The problem, as a reporter on the call pointed out, is that McCain and Romney are at odds on the issue of campaign finance. Romney has decried the role of super PACs, calling them a "disaster."

But Romney's issue is not with the unrestricted giving. He has said he remains in favor of no limits on campaign expenditures. The only change he has said he would make is to do away with super PACs and let donors give unlimited funds directly to candidates and campaigns.

Of course he would.

This is the shiat that old fark Chief Justice was shaking his head over in the last SOTU when Obama predicted this would happen.

To be fair.... is it not beyond obvious to everyone, even the decision's supporters, that a scandal of significant consequence is everything but a foregone conclusion thanks to this ruling?

Even if you think this thing is a good idea, you'd have to be pretty intentionally obtuse to think that there's not going to be a major incident eventually with this kind of money and secrecy flying around.

I've got my chips on "unsavory foreign influence-peddling via SuperPAC money" being the first big scandal to beak with a hedge on "money laundering by organized crime".

mahuika: The problem, as a reporter on the call pointed out, is that McCain and Romney are at odds on the issue of campaign finance. Romney has decried the role of super PACs, calling them a "disaster."

But Romney's issue is not with the unrestricted giving. He has said he remains in favor of no limits on campaign expenditures. The only change he has said he would make is to do away with super PACs and let donors give unlimited funds directly to candidates and campaigns.

Of course he would.

That would be better than this SuperPAC nonsense, since we would know exactly who is contributing millions. With the SuperPACs donors don't have to be disclosed.

Cyberluddite: Wow, Subby, is this the first you've heard of McCain being one of the few Republicans who has in the past tended to be a supporter of campaign finance reform (which, more than anything else, is what caused him to be branded a "RINO" during his "Mavrik" days)? Here, let me give a fill-in the blank quiz on this--research it and see if it tells you anything:

1. The Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United case, which was largely responsible for giving rise to the concept of the "Super PAC," stuck down significant provisions of the Mc______-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

Steamy
Dreamy
Arthur
 Hammer

old-man-yells-at-cloud-superpac.jpg

What a maverick might look like:

Splinshints: Arthur

McArthur-Feingold, the infamous cake reform law. Because otherwise, we'll never get that recipe again.

Imperialism: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x353]

was just gonna post him

He looks like a caveman version of me

McCain's all kinds of mavericky now that nobody's giving any of this money to him.

James!: Cyberluddite: Wow, Subby, is this the first you've heard of McCain being one of the few Republicans who has in the past tended to be a supporter of campaign finance reform (which, more than anything else, is what caused him to be branded a "RINO" during his "Mavrik" days)? Here, let me give a fill-in the blank quiz on this--research it and see if it tells you anything:

1. The Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United case, which was largely responsible for giving rise to the concept of the "Super PAC," stuck down significant provisions of the Mc______-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

Bain!

Ice to see you

Sorry Johnny, but you kissed Jerry Falwell's ring and sold your soul to the Sarah Palin bunch. There's no hope for you now to redeem yourself. You're headed straight to

No one likes you, John.

Cyberluddite: Wow, Subby, is this the first you've heard of McCain being one of the few Republicans who has in the past tended to be a supporter of campaign finance reform (which, more than anything else, is what caused him to be branded a "RINO" during his "Mavrik" days)? Here, let me give a fill-in the blank quiz on this--research it and see if it tells you anything:

1. The Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United case, which was largely responsible for giving rise to the concept of the "Super PAC," stuck down significant provisions of the Mc______-Feingold campaign finance reform law.



???

Cyberluddite: Wow, Subby, is this the first you've heard of McCain being one of the few Republicans who has in the past tended to be a supporter of campaign finance reform (which, more than anything else, is what caused him to be branded a "RINO" during his "Mavrik" days)? Here, let me give a fill-in the blank quiz on this--research it and see if it tells you anything:

1. The Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United case, which was largely responsible for giving rise to the concept of the "Super PAC," stuck down significant provisions of the Mc______-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

Cloud

Lionel Mandrake: Time to amend the Constitution.

just needs to be repeated

AdolfOliverPanties: This is exactly why the Definitely not coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super PAC is such a farking great thing.

FTFY

While I'm not surprised about his position and I also agree with it...I'm dismayed that this doddering old fool is still a major influence in the United States Senate. The decision that largely struck down his own piece of legislation is not farking Citizens versus United. I might expect that from some of my students or my idiot neighbor...but from a Senator? From the guy who was the GOP candidate for president? FFS McCain! Get your shiat together!

For all the other trips towards the "Thar Be Dragons" sign McCain has taken since the presidential election, he's always been on the side of reforming campaign financing to eliminate corruption, so I have to give him major kudos for his comments here. I would be floored if his prediction ends up not coming true.

/when money equals speech, no money equals no speech

James!: Cyberluddite: Wow, Subby, is this the first you've heard of McCain being one of the few Republicans who has in the past tended to be a supporter of campaign finance reform (which, more than anything else, is what caused him to be branded a "RINO" during his "Mavrik" days)? Here, let me give a fill-in the blank quiz on this--research it and see if it tells you anything:

1. The Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United case, which was largely responsible for giving rise to the concept of the "Super PAC," stuck down significant provisions of the Mc______-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

Bain!

MEEEEENDOOOOZAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Part of McCain-Feingold was struck down by the Citizens United ruling. McCain criticizes the ruling. Am I supposed to be surprised by this?

The question becomes then, what if? Never in the history of the country has a Supreme Court decision found to have been tainted by bribery or corruption. There is no higher court of appeal. Congress could initiate impeachment proceedings, but would the ruling itself stand? If a Justice were to be removed from the bench, would other decisions in which that Justice played a decisive role be reconsidered?

I guess the first question is the biggest - would it require a Constitutional amendment to change the outcome of Citizens United, or would the Court hand down a new ruling? Or what?

We need a pool for predicting the nature of the scandal.

Mob money?

China money?

Russia money?

Narco money?

PAC money used for bribing election officials?

Lunaville: Lionel Mandrake: Time to amend the Constitution.

just needs to be repeated

And let me repeat something I keep saying:

If your solution to a problem is amending the constitution, you don't actually have a solution to said problem. It is neigh impossible to pass an amendment on anything remotely contraversal, by design.

On an unrelated note, I actually think Citizens United was correctly decided. But I'm a First Amendment zealot who wants protects of such to be enforced as widely as possible.

When you create a system that defines:

corporations = people
money = speech

..... you've created a system where large corporations are entitled to more speech, and thus have the ability to strongly control the democratic process. Not through back channels, illegal dealings, and subtle influence. They can do it openly, and it would be foolish to NOT have it as a part of your corporate strategy. Collusion is just a fact of life at that point. You can't even be prosecuted for it.

You didn't hand he thief your house key, you deeded him your entire net worth.

I wonder what that scandal will be?

Perhaps to draw out a nomination contest...

It seems some GOP members are purposely fracturing their party with their SuperPAC attacks on Romney.

HotWingConspiracy: PAC money used for bribing election officials?

I thought that was implicit in the supreme court decision...

mrjared: While I'm not surprised about his position and I also agree with it...I'm dismayed that this doddering old fool is still a major influence in the United States Senate. The decision that largely struck down his own piece of legislation is not farking Citizens versus United. I might expect that from some of my students or my idiot neighbor...but from a Senator? From the guy who was the GOP candidate for president? FFS McCain! Get your shiat together!

I must have missed the part where McCain said that the citizens united decision struck down or gutted McCain-Feingold. I'm sure he is aware that a bill he co sponsored was challenged in the SCOTUS shortly after it was enacted.