Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Green Bay Press Gazette)   Citizen's United was a great Supreme Court ruling   ( greenbaypressgazette.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, U.S. Supreme Court, Citizens United, Supreme Court decisions, political corruption, republican presidential candidates, amicus brief, First Amendment  
•       •       •

1398 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 May 2012 at 10:02 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



111 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-05-31 07:31:23 AM  
"Through March 31, the eight leading super PACs supporting Republican presidential candidates received contributions totaling $96,410,614. Of this, $83,220,167 (86.32 percent) came from individuals, only $13,190,447 (13.68 percent) from corporations, and only 0.81 percent from public companies. McConnell says "not a single one of the Fortune 100 companies has contributed a cent" to any of the eight super PACS. These facts refute such prophesied nightmares as The Washington Post's fear that corporate money "may now overwhelm" individuals' contributions."

Meet

"Republican super PACs and other outside groups shaped by a loose network of prominent conservatives - including Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - plan to spend roughly $1 billion on November's elections for the White House and control of Congress, according to officials familiar with the groups' internal operations."
 
2012-05-31 08:54:05 AM  

Endrick: "not a single one of the Fortune 100 companies has contributed a cent" to any of the eight super PACS


I've been quite involved in arguing against the ruling, and this has never been one of my worries. I'm far more concerned that a tiny group of people is allowed to have such an enormous effect on the electoral process.
 
2012-05-31 10:05:00 AM  
Supreme Court really needs to revisit this and reverse it
 
2012-05-31 10:08:03 AM  

KellyX: Supreme Court really needs to revisit this and reverse it


they won't though. companies will be permitted to outspend and quash the will of individual voters because THAT'S what the Founding Fathers intended, gotdammit!
 
2012-05-31 10:08:21 AM  

KellyX: Supreme Court really needs to revisit this and reverse it


Or double down and really screw things up. Your indentured servitude is my 1st Amendment right serf.
 
2012-05-31 10:09:49 AM  

skinnycatullus: Endrick: "not a single one of the Fortune 100 companies has contributed a cent" to any of the eight super PACS

I've been quite involved in arguing against the ruling, and this has never been one of my worries. I'm far more concerned that a tiny group of people is allowed to have such an enormous effect on the electoral process.


When it comes to corporations, I'm not even worried about that. They tend to contribute to both sides, and it is pretty evident that they care far less about who wins than they care about whoever wins being in their debt. And that REALLY bothers me.
 
2012-05-31 10:10:05 AM  
In a lot of ways I feel like Citizens United doesn't matter. It just makes overt what has always been known, that elections can be and often are bought. Reversing the decision wouldn't change that fact it just alters the course the money takes.

The real problem is that large advertising campaigns have a big effect on elections. The only way to address that problem is to either cut off money from elections (which, by the way, is far more complicated than just having publicly funded elections) or making people more resistant to political advertising.
 
2012-05-31 10:10:53 AM  
... for me to poop on!

jayclarkbooks.com
 
2012-05-31 10:10:58 AM  

Endrick: "Through March 31, the eight leading super PACs supporting Republican presidential candidates received contributions totaling $96,410,614. Of this, $83,220,167 (86.32 percent) came from individuals, only $13,190,447 (13.68 percent) from corporations, and only 0.81 percent from public companies. McConnell says "not a single one of the Fortune 100 companies has contributed a cent" to any of the eight super PACS. These facts refute such prophesied nightmares as The Washington Post's fear that corporate money "may now overwhelm" individuals' contributions."



So what you're saying is that individuals can now spend as much money on a campaign as they have in their bank accounts. Citizens United is just a way of skirting around campaign contribution laws.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
 
2012-05-31 10:12:05 AM  

odinsposse: In a lot of ways I feel like Citizens United doesn't matter. It just makes overt what has always been known, that elections can be and often are bought. Reversing the decision wouldn't change that fact it just alters the course the money takes.

The real problem is that large advertising campaigns have a big effect on elections. The only way to address that problem is to either cut off money from elections (which, by the way, is far more complicated than just having publicly funded elections) or making people more resistant to political advertising.


A great way to make people resistant to political advertising is just desensitize them to it. Ask anyone in an early primary state you learn to tune out all the ads after a few weeks.
 
2012-05-31 10:13:04 AM  
The only reason i like citizens united is that it makes so many of the socialists of fark piss themselves with rage.

