E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to delve once again into the controversial issue of limits on money in politics.
This time, it's the limits placed by federal law on how much an individual can contribute to candidates and political organizations.
The court today agreed to take up a challenge brought by an Alabama man who claims it's unconstitutional to prevent him from giving more than $46,200 to candidates and $70,800 to PACs and political committees. He does not challenge the limit on contributions to an individual candidate, but he does claim it's unconstitutional to prevent him from contributing to as many candidates as he wishes.
The Republican National Committee joins him in the challenge.
Leave a Comment:
If there were something I think both the left and right can agree upon, it's the obscene amount of $$$ spent on elections.
Although, it was kind of entertaining watching the TurdBlossom shovel $300 million of other people $$$ down the toilet with a 1% return on his investment! lol
Just goes to show money can't buy them love or happiness for that matter!
A fool and his money are soon parted...
I agree Feisty. There should be limits and both the dems an repubs should be able to agree on this.
All of the SuperPacs should be eliminated from contributing to campaigns. There is something drastically wrong when a SuperPac is able to contribute and possibly control the outcome of elections because of their obscene amount of money spent in advertising.
When uneducated people are continually bombarded with ads paid for by SuperPacs there is a very likely chance that the person will go along with the ads presented to them rather than to take the time to research about candidates.
It happens in national elections as well as state and local elections and it is going against everything a free election system should stand for.
Can't buy love, and can't buy happiness, but sooner then later it will buy elections. The real question before SCOTUS is, should money be allowed to buy elections? Do we really want the best government money can buy? (republicans) or do we want the will of the people to be the success story? (democrats)
How about we try this for campaign reform. No more campaigning. If someone is so lazy that they need a TV ad or sign along the road to motivate them to vote then they don't deserve one.
Couldn't agree more, Brian!
At the very least they should have to disclose their donors...
Right now, Bloomberg's SuperPac is running ad's here in IL for Jesse Jackson Jr.'s house seat. I had NO idea who this group was until I ran across an article on Think Progress.
While I am in favor of reasonable gun control, Mr. Mayor has zero business trying to influence our elections!
Off topic Feisty for just a minute:
Politico:
The president’s staff often finds Washington reporters whiny, needy and too enamored with trivial matters or their own self-importance.
______________
It's not just the WH who feels this way. All of America sees it too.
Also, welcome David Axelrod to MSNBC.
Yes, because more money in politics is the answer.....free speech you know.....as much speech as you can afford....... (sarcasm).
The Republican National Committee joins him in the challenge.
The Republican Party will follow each other to hell and back.
Beverly in Chicago - Yes they will, and the Democrat Party will be right there beside them.
And why haven't all of you gotten involved in the Popular Amendment Movement at www.faircampiagnreform.us that has been in existence since August 2010. If you would all get involved, we could pass a constitutional amendment that the SCOTUS couldn't declare as unconstitutional and at the same time overturn their CU ruling, limit ALL individual contributions (thus limiting how much these campaigns are costing), AND ban all corporate, union, non-profit, PAC, Super-PAC, etc. organizational contributions AND third-party advertising. We would also ban all organized lobbyists from Congress (from DC in reality) and cause religious groups to lose their non-profit status if they do get involved in politics in any manner.
BTW, we would also be reducing the costs of elections because of the limitation on the campaign season...just 60 days of primary campaigning, and eight weeks between the ONE NATIONAL PRIMARY DAY and the General Election. You could also do this on the state level.
Beverly in Chicago
Yup. Democrats are obviously against this. It's good that they have no operating super PACS. Right?
Democrats may not like it, but they have to fight back in the same environment. If the Supreme's want more money in politics, Democrats are equally capable of finding it.
If the Koch brothers and old man Adelson want free speech, well, let them shout it to the world that they love the Republican party and want you to vote for them. That's free speech and no one's taking that right away from them.
The government is correct in saying that their free speech isn't any more important than mine, just because they have more money. I can voice my support for one candidate, so can they.
Of course, they don't want to "voice" their support for anyone. For some obscure reason I perfectly understand but I'd like one of my Republican friends to explain to me, they're embarrassed to admit that they support the Republican party and want you to vote Republican. They don't want free speech (they already have that and choose not to exercise it); they want free, anonymous influence and control over the elections through the unlimited infusion of money.
The Republicans are still trying to find ways to BUY elections. Since they can't get anyone to BUY the bill of goods they are trying to sell the American people.
They are out of touch with America. They are being controlled by a vitriolic and vocal minority who is pulling them further and further to the right.
Instead of taking an honest look at themselves and fixing the problem from within the GOP continues to look for ways to sidestep the electorate and RAM their unpopular views down the throats of the American people.
We the people....will no be fooled and we will not be bought.
