We really need to start using fear mongering for the benefit of the people for once. The message we need to get into the media is that citizens united allows rogue terrorist states to promote their own presidential candidates. What exactly is there to stop a company with ties to these countries from donating as well? What about other nations such as China?
Obama isn't stupid. He's not going to handicap his re-election efforts. The key is that he supports both the DISCLOSE Act and a constitutional amendment to repeal the disastrous and ironically named 'Citizens United' decision by the conservative corporate SCOTUS. Nobody in the Republican party supports serious campaign finance reform.
So Obama has his cake and eats it too. True, smart political strategy. Of course, he could take a principled stand and not accept Super Pac money. And, no, I don't believe he's interested in campaign finance reform. He was the first candidate to opt out of public financing in a general election. He's a phony on this issue.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Well, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Either way, it's a bit of tangent from the real story of why the corporate right constantly tries to defend Citizens United. I don't see anyone on the left defending it or opposing the DISCLOSE Act.
Principled stands are all fine and dandy until you have to stand up too the blitzkreig of lies and innuendo coming from the right-wing super pacs.
Fight fire with fire, at least until the DISCLOSE act is passed and the constitutional amendment approved as well.
Not that it really matters because as P.Townsend wrote : "Here's to the new Boss,same as the old Boss.
Obama's simply forced to play by the new rules of politics CONSERVATIVES engineered for political advantage.
While I'm a political independent, I recognize he is forced to use a Super PAC purely for defensive purposes alone. Conservatives, on the other hand, use their Super PACs purely for offensive propaganda purposes and to evade longstanding political rules of "fair play". It's why most of us have grown to detest the conservative movement.
What's particularly amusing is that Conservatives even use those dirty political tricks on each other as Mitt Romney and the rest of the Conservative clowns have shown us all.
Yeah, it's easy for republicans to not be hypocrites when they don't have any principles. "what? You care about the homeless but aren't homeless yourself, with no power to change social policy in any way? What a hypocrite!"
By the way, how many people who think Social Security should go away, don't end up cashing in on it?
What? You are complaining about Obama playing by your rules? Why? Are only republicons allowed to have PACS?
If all of Obama's donations were averaged out it would work out to $54 per person.
You are just whining and crying because he is getting the support you think you deserve.
I had forgotten that about McCain. Thanks.
Anyway, he doomed himself. Backed cap 'n trade.
Backed no tough interrogations and closing Guantanamo. Where was the big difference?
And it was sad how careful he was not to say anything about Obama that could possibly, conceivably be construed as >gasp< racism.
"President Obama, who's tut-tutting the Citizens United decision, and raking in the $$$ for his campaign."
Citation please. Everything I've seen says Obama's Super PAC is doing piss poor, collecting an order of magnitude less money than Rove's along (never mind if you add in Super PACs associated with the four dwarves).
Here's a cite from even *FoxNews*: "Pro-Obama Super PAC Raised Just $59,000 in January." That's not missing any zeros - $59,000. That's really "raking in the $$$"? Not sure if blinker1315 is wildly exaggerating or flat out lying, but at this point if he told me water was wet I'd still dip a toe in to verify.
Obama was the one who backed out of the long standing public matching funds policy which helped establish a "salary cap" on spending in the presidential election.
What does that have to do with the Citizen's United ruling? I know critical thinking is hard, but you right wingers have the reasoning skills of a chihuahua on crack.
If corporations are people: why aren't their freedom of speech and other rights restricted to those of individuals. The supreme court has totally ignored the tide of legislation that sought to contain the self serving bias of rich individuals manipulating the electorate with the subsequent "SpeechNow" decision. The republican debates have exposed the perfect Hypocrisy that the party has achieved. The Über Rich have corrupted the highest court by manipulating the religious sods that kept our dumbest president in office for 8 years.
Justice Anthony Kennedy on Citizens United, "When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."
I fail to see the flaw in that argument. It's not hiding behind free speech it is defending free speech. Remember "Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech".
Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart actually argued that the government, under the law, could restrict the publishing of books under the law. It makes sense, what is the difference between a 30 minute commercial saying "Obama/Bush/Romney" is bad and a 300 page book? In fact, the start of the lawsuit was a documentary/attack film called "Hillary: The Movie" which was inspired by Michael Moore's documentaries. The fact that the FCC went after a right-wing movie and not, say, Fahrenheit 9/11 shows how the government could be used for selective censorship based solely on content. So I don't buy the whole "they would never do that" argument, because it already happened.
Now, if you are a left-winger you may say "Great!". However, you are betraying any core principles of being "liberal" if you want the government to censor your opponents just because you don't like what they say. Not only that, you may not like it when the other side gets into power and starts censoring you.
Overturning the Citizens United decision would NOT amount to an infringement of "freedom of speech" or censorship.
First, contrary to what the conservative ideologues on SCOTUS believe, money is NOT the same as speech. If it were, everyone would have the same influence REGARDLESS of the amount of money they threw at the political process. This truth, in and of itself, guts the claim that "money = speech".
Second, taking money out of politics STRENGTHENS the will of the people (aka central goal of our Constitution..."We the people..."), since it is ONLY used to subvert that will and drown out the voice of the American people.
Finally, wealth should NEVER give ANY American greater access and/or influence over public policies than that of ANY OTHER American.
A true "liberal" would understand, relate AND support these points. Citizens United is a conservative SCOTUS abomination worthy of execution.
Did you even read the article I posted? These aren't my words, these comments are from Obama's Deputy Solicitor arguing before the Supreme Court! The campaign finance law argued before the SCOTUS would have allowed the banning of books, violating the First Amendement.
All you are doing is blindly regurgitating hard-left talking points of people who WANT to restrict speech. You are acting like the "sheeple" you claim to be fighting against.
Read about the case, the arguments, get yourself educated, then talk. But if you want to authorize the banning of the New York Times, a BILLION dollar corporation, because it publishes an opinion page endorsing a candidate then go right ahead and keep talking ignorance. Because, guess what, in the end it takes a whole lot of money for the NY Times to publish its speech.