But yeah, other than that it sucks from societal perspective.
 
2012-05-31 10:13:44 AM  

Weaver95: KellyX: Supreme Court really needs to revisit this and reverse it

they won't though. companies will be permitted to outspend and quash the will of individual voters because THAT'S what the Founding Fathers intended, gotdammit!


Careful there weave, freeholders go back to Jamestown. So yes, a small group of wealthy whited DID control voting in this country at the beginning.

/not saying it was right
//just that it was what it was
 
2012-05-31 10:15:47 AM  

rohar: Weaver95: KellyX: Supreme Court really needs to revisit this and reverse it

they won't though. companies will be permitted to outspend and quash the will of individual voters because THAT'S what the Founding Fathers intended, gotdammit!

Careful there weave, freeholders go back to Jamestown. So yes, a small group of wealthy whited DID control voting in this country at the beginning.

/not saying it was right
//just that it was what it was


well then SCOTUS should man up and reaffirm that only rich white landowners should get to vote. Because THAT will be hilarious to watch!
 
2012-05-31 10:16:39 AM  
I've mentioned it before, but one of the most egregious things about that case was the inappropriate fact finding.
 
2012-05-31 10:17:03 AM  
I say, legalize vote buying. Force them to spread it around a little.
 
2012-05-31 10:18:15 AM  
Anybody else notice his use of the word individuals, but he doesn't note how few have contributed the vast majority of that money!

We all have a voice, some just have a bigger voice than others.
 
2012-05-31 10:18:23 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The only reason i like citizens united is that it makes so many of the socialists of fark piss themselves with rage.

But yeah, other than that it sucks from societal perspective.


The thing I really like about hacking off my nose is that it pisses off that stupid, liberal, socialist face.

But it does suck not having a nose.
 
2012-05-31 10:18:24 AM  

odinsposse: In a lot of ways I feel like Citizens United doesn't matter. It just makes overt what has always been known, that elections can be and often are bought. Reversing the decision wouldn't change that fact it just alters the course the money takes.

The real problem is that large advertising campaigns have a big effect on elections. The only way to address that problem is to either cut off money from elections (which, by the way, is far more complicated than just having publicly funded elections) or making people more resistant to political advertising.


I don't think it would just alter the course but also lessen the amount. I am not going to be naive enough to say that it would have a huge effect now because Pandora's box is opened and the goal posts have moved so far that the corporate overlords will find some way to keep their political-wrangling addiction going, but hopefully to a slightly smaller degree.

But let's face it, the same party that is going to waste all this money and probably lose anyway will be the first ones to a) criticize Citizens United and b) complain about government regulation... in the SAME COGNITIVE DISSONANCE BREATH.
 
2012-05-31 10:18:55 AM  

bdub77: So what you're saying is that individuals can now spend as much money on a campaign as they have in their bank accounts. Citizens United is just a way of skirting around campaign contribution laws.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM.



I like the way it dodges the real issue, which is how many individuals did that $83m come from, and what's the distribution on the amounts given.
 
2012-05-31 10:19:08 AM  
FTFA: At issue is the court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which held, unremarkably, that Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they come together in corporate entities or labor unions to speak collectively. What do liberals consider the constitutional basis for saying otherwise?

Gee, George I don't know. Could it be that the Equality of Opportunity the conservatives drone on about when asking for tax cuts might also apply to free speech?

If the Koch brothers want to open the door to their mansion and yell about tax cuts and evil socialism, they have that opportunity just like I do. If I want to go on TV to do what they do through Super PACs and 501c4's, I cannot.

You don't want equal outcomes in the economy, but you want equal opportunity. We want the same thing when it comes to speech. You don't need to guarantee my equal outcome, but we do need to find equality of opportunity to speak. And your billionaires, right now, have a lot more access then my unemployed ass when we look at the ability to be heard, which is just as important as the ability to speak.
 
2012-05-31 10:19:34 AM  
How dare individuals have the same speech rights as candidates. It is a crime against humanity that line minded citizens can now band together to amplify their opinion, only those running for office should be allowed to. Benjamin Franklin, owner of a printing press, would have been banned from much of his speech if the anti CU crowd had its way.

Non coordinated political speech from ordinary citizens is a good thing. It's one of the primary ways incumbents are being upset in elections. Incumbents already have huge advantages in public access, CU has led to quite a few upsets.
 