Wasn't it just proved that the GOP can't buy an ELECTION, if all the sheep gathered all their money and gave the GOP all of it, it would not make a difference, now I'm sure the GOP will come up with other methods to attempt too steal the election, but on the other hand if Hillary runs in 2016 they will be beating a dead horse.
It's what they do Bev.
Unforgiving of anyone who does not follow. Current example is Hagel!
Independent thought is not tolerated!
Yes, it was proven they couldn't buy the election, but will that stop them? NAH..........
i think every candidate should get 20 mill! and thats it lets see who makes the best of what their given!
Right now, Bloomberg's SuperPac is running ad's here in IL for Jesse Jackson Jr.'s house seat.
I read the same article Betty. His side is saying that they are doing this to offset the money being spent by the NRA.
In either case this is going against everything our nation is supposed to represent about our election process.
I also agree in part with what was said in #1.9. Limit the total amount of money spent for every seat being sought. If there were a cap on the total amount spent for every seat a candidate ran for it would then and only then be a fair election process.
When corporations. special interest groups, foreign money and the wealthiest people in the country are able to spent freely to get someone elected to push their agenda we are no longer a free society.
Considering the Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United decision, it would not surprise me if this ultra-conservative court lifted the limits on all campaign contributions thus further allowing the wealthiest Americans more lee-way to buy our elections. It doesn't give the richest any more votes but it does give them the loudest voices.
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
While I am in favor of reasonable gun control, Mr. Mayor has zero business trying to influence our elections!
GF, I don't see it as such. It's a coalition of Mayor's across America.
Debbie Halvorson on Monday accused New York City Mayor — and billionaire — Michael Bloomberg of trying to "purchase this election" from out of state.
What gun control would do for the troubled inner city of Chicago and the others is a step in the right direction as I see it. Furthermore,
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/18316806-418/halvorson-blasts-bloomberg-for-big-attack-ad-buy.html
Debbie Halvorson has appeared all along to not be on the side of people who need vital resources.
She did not want the Petone Airport. She lives in suburban Crete
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/06/halvorson-jacks.html#more
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/city/Crete-Illinois.html#ixzz2LN3J8Uvv
Crete has come a long way since I was out south. Whether her accusations of Jessie Jr. not living in the district or not; the point is Black people need jobs.
Robin Kelly, I think is best suited for all the contenders since she was the Cook County Chief Administrative Officer. Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky endorsed her and she has a better educational and public service background than Halvaston.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Kelly
I usually, try not to pay attention to rumors but during her campaign against Ginnolous it was rumored the T-Party was backing her. NRA, T-Party?
The Huffington Post reports that the Democrats outspent the Republicans in 2012;
Total Operating Expenditures
Republicans: $885.6 million
Democrats: $919.3 million
Apparently, the net union and trial lawyer contributions to Democrats overwhelmed the net business contributions to Republicans - despite the 'Citizens United' Supreme Court decision.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/12/obama-2012-campaign-spending_n_2287978.html
Bev,
I don't have a horse in the race since it's not my district!
I can't support outside special interest groups sticking their noses into local politics...
I am still pissed at Jesse & his wife putting taxpayers through the cost of a special election. He should of NEVER ran for re-election in the first place, knowing he was going to be serving some time!
PS: Check you e-mail! ☺
Im for limiting contributions as long as liberals allow us to stop unions from contributing too. CU passed largely because the Supreme Court saw that it was unfair that unions could contribute what they wanted, thus giving liberals an unfair advantage. Id be all for restricting corporations, unions, non profits, etc from donating and limiting individual contributions to something like 5k that could of course increase with inflation.
And to liberals who think the evil republicans are to blame, know that Barry got more contributions from rich individuals, and when California tried to pass a law that stops corporations and unions from contributing, unions fought against it, and liberals voted against it, and it didnt pass. So California is going further into the sh!ter thanks to liberals this pass election.
edit: I meant it was rumored the T-Party was backing Halvaston against Jessie Jr. to whom she lost. NRA, T-Party????
I am in full agreement with limiting campaign funding, it is shocking and obscene how much money is spent on political campaigns. Campaigns by many who, when elected, complain there is no money.
I am not sure I completely disagree with this case, however. Note the subject does not challenge limits on contributions to individual candidates. His gripe is a cap limits to how many candidates he can support - there is some validity there - though I certainly would not be disappointed to see a decision against him.
The 2012 election perhaps demonstrated the futility of dumping enormous sums of money into a dud candidate. You would think that would be lesson learned, perhaps? Hello, RNC.
Really, when is boils down to it, all that campaign money does is buy advertising. Though it is nice to know where that advertising is coming from ultimately is is up to the voter do cut through the crap and learn about candidates through credible sources, rather than just being swept up in expensive media advertising has little substance and relies primarily upon emotional appeal.
Dammit, why can't FR block this wilsonarden1123 character? Annoying.