Yes I read it. Did you? Let's take another look at the portion you took exception to:
"But when Justice Samuel Alito (CONSERVATIVE Justice) asks whether the government—if it can regulate documentaries—might also regulate a book containing "express advocacy" prior to an election, Stewart agrees that it might. (note the misleading and loaded nature of Alito's questioning)
"That's pretty incredible," splutters Alito. "You think that if—if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?" NOT BANNED, clarifies Stewart. Congress COULD JUST "PROHIBIT THE USE OF CORPORATE TREASURY FUNDS" to publish it."
I have NO problem with this type of prohibition since it is NO different than the CORROSIVE propaganda we see from corporate enabled Super PAC's. Cherry-picking the Deputy Solicitor's comments and distorting the intent expressed undermines YOUR credibility, NOT his. He NEVER stated that "banning" was intended or that "books" would be targeted. He simply stated that CORPORATE funded publications would be prohibited to the extent they served a purely POLITICAL agenda. I have NO problem with that, nor should MOST Americans since it contributes to the corporate-led corruption in our government.
Your hyperbolic political ranting makes me laugh. Get a clue about the REAL issues involved here...Conservative-enabled political corruption, NOT book banning.
"I have NO problem with this type of prohibition since it is NO different than the CORROSIVE propaganda we see from corporate enabled Super PAC's."
So a book cannot be published using corporate funds... but why then can a newspaper, in the course of a month running up to the election, publish just as much material? Are they not also a corporation? They are just as much "press" as a book publisher.
Same could be made for CNN/Fox/MSNBC - how are they different, in terms of freedom of the press, as a movie producer? Is it the time/size of their stories? How does that make sense.
The funny thing about this entire debate is that everyone automatically assumes that corporations are going to go to the Republicans. That is not necessarily the case. Did you miss where Sierra Club got donations from the natural gas industry? Politics makes strange bedfellows, especially when the government can be used to effectively eliminate competition - its easier to do it that way than compete in the market.
You left out the RELEVANT element of my position..."to the extent they serve a PURELY political agenda". This position applies AS MUCH to Democrats as it does Republicans.
Your hyperbolic whining is NOT lost on me. NO ONE has suggested shutting down newpapers OR censoring them so unbunch your partisan shorts. They are SIMPLY attempting to prevent the voice of the American people from being drowned out by the tidal wave of self-serving corporate money. AS someone who supports the original intent of the Founding Father's, I FULLY support the effort. The SCOTUS Citizens United decision has PROVEN to be the anti-Democratic clusterf**k SCOTUS dissenters asserted it would become.
Perhaps the biggest abomination was the SCOTUS decision which granted corporations citizenship rights. That decision undermined the Founder's original intent because they MEANT for corporations to be treated as economic entities ALONE with NO citizenship rights whatsoever. Personally, I think corporations should have those "rights" completely REVOKED and be trewated as they were ALWAYS meant to be...economic entities ONLY. For what it's worth, this misguided decision was made possible by a former SCOTUS justice who was beholden to the tobacco industry.
I don't care who corporations support, I care that they've corrupted our country's Democracy and undermined the national interest for money ALONE.
So who gets to decide "purely political agenda"? Fox news is decidely Republicans, MSNBC Democrat and then there's poor CNN that can't figure out what the hell to do.
I have no problem with Citizens United, but with one, huge, giant caveat - it needs to be perfectly and clearly disclosed. I think the key to campaign finance reform is not actually limiting finances, but rather making it transparent.
Make any entity wanting to make campaign contributions reveal the sources of its income - either W2, 1099s, etc for individuals, tax returns for corporations, or donor lists for non-profits. If a non-profit wants to take out ads, no more anonymous donors. And follow that train all the way until we get back to a human - no laundering money through three non-profits to hide who is really contributing.
That's the reason I don't mind the Kochs or Soros - they are open with their support. If a billionaire wants to waste their money, fine. If a corporation wants to waste their money instead of returning it to the shareholders, fine. There are ramifications... but we need to KNOW. If we know, we can make decisions.
The bigger issue is the continuous fundraising - its basically allowing for bribes. Don't allow fundraising more than a year before the general election or six months before a primary. Yeah, that'd put the incumbent President at a disadvantage (unless someone ran against him) but the President running for reelection already has a huge advantage anyway. He can make a national speech that is just a papered over campaign speech.
I understand your argument, its not likely in the form you propose but i understand that the worry about 1st, its the most powerful of them all and limiting should be carefully considered.
But, speech is limited for the health of everyone, for example, you cannot yell fire in a crowded room and be covered under 1st. You cannot do human sacrifice because your religion allows it and claim the 1st; sometimes the harm complete freedom can cause damage to many other individual rights...i cant get a bull horn, drive down the road at 12:00 am to get my message out.
The problem with allowing all this money is the distortion it creates on both sides in our political environment it sacrifices the rights of many for the rights of the few.
The 30 second commercials cant be limited? i doubt that one, and honestly..if it wasn't for tv, all this money would be pointless. The first doesn't guarantee that you can be on tv..
There would be no reason why a corporate person would spend 300 million dollars on flyers...it just wouldn't work, not like tv. But hey, if they want to...im all for that
Propaganda book? im ok with that.
Movie documentary before the elections, im ok with that to.
Allowing rich people to anonymously donate to a shadow group that fills the air with 30 second adds on national airwaves for propaganda..thats not ok, that undermines our democracy.
But hey, Its here and while i may not complete agree, its still here..I can only hope that my paranoia of it undermining our democracy is just that, paranoia and that everything will be hunky dory...ya, id like to be wrong and everything be just fine.
It's not paranoia you're feeling, that threat poses a clear and present danger to our Democracy. The 2010 election and current Republican primary have proven this fact beyond all shadow of doubt.
People don't spend that much money on propaganda and media pundits unless the efforts are proven to work.
Really? Even the most liberal projection for Democrats show that they'll lose control of the Senate and Republicans end up with 52 or so seats. You will truly see the government come to a grinding halt.