2012-05-31 10:19:37 AM  

Salt Lick Steady: I've mentioned it before, but one of the most egregious things about that case was the inappropriate fact finding.


Really? I was more concerned about how one judge was opening bought off.
 
2012-05-31 10:20:45 AM  

wingnut396: Debeo Summa Credo: The only reason i like citizens united is that it makes so many of the socialists of fark piss themselves with rage.

But yeah, other than that it sucks from societal perspective.

The thing I really like about hacking off my nose is that it pisses off that stupid, liberal, socialist face.

But it does suck not having a nose.


The thing I really like about wet farts is that it pisses off that stupid, liberal, socialist face.

But it does stain my underwear.
 
2012-05-31 10:20:50 AM  

Corporate Self: I say, legalize vote buying. Force them to spread it around a little.


Already done in the WI primary.

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2012-05-31 10:21:12 AM  

Corporate Self: I say, legalize vote buying. Force them to spread it around a little.


That sounds good... of course, we'll have to eliminate the secret ballot so we don't have people taking money and then just voting how they want.
 
2012-05-31 10:23:46 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The only reason i like citizens united is that it makes so many of the socialists of fark piss themselves with rage.

But yeah, other than that it sucks from societal perspective.


good lord your dick must be tiny
 
2012-05-31 10:24:49 AM  

CygnusDarius: wingnut396: Debeo Summa Credo: The only reason i like citizens united is that it makes so many of the socialists of fark piss themselves with rage.

But yeah, other than that it sucks from societal perspective.

The thing I really like about hacking off my nose is that it pisses off that stupid, liberal, socialist face.

But it does suck not having a nose.

The thing I really like about wet farts is that it pisses off that stupid, liberal, socialist face.

But it does stain my underwear.


The thing I like about clubbing baby fur seals with my pecker is that it pisses off commie, liberal, econuts.

But it does make my pecker fall off.
 
2012-05-31 10:25:10 AM  
Honestly, I'm not even as worried about the massive corporate/personal spending as I am over one particular phrase in the ruling: "the First Amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker's identity."

According to my understanding, this sets a very broad standard, and would then allow, for instance, foreign nationals, organizations, and corporations to purchase as much political speech as they wanted in the US. Yes, Murdoch can toss a lot of money at the campaign, but how much would China be willing to spend in order to influence US foreign or military policy?

This will come up at some point, in some fashion, and we will probably restrict speech, but the rationale for doing that while letting this ruling stand with regard to US entities is going to be convoluted and will leave them with no choice but to accelerate the current trend of incoherent and somewhat arbitrary decision making.
 
2012-05-31 10:25:37 AM  

incendi: Corporate Self: I say, legalize vote buying. Force them to spread it around a little.

That sounds good... of course, we'll have to eliminate the secret ballot so we don't have people taking money and then just voting how they want.


We could do away with chads and make the ballot a coupon/voucher sheet. Whichever coupon is removed in each race is the vote for that candidate. We could even allow corporations to sponsor candidates!

Imagine what a wonderful world it would be!
 
2012-05-31 10:25:50 AM  
Cause that's what you want to do, find ways to inject more money into politics. That's always a super-great idea.
 
2012-05-31 10:26:22 AM  
It not the .gov wasn't bought to a man before CU.

So now the price controls are off and a congressman will cost a fortune instead of several thousands. It's a good thing.
 
2012-05-31 10:27:59 AM  

skinnycatullus: Endrick: "not a single one of the Fortune 100 companies has contributed a cent" to any of the eight super PACS

I've been quite involved in arguing against the ruling, and this has never been one of my worries. I'm far more concerned that a tiny group of people is allowed to have such an enormous effect on the electoral process.


I can't speak for other fortune 100 companies, but mine didn't give money to any of the 8 super PACs because they made their own.
 
2012-05-31 10:28:04 AM  

wingnut396: CygnusDarius: wingnut396: Debeo Summa Credo: The only reason i like citizens united is that it makes so many of the socialists of fark piss themselves with rage.

But yeah, other than that it sucks from societal perspective.

The thing I really like about hacking off my nose is that it pisses off that stupid, liberal, socialist face.

But it does suck not having a nose.

The thing I really like about wet farts is that it pisses off that stupid, liberal, socialist face.

But it does stain my underwear.

The thing I like about clubbing baby fur seals with my pecker is that it pisses off commie, liberal, econuts.

But it does make my pecker fall off.


The thing I like about global thermonuclear war is that it makes so many of the dirty hippie socialists upset.

But it does suck from a societal perspective.
 
2012-05-31 10:28:39 AM  

Summercat: Okay, um. I'm not exactly new, but I lurk more than anything else. What's with the meme of submitting the two opposing headlines back to back? >_>


i.imgur.com
Approves

 
2012-05-31 10:29:36 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The only reason i like citizens united is that it makes so many of the socialists of fark piss themselves with rage.

But yeah, other than that it sucks from societal perspective.


So you support a policy solely because the Democrats are against it? Hurray for partisanship!
 
2012-05-31 10:29:44 AM  

deeyablo: Anybody else notice his use of the word individuals, but he doesn't note how few have contributed the vast majority of that money!

We all have a voice, some just have a bigger voice than others.


I'm not sure that's a half bad idea. You want to see trickle down actually work? This might be the trigger.
 
2012-05-31 10:29:53 AM  
You know, I realize that no real good or service is being created but with the projected expenditures of the election campaigns this year it almost looks like a stimulus package for TV networks, local broadcasters and lawyers. Perhaps something will yet 'trickle down.'
 
2012-05-31 10:30:37 AM  
List of the billionaires behind Romney and the Superpacs (not a slide show).
 
2012-05-31 10:31:43 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: The thing I like about global thermonuclear war is that it makes so many of the dirty hippie socialists upset.

But it does suck from a societal perspective.


I'm trying really hard to not make the obvious joke here.
 
2012-05-31 10:32:04 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The only reason i like citizens united is that it makes so many of the socialists of fark piss themselves with rage.

But yeah, other than that it sucks from societal perspective.


"Society be damned, we've gotta stick it to the libs!"

You're precisely what's wrong with this country.
 
2012-05-31 10:33:05 AM  

CptnSpldng: You know, I realize that no real good or service is being created but with the projected expenditures of the election campaigns this year it almost looks like a stimulus package for TV networks, local broadcasters and lawyers. Perhaps something will yet 'trickle down.'


This point was posited in another thread yesterday. It will stimulate the NYC economy more than Main Street USA, so, yeah, kinda, but not really.
 
2012-05-31 10:33:14 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The only reason i like citizens united is that it makes so many of the socialists of fark piss themselves with rage.

But yeah, other than that it sucks from societal perspective.


Kinda like how the Affordable Health Care Act gives facists the vapors? Yeah, I guess I can see your point of view.
 
2012-05-31 10:34:16 AM  
FTFA "86% came from individuals,only 13% came from corporations. Seeeeeeeeeeeeee? No problem about corporations". Frack you, George Will, you Kochsucker! Were these individuals humans like me who for example donated $35 to help recall Scott Walker? Or like Sheldon Friese who gave >$10,000,000 to keep Newt Gingrich in the primaries?
 
2012-05-31 10:35:05 AM  
Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level. --John Adams 1776

Citizens United just restores American values.
 
2012-05-31 10:35:57 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Really? I was more concerned about how one judge was opening bought off.


Does not compute. Attempting reboot.
 
2012-05-31 10:38:44 AM  
CBS News...and Green Bay Press-Gazette.

Fair...and Balanced.
 
2012-05-31 10:41:27 AM  

Salt Lick Steady: Satanic_Hamster: Really? I was more concerned about how one judge was opening bought off.

Does not compute. Attempting reboot.


Er, openly.
 
2012-05-31 10:44:00 AM  
Because there was a bunch of controversy over this ruling it has kept it in check in the short term, over the long term when other things capture people's attention is when this ruling will be really abused.
 
2012-05-31 10:45:26 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Salt Lick Steady: Satanic_Hamster: Really? I was more concerned about how one judge was opening bought off.

Does not compute. Attempting reboot.

Er, openly.


Ah, got it. You think only one judge was bought and paid for? Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy are in the stack for quite a few.
 
2012-05-31 10:50:20 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The only reason i like citizens united is that it makes so many of the socialists of fark piss themselves with rage.

But yeah, other than that it sucks from societal perspective.


That's right! Stick it to the libs! Never mind how much it hurts society, it's much more important to stick it to the libs. May you get cancer that is real painful, Debeo. So the libs can stick it to you when you cry for some medical marijuana.
 
Displayed 50 of 111 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report