Supreme Court's rejection of U.S. campaign funding limits opens door for big-money donors

Comments (99)
JamesChirico wrote:

Regardless of SCOTUS enabling the wealthy to direct even more of our government than they do now, we the people have a simple solution to get back the government for the people, not the special interests.

The solution is after seeing a constant barrage of commercials for someone or something, vote in the opposite direction on election day.

Apr 02, 2014 10:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
tatman wrote:

“In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said the ruling, along with Citizens United, “eviscerates our nation’s campaign finance laws.”

america: for sale to the highest bidder. our government is becoming so beholden to its political financiers, that the average american is no longer represented. it is corporations and the pillars of wealth that control all facets of the american political and legislative system.

as an independent voter, not tied to either party, i am dismayed at how left out and abandoned americans have become. i feel there is no voice to be hear except that which is laden with huge amounts of cash. who, really, do you think your congressman listens to? if anyone thinks, as an individual without a cash hoard to bribe our politicians, that YOU are the focus of their loyalty, you are DEAD WRONG.

if ever there was a reason to vote anti-tea party/republican, it is the chilling effect that the conservative movement has had on true freedoms for the average, common man in america. corporations, now people in the eyes of the courts, can outspend the average american ten million to one. and these corporations, and the wealthy individuals who run them, pull the strings of every congressman who receives their financial support.

corrupt. that’s the only way to define the american political system.

Apr 02, 2014 11:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
chuck2 wrote:

Would seem that “of, for and by the people” has become, of for and bought from the people. This whole, Money/WS/Banker/Government thing has progressed way past the point of gallows humor as to integrity, Would seem the Wolf(S) of WS has married the SCOUS and birthed a whole new way to buy a nation.

Apr 02, 2014 11:11am EDT  --  Report as abuse

What is playing out in so many countries – revolution and violence – occurs when common families are overpowered by the wealthy. The Supreme Court unwittingly has now catapulted America in that direction.

Apr 02, 2014 11:16am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SaveRMiddle wrote:

The constant 5-4 voting….another reminder of how Unsupreme this group of 9 actually is.

Apr 02, 2014 11:19am EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

There it is. Money = Speech.

So maybe the IRS and my mortgage company will accept speeches from me this month…. in lieu of cash?

Apr 02, 2014 11:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
zigo wrote:

So why aren’t bribes free speech then?

Apr 02, 2014 11:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
zigo wrote:

So why aren’t bribes free speech then?

Apr 02, 2014 11:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
zigo wrote:

So why aren’t bribes free speech then?

Apr 02, 2014 11:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Robert76 wrote:

Sad that the Government of the People, By the People, and For the People has become a Government of the Rich, by the Rich and for the Rich. We might as well get rid of our system, and go to a Monarchy so that those rich people (Koch’s, Adelson’s, et all) don’t have to buy so many politicians. And yet people decry donations by Unions. All the unions combined do not donate as much as Koch Brothers alone, let alone the other billionaires, and millionaires.

Apr 02, 2014 11:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
zigo wrote:

Soon, the Oklahoma bombing will be “protected free speech”.

Apr 02, 2014 11:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Zigo writes: “So why aren’t bribes free speech then?”

Give it time.

Apr 02, 2014 11:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

“…after seeing a constant barrage of commercials for someone or something, vote in the opposite direction on election day.” – ——–JamesChirico

Woops! You mean I should vote against the teacher’s union ads?

Apr 02, 2014 11:40am EDT  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

…(Koch’s, Adelson’s, et all)…

Don’t forget George Soros …

Apr 02, 2014 11:42am EDT  --  Report as abuse
REnninga wrote:

Our government has three branches, and none of them work any longer.

The Supreme Court, once our last bastion of the confidence of the American people that politics and personal political agendas had not entirely saturated every aspect of our bovernment, has demonstrated by dozens and dozens of politically motivated and biased 5 to 4 decisions that even the court has now been bought and paid for by the few with influence and wealth at the expense of our Constitution and ‘We the People.’

Apr 02, 2014 11:58am EDT  --  Report as abuse

I guess the only we we as a people can get fair representation is for a Constitutional amendment that specifically states that money does not equal speech.

After all if you keep going down this slippery slope, as Zigo pointed out, why would not bribes be free speech?

