Supreme Court strikes cap on aggregate political contributions

[3point14]

That's all you have in the way of retort?

Let's see...

1) To access an insurance company, many people now have to go through a government gatekeeper.

2) To be able to sell insurance, insurance providers cannot provide their customers with a wide range of options they can afford. They must provide what the government tells them to provide at a cost the goverment says they can charge.

3) If an insurance company makes more than the government feels they deserve to make, they have to return that money to their customers.

4) The government is forcing you to buy insurance or pay a fine.


That's a takeover, plain and simple.


So one day, when money is used to exert influence in the government's control of healthcare, don't whine. It's the design you continuously crave.

When the efforts to fix one thing that's broken run into problems caused by another thing that's broken, that's bad, therefore, don't try to fix anything.

Is that what you're saying here?

 

[Distracted1]

Those who are whining about the amount of money in politics are fools.

You'd think after more than half a century of campaign finance reforms having ZERO effect on the re-election rates of House and Senate members, the campaign finance "reform" morons would finally figure out they have been trying to cure the symptom instead of the disease.

There is a reason someone gives a politician a lot of money.

If you want to truly reform politics, you need to take away the incentive to give the politicians money. The only way to do that is to take away the power they have over your lives. If a politician had less power, there would be less reason to bribe him. Duh.

As long as you give a political body so much power over your lives, money will ALWAYS find a way to exert that power to its benefit.

When, for the love of God, will you nanny state loving idiots ever figure that out?

Now that you have allowed a government takeover of healthcare, hmmmm...I wonder if a lot of money is going to be thrown around to control that sphere. You think?

Why would I want to neuter an organization I have a very small amount of control over in favor of increasing the power of organizations I have no control over?

 

[fuelair]

Why would I want to neuter an organization I have a very small amount of control over in favor of increasing the power of organizations I have no control over?

The most obvious reason I can come up with is so you will again have no control over them.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I'm sure that money and service terms go hand in hand on the effects of the ruling. You have congressmen that serve for 10, 20, 30+ years and money helps perpetuate it which is probably my biggest reason, though not the only one for seeing this as a downer. Just thinking beyond the raw money aspect.

 

[Brown]

As is now being reported, the ruling makes it virtually impossible to prosecute anyone for corruption of a member of Congress. It was tough before, and now it is effectively impossible. (Unless the defendant is monumentally stupid, see above.)

Moreover, as some commentators have now caught on, wouldn't the Court's rationale mean that outright bribery was a kind of protected speech? In effect, a bribe would be analogous to a sales pitch that was really, REALLY, REALLY convincing.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes. There will be even more Sheldon Adelsons now, demanding pro quos before contributing to candidates.

 

[Puppycow]

The chairman of the Republican National Committee said Tuesday that he would like for the Supreme Court to overturn more campaign finance restrictions -- including the limit on the amount of money someone can give to an individual or a political party.

Priebus said he supports disclosure of who made the contributions, but he said he was even conflicted about that, noting that it allows people to target individuals and businesses for their political contributions.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/p...down-all-contribution-limits/?tid=HP_politics

Is unlimited anonymous money the way to go?

 

[thaiboxerken]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/p...down-all-contribution-limits/?tid=HP_politics

Is unlimited anonymous money the way to go?

Uhm.. is he missing the point? The whole purpose of a disclosure law would be so that individuals and groups could be "targeted" for their political contributions. Free speech should not shelter a person from consequences of that speech.

 

[Beerina]

[qimg]http://i62.tinypic.com/k4c9r6.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i61.tinypic.com/17p83l.jpg[/qimg]

Figure it out, rubes. You have been trying to cure the symptoms of the disease you have created, and gotten the predictable outcome.

Zero effect. Zilch. Nada.

Well, the surface meme is to prevent corruption or the appearance thereof. I suspect politicians are actually tired of sucking up to people almost literally every waking hour they aren't voting. Which is to say, they want it easier to maintain their power over challengers.




Also keep in mind the incumbents also get to spend over eight trillion dollars every two years that their challengers don't, to keep themselves in office.