OF Course the GOP support this, for without all their kickbacks and donations they could never get elected! Can you imagine if anyone in Washington DC had to spend their own money on an election, Gosh forbid!
At this point in time, this fact has become common sense. In the same respect this issue is pathetic. We can hope that just maybe the Supreme Court would deny the right to contribute an endless amount of money to politicians. Such is corrupt!
silly, Your right, while we are at it, how about stopping the promises of free phones, increasing school loan amounts, implying that you won't have to pay it back. Don't you think that is buying votes. Was obama so afraid that he resorted to such low tactics. By the way, jr, his wife and his dirty old man, are products of chicago and have no values. They play the black and the black or so dumb that they buy it and keep putting them in office and defending them. Black for black. If the whites did this, it would be racial
Feisty said:
My response:
It's that we need to find a way to get rid of this Wilsonarden####'s character!! I promise you...I'm no closer to getting cheap products from your site on the 4,395th time you've posted it than I was on the 1st time.
I'd say this would be best addressed under the UCC. Basically, money is considered property, and the owner of the property has the option of keeping, selling, or disposing of their property in what ever manner of their choosing. Or in other words, it's their, yours, or my money, and we should be able to spend it any way we wish, in any amount we wish to.
There has been a sea change on the Supreme Court. I'm not sure all the Justices completely thought through the implications of unlimited donations. Most Justices are hardly what you would call youthful, and several of them might have been shocked by the incredible amounts of cash that went into the campaign. Spending has increased by several orders of magnitude and it cannot have escaped the notice of some Justices that truth has been overwhelmed by cash. Some of them may have realized that the government is actually on the auction block and foreigners are bidding for ownership. Certainly, it is obvious that the rich continue their quest to buy Congress AND the Presidency.
As important as that is, the biggest factor may be Chief Justice Roberts. With his vote upholding PPACA, the Chief Justice has sent a clear message that he presides over the Roberts Court. He is not a right-wing rubber stamp in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Joseph Alito.
This time around, campaign spending limits will receive a much more informed view and serious scrutiny. Our government should not be for sale to the highest bidder.
As long as the SCOTUS majority continues to be the most corrupt in history, there will be no reform. Fortunately, the majority may change soon.
Grimey, in the spirit of bipartisanship! LOL!
Is this the thread where Democrats ignore the fact that Obama has spent more than any other politician in history on campaigning?
Roy, as usual you leave out the facts. Obama got more campaign donations from individuals and a smaller average amount it wasn't unions and trial lawyers, it was we the people. Romney got more from large donors.
Of course all this talk about limiting campaign funds includes those dollars passed under the table, right? Yep, didn't think so!
Super PACs not only spend obscene amounts of money they are not controlled by the candidate or their campaign. Things were said in the last presidential election by both sides about the other that the candidates would not have said and that had to be retracted by their respecive campaigns. Some Super PAC going rogue could be very dangerous to a legitimate campaign.
Yes Jesse-AZ, it is.
However, this is not a partisan issue.
It's the same as if I said drunk driving is bad. The liberals would point out every drunk driver that is Republican and the Republicans would say that drunk driving is bad. The low information voter would get the message that Republicans are drunks and have caused all the drunk driving accidents.
michigan voter-546572,
Its actually the exact opposite. But I understand. Facts elude you.
Don't know why I'm going to jump in on the Debbie Halverson, Illinois 2nd disaster - but it points out a truth that the larger Democratic Party needs to confront - Hispanic and African American "groups" (not necessarily the individual voters) do not believe their interests can be represented by non-minority representatives. The GOP may be the party of old white men, but the Democratic Party, especially in the urban industrial states runs the risk of Balkanization. That has permitted the GOP to gerrymander congressional districts with great ease. By the way, Peotone is a boondoggle. The horses left the barn when Daley upgraded Midway. The only viable airport is Gary, but Chicago has it's hands in keeping it small and Indiana lacks the vision to do anything with it.
If we accept the premise that the giving of money to a political campaign is a form of speech, then there should be NO limits on how much an individual, or group of individuals (union, PAC, corporation, whatever) are able to give to a candidate's campaign.
This is an easy decision, based on what was decided in Citizens United. That case was bad law, decided accurately, if not the way most feel it should have been decided.
Free Speech also means that you have to allow Nazi's, Anti-muslim groups, pro-Islamic Jihadists and even Republicans to speak. It also means that those who have the most money will be able to speak the loudest and may cause more corruption in politics.
Eventually, there will have to be a Constitutional Amendment allowing either campaign finance controls or government paid elections.
MrBurns, you are wrong. Obama got more money from donations under $200, Romney got more donations over $2000.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/campaign-finance/
As usual, Republicans and facts don't go well together.
Money is money. I don't care where it comes from, because it comes from people or groups I wouldn't trust from both sides. There should be limits on all, no matter what.
You will also say you don't trust some people too. Especially this person, company, organization. Therefore limits on all suffices just fine
I now see the problem for the US - we are populated with idiots that can't read. This story was about
Obama's claim that the impending "sequester" would "devastate" the economy. You idiots are talking about something else entirely. The left wing Democrats have stuck their heads in the sand and refuse to aknowledge imepending disasters of the deficit kind. You just want to rant about your current crusade for the week. This is why Obama was elected and reelected.
Feisty Redhead, I agree with you about Mayor Bloomberg. He should not be sticking his nose into your elections in Illinois. Mayor Bloomberg thinks he is a king and he knows better than anyone else.
Mayor Bloomberg is no better than any of the other PAC's & individual donors, no matter who they are. He's as much a whack job as many of the other extremists.
lisa s###... I disagree, I think anyone with the ability to have their voice heard should, if they choose, make use of the ability to voice their opinion.
When a person is elected to the US Congress, they "represent" the people of their district, but what they do affects the whole country. As such, Mr. Bloomberg has every right to voice his opinion.
We may not like it, but since we have decided that an increased amount of disposable income equals a greater ability to influence elections we have to accept that opinions from people all over the world will be made and influence our elections.
Until we change the Constitution, this is how its going to be.
Well befuddled (#1.47) you sure live up to your name. Accusing others of not being able to read when you’re commenting on the wrong article.
This is about the Supreme Court and campaign finance. Get a clue.
Dirp (#1.50) No “we” didn’t decided that. An ideologically driven and corrupt Supreme Court made a heinous ruling that attacks the democratic election of our representatives.
Their twisted view of the Constitution has doomed us to even greater depths of corruption of our system and even more power in the hands of the top 1/10 of 1% of the population.
I have to love to see how many liberal comments are just of the blame Republican for everything mantra. Liberals as a general rule are simply incapable of even considering differing opinions. It the liberal way or it is wrong. No wonder people can't take liberals seriously, or why they are still a minority. Blame and excuses seems to be all liberals live to do. Yet there is no mention of the Ohio poll worker that is known for a fact to have voted for Obama 3 times, and is under investigation for voting for Obama as many as 6 times. That isn't buying an election like liberals accuse Republicans, that is stealing it. Or how about the very liberal Democrat House Representative Chellie Pingree from Maine, whose billionaire husband owns every major newspaper in the state. Never a bad word mentioned of Pingree in any paper, but nonstop Republican bashing. Pingree also spends more time in her lavish Virgin Island retreat then Maine, flying around on her hubby's private jet. No conflict of interest or election rigging in Maine. Yeah right. There are two sides to every story, and there is far more then just campaign contributions corrupting our elections.
Have no problem with banning corporate donations just as long as union donations are banned as well...fair is fair...
Feisty actually made some sense for once.
You can bet the Supreme's in a divided decision will say "no limits"..........
Once again Feisty the fat pork rind eating lib dosent include all the foreign money that was being funneled into Obamas campaign.
Like there was no foreign money being funneled into Romney's? LOL !
Eric, not like Obamas, keep drinking the kool aide you mindless bot.
Actually, among Romney's top 20 contributors were foreign firms like Credit Suisse, UBS, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Barclays. (The domestic ones were mostly banking, professional-services, and financial-services firms, as well.)
Obama's top 20 donors? There was only one Anglo-American conglomerate in them. The rest were, for the most part, U.S. colleges and tech firms like Apple, IBM, Google, and Microsoft.
Andres, Obamas top donors were the ones who received most of the special interest money, solar etc.
Eric is correct. The Supreme Court is run by Republicans, who benefit more from huge contributions that Democrats, who bundle smaller donations from many individuals
I would like to see the AIPAC Lobby challenged on the grounds that they represent a foriegn government, which is supposed to be illegal.
Set limits on donations - if for nothing else those of us who actually watch TV can stop vomiting at the amount of disposable income people have to muckrake other candidates and basically blanket network television with ads non- stop in swing states. Of course that would mean giving people free stuff.
That money could be spent on so many other worthwhile things - so many people in need - it is sad to see it going to waste on politics - and nobody watches - we all turn it off or mute it.
The UAE just bought medical equipment as a donation for Joplin MS - a place that certainly is deserving after their disaster (a red state I might add) - I guess those people are happy to have their FREE STUFF!
Who took stopfreeloader's cheese this morning? Speaking of free-loaders, seems to me the biggest ones are the Sheldon Adelsons and Foster Frieses who dumped millions into the campaign coffers of the GOP in order to buy more tax cuts for themselves while demanding that the middle class and the poor pick up the tab.
@stopfreeloaders - you sound awefully angry. Must be the kool aide you're drinking too. Both parties do pretty much the same thing. Which is why this country is in serious trouble.
She is a classless buffoon who only makes sense to the uneducated.
With our current SCOTUS I fear they will allow even more access to politicians by the rich. Shame on you SCOTUS. Shame on you. History books will not be kind to this SCOTUS.
The court has become more and more political, and it wasn't designed to be political.......
AnaBanana, while I agree with you that to much money is injected in the election process on both sides, I think we all lose sight of the fact that the only role of the SC is to judge the constitutionality of the case. They are not the moral judges, that is the role of congress.
Former Sen. Russ Feingold, co author of the McCain-Fiengold election reform act, stated back in 2008 the the election reform was dead when then candidate Obama decided to forgo federal funds so that he could take all the private donations he could. He knew that he could get more money that way, than the limited amount provided the under federal law. Some people condoned this, saying that it allowed more people to donate, Sen. Feingold knew that it just opened the flood gates.
You didn't seem to mind when they sided with OB that OBcareless was constitutional and the "fine" was actually a TAX. But they didn't shut down the ACA -- so stuff your argument that they are all repubs.
So for the republicans, there is not enough money in elections. The republicans want to blanket the airways with lies and more lies just like Romney and faux did in the last election. Then the republicans want to kill jobs and kill unions, so there will be no one to be able to afford to dispute their lies.
We have a whole group who comes on here loaded with their lies they heard from the republican propaganda wing. And so very anxious to have you believe them too.
Meanwhile the republicans are moving to make women into second class citizens one state at a time. This from the party who claim to base their party on freedom and choice.
Believe the lies and vote for any republican at your own peril.
Hate to break it to you but during campaign season both sides are laying on the lies. You just seem to prefer one set of lies to the other.
Political ads need to be fact checked.......
Who decides which "facts" are true?
That's the nice things about facts....they are true on their own accord and it's fairly easy to see who is trying to spin them what direction.
Only stupid women make themselves second class citizens the others have no problem.
So would these stupid women be wives of democrats or republicans?
That's the nice things about facts....they are true on their own accord and it's fairly easy to see who is trying to spin them what direction.
So how did Obama get re-elected?
Eric, Your right to a degree, the problem is that most ads only put in some of the fact and often take those out of context. The only place I have seen any attempt to put all the fact on the table is factcheck.org, and while I don't always agree with their conclusions, at least I have more facts and context. It seems the vast majority of people won't spend a minute to check these ads with any source that is not affiliated with their particular party.
How nice it would be if the election period was only a given period of time. How much money is already being spent trying to position people for the next presidential election? How much money is being spent for Rubio, Clinton, Biden, Christi or who ever trying to see if a run is plausible?
President Obama was re-elected because the majority of Americans no longer even listen to the republican party lies.
According to the election only 47% believe the republicans lies. Gee I wonder, just how did the president get re-elected with only 53% of the population voting for him?
The same people who lied us to war in Iraq are still lying to us today, but only the republicans still believe them.
Obama got 53% of the people that voted, he didn't get 53% of the American vote. Only about 2/3rds of people even voted. You need to get your numbers straight. I do agree that only the people that vote should be the ones that count but to say that 53% of the populace agree with what the Democrats were selling has no merit.
And if you believe that only one party lies to the electorate, you're just another political hack who doesn't research the issues.
If you do the math at politifact.com, you'd find that Obama told the truth more than Romney did during the campaign. Hence Obama won.
deerhunter, after the story in Cincinnati this morning, I'm not sure he got 53%. With all the people voting up to six time for obama, he may not have gotten 50%.
In Cincy, only 20 votes are being "investigated", one is some old gal pollworker who admitted to absentee voting, then voting again in person. article.... "In all other cases – most of which involved voters casting a provisional ballot after having already voted absentee – officials detected the double-voting and *disqualified* the second ballot."....
Even if the GOP can figure out a way to get rid of the "Electoral votes for prez" system - Obama still won the popular vote. That would be despite cheaters - on BOTH sides. If the Electoral vote system gets done away with, then go with the popular vote. Just don't let Romney's kid's company handle the electronic voting process.
Enough with the vast amount of cash pumped into elections by special interests and corporations. They are ruining this country by putting pathetic yes men into places of power so that real Americans can't get a foothold to do what is best for the country instead of the shareholders.
maclaird, did you watch the morning news about voter fraud in ohio? One poll worker( we won't say she is black) voted at least twice, cause she wanted her vote to count. One person, voted 6 times, when ask why, the response was I don't know. Who do you think he voted for? He's not conservative. These are the crimes of an election and someone donating x amount of dollars. We have already seen, that even if it is controlled, and you are in the movie industry you get 500 billion tax breaks, if you are a cheap phone company, you get multi million contracts for smart phones to the poor, lazy and dumb.
If your trying to make a point your comments are meaningless with ignorant comments like that why is race even an issue here? If she was white would you say (we wont say shes white)
unreal...your post is.....unreal....as in phony....not to mention nearly impossible to comprehend....."lazy and dumb".....indeed.