Apr 02, 2014 12:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
zigo wrote:

The rich are finally figuring it out: if you’re rich, democracy is not your friend. Little by little, we’re turning back the clock.

Social mobility in the US has dropped below that in France and Germany. And now that we’ve stopped investing in education and infrastructure, expect that to get worse.

The American Dream is just that, a dream.

Apr 02, 2014 12:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

unionwv asks: “Woops! You mean I should vote against the teacher’s union ads?”

As if you weren’t anyway :)

Not that I blame you. I’m as liberal as they come and even I struggle with the notion of teachers unions. And cop unions. Anyone who gets 3 months off, or gets to confiscate as much weed as they want, then go eat donuts for 6 hours…. is not hurting. And it’s not actual labor.

Apr 02, 2014 12:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
wormboy wrote:

The best government money can buy.

Apr 02, 2014 12:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
wly172623 wrote:

The roberts court will go down in history as the worse scotus ever!

Apr 02, 2014 12:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JRTerrance wrote:

Roberts is a Republican’s wet dream. How long before outright bribery of politicians is upheld as a protected religious rite?

Apr 02, 2014 12:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
COindependent wrote:

Interesting that the complaints in this comments section are all targeted toward wealthy individuals, and totally ignore the fact that the unions and other special interest groups (e.g. Sierra Club) have had few, if any, restrictions on their campaign contributions for literally decades. Few if any of you above makes that distinction.

If you all so concerned about limiting campaign contributions then totally eliminate any organizational contributions (unions, PAC’s, corporations, DNC, RNC, etc.) and requiring that contributions be limited to single individuals, ONLY to a fixed dollar amount, to a certain individual running for election. That also excludes ALL contributions from outside the country (see Clinton and Obama), and all contributions from anyone without a SSN.

Then, the politicians have no one to sell their souls to other than the individual voter. Take the corporate, union, RNC, DNC, and big money contributions out of the equation and only then will you have an opportunity to change business as usual inside the Beltway.

Apr 02, 2014 12:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bradtvx wrote:

Yaaay..bribery still legal!!

Apr 02, 2014 12:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

COIndependent writes: “Interesting that the complaints in this comments section are all targeted toward wealthy individuals…”

They are? Seems like they are mostly directed at corrupMoney wilt politicians and judges. We don’t blame the money. We blame the people pocketing the bribes (gifts) and pretending like it’s a form of free speech. The politicians will not stop themselves. That’s why we have 3 branches of government. Any more athletes will stop their own steroids, without league intervention. The courts should have put an end to this and didn’t. That’s the point here.

Apr 02, 2014 12:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
euro-yank wrote:

U$A 4 $ALE

Apr 02, 2014 1:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
katzn wrote:

@COindependent:
Good points, we all saw the Super PACs popping up in 2012 to funnel absurd amounts of funding to favored candidates. The precedent of Citizens United already allows near unlimited donations and monetary influence, this new ruling seems like a mere formality.

I’d take it one step further and advocate for publicly-financed elections. Maybe not for the farcical Presidential race, but for local, state, and Congressional elections definitely.

Apr 02, 2014 1:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
CMEBARK wrote:

The Republican high rollers, i.e. Koch brothers, Carl Rowe, etc., with the help of the Supreme Court, are determined to destroy our political system piecemeal using the First Amendment.

Apr 02, 2014 1:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SusyCrandall wrote:

Bueno buy democracy!

Apr 02, 2014 1:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bobo9 wrote:

I’ve never understood what the law covers, because you’ll read about donors (both Dems & Repubs) giving tens of millions of $$$$$ to a campaign.
So what gets limited ??

Apr 02, 2014 1:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
UScitizentoo wrote:

Yes America, meet your new government : The Koch Brothers.

Apr 02, 2014 1:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Corporations are not people, money is not speech, regardless of the Republican propaganda to the contrary. You think Obama care is a problem? Wait till you get a load of all Repub control of this country, all the three branches, and the court. Bye bye middle class; hello oligarchy. No soup for you…come back four years.

Apr 02, 2014 1:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Call it an oligarchy, call it a plutocracy, call it whatever you want. The fact remains: the US government no longer represents the American people, they sold us out. The government is bought and paid for by billion-dollar multinational corporations and their owners, who will bleed this country dry to milk their profit margin, and move on to the next low-regulation country after the US collapses, without a shred of guilt.

Forget your personal politics. If this system of legalized bribery is benefiting your preferred party, try imagine a situation where shoe was on the other foot, and this system benefited the OTHER party, the one you hate. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY THEN?

If we continue on this path, we’re in for some hard times ahead.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” – John F. Kennedy

Apr 02, 2014 1:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
yogahelps2 wrote:

Gee thanks….now we get to face years of revolution. How else can lower- and middle-class citizens be heard if their right to vote is nullified by the purchase of our elected officials? Our founding fathers would be truly stunned by the 5 dunces on our Supreme Court!

Apr 02, 2014 2:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
cautious123 wrote:

Pure corruption — the “Supreme” Court is nothing but a water carrier for the rich.

Apr 02, 2014 2:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Inclusive wrote:

THE RETURN OF THE KINGS,“I would like to have an ample fund to spread the light of Republicanism, but I am willing to undergo the disadvantage to make certain that in the future we shall reduce the power of money in politics for unworthy purposes.” William Howard Taft

Apr 02, 2014 2:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

“Yes America, meet your new government : The Koch Brothers.” – UScitizentoo

Some of us would say: “Yes America, meet your new government: George Soros.”

Mr. Soros funds over TWO HUNDRED left wing organizations:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237

In addition Mr. Soros has made personal contributions in the millions of dollars to the campaigns of left-wing politicians. For example: $2,892,000 in 2012.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=george+soros+personal+contributions+to+political+campaigns&qs=n&form=QBLH&pc=U162&pq=george+soros+personal+contributions+to+political+campaigns&sc=0-22&sp=-1&sk=&ghc=1&cvid=94a3201c3fc3482cba7d99a672ba0943

Apr 02, 2014 2:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

This is another terrible decision by the Supreme Court and further limits democracy in the US. When those in power limit access to the ballot box, or give one group advantage of another in free speech, you know the society is in decline. If the strength of a democracy is the open exchange of ideas in the public square, then no one candidate, group or political party should have advantage of another in the public discourse. I defy anyone to point to an example in history where a country was better off by limiting access to the ballot box or minimizing public debate. Political campaigns should be publicly financed in order to be sure all have equal voice in the public square.

Apr 02, 2014 2:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
alowl wrote:

SCOTUS, POTUS, & Congress. All for sale to the highest bidder.
We’re as corrupt as Putin.

Apr 02, 2014 2:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Andvari wrote:

Corporations are people. So, it is time to settle our disputes with them the old way, with bullets and cold steel. Sic semper tyrannis….

Apr 02, 2014 2:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
purplecode68 wrote:

The consdervatives in this country are the death of democracy. Get rid of all of them and now! Vote them all out!

Apr 02, 2014 2:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
paintcan wrote:

The Supreme Court just said – this country is for sale to the highest bidder and that includes wealthy donors from any country.

I thought the Supreme Court was the last pillar of integrity and I was wrong.

They waste their time restoring the portico and now I know, as a person of small means, it is a waste of time voting. There is no democracy in the USA – only the appearance of democracy.

It is a corrupt imperial power and I hope it is utterly and physically destroyed as soon as possible. The pigs and gluttons of the world have now mounted the throne of the world and I hope it breaks apart under their combined weight. I’m sure it will.

Apr 02, 2014 2:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
purplecode68 wrote:

I hate conservatives and will vote them out from here on out. Never will these clowns disguised as judges or any other conservative politician every get my vote. This will be a giant backlash on all conservatism for the next 100 years!!! That you can bank on!

Apr 02, 2014 2:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bighammerman wrote:

This proves that our government is for sale to the richest and highest bidder and it is very dangerous. The Supreme Court does not always get it right like they are wrong on this. One man / one vote is the premise of our elections. This is why voter ID is needed and the Supreme Court will probably be wrong on that as well. Right now the ultra rich are making the rules for the rest of us. Remember the French Revolution where heads rolled after the people took back their government. Maybe what is needed is an overhaul of the Supreme Court so the voters have the power and not the aristocracy! One person’s opinion, you tell me!

Apr 02, 2014 3:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
purplecode68 wrote:

I think we need a massive march on Washington and we need to impeach all 5 conservative anti-democratic SCOTUS’s now!! I loathe everything the conseratives do and think as well as their hatefilled rhetoric they spew. Get rid of them one way or another. Do it this summer or we may loose our country and end up at war.

Apr 02, 2014 3:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

The amount of ‘free speech’ you get, is directly proportionate to how much cash you give.

Apr 02, 2014 3:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bighammerman wrote:

This proves that our government is for sale to the richest and highest bidder and it is very dangerous. The Supreme Court does not always get it right like they are wrong on this. One man / one vote is the premise of our elections. This is why voter ID is needed and the Supreme Court will probably be wrong on that as well. Right now the ultra rich are making the rules for the rest of us. Remember the French Revolution where heads rolled after the people took back their government. Maybe what is needed is an overhaul of the Supreme Court so the voters have the power and not the aristocracy! One person’s opinion, you tell me!

Apr 02, 2014 3:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dday500 wrote:

Thank God the Supreme Court stood up for the American people this time !!!!

The private sector has been basically “shut out” from competing with the Public sector and unions for decades now. The Democrats are extremely upset now that the American citizens can actually voice their opinions against the corrupt regime .

Apr 02, 2014 3:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

@COindependent

“If you all so concerned about limiting campaign contributions then totally eliminate any organizational contributions (unions, PAC’s, corporations, DNC, RNC, etc.)”

Spot on. Agree whole-heartedly.

Instead of an unbalanced system where those in large groups, unions, clubs etc, and the extremely wealthy can participate, how about they run on merits not money, principals not politics and actually listen to Americans across the board.

@katzn

I agree here too. Having candidates equally funded with equal campaign access to public forums would make the above closer to becoming true.

My question is not at the Federal election levels, but at the local, community level. I live in a town that HQ’s 2 Forbes 25 companies, suppose the CEO’s/shareholders of those companies bind together and start buying elections. If it’s true that a large percentile of the things government can do for you are at the local level, this could have a much more dramatic effect than the Federal elections. Much more damage , I think, can be done at the local government level than nationally. At least nationally you have the chance to draw funds from the entire country and that will just about balance itself out. Will still be a crap fest of debauchery and canoodling the rich, but at least each side has a shot.

Throw $10 Million into a local school board or city council election cycle, and damn, you’ve got a serious skew in the representation.

Apr 02, 2014 3:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

In other news:

“NFL lifts ban on having pick-up trucks just drive the stupid ball to the other end of the field.”

Acknowledges the tights and muscles were a ‘gay way to do it.’

Apr 02, 2014 3:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

Got to love this great nation where -

- corruption is legal

Thanks to the blessings of both – legislative and justice departments that have made various forms of this corruption possible in the forms of – lobbying, campaign contributions, political contributions at local government and federal government levels.

And these are the folks that stand in line to judge the corrupt systems of the world. Go figure.

Apr 02, 2014 3:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

@COIndependent and DrFranknFurter: “If you’re all so concerned about limiting campaign contributions then totally eliminate any organizational contributions (unions, PAC’s, corporations, DNC, RNC, etc.)”

Sounds good, but you guys still aren’t getting it. McCain-Feingold was a minor step in that direction, and the SCOTUS has decided even THAT was illegal. This new ruling takes it to a whole new level. The challenge here is fundamental. The Supreme Court is saying they would strike down ANY such ban on contributions because it violates free speech freedoms. There is no law limiting or eliminating contributions that they would let stand. So the point remains: The Supreme Court is the main problem, thus all the bitching here.

Apr 02, 2014 3:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

America: meet your new (or not, really) officially sanctioned Plutocrat overlords. One more reason to vote anti-R forever!

Apr 02, 2014 3:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

Hey everybody- this is what you get when you vote Republican’t

Apr 02, 2014 3:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Litlgodz wrote:

@SunnyDaySam
as a regular readers of comments, I see Republicans and Democrats commenters here arguing in the same direction against this Supreme Court Decision. Seems to me some Justices lost it and go against pretty much everybody on this one!

Apr 02, 2014 4:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

Litlgodz wrote: ‘Seems to me some Justices lost it and go against pretty much everybody on this one!’

That’s what you get when you vote Republican. This con court was packed by bush jr. Yeah, the same one who brought us the trillion+ invasion of Iraq and 9-11, just to name a couple…

Apr 02, 2014 4:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
PaulBradley wrote:

Seems like all of the contributors here are unanimous in that ‘power of money govern given election’s outcome’.

Question is – - When was it NOT that way ??

During any election, financial contributions to candidates or the particular party that a given candidate represents, are virtually spent on brainwashing the ‘sheep’ – i.e. propaganda established through hiring of ‘experts’ such as PR, marketing and advertising professionals, speech writers, fashion experts, psychologists, behaviour analysts, statisticians, etc., etc., etc., in order to manipulate the ‘sheep’ vote.

In other words, the money is mostly spent on making sure that YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO IS in reality the person that you are going to vote for. They successfully build candidate’s image in such a way that a candidate becomes one of an illusionary persona.

Hence, you don’t know WHO you are voting for anyway. It’s all a sham since all of the power-brokers backing a given candidate knows well that majority of the ‘sheep’ will NOT take the time to successfully investigate background, person’s political/business track record, etc., IN SUFFICIENT DEPTH. Any truth that actually comes up to surface about a given candidate, that might have a negative impact, is effectively muted and/or expertly twisted by, e.g. campaign experts, media, etc.

All the ‘behind the closed door’ deals/discussions – - you will never know . . .

I am in disagreement with the Supreme Court decision, however, I ask myself – - How big of difference is it going to make it ??

Apr 02, 2014 4:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Of course this is the opinion of conservative judges. When you look at what a company like Lockheed martin (F-35 boondoggle) has made, as a return on investment for their ‘campaign contributions,’ it all makes sense. It is greater than a 100:1 return on investment. For every dollar they give to a politician, they receive $100 back in pork. This is not mysterious and it is no coincidence the way the decision played out on the conservative-ruled court.

It is also no mystery why the country is broke at an accelerating rate. Just borrow money to cover the pork. It’s free money.

Apr 02, 2014 4:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
0okm9ijn wrote:

Money, they say, is the root of all evil–and, when speech and money are conflated together, the quality of the speech becomes irrelevant. This is the problem when unelected and in-electable philosophers debate real life issues.

Apr 02, 2014 4:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
OnTheGround wrote:

The only Supreme Court Justice ever impeached (but not convicted) was Samuel Chase. The reason he was impeached was because he chose to rule in favor of partisan politics. President Thomas Jefferson led the impeachment effort. Two specific justices qualify for impeachment – Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. There is nothing “just” about these two people.

Apr 02, 2014 4:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

“In First Amendment Twist, Supreme Court Entertains Idea of Bribes to Judges as a Form of ‘Oral Arguments.”

Apr 02, 2014 4:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DukeHunter wrote:

Excuse me, all you “by the people, for the people” jerks. Our country was founded by the richest white men alive who did not allow women or renters to vote for anything. That’s right. You had to be a man. You had to own property. Wake up. You’ve got better than any working stiffs in the world.

Apr 02, 2014 4:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Louieloueye wrote:

I can’t see anything good come out of this… So money equals free speech now? Corporations are people too I guess.

Welcome to the Neo-Feudal Age wherein the Lords purchase the government and the masses vote to affirm their “choices” or Rome just before the collapse when the wealthy began to buy political offices outright… it’s Horrifying.

The corporate takeover continues and we are running out of legal options.

Apr 02, 2014 4:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SusyCrandall wrote:

Bueno buy democracy.

Apr 02, 2014 5:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Swisswatch wrote:

The wealthy includes big business, oops – persons also.

Rollerball anyone?

Apr 02, 2014 5:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Wry wrote:

“Free” speech? I want some of that $6m for my right to my free speech being heard. How much does it take to buy an election?

Turning off my tv and media during the “anointment” season — not elections anymore. Whoever has the most money choose. The PEOPLE don’t have a voice anymore.

SAD SAD day for democracy in America.

Apr 02, 2014 5:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Supreme Court outlaws corruption controls. Says if you don’t like corruption, “You’re living in the wrong country.”

Apr 02, 2014 5:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Tory1 wrote:

Oh please!! There is a flip side to this and it’s called UNIONS!! To pretend that liberals don’t pool their money and don’t have a voice is absurd.

