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.

(Guardian)   US Supreme Court set to decide whether you can buy Congressmen wholesale and cut out the lobbyists altogether   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 75
    More: Hero, independent expenditures, lobbyists, wholesales, congressman, campaign contributions  
•       •       •

4199 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Mar 2013 at 1:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-19 12:26:14 PM  
Political donations should be unlimited with highly transparent reporting, and ad buys should be illegal in a general election.
 
2013-03-19 12:27:32 PM  
I honestly don't understand how this wouldn't just legalize outright bribery.
 
2013-03-19 12:31:21 PM  
I just wish the incredibly successful lawyer behind all of this wasn't so absurdly named that no one takes him seriously.

For God's sake, his name is  Jim Bopp.
 
2013-03-19 12:32:18 PM  
Well this is a foregone conclusion.  Anyone actually think the USSC won't legalize bribery?
 
2013-03-19 12:42:35 PM  

GAT_00: Well this is a foregone conclusion.  Anyone actually think the USSC won't legalize bribery?


I dont know, the USSC has done something I didn't think they would do. I hope they dont, but nothing would surprise me.
 
2013-03-19 12:43:53 PM  

DamnYankees: I honestly don't understand how this wouldn't just legalize outright bribery.


GAT_00: Well this is a foregone conclusion.  Anyone actually think the USSC won't legalize bribery?


Bribery lost any meaning it once had after it was decided that money equals speech.
 
2013-03-19 12:49:02 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-19 12:51:44 PM  

WTF Indeed: Political donations should be unlimited with highly transparent reporting, and ad buys should be illegal in a general election.


I'm 100% okay with this - all I'd ask is that the giver and the recipient be subject to nothing more than the ethics reporting requirements that any salaried corporate worker has - immediate and full disclousure of all transactions.
 
2013-03-19 01:08:23 PM  
Just die Scalia. We need to start working on cleaning up your mess already.
 
2013-03-19 01:15:31 PM  

Rincewind53: I just wish the incredibly successful lawyer behind all of this wasn't so absurdly named that no one takes him seriously.

For God's sake, his name is  Jim Bopp.


Wasn't there some boy band that sang a song about him back in the '90s?

Yeah, I think it was these guys:

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-19 01:18:47 PM  
I keep on saying this:

There are enough people who support overturning Citizens United via constitution amendment. Why isnt there any sort of concerted effort to do so?

And no, please dont spout off conspiracy theories (OMG THOSE EVIL CORPORATIONS!). I am asking for solid facts.
 
2013-03-19 01:19:31 PM  
We've got some of the best politicians money can buy!
 
2013-03-19 01:20:07 PM  

cman: Why isnt there any sort of concerted effort to do so?


"Walking Dead" is on right now.  Maybe later.
 
2013-03-19 01:46:51 PM  

cman: I keep on saying this:

There are enough people who support overturning Citizens United via constitution amendment. Why isnt there any sort of concerted effort to do so?

And no, please dont spout off conspiracy theories (OMG THOSE EVIL CORPORATIONS!). I am asking for solid facts.


I'm pretty sure that Bernie Sanders has introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to do just that.  Given that it needs to get thru both houses of Congress before it can be submitted to the states, I doubt that it'll happen any time soon.
 
2013-03-19 01:53:54 PM  

cman: I keep on saying this:

There are enough people who support overturning Citizens United via constitution amendment. Why isnt there any sort of concerted effort to do so?

And no, please dont spout off conspiracy theories (OMG THOSE EVIL CORPORATIONS!). I am asking for solid facts.


Bernie Sanders did 'something':

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn a Supreme Court ruling that allowed unrestricted, secret campaign spending by corporations and billionaires. Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) filed the "Democracy is for People" amendment in the House.

Link

But it remains to be seen if it'll go anywhere. This was submitted earlier this week.
 
2013-03-19 01:54:28 PM  

cman: I keep on saying this:

There are enough people who support overturning Citizens United via constitution amendment. Why isnt there any sort of concerted effort to do so?

And no, please dont spout off conspiracy theories (OMG THOSE EVIL CORPORATIONS!). I am asking for solid facts.


The turnaround on constitutional amendments form proposal to ratification tends to be counted in decades.  Even if there is a push for it, you won't hear about it for another couple sessions and it won't be up for ratification for another 5-10 years minimum.

That's a long time to try to keep momentum going and a lot of opportunities to fail, if people aren't trying very hard I kinda understand the feeling.
 
2013-03-19 01:55:30 PM  

Rincewind53: I just wish the incredibly successful lawyer behind all of this wasn't so absurdly named that no one takes him seriously.

For God's sake, his name is  Jim Bopp.


PBS Frontline did a piece on Citizens United, which featured Mr. Bopp. A real piece of human garbage, typical Republican sellout.
 
2013-03-19 01:56:40 PM  
Well, this is just trying to overturn the overall cap on spending.  I'm not sure I disagree with that - if Sheldon Adelson can give every (R) in Congress $2500 rather than (or more likely, in addition to) giving it to a SuperPAC that does the same, where's the real harm.

Though the current system seems to have encouraged high-profile conservatives to spend a lot of money on completely futile causes, which brings me joy (schadenfreude is best freude).
 
2013-03-19 01:59:11 PM  

WTF Indeed: Political donations should be unlimited with highly transparent reporting, and ad buys should be illegal in a general election.


Yes.  I don't care if you're the Doritos President, I just want to know about it.
 
2013-03-19 02:00:16 PM  
The day that global media puts the word 'bribe' in place of 'lobbyist' 'lobbying' 'pay 10 grand to get in to eat with your local politician during a non-election event', then things will be better.

/The lawyer will make a few bucks too, as the politicians sue the media for calling them recipients of bribery to build bridges to somewhere where no one wants to go.
 
2013-03-19 02:00:33 PM  
Can you get Congressmen by the pound?  Can I chip in with another family and buy a whole Congressman?  How well do they keep?  Can you freeze them?
 
2013-03-19 02:03:50 PM  

palelizard: WTF Indeed: Political donations should be unlimited with highly transparent reporting, and ad buys should be illegal in a general election.

Yes.  I don't care if you're the Doritos President, I just want to know about it.


like nascar! require patches on their clothes of their biggest donars.
 
2013-03-19 02:05:06 PM  

Jim_Callahan: The turnaround on constitutional amendments form proposal to ratification tends to be counted in decades. Even if there is a push for it, you won't hear about it for another couple sessions and it won't be up for ratification for another 5-10 years minimum.

That's a long time to try to keep momentum going and a lot of opportunities to fail, if people aren't trying very hard I kinda understand the feeling.


The internet and the speed of information these days may cut that time down significantly - true, no Amendment has been ratified since 1992 (and that was a 200-year old amendment that was probably legal already), but I haven't really heard of concerted efforts since then. CU should be it, but it still needs a movement behind it. (IMO, OWS should have run with that, and not let itself tear itself apart.)

I have no idea why - maybe it's that getting 37 states to agree on anything without being total douchehammers about it is nigh impossible these days.
 
2013-03-19 02:10:20 PM  

WTF Indeed: Political donations should be unlimited with highly transparent reporting, and ad buys should be illegal in a general election.


Of course then all the money would come through shell corporations and legal entities.

In an ideal world, they would be forced to wear race car driver jackets with the logos of their biggest contributors on them, but let's face it, our democratic republic will forever be in the pocket of big business.
 
2013-03-19 02:15:21 PM  

GAT_00: Well this is a foregone conclusion.  Anyone actually think the USSC won't legalize bribery?




Wanna bet it's gonna be another 5-4?
Perhaps it will be another case of Anthony Kennedy flipping sides when he realizes the dangers that will come forth.
 
2013-03-19 02:19:10 PM  
... How on Earth is this a 'Hero' tag?  When the system is poisoned by too much money, the solution is to inject more money?

Seriously?

If anyone thinks this is a good idea, remember that the Republicans are pushing it.
 
2013-03-19 02:24:52 PM  

justtray: Just die Scalia. We need to start working on cleaning up your mess already.


That is one downside of Bork not having gotten Senate consent.
 
2013-03-19 02:26:31 PM  
Either I'm not understanding the article or Subby thinks more money in politics is a good thing.
 
2013-03-19 02:26:41 PM  

cman: I keep on saying this:

There are enough people who support overturning Citizens United via constitution amendment. Why isnt there any sort of concerted effort to do so?

And no, please dont spout off conspiracy theories (OMG THOSE EVIL CORPORATIONS!). I am asking for solid facts.


https://movetoamend.org/
 
2013-03-19 02:30:15 PM  

cman: There are enough people who support overturning Citizens United via constitution amendment. Why isnt there any sort of concerted effort to do so?


Because those people aren't serving in Congress.
 
2013-03-19 02:33:35 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: ... How on Earth is this a 'Hero' tag?  When the system is poisoned by too much money, the solution is to inject more money?

Seriously?

If anyone thinks this is a good idea, remember that the Republicans are pushing it.


Problem: Too much money poisoning politics
Republican Solution: More money.

Problem: Too much gun violence.
Republican Solution: More guns

Problem: Budget deficit.
Republican Solution: More spending +More tax cuts.

Problem: Too much government interference in citizen's private lives.
Republican Solution: Ban gay marriage. Tighten anti-abortion laws. etc...
 
2013-03-19 02:34:56 PM  

GoldSpider: cman: There are enough people who support overturning Citizens United via constitution amendment. Why isnt there any sort of concerted effort to do so?

Because those people aren't serving in Congress.


Nor are they proposing a new money channel to congress. Got feed them somehow. You can't expect them to live off of the six figure salary can you?
 
2013-03-19 02:34:58 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Jim_Callahan: The turnaround on constitutional amendments form proposal to ratification tends to be counted in decades. Even if there is a push for it, you won't hear about it for another couple sessions and it won't be up for ratification for another 5-10 years minimum.

That's a long time to try to keep momentum going and a lot of opportunities to fail, if people aren't trying very hard I kinda understand the feeling.

The internet and the speed of information these days may cut that time down significantly - true, no Amendment has been ratified since 1992 (and that was a 200-year old amendment that was probably legal already), but I haven't really heard of concerted efforts since then. CU should be it, but it still needs a movement behind it. (IMO, OWS should have run with that, and not let itself tear itself apart.)

I have no idea why - maybe it's that getting 37 states to agree on anything without being total douchehammers about it is nigh impossible these days.


The Blues & the Reds can't even agree to do routine business like pass a budget.

How can they be expected to debate a constitutional amendment.
 
2013-03-19 02:44:00 PM  

cman: I keep on saying this:

There are enough people who support overturning Citizens United via constitution amendment. Why isnt there any sort of concerted effort to do so?

And no, please dont spout off conspiracy theories (OMG THOSE EVIL CORPORATIONS!). I am asking for solid facts.


Colorado passed a non-binding ballot measure to encourage our federal legislative representatives to pursue an amendment to overturn it...

...So far though I haven't seen anything indicating they're actually trying.
 
2013-03-19 02:44:21 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I have no idea why - maybe it's that getting 37 states to agree on anything without being total douchehammers about it is nigh impossible these days.


Well, that and the fact that 30 of the 50 states have Republican governors...and they aren't about to bite the hand that feeds them.
 
2013-03-19 02:46:29 PM  
I have been assured again and again by Farkers that advertisements don't change anyone's mind or have any influence on people.

Therefore, the amount of campaign contributions shouldn't be an issue. I don't see why anyone is upset at all by this.
 
2013-03-19 02:47:28 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: The Blues & the Reds can't even agree to do routine business like pass a budget.

How can they be expected to debate a constitutional amendment.


1. A "Continuing Resolution" is a budget by a different name.
2. Congress can be circumvented to get a new Amendment (Article V) - at least 33 states agree to hold a convention where the amendment is proposed, then either 38 state legislatures or 38 state-level ratifying conventions pass it. It becomes settled law of the land, and there ain't a goddamn thing Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, both Clintons or Osama bin Laden's reanimated Lich-King can do about it.
 
2013-03-19 02:51:12 PM  

GAT_00: Well this is a foregone conclusion.  Anyone actually think the USSC won't legalize bribery?


After Citizen's United, you'd think they pretty much have to.
 
2013-03-19 02:53:17 PM  

Dr Dreidel: 2. Congress can be circumvented to get a new Amendment (Article V) - at least 33 states agree to hold a convention where the amendment is proposed, then either 38 state legislatures or 38 state-level ratifying conventions pass it. It becomes settled law of the land, and there ain't a goddamn thing Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, both Clintons or Osama bin Laden's reanimated Lich-King can do about it.


The ensuring court battle would be both fascinating and mercifully short.
 
2013-03-19 03:04:45 PM  

qorkfiend: Dr Dreidel: 2. Congress can be circumvented to get a new Amendment (Article V) - at least 33 states agree to hold a convention where the amendment is proposed, then either 38 state legislatures or 38 state-level ratifying conventions pass it. It becomes settled law of the land, and there ain't a goddamn thing Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, both Clintons or Osama bin Laden's reanimated Lich-King can do about it.

The ensuring court battle would be both fascinating and mercifully short.


I basically posted the text of Article V. How would that even see the inside of a courtroom?

// stupid challenges, or did I seriously misread something?
 
2013-03-19 03:10:17 PM  

Dr Dreidel: qorkfiend: Dr Dreidel: 2. Congress can be circumvented to get a new Amendment (Article V) - at least 33 states agree to hold a convention where the amendment is proposed, then either 38 state legislatures or 38 state-level ratifying conventions pass it. It becomes settled law of the land, and there ain't a goddamn thing Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, both Clintons or Osama bin Laden's reanimated Lich-King can do about it.