Eh, unreal probably lives in the Cincy suburb of Mason. Despite that type, Cincinnati really is a pretty nice town to live in, if you have to live in Ohio. Lot of history there, pretty landscape around the Ohio River.
1) Term Limits
2) All donations to a neutral body, kind of like the IRS donation thing, then divided equally to all parties. Why do we still have parties in the Instant Information Age? One person, one vote, for who you like and the first looser is the VP, balance of power.
3) anything over say $1,000 [some limit on IRS deductions] you MUST be identified. Don't like it, don't contribute, then sit down and shut up.
Welcome to the United Corporations and Churches of America [UCCA]
Where the real product is the stock and
the true customer is the stock holder.
In god we trust, all others pay foreign loan shark interest.
My concern with Term Limits is that if you limit the time a politician can spend in Congress it takes power away from the voters and gives it to the party and the special interests.
Sometimes the only way a poltician can get away from the party line and the special interests is to feel more secure as a longer-term incumbent.
I am against taking the power away from the voters.
TNSEVOL, we have term limits. You see, every 2 years every single member of the US House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate are up for election or reelection. If you don't like the incumbant vote for someone else. If enough people do that then the term of said incombant is over. A house full of rookies would make a real mess of things, for sure.
This like any other mature representative government in the history of the world. The wealthy buy their representatives and the poor are bought by theirs. It will never change. We are not equal and never have been. Wealthy people have more influence, a better life style, better health care and better education for their children. That is why almost all of us want to be rich and almost none of us want to be poor. Every society has people that run it, either behind the scenes or publicly, and we are no exception. We only question it when they have mismanaged the country as ours have for a number of years. Of course, like any management in a big corporation they are quick to blame others for the problems rather than admit to their own mistakes.
This is the stuff revolutionary wars are made of, if SCOTUS doesn't halt this corruption, sooner-or-later, Americans will!
Can someone answer the question, 'if corporations are people' who collects the life insurance?'
the corporation. Corporations hold life insurance on key executives and collect the benefits
No doubt the court will do their usual 5 to 4 ruling that billionaires and millionaires will decide who controls the election process. Democracy is just a word to be bought and paid for. You can see Scalia and Thomas smirking right now as they lower the boom.
The party of truthers, birthers, gun nuts, homophobes, bigots, racists, doomsday preppers, bible-thumpers, and the 1%.....makes you wonder how that coalition ever loses elections.
Kevin D-289686
You forgot haters.
They are simply trying to fight the party of leeches, ignorant anti-gun nuts, illegals, freebie wanters, feminists, and children.
Kevin: Gerrymandering and trying to pass election laws that undermine the electorial college!(Virgina)
Gil - if you want to do away with Electoral voting, though it has been used for a couple of centuries - then go to the popular vote, nationwide. Oh, stats for the State of VA...."Obama won the popular vote of the state by nearly 150,000 ballots, and four percentage points."...fyi.
Why is it not surprising that the Republican National Committee is involved in this. I suspect they are the true ones behind it. All the " TEA GARBAGE " is about is MONEY, MONEY, MONEY. This is just one of the proofs that they don't care at all about the working class. They just don't have enough cash to give. The Republicans raise most all of their donations from VERY LARGE single donors, while the Democrats raise the largest share of their funds from thousands and thousands of individual working class donors.The Republican TEA GARBAGE wants to return us to the same system that King George had us under before the Declaration of Independence. The Rich Royalty shall have all and rule all. Why do you think they are so strong against any system that might give the slightest advantage to the working people. Think about their opposition to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Organized Labor, Health Care, and Free public Education, open voting rights, cutting Domestic spending, repair and rebuilding infrastructure. Things they do support, Single Religion ( Everybody has to be Christian ) , Higher Prices, Bigger CEO Bonuses, Lower to NO tax on the rich, LOW WAGES WITH NO BENEFITS, Protect the tax shelters of the Rich, Hidden Off shore bank accounts, Cut Domestic Spending, All things Racist, Single Party Government, Armed Gestapo forces in the schools, Total secrecy in their government, Ridiculously Strong Military so they can control everything, supporting dictator governments, and constant condemning of anything put forth by any Liberal leaders, no matter what it is or how much good it would do.
Former Sen. Russ Feingold, co author of the McCain-Fiengold election reform act, stated back in 2008 election reform was dead when then candidate Obama decided to forgo federal funds so that he could take all the private donations he could. He knew that he could get more money that way, than the limited amount provided the under federal law. Some people condoned this, saying that it allowed more people to donate, Sen. Feingold knew that it just opened the flood gates.
Just: Of course the RNC is behind this. What regular person can afford to bring a case before the Supreme Court! I'll bet this suit was originaly filed Nov. 9, 2012 in some local court! Common! the guys from Alabama!!