Apr 02, 2014 6:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rpt7777 wrote:

You should get one vote for. Each person, plus another vote for every 10k in taxes that you pay. That way the people spending the most on taxes would have a fairer voice as to how the money is spent.

Apr 02, 2014 6:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rpt7777 wrote:

You should get one vote for. Each person, plus another vote for every 10k in taxes that you pay. That way the people spending the most on taxes would have a fairer voice as to how the money is spent.

Apr 02, 2014 6:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rpt7777 wrote:

You should get one vote for. Each person, plus another vote for every 10k in taxes that you pay. That way the people spending the most on taxes would have a fairer voice as to how the money is spent.

Apr 02, 2014 6:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rpt7777 wrote:

Here is what is patently unfair: As a condition of government employment you must join a union that collects money from your pay check and goes directly in to the unions fund. This money is given exclusively to the Democrat party as a bribe to give liberal benefits to the union members in exchange for their money. The tax payer gets screwed while the unions and the DP party bends them over. This is in effect saying that if you work for the federal government then you must pay the Democrat party.

Apr 02, 2014 6:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
carnivalchaos wrote:

People, pay very close attention to which Justices voted in support of limits and which Justices voted banning limits. Every Justice nominated by Democratic Presidents took the position that it’s constitutional to allow the people to decide how we fund our campaigns and that limits are constitutional. Every Justice nominated by Republicans voted to take the power away from the people and to give it to the ultra wealthy so that there’s no limit to the amount of money a person can use to bribe our government. This is a critical distinction. Until we get enough Supreme Court Justices who believe in the power of the people, we can’t end corruption in our government, which is why the conservative Justices found campaign funding limits unconstitutional. They’re serving special interests.

Don’t mistake this post as saying that the Democrats are free of corruption and they can do no wrong. Don’t be distracted. They’re not and they do plenty that’s wrong. However, the Republican party has become the party that makes sure the very wealthy remain in complete control. It’s why they prevent Democrats from raising taxes on the rich, why they opposed healthcare reform for all, why they oppose extending unemployment compensation, why they oppose minimum wage increases. Argue all you want about the pros and cons of Republican and Democratic policies, but you can not deny that Republican Presidents nominated Supreme Court Justices who are making it impossible for us to fix our campaign financing laws, and until we do that our government will remain corrupt and will not serve the American people. Our only hope for campaign finance reform is to keep a Democrat in the White House until we get a majority of liberal Justices on the court.

Apr 02, 2014 7:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

@rpt777: “You should get one vote for each person, plus another vote for every 10k in taxes that you pay. That way the people spending the most on taxes would have a fairer voice as to how the money is spent.

Congratulations. That’s exactly the system we left behind in 1776. King George III had secured all the money in England (through honest hard work I am sure), and kept voting for himself :)

Apr 02, 2014 7:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ronryegadfly wrote:

Do away with elected officials and let the citizens vote on everything- budgets, laws, amendments, everything. Make it a requirement of citizenship. No respect for this Supreme Court. They rather see America go down the tubes than see it prosper under honest and fair (and black) leadership.

Apr 02, 2014 7:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SaveRMiddle wrote:

Really depressing.

Wish America could unite and vote for the ideal Independent candidate. What a statement that could make.

Apr 02, 2014 7:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
johngsocal wrote:

The constitution enshrines a right for all to speak freely.
It does not give any right for one person to yell louder than everyone else!

Apr 02, 2014 7:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
carnivalchaos wrote:

SaveRMiddle: “Wish America could unite and vote for the ideal Independent candidate. What a statement that could make.”

We can’t precisely BECAUSE of Supreme Court rulings like todays and the inevitable corruption it leads to. Just saying we need to vote for the right person won’t work anymore, because a majority will never learn the truth because of the money being spent to deceive us. We have to do something that we haven’t done in a very long time. We have to demonstrate that we still deserve this Republic. We, the people, will have to force this change. We can’t do it through our government because our government is corrupt and no longer serves us. We will have to start taking to the streets, and we all must get involved. We can’t just expect others to do it for us.

Apr 02, 2014 7:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
carnivalchaos wrote:

I see Reuters has already buried this article. Pity. This is something every American should become acutely aware of.