Obama desperately needs the economy to come back. He needs to keep the Senate. He can rail about a do-nothing Congress, but if they're passing bills in the House and the Democrats take an obstructionist tack in the Senate (payback to Republicans) who is really the one in trouble?
McCain-Feingold CFR was bad from the beginning and an assault on free speech. Citizens United is just the courts trying to deal with that crappy legislation. And it killed me that President Bush signed it -- he should have vetoed it. I didn't think McCain should have been the GOP candidate in 08 for CFR alone.
I agree that money in politics is a problem. But I don't want a cure that is worse than the disease. Let individuals have no limits and have transparency on what is given.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Incidentally, the Supreme Court has upheld campaign contribution limits, but they have also ruled that money is speech. They also ruled that candidates can contribute as much of their own wealth as they want. So if you are limiting what others can raise, only the wealthy will be able to compete.
That is not true. Much poorer candidates have beat out rich ones before (heck, look at some of the Republican primary challengers that have beat out Mitt in some states despite being horribly outspent).
Just because you have a lot of money to spread a message does not mean other messages will not get through, especially with the internet.
The fact is that money IS speech, and that blocking what or how much people can say is simply WRONG.
I don't think we disagree. I don't like having limits on donations or speech.
And you are right that money doesn't mean you will win. Rick Perry is proof of that. He outspent them all in the Iowa Caucus and didn't have much to show for it. His poor debate performance sunk his chances.
However, IF there are donation limits (which we do currently have for individual contributions) -- wealthy candidates will have an advantage. Others must be allowed to get donations easily in order to be competitive.
Politicians with the most campaign money won 94% of the time in the most recent election. This political truth GUTS your baseless political theory and lies.
If money is speech, why do ALL Conservative politicians operate on a "PAY-TO-PLAY" basis, NOT a "speak-to-play" basis. I don't give a crap what conservative SCOTUS justices misinterpret, money is NOT speech.
That is bulls**t revisionism. Free Speech is just that - letting people say WHATEVER THEY WANT. It is insane to argue that ANY limitations on what people can say is "for" free speech.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
In what way do spending limits stop people from saying WHATEVER THEY WANT? They can still say it. Speech =/= a platform from which to BROADCAST said speech.
Did you realize that you just contradicted yourself by opposing McCain-Feingold than admitting money in politics is a problem. That was the POINT of McCain-Feingold (i.e., to limit money in politics).
McCain-Feingold was spot on. Money in politics is NOTHING but a corrupting influence which UNDERMINES Democracy. That's why Conservatives favor it's use. Without it, you wouldn't stand a chance in Hell of getting elected.
Regardless of what you think individuals ARE limited by money since it is NOT equally distributed throughout society. Those holding MOST of the money will ALWAYS have a greater advantage over those who don't. Tis fundamental economic truth GUTS the notion that money should be treated in the same fashion as speech. Money will ALWAYS have a greater influence in politics over speech alone.
I can admit there is a problem, but not like the solution that was put in place. I said I don't want a cure that is worse than the disease.
There could be campaign finance reform that makes sense -- it did not exist in McCain's CFR bill, however. About the only part I liked in that bill was where the candidate's ads have the "I am <say your name> and I support this message."
I don't want CFR that puts limits on speech, liberty, or freedom. Freedom of Speech was specifically to protect political speech.
I think it is near impossible to get the money out of politics. The best solution is to go for transparency. You can take money from this person or this company or this union -- but have the amount and donor disclosed. We have Internets. This information should be readily available.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
One correction to my statement. Companies and Unions should have their names disclosed as donors, but not individuals. I think amounts would be sufficient for individuals. They have a right to privacy on their identity.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The problem with unlimited money in politics is that it tilts the playing field to the point voters are able to get a clear picture of the politicians runnning. This only serves to undermine our Democracy. Since corporations tend to hold MAJOR conflicts of interest with the national interest, especially in light of how they prefer practicing globalization/Free Trade, they can't be trusted to fund ANY political candidate for higher office (regardless of the letter behind their names).
The only way to clean out the corruption is to outlaw the use of it. McCain-Feingold didn't go far enough, but it was astep in the right direction. Abandoning it has ONLY made political corruption WORSE and the SCOTUS Citizens United decision amounts to "pouring gas on the fire (of corruption)".
CFR doesn't limit speech, liberty or freedom, but corporate money DOES. We've witnessed as much ever since the Citizens United decision was handed down by COnservative justices on SCOTUS (yes, I'm thinking of you Sammy). That corrupting effect has burned Democrat's AND Republicans and that's why it MUST be reversed.
As for pursuing transparency, Karl Rove and the Koch Brother's will fight "tooth and nail" to prevent it. Most corporate donors do NOT want their identities to be revealed to the American people because it WOULD affect their bottom lines/profits when their customers reacted with revulsion and boycotts. They know it and WE know it. Many conservatives would argue that we already have ample transparency, but what they don't tell you is that donor identities aren't revealed on a timely basis (i.e., BEFORE voters cast their support in primaries and elections)
Once they get a full taste of the money, they won't want to give it up. This needs to be fixed sooner rather than later. What is the holdup? Didn't somebody have an amendment they were proposing?
"Does anybody seriously think that any of these donors, who are some of the most accomplished businessmen in America, are just handing over millions as if they were giving a dollar to a homeless person and walking away?"- from the article.
I wonder if Alternet knows that the candidate that made off with the most $$ in donations from Wall Street(by far), was Obama!
Maybe one way of getting around this by a user pays election system in which the tax department pays everyones membership subscriptions to the political party they voted for.
david, Fox news claims to be NEWS. It's not, it's propaganda. There is no 'sides' to news. If a car slams into a tree and we want to report the tragedy, nobody says "Has anyone gotten the tree's side of this accident?"
