Impact of Citizens United

People are spending money in an effort to make their voice heard.

THE HORROR!!!!!!!
 
I think we can't avoid the impact of the millions of dollars sluicing through the capital anymore than we can avoid the water cycle affecting our lives. It's been staring all of us in the face for decades but the veneer of democracy has kind of eased it down like the proverbial spoonful of sugar.

One point in the article should be fairly uncontroversial: some of these groups are registered as non profits and therefore not legally bound to reveal their donors.

If there's one thing that could be supported by a strong consensus out there it's greater transparency. Its a silly little legal trick here they're using to create a wall the public can't see through.

We should probably have an idea of just who is behind these millions shouldn't we?

The right would love to be able to use the epithet "Soros" as often as it can, and heck, I'd like to know which wackjob right-wing millionaires are getting their beaks wet.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Adams said:
People are spending money in an effort to make their voice heard.

THE HORROR!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

That's right, their anonymous voices. These could also be funds from foreign interests. The reality is that money spending like this has a significant effect on elections. Republicans are orienting Democrats by a factor of seven.
 
I thought non-profits were supposed to be transparent. Are there separate rules for political campaign funds?
 
How do they prove they are non-profit, then? Those laws need to be changed.
 
thaiboxerken said:
This is why I don't think the supreme court made the correct decision.
Click to expand...
Then you don't think the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc etc have the right to comment on political issues, or any other issue Congress decides to restrict them on.
 
WildCat said:
Then you don't think the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc etc have the right to comment on political issues, or any other issue Congress decides to restrict them on.
Click to expand...


Right, because it was illegal to do so until the Citizen's United decision. :rolleyes:
 
WildCat said:
I have no idea what this sentence means.
Click to expand...

I meant outspending. Didn't catch that my phone guessed the wrong word on that one.

Do you know how much the Chamber of Commerce is spending with funds in a bank account that is replenished with foreign monies?
 
thaiboxerken said:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...pending-threat-to-democracy-plouffe-says.html

This is why I don't think the supreme court made the correct decision. The usa has been put up for sale.
Click to expand...

A political adviser to Obama says that what Republicans are doing threatens American democracy. Quelle suprise. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that his ultimate complaint is that what they're doing might get a bunch of Republicans elected. Which, in certain circles, probably is considered a threat to American democracy. But that is just the whining of losers. Right now, team Obama is losing, and they're demonstrating that they're petulant and immature in defeat.

But I like this quote:
“The American people deserve to know who’s trying to sway the election,” Obama said last night at a Chicago fundraiser. “We need to fight their millions of dollars with millions of voices.”
Click to expand...

Coming from a guy whose election campaign didn't use standard credit card processing checks to prevent violations of campaign finance laws, his complaints about money corrupting the system are the height of hypocrisy. But the second bit is right: the way to combat speech you don't like is not to silence it, but with more speech. Too bad he and his advisers don't seem to understand the significance of what they say.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Right, because it was illegal to do so until the Citizen's United decision. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Congress exempted corporate news media in the legislation, because otherwise it would have applied to them. The position of Congress was that they could include them if they wanted, and this was discussed in the majority opinion.

I dont have the slightest idea how you can think that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to corporations, unless it's corprate news media.
 
It is sad. Seriously WC, I mean allowing multi billion dollar corporations to invest hundreds of millions to support the candidate that will look after their interests...how is that democracy?

Sad.

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom