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.

(Washington Post) NewsFlash US Supreme Court: The Constitution created a plutocracy, duh   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 815
    More: NewsFlash, Supreme Court, plutocracy  
•       •       •

18201 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2014 at 12:07 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-02 12:17:21 PM
Remember, this is a God fearing nation and if you have lots of money, it means God loves you and he smiles on everything you do.

Funny how they keep pretending Molech is Jehovah for the peasants though.
 
2014-04-02 12:17:33 PM
Suck it, libs!

/had to be said
 
2014-04-02 12:17:57 PM
i290.photobucket.com

This business will get out of control. It will get out of control, and we will be lucky to live through it.
 
2014-04-02 12:18:04 PM

Teiritzamna: Here are some facts to aid in the thread:


This was really great. Thanks. The decision stinks on ice, but at least now I understand it.
 
2014-04-02 12:18:21 PM

Teiritzamna: What is relevant is that Court has long held that the expenditure of money in the furtherance of expressive conduct is part and parcel of that expressive conduct.


This is what's lost on everyone.
 
2014-04-02 12:18:29 PM
wait till it backfires like Citizens United and the Democratics take the House due to this ruling
 
2014-04-02 12:18:41 PM
This is SO not good.

This next election cycle is going to be clown shoes.
 
2014-04-02 12:18:48 PM
So the solution to super PACs having too much spending power is to give more spending power to everyone else?

I guess that's... something?
 
2014-04-02 12:18:52 PM
This might be a good time to start up that political ad company I've been thinking of.  With this ruling will come a huge amount of money from the wealthy, and that money has to go somewhere.

I kept thinking of This American Life where they covered the "Giant Pool of Money".  Maybe they should do one called the "Giant Pool of Political Money".
 
2014-04-02 12:19:03 PM
Maybe this will circulate more wealthy peoples money into the actual economy.

These congressman will have to pay their handlers and local tv stations.

I dunno, bright side looker I guess
 
2014-04-02 12:19:04 PM
Look.  If you don't like that some rich asshole can donate a million dollars to his favourite politician, get 999 other people together and pony up 1000 each to counteract him.  That's America.  Expecting the court to rule that your voice is worth more than his is futile.
 
2014-04-02 12:19:08 PM

pippi longstocking: I'm glad I don't have children. Why would anyone want to bring life to be part of such a piece of shiat world?


The world has been sh*tty since Thrag dragged Thora back to the cave and made Ugg. But we keep going.
 
2014-04-02 12:19:14 PM

FarkedOver: There needs to be an campaign contribution amendment if you want to completely circumvent the supreme court.


Retired justice John Paul Stevens has proposed six amendments.

3. Campaign Finance - Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.
 
2014-04-02 12:19:27 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: wait till it backfires like Citizens United and the Democratics take the House due to this ruling


I see what you did there.
 
2014-04-02 12:19:30 PM

Serious Black: Just because something isn't the only thing SCOTUS can point to as a trump card doesn't mean they can't create it themselves. Look at NAMUDNO v. Holder and Shelby County v. Holder. Roberts himself created the trump card he played four years later to say the preclearance formula was unconstitutional. Why couldn't they declare combating another form of corruption to be a compelling government interest?


1) The Court generally cannot/will not make up a rationale under Strict Scrutiny.  They can do it in Rational Basis review, but the whole point of strict scrutiny is that the government will almost always lose.

2) Unfortunately, its much harder to craft a new rationale reducing first amendment protections in the face of long precedent holding that curbing quid pro quo bribery is the only compelling interest the government has in reducing donations.
 
2014-04-02 12:19:32 PM
This is why who the president is matters, really. They appoint these lifers on the Court. I'd like to think that at some point SCOTUS was a group of people who actually cared about the US and took hard stands to protect our freedom because it's pretty plain to see it's a bunch of idiots being persuaded by big money like every other branch of government. Thanks Alito, Roberts, and the evil Scalia-Thomas monster.
 
2014-04-02 12:19:35 PM

Nabb1: That's a completely separate issue from individual campaign contributions, though. And, I will grant, a much more complex problem than straightforward campaign contributions.


true - i was just illustrating that this is what happens when unlimited super pac donations were allowed. now unlimited direct donations means that sheldon adelson can now give $90 million to a candidate directly instead of to his super pac.
 
2014-04-02 12:19:44 PM

qorkfiend: For us non-lawyers, what are the practical effects? It sounds like individuals can now donate up to the maximum individual limit to an unlimited number of candidates.


That's precisely correct. That adds up to somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.6 million dollars if you gave the maximum to every candidate in every race for both the primary and the general election. Also, remember that candidates can pretty much transfer money from their own campaign to another candidate's campaign for free, so that really hinders the individual contribution limit's effectiveness.
 
2014-04-02 12:19:55 PM

qorkfiend: For us non-lawyers, what are the practical effects? It sounds like individuals can now donate up to the maximum individual limit to an unlimited number of candidates.