If they want to be propaganda, fine, but when you call yourself news, stupid people think you are... Duh! News!
see I just cant put myself into a group that accept people like david niven he is a racist retarded piece of s**t. The republicans are as much to blame as the democrats for the way this country is screwed up. So if you want to call me special for not falling into the social norm then thats fine by me cause its fun sitting back watching the 2 sides piss and moan over who pisses and moans the most.
citizens united specifically ruled that money *is* free speech. corporations are created to shelter peoples personal responsibility and to create a layer of isolation between the "corporation" and the *people* who compromise it. A corporation is *made of people* it isnt *a person* and as such, it in no way should provide personal rights to the entity itself
You do know, of course, that politicians created the whole corporation thing, probably some of the very same types of politicians that leftists put into office.
Agree or disagree, a Supreme Court ruling is pretty much final. I don't like a lot of their decisions -- but that is how our government is set up. Quit whining.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
It's not whining to point out a problem. The primary wisdom of the founders was making the constitution amendable. This is why my jaw drops when I listen to Scilia and his 'original intent' thinking. When Bush says things like that I brush it off. I expect idiots to say stupid things, but Scilia?
The original intent of the constitution was to admit it was a flawed, compromised document that will need changing as times change. Hell if you read it, the Supreme court has WAY more power than the constitution actually calls for. That was a change that seemed wise at the time (Mullbeary vs madison, I think) but is now out of date.
Don't act like we are just stuck. The genius of the founders was their endless adaptability.
Long story short, sooner or later, something is going to have to be done about the supreme court. They can't make bad decisions with no recourse. It doesn't work and needs fixed. The founders never intended that.
"Long story short, sooner or later, something is going to have to be done about the supreme court. They can't make bad decisions with no recourse. It doesn't work and needs fixed. The founders never intended that."
I think some conservatives would agree with you when it comes to the Court's decisions on things like Roe V. Wade.
Like I said, I accept the Supreme Courts decisions. I like the balance we have between the three branches. It isn't perfect, but I really wouldn't want it any other way.
I might be in favor of term limits for Justices. The fact is that we are living a lot longer than our ancestors. I think a 20-25 year term should be sufficient for a Justice.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Yes. I would think they would agree with me too. Though they often don't just on 'principal.' I don't know why they do that, but they do.
But all that aside, though I think Roe v. Wade was wise, I'm more than a little uncomfortable with how it came about. If 'Roe v. Wade' is a mistake is a way to 'sell' reform to conservatives, I'm all for it. Lets get the reforms in place, then revisit all this stuff if they insist.
And I agree that the big problem is the lifetime appointments. I do think the terms should be long, but not lifetime. Times change, and the a bunch of out of date old people on the bench is not a great idea (and I say that as I come up on 'old' myself!)
It seems likely that, as we manage to keep our bodies alive, longer than our minds, SCOTUS could be totally addled, someday. Mental acuity testing should be considered.
FalalisFeb 24, 2012
We really need to start using fear mongering for the benefit of the people for once. The message we need to get into the media is that citizens united allows rogue terrorist states to promote their own presidential candidates. What exactly is there to stop a company with ties to these countries from donating as well? What about other nations such as China?
laurahoustonFeb 24, 2012
Could be terrorists that donate. Maybe one of Irans historic enemies wants to help push in a warmonger.
Yet they will let anyone online track Americans into their bedrooms.
anomaly100Feb 24, 2012
Only 6?
blinker1315Feb 24, 2012
Does that include Mr. 99%, aka President Obama, who's tut-tutting the Citizens United decision, and raking in the $$$ for his campaign.
anomaly100Feb 24, 2012
Obama is considered right wing now? I always thought he was too Conservative.
novenatorFeb 24, 2012Submitter
Obama isn't stupid. He's not going to handicap his re-election efforts. The key is that he supports both the DISCLOSE Act and a constitutional amendment to repeal the disastrous and ironically named 'Citizens United' decision by the conservative corporate SCOTUS. Nobody in the Republican party supports serious campaign finance reform.
blinker1315Feb 24, 2012
So Obama has his cake and eats it too. True, smart political strategy. Of course, he could take a principled stand and not accept Super Pac money. And, no, I don't believe he's interested in campaign finance reform. He was the first candidate to opt out of public financing in a general election. He's a phony on this issue.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorFeb 24, 2012Submitter
Well, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Either way, it's a bit of tangent from the real story of why the corporate right constantly tries to defend Citizens United. I don't see anyone on the left defending it or opposing the DISCLOSE Act.
bluenose2Feb 24, 2012
Principled stands are all fine and dandy until you have to stand up too the blitzkreig of lies and innuendo coming from the right-wing super pacs.
Fight fire with fire, at least until the DISCLOSE act is passed and the constitutional amendment approved as well.
Not that it really matters because as P.Townsend wrote : "Here's to the new Boss,same as the old Boss.
davidnivenFeb 24, 2012
Pete Townshend? You mean the rock guy who got caught with child pornography and said it was only for research?
Are you sure that you want to quote such a disgusting individual?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bluenose2Feb 24, 2012
Either quote him or YOU both are disgusting.
kareemachanFeb 25, 2012
@niv - Typical of you to ignore the rest of the story:
"After a four-month investigation, London police today cleared Pete Townshend of kiddie porn charges."
eraptorFeb 24, 2012
@blinker1315,
Obama's simply forced to play by the new rules of politics CONSERVATIVES engineered for political advantage.
While I'm a political independent, I recognize he is forced to use a Super PAC purely for defensive purposes alone. Conservatives, on the other hand, use their Super PACs purely for offensive propaganda purposes and to evade longstanding political rules of "fair play". It's why most of us have grown to detest the conservative movement.
What's particularly amusing is that Conservatives even use those dirty political tricks on each other as Mitt Romney and the rest of the Conservative clowns have shown us all.
letherialFeb 25, 2012
well said
bellenbergerFeb 24, 2012
What constitutional amendment has he backed? Any links?
kasha34Feb 24, 2012
That's different. When Obama does it, it's alright, yo.
cybersaurFeb 24, 2012
Obama is not a right winger and he is not defending the Citizens United decision. Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding, yet unsurprising.
kasha34Feb 24, 2012
He accepts tremendous contributions from corporations and unions. That's the point.
brewbeauFeb 24, 2012
Yeah, it's easy for republicans to not be hypocrites when they don't have any principles. "what? You care about the homeless but aren't homeless yourself, with no power to change social policy in any way? What a hypocrite!"
By the way, how many people who think Social Security should go away, don't end up cashing in on it?
miklkitFeb 24, 2012
What? You are complaining about Obama playing by your rules? Why? Are only republicons allowed to have PACS?
If all of Obama's donations were averaged out it would work out to $54 per person.
You are just whining and crying because he is getting the support you think you deserve.
kasha34Feb 24, 2012
Oh please. He's bought and paid for by corporations AND unions.
The old silly idea that "Democrats are for the workers..." is based on zero.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drich255Feb 24, 2012
During the 08 election, it was McCain that stuck to his principles with public funding -- which did limit his fundraising ability.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-09-prezmoney_N.htm
kasha34Feb 24, 2012
I had forgotten that about McCain. Thanks.
Anyway, he doomed himself. Backed cap 'n trade.
Backed no tough interrogations and closing Guantanamo. Where was the big difference?
And it was sad how careful he was not to say anything about Obama that could possibly, conceivably be construed as >gasp< racism.
It was like fighting a girl -- you have to be so careful not to hurt her.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jhw539Feb 24, 2012
"President Obama, who's tut-tutting the Citizens United decision, and raking in the $$$ for his campaign."
Citation please. Everything I've seen says Obama's Super PAC is doing piss poor, collecting an order of magnitude less money than Rove's along (never mind if you add in Super PACs associated with the four dwarves).
Here's a cite from even *FoxNews*: "Pro-Obama Super PAC Raised Just $59,000 in January." That's not missing any zeros - $59,000. That's really "raking in the $$$"? Not sure if blinker1315 is wildly exaggerating or flat out lying, but at this point if he told me water was wet I'd still dip a toe in to verify.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/21/pro-obama-super-pac-raised-just-5000-in-january/
bellenbergerFeb 24, 2012
Obama was the one who backed out of the long standing public matching funds policy which helped establish a "salary cap" on spending in the presidential election.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/in_a_shift_obama_rejects_public_funding/?page=full
jhw539Feb 25, 2012
What does that have to do with the Citizen's United ruling? I know critical thinking is hard, but you right wingers have the reasoning skills of a chihuahua on crack.
slexaminerFeb 25, 2012
Looks like Soros is going to start a Super PAC to support Obama..big shock!
eshoopFeb 25, 2012
He has raised much more than that! The Super PAC is not the only entity involved in fund-raising for his re-election.
sharpestoolFeb 25, 2012
If corporations are people: why aren't their freedom of speech and other rights restricted to those of individuals. The supreme court has totally ignored the tide of legislation that sought to contain the self serving bias of rich individuals manipulating the electorate with the subsequent "SpeechNow" decision. The republican debates have exposed the perfect Hypocrisy that the party has achieved. The Über Rich have corrupted the highest court by manipulating the religious sods that kept our dumbest president in office for 8 years.
freelibertineFeb 24, 2012
Justice Anthony Kennedy on Citizens United, "When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."
I fail to see the flaw in that argument. It's not hiding behind free speech it is defending free speech. Remember "Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech".
bellenbergerFeb 24, 2012
These are 6 straw-men arguments. The REAL reason it was overturned was that the government argued that you could ban books:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2009/03/the_supreme_court_reviews_hillary_the_movie.2.html
Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart actually argued that the government, under the law, could restrict the publishing of books under the law. It makes sense, what is the difference between a 30 minute commercial saying "Obama/Bush/Romney" is bad and a 300 page book? In fact, the start of the lawsuit was a documentary/attack film called "Hillary: The Movie" which was inspired by Michael Moore's documentaries. The fact that the FCC went after a right-wing movie and not, say, Fahrenheit 9/11 shows how the government could be used for selective censorship based solely on content. So I don't buy the whole "they would never do that" argument, because it already happened.
Now, if you are a left-winger you may say "Great!". However, you are betraying any core principles of being "liberal" if you want the government to censor your opponents just because you don't like what they say. Not only that, you may not like it when the other side gets into power and starts censoring you.
eraptorFeb 24, 2012
Overturning the Citizens United decision would NOT amount to an infringement of "freedom of speech" or censorship.
First, contrary to what the conservative ideologues on SCOTUS believe, money is NOT the same as speech. If it were, everyone would have the same influence REGARDLESS of the amount of money they threw at the political process. This truth, in and of itself, guts the claim that "money = speech".
Second, taking money out of politics STRENGTHENS the will of the people (aka central goal of our Constitution..."We the people..."), since it is ONLY used to subvert that will and drown out the voice of the American people.
Finally, wealth should NEVER give ANY American greater access and/or influence over public policies than that of ANY OTHER American.
A true "liberal" would understand, relate AND support these points. Citizens United is a conservative SCOTUS abomination worthy of execution.
bellenbergerFeb 24, 2012
Did you even read the article I posted? These aren't my words, these comments are from Obama's Deputy Solicitor arguing before the Supreme Court! The campaign finance law argued before the SCOTUS would have allowed the banning of books, violating the First Amendement.
All you are doing is blindly regurgitating hard-left talking points of people who WANT to restrict speech. You are acting like the "sheeple" you claim to be fighting against.
Read about the case, the arguments, get yourself educated, then talk. But if you want to authorize the banning of the New York Times, a BILLION dollar corporation, because it publishes an opinion page endorsing a candidate then go right ahead and keep talking ignorance. Because, guess what, in the end it takes a whole lot of money for the NY Times to publish its speech.
eraptorFeb 24, 2012
Yes I read it. Did you? Let's take another look at the portion you took exception to:
"But when Justice Samuel Alito (CONSERVATIVE Justice) asks whether the government—if it can regulate documentaries—might also regulate a book containing "express advocacy" prior to an election, Stewart agrees that it might. (note the misleading and loaded nature of Alito's questioning)
"That's pretty incredible," splutters Alito. "You think that if—if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?" NOT BANNED, clarifies Stewart. Congress COULD JUST "PROHIBIT THE USE OF CORPORATE TREASURY FUNDS" to publish it."
