limp in at 59th.And get this…….Wallstreet could not find one piece of legislation the kochs had effected in any way.They posed the question “is the big old bad koch brothers just a mirage the left has dreamed up.”It seems that way.I am tea party.Worked for clinton and I am now a strong conservative.I have been in this game a long time.And except for liberal bleating ,to me the brothers were always small fish.Little impact,little effect on anything.What wall street printed I have been saying for years.Koch brothers who
michael e,
I will just bet you DON’T want people who donate to be listed. That’s how cowards are, unwilling to take responsibility for their choices.
KKK members and other bigots “loose (sic)” their jobs, too. If that upsets you, tough, society has standards and companies don’t want to sacrifice business. Grow up and deal with it.
Unions are a collection of thousands of workers and are responsible to their members. That’s far different from individual fat cats having so much sway over our politic with zero accountability. The fact that the “kochs (sic)” and their TP puppets have been so ineffective, according to you, is irrelevant. Big of you to admit it, though.
BTW, it’s the “Wall Street Journal”, a very suspect Murdoch publication, not “wall street” or “Wallstreet”, and you did not give enough info. to verify your claim. You do realize that your illiteracy hurts your cause, don’t you?
Padremellyrn’s Rx would clearly apply to “the lefts (sic)” donations, too, and I’m fine with that. I don’t want liberal fat cats dominating our politic, either. Try, really try, not to be so nonsensical and whiny.
Padre unions want to have open votes too.It is called intimidation.And do they really represent their members…Im not so sure.A lot of folks(me included) think union members should have the right to opt out.Especially when unions are supporting things a lot of members are against.So I do love that unions are given a pass to funnel as much as they want into elections(Not).The new laws the Dems want to pass would effect 90% of the rights funding, and give a pass to 90% of the lefts.Of course this is far from fair.As I have seen this play out it is my feeling that neither side wants to change fundamentally the election finance laws.Other than to limit the other side.I have seen some great proposals that would make if pretty fair.Problem is…neither side wants fair.They want to win.In the last election Obama was guilty of massive finance trickery.Far more than the right.But either way no one does a damn thing.Their also was massive election fraud.Forget the 4 million votes stolen from the IRS blocking the tea party.In phila alone 4 giant wards had 100% for Obama.Two had MORE than 100%.No body does anything.For the love of God you don’t even need ID to vote.We need a non aligned commission to fix this.But they have been blocked every time from forming one.
michael e,
“the right to opt out” is the right to benefit from union activities without contributing. Why are cons such slackers? Membership already has the ability to elect new leadership or disband the union if it chooses. Do you also want the right to opt out of paying taxes because you disagree with some spending? Good luck with that.
“The new laws the Dems want to pass would effect (sic) 90% of the rights (sic) funding, and give a pass to 90% of the lefts (sic).” – BS! Citizen’s United opened up the door for unions, too, and Padremellyrn’s Rx would also make union donations transparent. People can vote against the recipients if they choose. Get back to us when you have a clue what you’re talking about.
You’re lying about “both sides”. On one side are the GOP and con Dems, on the other are libs that support meaningful campaign finance reform that would effect all donors equally.
You’re lying about, “Obama was guilty of massive finance trickery.Far (sic) more than the right.”
The IRS didn’t block “the tea (sic) party (sic).” Rather, it investigated both left and right groups that tried to skate on their donors paying taxes on purely political donations. Again, why are you such a slacker?
“Their (sic) also was massive election fraud.” Your fantasies are just that, fantasies, as multiple studies have proven. Dang, you’re gullible, michael e.
Vrede I grew up in a place were my uncle was a top official in the top union in the country.I know it inside out and backwards.If you don’t know about the endemic politically active corruption tied to the unions….we would have to have a long talk.He(my uncle) and I have had those long talks.He is old now and clear to speak his mind.See Unions are very good on the one hand.They train people and create a good umbrella for those who want to join.On the other they are bullying,corrupt and so on.We have gotten to the point where government acts as a go between to syphon union dues.Where the head of American Unions has his own room in the white house and has met with Obama more than most cabinet members.This has become an unholy alliance.A huge percentage of the stimulus went to union pensions.Comparing dues to taxes is nonsense.Taxes are constitutionally endowed powers.Dues based on you being able to ply your trade ,under the threat of NOT plying your trade(right to work)is a horse of a different shade.If unions are so great than their members will pay in for those benefits.If lets say a teacher does not want to pay in, and handle her own benefits- that should be free and clear.And not tied to her employment.Unions should be about quality.If I want to higher a union worker at$ 40.00 an hour Im getting the best.If I want to higher a non paying free lancer at twenty…. my choice.Unions have destroyed commerce in places like phila with their demands.Just like your 401K union members should get benefits based on what they pay in.Unions even have the legal right to harass anyone they want.The courts will soon shoot that down.As I say….if unions are good for their members……..members will pay in.If not ,then they need a new business model.As far as transparent donations that opens the door to the lefts attack dogs.I donate to Mitt and you brand me a woman hater.Your game is transparent.I dont vote in the open.And I should be able to donate as I see fit without government oversight, or your disseminating my donations or motivations.That moves to intimidation.Again a word lurking in all your moves.The moves being contemplated by the left would in effect stop most donations to groups like the tea party.Leaving unions to stay in that top echelon they hold now.You dont seem aware of those pending moves. As far as the IRS …..im seeing jail time ahead for the “taking the 5th”leader of the attack against the tea party.So skip it.Obama and his fund raising…….Your kidding right.
michael e,
There is no “head of American Unions (sic)”. Your ignorance on the topic is showing, again, as is your tragic illiteracy.
I hear your ongoing defense of workers who want all the benefits unions negotiate through collective bargaining yet are unwilling to pay for them. I pity parasitic slackers like you.
I also hear your defense of secret bribery of politicians, plus your pants-wetting paranoia that you’ll be outed and attacked. Clearly, you’re not smart enough to have enough money to be able to donate enough to matter to anyone.
No one is trying to “stop most donations to groups like the tea (sic) party (sic),” goofball. The only effort has been to stop both left and right groups that want to skate on taxes by calling it charity rather than the taxable political donations they are. Get back to us when you have a clue about the topic.
Also, michael e, if you did even donate to Mitten I’ll bet no one looked at the donor list and then branded you “a woman hater”. You’re just whining nonsensically.