Well, there's a finite number of candidates for elected federal office, which does create a trivial upper bound.
 
2014-04-02 12:20:00 PM
Spending money is freedom of speech. More money = more freedom. If you hate this, you hate America, citizen. Having no money will means you are an enemy of the state. You will be placed under the custody of Carl's Jr.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:20:02 PM

orezona: This is SO not good.

This next election cycle is going to be clown shoes.


The excessive derp and the tortured logic of the last presidential cycle was like fingernails on a chalk board.  The next round will be like Chinese water torture.
 
2014-04-02 12:20:25 PM

Serious Black: SphericalTime: We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?

Move to Amend.


THANK YOU!
 
2014-04-02 12:20:28 PM
How long 'til the Republican Party breaks up into two groups: the Adelson Party, and the Koch Party?
 
2014-04-02 12:20:43 PM

zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'


The purpose of the regulation of campaign contributions is not to protect against corruption.

The purpose is to protect against indirect and hidden governance by entities who have enough material wealth to affect the outcome of elections, or affect the decision making of the elected.

Without this, one man - one vote is meaningless.
 
2014-04-02 12:20:44 PM

SphericalTime: We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?


The ACLU actually supported Citizen's United and probably supports this too.
 
2014-04-02 12:20:45 PM
Maybe this is how the trickling down starts?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:20:46 PM

JolobinSmokin: Maybe this will circulate more wealthy peoples money into the actual economy.

These congressman will have to pay their handlers and local tv stations.

I dunno, bright side looker I guess


It would be fine if the populace as able to reason in greater than 30 second increments.
 
2014-04-02 12:20:51 PM

Mr_Fabulous: I wish I could say that this decision was surprising. At all.

But it's not.


Yep. The five conservatives will side with power and money every time.
 
2014-04-02 12:20:57 PM
I hate to say it, but I think this might've been a good ruling.

The previous law capped the amount that an individual could donate to individual candidates, and the total amount he could donate to elections.  The rulilng basically eliminated the cap on total election contributions, but left intact the individual campaign caps.  In other words, David Koch still can't give Eric Cantor more than $5600, but he can give every Republican candidate $5600.  That makes a sort of perverse sense to me, in that the previous way basically had an arbitrary limit on the number of people a person could contribute to.

Now, if it were up to me, I'd turn the campaign finance laws around:  you want donations to be speech?  Great, they are.  You can donate as much as you want to whomever you want.  However, individual candidates are severely limited in the amount of money they can accept, both from individuals and groups.  And THAT said, if I could get it through, I'd have a Constitutional amendment specifying that for purposes of soft money, campaign contributions are not speech, and therefore soft money donations also are subject to whatever limiations Congress enacts.
 
2014-04-02 12:21:16 PM
 
2014-04-02 12:21:19 PM
media.desura.com
 
2014-04-02 12:21:22 PM
Don't worry! Your individual vote will take care of all the problems.
 
2014-04-02 12:21:27 PM

Misch: Retired justice John Paul Stevens has proposed six amendments.


The fact that he has an amendment getting rid of the anti-commandeering doctrine means that no one serious will pay any attention to that list i am afraid.  I fear carve outs to the First Amendment generally, but jesus, allowing the federal government to command the states to enforce federal law is pants on head stupid (and if you like legalized pot in many states, you would agree)
 
2014-04-02 12:21:46 PM

ox45tallboy: Abuse of authority through corruption is without a doubt harmful to other people, and is therefore subject to regulation.


Should be.  Should be, but isn't.  Not now.  Not in this place.
 
2014-04-02 12:21:47 PM
Even though this is dooming us to a corporatocracy, which by the way is also killing small business and entrepreneurism, I will nonetheless join the moveon.org protest at San Francisco city hall tonight at 5pm.
 
2014-04-02 12:21:52 PM

somedude210: (or all for those crazy third-party critters)


Crazy third parties?
Like the Nazi party?
remember when they were our enemy?

How long until there is an American Al Quaeda party?
American Taliban party?
 
2014-04-02 12:22:00 PM

d23: FarkedOver: There needs to be an campaign contribution amendment if you want to completely circumvent the supreme court.

Someone smarter than I need to figure out how we can have a constitutional convention without the asshole politicians being involved.


Seems to me that if the sheeple weren't asleep at the wheel and paid attention to the Constitution to begin with (not to mention the Declaration of Independence), said politicians wouldn't even be in office to begin with.

The Constitution doesn't need to be changed, it needs to be followed.  Do NOT believe the hype that we need a con-con.  That would be a complete and total disaster for this country.

I think what needs to be done--and yeah, I know, it's a pipe dream--everyone who's registered to vote should vote for anyone EXCEPT Republicans and Democrats.  Write someone's name in if you want, so long as the person meets the qualifications for the office in question.  The objective here is to get the current crop of Congress critters out of office.  (Say that rapidly a few times.)