I have NO problem with this type of prohibition since it is NO different than the CORROSIVE propaganda we see from corporate enabled Super PAC's. Cherry-picking the Deputy Solicitor's comments and distorting the intent expressed undermines YOUR credibility, NOT his. He NEVER stated that "banning" was intended or that "books" would be targeted. He simply stated that CORPORATE funded publications would be prohibited to the extent they served a purely POLITICAL agenda. I have NO problem with that, nor should MOST Americans since it contributes to the corporate-led corruption in our government.
Your hyperbolic political ranting makes me laugh. Get a clue about the REAL issues involved here...Conservative-enabled political corruption, NOT book banning.
auditortuxFeb 25, 2012
"I have NO problem with this type of prohibition since it is NO different than the CORROSIVE propaganda we see from corporate enabled Super PAC's."
So a book cannot be published using corporate funds... but why then can a newspaper, in the course of a month running up to the election, publish just as much material? Are they not also a corporation? They are just as much "press" as a book publisher.
Same could be made for CNN/Fox/MSNBC - how are they different, in terms of freedom of the press, as a movie producer? Is it the time/size of their stories? How does that make sense.
The funny thing about this entire debate is that everyone automatically assumes that corporations are going to go to the Republicans. That is not necessarily the case. Did you miss where Sierra Club got donations from the natural gas industry? Politics makes strange bedfellows, especially when the government can be used to effectively eliminate competition - its easier to do it that way than compete in the market.
eraptorFeb 25, 2012
@Auditortux,
You left out the RELEVANT element of my position..."to the extent they serve a PURELY political agenda". This position applies AS MUCH to Democrats as it does Republicans.
Your hyperbolic whining is NOT lost on me. NO ONE has suggested shutting down newpapers OR censoring them so unbunch your partisan shorts. They are SIMPLY attempting to prevent the voice of the American people from being drowned out by the tidal wave of self-serving corporate money. AS someone who supports the original intent of the Founding Father's, I FULLY support the effort. The SCOTUS Citizens United decision has PROVEN to be the anti-Democratic clusterf**k SCOTUS dissenters asserted it would become.
Perhaps the biggest abomination was the SCOTUS decision which granted corporations citizenship rights. That decision undermined the Founder's original intent because they MEANT for corporations to be treated as economic entities ALONE with NO citizenship rights whatsoever. Personally, I think corporations should have those "rights" completely REVOKED and be trewated as they were ALWAYS meant to be...economic entities ONLY. For what it's worth, this misguided decision was made possible by a former SCOTUS justice who was beholden to the tobacco industry.
I don't care who corporations support, I care that they've corrupted our country's Democracy and undermined the national interest for money ALONE.
auditortuxFeb 25, 2012
So who gets to decide "purely political agenda"? Fox news is decidely Republicans, MSNBC Democrat and then there's poor CNN that can't figure out what the hell to do.
I have no problem with Citizens United, but with one, huge, giant caveat - it needs to be perfectly and clearly disclosed. I think the key to campaign finance reform is not actually limiting finances, but rather making it transparent.
Make any entity wanting to make campaign contributions reveal the sources of its income - either W2, 1099s, etc for individuals, tax returns for corporations, or donor lists for non-profits. If a non-profit wants to take out ads, no more anonymous donors. And follow that train all the way until we get back to a human - no laundering money through three non-profits to hide who is really contributing.
That's the reason I don't mind the Kochs or Soros - they are open with their support. If a billionaire wants to waste their money, fine. If a corporation wants to waste their money instead of returning it to the shareholders, fine. There are ramifications... but we need to KNOW. If we know, we can make decisions.
The bigger issue is the continuous fundraising - its basically allowing for bribes. Don't allow fundraising more than a year before the general election or six months before a primary. Yeah, that'd put the incumbent President at a disadvantage (unless someone ran against him) but the President running for reelection already has a huge advantage anyway. He can make a national speech that is just a papered over campaign speech.
letherialFeb 25, 2012
I understand your argument, its not likely in the form you propose but i understand that the worry about 1st, its the most powerful of them all and limiting should be carefully considered.
But, speech is limited for the health of everyone, for example, you cannot yell fire in a crowded room and be covered under 1st. You cannot do human sacrifice because your religion allows it and claim the 1st; sometimes the harm complete freedom can cause damage to many other individual rights...i cant get a bull horn, drive down the road at 12:00 am to get my message out.
The problem with allowing all this money is the distortion it creates on both sides in our political environment it sacrifices the rights of many for the rights of the few.
The 30 second commercials cant be limited? i doubt that one, and honestly..if it wasn't for tv, all this money would be pointless. The first doesn't guarantee that you can be on tv..
There would be no reason why a corporate person would spend 300 million dollars on flyers...it just wouldn't work, not like tv. But hey, if they want to...im all for that
Propaganda book? im ok with that.
Movie documentary before the elections, im ok with that to.
Allowing rich people to anonymously donate to a shadow group that fills the air with 30 second adds on national airwaves for propaganda..thats not ok, that undermines our democracy.
But hey, Its here and while i may not complete agree, its still here..I can only hope that my paranoia of it undermining our democracy is just that, paranoia and that everything will be hunky dory...ya, id like to be wrong and everything be just fine.
eraptorFeb 25, 2012
It's not paranoia you're feeling, that threat poses a clear and present danger to our Democracy. The 2010 election and current Republican primary have proven this fact beyond all shadow of doubt.
People don't spend that much money on propaganda and media pundits unless the efforts are proven to work.
superkendallFeb 24, 2012
What's REALLY pathetic is not believing in free speech, regardless of what people say.
macliberalFeb 24, 2012
Hey repukes, you better party now, November is coming.
auditortuxFeb 25, 2012
Really? Even the most liberal projection for Democrats show that they'll lose control of the Senate and Republicans end up with 52 or so seats. You will truly see the government come to a grinding halt.