The ensuring court battle would be both fascinating and mercifully short.

I basically posted the text of Article V. How would that even see the inside of a courtroom?

// stupid challenges, or did I seriously misread something?


You think no one would challenge it? Regardless, the enforcement of any such amendment would be almost entirely through the courts.
 
2013-03-19 03:13:45 PM  
I have perfect wording to solve this through an amendment:

 A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,  the Congress of the United States may legislate limits to campaign contributions and spending.
 
2013-03-19 03:15:24 PM  

cman: I keep on saying this:

There are enough people who support overturning Citizens United via constitution amendment. Why isnt there any sort of concerted effort to do so?

And no, please dont spout off conspiracy theories (OMG THOSE EVIL CORPORATIONS!). I am asking for solid facts.



Because what you're talking about - reversing the system of legalized bribery we've set up - has to first make it through the very same people who are accepting the bribes. I'm sure you can spot the obvious difficulty there. Plus, with how the GOP has pretty much contracted rabies even mundane, non-controversial legislation is almost impossible to get through congress now. Even things that a majority of Americans DO want they're not delivering on, because the GOP is so dysfunctional now.

Citizens United was a SCOTUS ruling, which means that by definition you need an actual constitutional amendment to reverse it. Constitutional amendments are by design very, very difficult to push through. That's OK, when something is important enough we come together to do it.... But in this particular case, that's not really going to work. Both parties suckle at the big business/hyper-rich benefactor money teat, so there's pretty close to 0 interest in fixing it - with Bernie Sanders' notable exception. This is a political cradle to grave problem, so it would take a monumental, historic tectonic shift in politics to see real action.

And the real problem isn't simply the unlimited, untraceable cash that Citizens United ushered in... it's really the whole system of political donations, as things were pretty damn bad even before the ruling.

We need public campaign finanacing to really end to the legal bribery system.
 
2013-03-19 03:17:59 PM  

monoski: GoldSpider: cman: There are enough people who support overturning Citizens United via constitution amendment. Why isnt there any sort of concerted effort to do so?

Because those people aren't serving in Congress.

Nor are they proposing a new money channel to congress. Got feed them somehow. You can't expect them to live off of the six figure salary can you?


The political machine raises the bar on what it costs to get elected.
In the end its our fault for not realizing that candidates who are constantly on TV  and the internet, with hundreds of campaign centers and a personal media blitz going for years, just might  be beholden to extremely wealthy people.

/At this point it would almost be better if it happened openly.
/At least you can see who's buying, who's getting bought, and how many pieces of silver we're worth.
 
2013-03-19 03:18:29 PM  

Rincewind53: I just wish the incredibly successful lawyer behind all of this wasn't so absurdly named that no one takes him seriously.

For God's sake, his name is  Jim Bopp.


Hansen's come back song!

Jimm Bopp.... do wopp

\you are welcome
 
2013-03-19 03:24:43 PM  
You don't understand, this is perfectly fair.  Poor people will have the same right to donate millions to political campaigns.  What, you don't have millions of dollars laying around?  Working 60 hours a week just pays the bills?  Lazy socialist!
 
2013-03-19 03:27:46 PM  

palelizard: WTF Indeed: Political donations should be unlimited with highly transparent reporting, and ad buys should be illegal in a general election.

Yes.  I don't care if you're the Doritos President, I just want to know about it.



Politicians should be required to wear labels and patches on their clothing listing their biggest donors, or every time they speak they have to finish with, "...brought to you by ________."
 
2013-03-19 03:28:17 PM  

qorkfiend: You think no one would challenge it? Regardless, the enforcement of any such amendment would be almost entirely through the courts.


I was unsure what question you were asking. Any challenge wouldn't make it past initial filings, right (assuming the above process was followed)?

Enforcement of all the Amendments is already done through the courts, n'est-ce pas? Or do you mean a court would have to certify that "this is actually the 28th Amendment to the US Constitution, as full in force as the First, Second and Twenty-First"?

// of course, people still don't accept the 16th as valid, so...
 
2013-03-19 03:48:56 PM  

LedLawless: You don't understand, this is perfectly fair.  Poor people will have the same right to donate millions to political campaigns.  What, you don't have millions of dollars laying around?  Working 60 hours a week just pays the bills?  Lazy socialist!


Alternatively, they could kickstart it.
Want a law passed? Buy a few senators with $1 donations.

/Similar to what we have now, just more efficient.
 
2013-03-19 03:54:17 PM  

palelizard: I don't care if you're the Doritos President, I just want to know about it.


I prefer Mountain Dew
www.tubefilter.com
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  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