Supreme Court strikes down overall limit on campaign giving (Page 2): I agree that special interest groups will win the most from this. With respect to all political parties, this is...

Secret Alchemist Loc: Carthage, TX

bobgssc wrote:

What this actually does is favor special interest groups and take the politicians further from the hands of "John Q Public" since they'll know where their "bread is buttered".

I agree that special interest groups will win the most from this.

With respect to all political parties, this is pretty bad. It's one of the worst things that could have happened for our government actually.

stevenkalka

"Mitt Romney had unlimited funding and lost."

How true. A more extreme example was California. Meg Whitman must have outspent Jerry Brown by 100 to 1. Yet she lost against Jerry.

Limited funding advocates assume that v**ers aren't smart enough to judge for themselves and independently research candidates. I don't blindly v**e for anyone on the basis of paid advertisements. I don't care if they're sponsored by the Koch Bros., George Soros, Hollywood honchos, or anyone else.

Isn't it bad enough that we have speech control on college campuses? Do we need them in the e*******l arena as well? What will the speech control advocates propose next? A limit on the number of words or time length in each ad?

CDM Loc: Florida

V***l wrote:

It won't necessarily take a more direct route. The individual cap is still in place, but as far as I can tell party and PACs have no cap (please correct me if I'm wrong here). And since corporations are people now, this allows for companies to fund entire campaigns.

This strikes me as another step towards rule by corporation.

How does this differ from the last 70 years? How did we get to where we are?

CDM Loc: Florida

bobgssc wrote:

What this actually does is favor special interest groups and take the politicians further from the hands of "John Q Public" since they'll know where their "bread is buttered".

I repeat; what's new? We have lived with this corruption through the entire 20th century. What possible difference does a 'new law' make in the scheme of things? Corporate, crony capitalism has always ruled the future of the country. Changing a few words is insignificant.

Viral

CDM wrote:

How does this differ from the last 70 years? How did we get to where we are?

By that logic we should still have s***es and child labor.

While money spent does not guarantee a win, it certainly helps in getting wh**ever message you want out there. Then of course you would have to wonder why spend the money if it doesn't guarantee a win?

In the PR war, it isn't always how much money you spent, but how effectively you spend it, and which message is more compelling. Does everyone research the candidates? Not likely. Does nobody research the candidates? Certainly not. Are people influenced by a constant barrage of political ads? Fairly likely.

And regardless of the ads swaying v**es, candidates represent the money-givers before the people they supposedly represent as it is. This will just allow more of our elected officials to swear fealty to the almighty dollar over We the People.

Hey, maybe we can have congress display the logos of their donors on their suits? Kind of like a NASCAR event.

CDM Loc: Florida

V***l wrote:

By that logic we should still have s***es and chil... (show quote)

I say again, how did we get where we are? Do you actually believe big money and private interests have not bought and paid for We The People for over a century? Read The Creature From Jeckle Island. This silly little ruling changes nothing; just makes good media fluf for the ignorant masses.

I do like the logo idea though, branded on their foreheads...

Viral

CDM wrote:

I say again, how did we get where we are? Do you actually believe big money and private interests have not bought and paid for We The People for over a century? Read The Creature From Jeckle Island. This silly little ruling changes nothing; just makes good media fluf for the ignorant masses.

I do like the logo idea though, branded on their foreheads...

It's different in that now there aren't limits on total campaign contributions, only on donations to individuals. While in the grand scheme it may still be the same, it's just easier for special interests to fund more people. Maybe the only real difference is instead of seeing one organisation donating through a smattering of subsidiaries, there will just be one giant donor.

Maybe that'll make it easier to trace the money...