Obama desperately needs the economy to come back. He needs to keep the Senate. He can rail about a do-nothing Congress, but if they're passing bills in the House and the Democrats take an obstructionist tack in the Senate (payback to Republicans) who is really the one in trouble?
The next 4 years are going to be crazy, whatever the case. And 2016... man, get your popcorn ready.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 24, 2012
This gets a digg just for the title. The rest is gravy.
hydroplaneFeb 24, 2012
Is alternet.org the pot or the kettle in this story?
davidnivenFeb 24, 2012
Alternet.org is the liberal hypocrite pointing fingers at others.
concusionFeb 24, 2012
no irony there david
drich255Feb 24, 2012
McCain-Feingold CFR was bad from the beginning and an assault on free speech. Citizens United is just the courts trying to deal with that crappy legislation. And it killed me that President Bush signed it -- he should have vetoed it. I didn't think McCain should have been the GOP candidate in 08 for CFR alone.
I agree that money in politics is a problem. But I don't want a cure that is worse than the disease. Let individuals have no limits and have transparency on what is given.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drich255Feb 24, 2012
Incidentally, the Supreme Court has upheld campaign contribution limits, but they have also ruled that money is speech. They also ruled that candidates can contribute as much of their own wealth as they want. So if you are limiting what others can raise, only the wealthy will be able to compete.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._ValeoComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
superkendallFeb 24, 2012
That is not true. Much poorer candidates have beat out rich ones before (heck, look at some of the Republican primary challengers that have beat out Mitt in some states despite being horribly outspent).
Just because you have a lot of money to spread a message does not mean other messages will not get through, especially with the internet.
The fact is that money IS speech, and that blocking what or how much people can say is simply WRONG.
drich255Feb 24, 2012
I don't think we disagree. I don't like having limits on donations or speech.
And you are right that money doesn't mean you will win. Rick Perry is proof of that. He outspent them all in the Iowa Caucus and didn't have much to show for it. His poor debate performance sunk his chances.
However, IF there are donation limits (which we do currently have for individual contributions) -- wealthy candidates will have an advantage. Others must be allowed to get donations easily in order to be competitive.
Incumbents will also have an advantage with name recognition. Challengers must be able to raise the cash to compete.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorFeb 24, 2012
KenDoll,
Politicians with the most campaign money won 94% of the time in the most recent election. This political truth GUTS your baseless political theory and lies.
If money is speech, why do ALL Conservative politicians operate on a "PAY-TO-PLAY" basis, NOT a "speak-to-play" basis. I don't give a crap what conservative SCOTUS justices misinterpret, money is NOT speech.
superkendallFeb 24, 2012
That is bulls**t revisionism. Free Speech is just that - letting people say WHATEVER THEY WANT. It is insane to argue that ANY limitations on what people can say is "for" free speech.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bookantFeb 24, 2012
In what way do spending limits stop people from saying WHATEVER THEY WANT? They can still say it. Speech =/= a platform from which to BROADCAST said speech.
eraptorFeb 24, 2012
Did you realize that you just contradicted yourself by opposing McCain-Feingold than admitting money in politics is a problem. That was the POINT of McCain-Feingold (i.e., to limit money in politics).
McCain-Feingold was spot on. Money in politics is NOTHING but a corrupting influence which UNDERMINES Democracy. That's why Conservatives favor it's use. Without it, you wouldn't stand a chance in Hell of getting elected.
Regardless of what you think individuals ARE limited by money since it is NOT equally distributed throughout society. Those holding MOST of the money will ALWAYS have a greater advantage over those who don't. Tis fundamental economic truth GUTS the notion that money should be treated in the same fashion as speech. Money will ALWAYS have a greater influence in politics over speech alone.
drich255Feb 24, 2012
I can admit there is a problem, but not like the solution that was put in place. I said I don't want a cure that is worse than the disease.
There could be campaign finance reform that makes sense -- it did not exist in McCain's CFR bill, however. About the only part I liked in that bill was where the candidate's ads have the "I am <say your name> and I support this message."
I don't want CFR that puts limits on speech, liberty, or freedom. Freedom of Speech was specifically to protect political speech.
I think it is near impossible to get the money out of politics. The best solution is to go for transparency. You can take money from this person or this company or this union -- but have the amount and donor disclosed. We have Internets. This information should be readily available.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drich255Feb 24, 2012
One correction to my statement. Companies and Unions should have their names disclosed as donors, but not individuals. I think amounts would be sufficient for individuals. They have a right to privacy on their identity.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorFeb 25, 2012
The problem with unlimited money in politics is that it tilts the playing field to the point voters are able to get a clear picture of the politicians runnning. This only serves to undermine our Democracy. Since corporations tend to hold MAJOR conflicts of interest with the national interest, especially in light of how they prefer practicing globalization/Free Trade, they can't be trusted to fund ANY political candidate for higher office (regardless of the letter behind their names).
The only way to clean out the corruption is to outlaw the use of it. McCain-Feingold didn't go far enough, but it was astep in the right direction. Abandoning it has ONLY made political corruption WORSE and the SCOTUS Citizens United decision amounts to "pouring gas on the fire (of corruption)".
CFR doesn't limit speech, liberty or freedom, but corporate money DOES. We've witnessed as much ever since the Citizens United decision was handed down by COnservative justices on SCOTUS (yes, I'm thinking of you Sammy). That corrupting effect has burned Democrat's AND Republicans and that's why it MUST be reversed.
As for pursuing transparency, Karl Rove and the Koch Brother's will fight "tooth and nail" to prevent it. Most corporate donors do NOT want their identities to be revealed to the American people because it WOULD affect their bottom lines/profits when their customers reacted with revulsion and boycotts. They know it and WE know it. Many conservatives would argue that we already have ample transparency, but what they don't tell you is that donor identities aren't revealed on a timely basis (i.e., BEFORE voters cast their support in primaries and elections)
langfordFeb 24, 2012
Once they get a full taste of the money, they won't want to give it up. This needs to be fixed sooner rather than later. What is the holdup? Didn't somebody have an amendment they were proposing?
gkiltzFeb 25, 2012
The GOP is grasping at any straw at this point.
eshoopFeb 25, 2012
"Does anybody seriously think that any of these donors, who are some of the most accomplished businessmen in America, are just handing over millions as if they were giving a dollar to a homeless person and walking away?"- from the article.
I wonder if Alternet knows that the candidate that made off with the most $$ in donations from Wall Street(by far), was Obama!
cbmilne33Feb 25, 2012
Maybe one way of getting around this by a user pays election system in which the tax department pays everyones membership subscriptions to the political party they voted for.
barackalypseFeb 24, 2012
Does Alternet even attempt to present an honest discussion of anything? The very words they use just reek of biased rhetoric.
roguegeniusFeb 24, 2012
Alternet is alternet. The don't claim to be anything other than what they are. Would that Fox News were so honest.
davidnivenFeb 25, 2012
At least Fox News shows all sides of the debate. When did you see the same in the lamestream media?
911ducktailFeb 25, 2012
all sides; like right-wing, republicon and teabag?
16x9Feb 25, 2012
FOX News shows all sides of the debate... The conservative viewpoint and the ultra-conservative viewpoint.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
david, Fox news claims to be NEWS. It's not, it's propaganda. There is no 'sides' to news. If a car slams into a tree and we want to report the tragedy, nobody says "Has anyone gotten the tree's side of this accident?"
If they want to be propaganda, fine, but when you call yourself news, stupid people think you are... Duh! News!
seidnuFeb 26, 2012
Its not even good propaganda but then it doesn't have to be when the biggest part of its viewers are void of any kind of education after middle school
roguegeniusFeb 26, 2012
It doesn't have to be very good. It's target audience isn't very smart.
seidnuFeb 26, 2012
kinda what I said
seidnuFeb 26, 2012
your as full of s**t as fox news is david
davidnivenFeb 26, 2012
And you smell like poopy diapers. So there!
[sigh] Liberals...
seidnuFeb 26, 2012
far from a liberal and far from from putting myself into a group of evolutionary throwbacks such as yourself.
seidnuFeb 26, 2012
smell like diapers? amazed you could say that with the GOP's dick down your throat
seidnuFeb 26, 2012
Thats right! wait..what
seidnuFeb 26, 2012
see I just cant put myself into a group that accept people like david niven he is a racist retarded piece of s**t. The republicans are as much to blame as the democrats for the way this country is screwed up. So if you want to call me special for not falling into the social norm then thats fine by me cause its fun sitting back watching the 2 sides piss and moan over who pisses and moans the most.
davidnivenFeb 24, 2012
Citizens United bad. Soros and Media Matters good.
OK. Got it. Another Democrat talking point memorized. Let's go on Digg now.
911ducktailFeb 24, 2012
right. money is free speech and corporations are people my friend.
davidnivenFeb 25, 2012
Money is not free speech. But, corporations are simply people who pool their money together. If not, then what are corporations?
911ducktailFeb 25, 2012
citizens united specifically ruled that money *is* free speech. corporations are created to shelter peoples personal responsibility and to create a layer of isolation between the "corporation" and the *people* who compromise it. A corporation is *made of people* it isnt *a person* and as such, it in no way should provide personal rights to the entity itself
davidnivenFeb 25, 2012
You do know, of course, that politicians created the whole corporation thing, probably some of the very same types of politicians that leftists put into office.
So, you're saying that people lose some of their rights when they corporately act in unison? OK. Got it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
911ducktailFeb 25, 2012
no, the free market did; as a way of sheltering individuals from the misdeeds done under the banner of the organization.
drich255Feb 24, 2012
Agree or disagree, a Supreme Court ruling is pretty much final. I don't like a lot of their decisions -- but that is how our government is set up. Quit whining.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 24, 2012
It's not whining to point out a problem. The primary wisdom of the founders was making the constitution amendable. This is why my jaw drops when I listen to Scilia and his 'original intent' thinking. When Bush says things like that I brush it off. I expect idiots to say stupid things, but Scilia?
The original intent of the constitution was to admit it was a flawed, compromised document that will need changing as times change. Hell if you read it, the Supreme court has WAY more power than the constitution actually calls for. That was a change that seemed wise at the time (Mullbeary vs madison, I think) but is now out of date.
Don't act like we are just stuck. The genius of the founders was their endless adaptability.
Long story short, sooner or later, something is going to have to be done about the supreme court. They can't make bad decisions with no recourse. It doesn't work and needs fixed. The founders never intended that.
drich255Feb 24, 2012
"Long story short, sooner or later, something is going to have to be done about the supreme court. They can't make bad decisions with no recourse. It doesn't work and needs fixed. The founders never intended that."
I think some conservatives would agree with you when it comes to the Court's decisions on things like Roe V. Wade.
Like I said, I accept the Supreme Courts decisions. I like the balance we have between the three branches. It isn't perfect, but I really wouldn't want it any other way.
I might be in favor of term limits for Justices. The fact is that we are living a lot longer than our ancestors. I think a 20-25 year term should be sufficient for a Justice.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 24, 2012
Yes. I would think they would agree with me too. Though they often don't just on 'principal.' I don't know why they do that, but they do.
But all that aside, though I think Roe v. Wade was wise, I'm more than a little uncomfortable with how it came about. If 'Roe v. Wade' is a mistake is a way to 'sell' reform to conservatives, I'm all for it. Lets get the reforms in place, then revisit all this stuff if they insist.
And I agree that the big problem is the lifetime appointments. I do think the terms should be long, but not lifetime. Times change, and the a bunch of out of date old people on the bench is not a great idea (and I say that as I come up on 'old' myself!)
eshoopFeb 25, 2012
It seems likely that, as we manage to keep our bodies alive, longer than our minds, SCOTUS could be totally addled, someday. Mental acuity testing should be considered.