Apr 02, 2014 7:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

carnivalchaos wrote: ‘Every Justice nominated by Republicans voted to take the power away from the people and to give it to the ultra wealthy,

And that’s the point. this is what you get when you vote for any Republian. to vote for one is to enagle them all. Vote Anti-R 2014/2016

Apr 02, 2014 8:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

carnivalchaos wrote: ‘Every Justice nominated by Republicans voted to take the power away from the people and to give it to the ultra wealthy,

And that’s the point. this is what you get when you vote for any Republian. to vote for one is to enable them all. Vote Anti-R 2014/2016

Apr 02, 2014 8:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
carnivalchaos wrote:

SunnyDaySam: I’m with you on that, but we can’t stop there. The Democrats are corrupt, too. The difference is in the two parties’ constituencies. People who lean to the left know the system is corrupt and that we must have serious campaign finance reform. Democratic Congressmen can’t convince us otherwise. Though there are some on the right who support serious campaign finance reform, Republican constituents won’t hold their feet to the fire. That’s why Republican Presidents have been able to get away with nominating Justices that rule in favor of corporations and the very wealthy.

Apr 02, 2014 8:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Oma wrote:

Turn off the TV. Or, if you can’t do that, figure out which candidates have the most ads and don’t vote for them.

Apr 02, 2014 11:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DbPolk wrote:

There are at least 3 dumbasses sitting on that court and I know which ones. Wanna bet $10K?

Apr 02, 2014 11:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
richinnc wrote:

We have the best politicians money can buy.

Apr 02, 2014 11:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
blath wrote:

Voters who do not support the government with taxes and are dependent on benefits from it can affect election results with selfish, uninformed or shortsighted candidate choices but this is always offset by the wealthier, better informed citizens having influence vastly greater than their numbers through energetic activism and financial support for political causes. The electorate in aggregate is basically irrational, their positions on issues formed out of emotional reactions to charismatic commentators and dramatic narratives in the media. The politicians and their handlers are well aware of this flaw in the system as they try, for example, to get you to vote against a candidate because of the way he treats his dog (Romney). Because the electorate’s political views are easily manipulated it is possible for the wealthier voters to leverage political influence far in excess of their actual numbers with paid political media placements. In this way the danger of the uninformed voter is mitigated. Therefore the idea of restricting the size of donations to political causes or candidates is dangerous to the future of democracy. The Supreme Court was correct in its decision.

Apr 02, 2014 11:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
wildbiker wrote:

Democrats, liberals, and Progressives howl at this decision claiming all the talking points imbedded in this article. The limitation did not affect most Americans. Few of us can afford to give $2600 in political donations each electoral season, let alone $2600 ad infinitum to campaigns across the country. The limitation that was just stricken down was gotten around a number of ways with a wink and a nod from the FEC anyway. At least for the Democrats and friends. The reason they’re howling now is the law no longer restricts their political opponents.

Apr 02, 2014 12:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse

So pretty much our political system is turning into legalized bribery.

Apr 02, 2014 12:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse
breezinthru wrote:

There isn’t that much difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both wanted to bail out the banks when the banks caused the collapse of the economy in 2008.

Dennis Kucinich and Elizabeth Warren are the only two Democrats worthy of a vote. There are no Republicans worthy of a vote.

Let’s start fresh with a new party that isn’t owned lock, stock and barrel by corporate America.

Apr 03, 2014 3:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
theovulator wrote:

I’m reading all the posts and I keep seeing “OH, IT ALL GOES THE WAY OF THE RICH”.

Consider that if all contributions were of a limited amount, and that the limited amount was further limited to a specific amount per individual, that in the final tally, all the limited amounts accumulated would assess to one political side or the other.

So no matter how much money was spent, whether it was a bunch of little amounts from each individual then added together, or a few extremely large amounts, aggregate, and added together, is not the outcome the same?

In other words, if you and all your politically like-minded friends across the nation contributed to a campaign to the maximum allowed and still came up short, then lost, wouldn’t you be wishing that some huge big money donor could have legally stepped in at the last minute to contribute a wheelbarrow full of cash that might have made the difference and put your candidate in office?

Whether republican or democrat, the scenario plays out the same.

I see this as a win-win.

Let the big guys spend all their money, and all of us insignificant puny individuals can keep our limited funds tucked away nicely in our pockets. That’s a win for the little guy.