Gilboagirl, your either naive or insulting if you are suggesting that the DNC doesn't have big buck backers to push their agenda.
I disagree with most of the comments I have read here. You all just aren't looking at this in the perspective that our elected official look at us. This is a revenue source, TAX THE HELL OUT OF EVERY CONTRIBUTION, no matter what party, office, or position. I propose an across the board 50% tax be levied on every political contribution.
"David Axelrod joins NBC, MSNBC"
What a meaningless headline....Axelrod has been de facto head of daily talking points at the Obama propaganda networks since 2009...
"Chuck Todd, meet David Axelrod"... same situation as in the Godfather II, when Fredo supposedly meets Johnny Ola...
GOP, a reasonable person know that NBC, MSNBC is a left leaning entertainment network, just as we know that FOX is a right leaning organization, this should not come as any surprise, this is much the same as Palin going to FOX.
If only people understood the bias in the media, on both sides, a move like this makes perfect sense. The left will love the opportunity to hear more from David Axelrod, he just feeds into what they want to hear.
The government is for the people, by the people. Not corporations. Not super pac's. And, I might add, not for the totally uninformed, like 4786302. Only individuals should be allowed to contribute. I have to disagree with the courts on this one.
The same amout of donations should also be deposited to the Treasury of the United States. So write two checks for every donated check.
Stop the madness. Politicians start working for the People not the Corporations.
Whats a little more coporatruption in the system.
Ban it all it's all corrupt
If nothing else, please limit the spending so that candidates other than Republicans and Democrats can be heard over the constant barrage of TV and radio ads funded by these PACs. I'm tired of people thinking that the elections are only a two horse race, especially when both of the well-funded horses are lame.
The First Amendment is plain and we can expect that soon all contribution limits will be stripped allowing those with the most money complete control over our representatives and parties. A comprehensive, powerful and direct approach to solve this and have our representatives paid only by the voter is the Renew Democracy Amendment proposal. It would rid corporations and all other groups and organization from influencing our representatives without attempting to strip corporations of the legal status required to regulate them and for corporations to hold contracts, property, etc. Here is the RDA proposal:
"The right of the individual qualified citizen voter to participate in and directly elect all officeholders by popular vote in all pertinent local, state, and federal elections shall not be denied or abridged and the right to vote is
limited to individuals.
The right to contribute to political campaigns and political parties is held solely by individual citizens either through direct contributions and or a voter authorized public campaign funding system.
Political campaign and political party contributions shall not exceed an amount reasonably affordable by the average American.
The rights of all groups, associations and organizations to other political speech may be regulated by Congress but only as to volume and not content and only to protect the right of the individual voter’s voice to be heard.
The manner and course of lobbying and petitioning of federal, state, and local government officials by all groups and organizations and those who represent them may be regulated by Congress.”
The Renew Democracy Amendment would create a constitutional guarantee of the right to vote and directly elect all candidates for whom they were qualified to vote. It would eliminate the Electoral College and it would restore the power of the individual voter by requiring our representatives to be funded solely by the individual voter. The RDA would create a campaign funding system in which nearly any American could be a politician's largest donor. Read more at and consider signing the wall to show your
support for the nonpartisan and powerful amendment proposal.
Just another move to complete our transformation into another European style socialist country
So Larry, how is giving individual citizens more of a voice European Socialism? If it is, maybe we do need to go that way rather than to go toward corporate tyrany.
I don't agree with removing the electoral collage as it was put in place to protect the voice of people in small states. I live in the nation's most populous state and the one with the most electoral votes so one would think I would favor such a move as to eliminate the electoral collage but not so.
What I would also like to see is incentives to get people to the polls. In some of those European governments huge percentages of people vote and the same in some Middle Eastern Countries. Here in the bastion of freedom we don't even get 50% of elegable voters to the polls. If we are truly going to have democracy we need more participation in the democratic process. Apathy is ripe for tyrany and that is largely how we got what we have today. People, caught up in their daily grind, their mundane lives, are too busy to pay attention to what those representing them are doing until a crisis happens or it is just a week or so before election day. Maybe Tuesday is not a good day for elections and they should be moved to a weekend or have a day off. If one gets the day off to vote and can provide a ballot stub to show that they voted they get the day off with pay otherwise it is without pay or they work.
Instead of all the rhetoric and lies maybe we should spend our money and efforts on getting folks registered and to the polls. That 103 year old Florida woman who was highlighted at the State of the Union is a great example of someone not giving up their right to vote. She should not have had to wait for hours in line. With modern technology it should be easy to check if one is registered and can legally vote. Also records should be kept on computer that they have or have not voted, not how they voted as that is a secret ballot and should remain so.
There should be stricter rules on lobbying whether by a corporation, a church, a union or any one else. Congress is supposed to represent the interests of the people not special interests.
I agree with limiting the amount of money any campaign can spend on political campaigns and anyone not directly related to the campaign should not be allowed to collect money for a campaign. The campaings must be required to list all donors large and small and what they contribute. Limits of 1,000 dollars should be made. Anyone who is pressured to give to a campaign in fear of losing his job or union membership should be protected. No doubt about it election reform is necessary.
It may require a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish these things but we must get it done. Corporations continue to grow to outlandishly large sizes and control way too much. If a company is classified as an entertainment company such as Disney than they should be made to narrow the definition and stick to movies and amuzement parks leaving the ABC network to others or Sony stick to making TVs etc. and stay out of the business of making TV shows or movies. The news media used to be competitive with thousands of competing newspapers, TV stations, radio stations, magazines etc. If all newspapers in an area are owned by the same entity that is hardly going to give a balanced view of what is really happening in the world. If a single entity owns most of the network TV and radio stations in a given market the same results. We need to break them up.
Just as 100 years ago the railroads needed to be broken up because there was too much power in the hands of one person or one entity we need to look at airlines (American and US Air merger), at communications companies, transportation in general, media outlets, financial institutions and if they are "too big to fail" than they need to be broken into smaller entities to afford more competition.
Companies who want to pay the least in taxes should ensure that 51% of their total work force is located in the US & is headquartered in the US. Foreign companies who hire Americans in America should get tax breaks as well.
Americans have become to complacent and too lazy to take part in their democracy. The old saying use it or lose it may well apply if we aren't careful.
part of freedom means also to have the freedom to NOT vote. Not voting can be a form of protest
Restricting lobbying is unconstitutional. It comes under the right to petition for grievances.
Nor do I wish to see a totalitarian govt limit campaign contributions- simply provide transparency. Opensecrets.org does a great job of it and it is simple to make the information public knowledge.
And I sure do not want your view of controlling business to tell them what they can and can't do or own.
Again, your proposals are what I consider totalitarianism and that is not what I find to be consistent with the principles of liberty established by our Constitution.
Of course the republicans are against limiting contributions to campaigns! They can't get anyone elected without buying the vote or rigging it. The Supreme Court made a huge mistake when they legislated that corporations could donate any amount. It created the super pac nonsense that is so detrimental to the democratic process. Now the corporations are in charge via the crooked bastard politicians. Lets try them as the terrorists and liars that they are. We are being pushed to the limits by these republican crooks.
You know liberals got more money from rich individuals right? Also, unions donate a ton of money, and liberals never want to talk about that.
After Citizens United ruling don't expect SCOTUS to limit individual contributions, mores the pity--follow the money and money talks. Now we will see the Koch boys et al, passing out buckets of cash to favored sycophants. The best politicians money can buy. We also know congress won't act act to curtail the wanton excess--makes me a bit nauseous, the thought of more $$ influencing elections.
It's likely the Court will strike down the law and allow unlimited campaign donations in this case. The big problem isn't the money ,it's the secrecy. We need full disclosure of who donated the money. Voters have the right to know who donated money in everycase. Transparency is absolutely necessary.
Liberals hate freedom. What they want is to control every aspect of our lives including and especially the first and second amendments.
Money is speech. No matter who leftists try and twist it. The right to spend your money (no matter an individual, a corporation, or a pac, or a union, or special interest group) to speak to issues or about candidates should be an unlimited right if we actually follow the Constitution.
And as with most issues concerning the Constitution, liberals are hypocrites.
Obama spent 270 million more than Romney.
When you add in outside spending, the Republicans only outspent the Democrats by 1%
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php?ql3
The real root of this complaint by Democrats is based upon their ideology that all voters (except the ones opining) are ignorant. In the liberal thinking, those who vote for Republicans are ignorant rednecks, too wrapped up in biblical morality and too stupid to "vote for their own self interests". Whereas they view many Democrat voters as "poor victims who while they may lack the knowledge and sophistication to vote intelligently, nonetheless will vote for the Democrats who care for them"
So Democrat spending is justified to attack their opponents as self centered, racist, imperialists who will 'steal from the poor" while painting Democrats as the saviors of the poor and middle class. This is just marxist spin, for "we will implement our communist ideology while duping you ignorant masses into thinking we actually care about you".
The only issue should be to ensure transparency on what is spent and by whom it is spent. Let the voters decide where it counts, at the ballot. If they are duped, that is the price of a Constitutional Republic that values individual liberty.
Larry Robinson,
At least you got the description of average Republican correct.
well johndevine- I'm not a Republican. I left the Republican party in 1970 because they had just become the socialist lite arm of the communist Democrats.
I'm a libertarian.
As usual, the bitc... feisty redhead, has slammed the conservatives once or twice and runs. What can you say, If you are from the chicaco area, you are good at killing or being killed and dirty politics.