We get to keep more of what little we have. One super rich big donor equals how many us? And don’t forget that there is just as many big-time donors on the left as there is on the right.

The other win is that with hugely larger amounts of money, from both sides, entering the election cycle a boost to the economy should be expected. Let these rich folks from both sides of the spectrum peel out some REALLY BIG money and injected it into the economy via insertion in all its various forms needed to get someone elected. More money spent, more economic activity. Win-win.

Whether it’s large amounts of money, in a few hands, directed towards an election, or small amounts of money amongst many-many hands, if it’s directed towards each political party or candidate relatively equally, is not the outcome pretty much the same?

Apr 03, 2014 4:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
theovulator wrote:

rpt7777 wrote:
“You should get one vote for. Each person, plus another vote for every 10k in taxes that you pay. That way the people spending the most on taxes would have a fairer voice as to how the money is spent.”

I like it. I could definitely get behind that idea.

You might add to that:

Those who don’t pay taxes, don’t get to vote. Why should they, they have no skin in the game.

Those who are solely on the government dole, also don’t get to vote. Those on total government assistance . . . Gee I wonder how they’ll vote. “I’m for whoever gives me more”.

Seems extreme, but think about it. REALLY think about it.
Shouldn’t those who pay the country’s bills be the ones who own the vote?

All you readers out there who have children. How much do YOUR dependent kids get to decide how YOU run your household?

Apr 03, 2014 4:29am EDT  --  Report as abuse
theovulator wrote:

And lastly

0okm9ijn wrote:
“Money, they say, is the root of all evil”.

For 0okm9ijn, and any other ignorant’s out there who don’t know better. It’s a bible quote. And it’s “THE LOVE of money is the root of all evil.”

Apr 03, 2014 4:38am EDT  --  Report as abuse
njglea wrote:

Good boy, Mr. Roberts and friends. One more step in dismantling democracy in America, just as ALEC, Wall Street, Ronald Reagan, the Koch brothers, the Bush famliy and their financial elite buddies want. Now, go after women’s rights to choose what they do with their own bodies and your mission will be nearly complete. I’m sure you can think of other ways to take away the rights of average people. Back to the middle ages of kings and iron maidens for America.

Apr 03, 2014 9:36am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

Ok, fine – now we really need total transparency on who donates what. And all donations have to be taxable – no more Corporate write-offs.

Apr 03, 2014 11:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
KaosHiker wrote:

@ Theovulator….”Is not the outcome pretty much the same.”

No… If the funding comes from the majority of the citizens.Then the Elected Official has to pandor to the people that make up the majority. .. The People.

If the majority of the funding comes from one wealthy conglomerate,Or Ultra Rich Individual.Then the elected official pandors to the highest bidder. not the majority of the people.

We need to start electing officials based on what they can do for Our Country,and Our People.
Not by how much money they can get Johnson and Johnson to pony up.

It would be nice to have Politicians who actually care about the people they serve.

Apr 03, 2014 1:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
COindependent wrote:

link for your review, shows that of the top ten donors a significant majority of the campaign funds went to the Democrat party. Kind shoots holes in the argument that this is a Republican driven agenda.

Sorry guys, but the facts (again) refute the emotion. See for yourself (with the biggest contributors being the labor unions)

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Apr 03, 2014 3:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

COindependent wrote: ‘link for your review, shows that of the top ten donors a significant majority of the campaign funds went to the Democrat party.’

Those are the donors on record. what about the Koch/Adelson millions donated to these 401 groups? And, while I’m on the subject, why do they have to hide behind these things? Aren’t they proud?

Apr 03, 2014 3:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

@ COindependent, and, incidentally, the Unions HAVE to make what they contribute public record. Just like I do. Why do these Republican snakes have to hide? Ask yourself. because they’re cowards.

Apr 03, 2014 3:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

btw; all of you who voted for bush Jr. are responsible for this. remember that.

Apr 03, 2014 3:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
breezinthru wrote:

This will make it easier for the wealthiest Americans to put a Republican who will do their bidding up against a Democrat who will do their bidding.

In fact, as we have seen by the unwillingness of the current Attorney General to prosecute Wall Street under RICO for the collapse of 2008, there is already little difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Maybe the ground will now be fertile for a viable 3rd party… or 4th Party?

Apr 05, 2014 3:36am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.