Third-party candidates have to jump through hoops to even get on the ballot, and where in the Constitution does it say you have to jump through those hoops?  It doesn't!

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  The same bunch keeps getting voted in, and people wonder why nothing's changing.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:22:09 PM

kpaxoid: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

The purpose of the regulation of campaign contributions is not to protect against corruption.

The purpose is to protect against indirect and hidden governance by entities who have enough material wealth to affect the outcome of elections, or affect the decision making of the elected.

Without this, one man - one vote is meaningless.


It already is.  When you equate speech and money then that goes out the window.

And, yes, the Founding Fathers were rich land owners, but they were scared shiatless that someone with MORE money would come in and tell them what to do.  They didn't want legislative power based on what you can pay.
 
2014-04-02 12:22:17 PM

what_now: Jesus Christ. These justices should dress like NASCAR drivers.


Not a new Idea but perhaps overdue.
 
2014-04-02 12:22:22 PM

No Such Agency: Look.  If you don't like that some rich asshole can donate a million dollars to his favourite politician, get 999 other people together and pony up 1000 each to counteract him.  That's America.   Expecting the court to rule that your voice is worth more than his is futile.


They already have. Reynolds v. Sims. One man, one vote. Everyone's voice is equal in the political realm.
 
2014-04-02 12:22:35 PM
So if giving money is "speech" then why isn't giving bribes also "free speech"?

This is stupid. No one is saying people can't spend unlimited money on ads and print on their own, they are just limiting MONEY you can give to others. That's not free speech. giving money is not "Free speech".
 
2014-04-02 12:22:42 PM

zedster: Pg 1, bottom. Gets worse

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests,and Nazi parades-despite the profound offense such spectacles cause-it surely protects political campaignspeech despite popular opposition. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. ___ (2011); National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432
U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). Indeed, as we have emphasized, the First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971).


Yeah except the first amendment examples are relatively harmless. They're the lunatic fringe that most rational people just ignore for the most part.
 
2014-04-02 12:22:58 PM

vudukungfu: How long until there is an American Al Quaeda party?American Taliban party?


What? You mean one full of religious fundamentalists who want America's government destroyed?


I'm pretty sure that already exists.
 
2014-04-02 12:23:03 PM
The only advice I can offer those cheering this decision is to be careful what you ask for, because sooner rather than later the Democrats are going to hold a nearly unassailable demographic majority, and then they will, as sure as the sun rises, use this decision to permanently bury the GOP. Karma's a biatch, baby.
 
2014-04-02 12:23:06 PM
So say I won the lottery and decided I wanted to donate $3.5m or whatever the number is to the whole of Congress. Is there any mechanism in place/checks being done that would ensure that each individual Congress Critter got his or her $5200? Or is this just going to make creating huge party slush funds that much easier?
 
2014-04-02 12:23:18 PM
So are contributions from foreign entities still outlawed?

If so, why? After all. Even non-citizens are protected by the First Ammendment, we can't just throw someone here on a visa in Jail for saying something we don't like just because they're not a US citizen...
 
2014-04-02 12:23:35 PM
Maybe I'm missing something but this doesn't really change things for the worse (doesn't make them better either). It seems that now donations can go to the campaigns instead of the superpacs and we can do away with the sham of pretending that the pacs weren't coordinating with the campaigns. We just cut out the superpac middleman, which i didn't care for so much in the first place.

I may be contradicting myself a little bit here... but maybe this is a tad better. With the superpacs, the candidates could pretend that they didn't endorse the messages of some ads because "they weren't coordinating". If the $$$ goes to the campaign, at least they'd have to stand by what the ads say. But I'm sure the parties are already figuring out the right balance between superpac donations and direct campaign contributions to negate this silver lining i thought I had found.
 
2014-04-02 12:23:38 PM

kpaxoid: The purpose is to protect against indirect and hidden governance by entities who have enough material wealth to affect the outcome of elections, or affect the decision making of the elected.


Unfortunately the most liberal justice in the history of the court held 30 years ago that that is not a legitimate interest of the government trumping the first amendment.

"[T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment."  Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 48-49 (J. Brennan).
 
2014-04-02 12:24:46 PM

Serious Black: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?


Well sure, it sounds silly when you say it out loud.
 
2014-04-02 12:24:54 PM

ox45tallboy: zedster: Serious Black: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?

Pg 1, bottom. Gets worse

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests,and Nazi parades-despite the profound offense such spectacles cause-it surely protects political campaignspeech despite popular opposition. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. ___ (2011); National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432
U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). Indeed, as we have emphasized, the First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971).

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf

The difference is that flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades do not cause actual harm to people. They are offensive, but not actually harmful. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is actually harmful, and therefore regulated.

Abuse of authority through corruption is without a doubt harmful to other people, and is therefore subject to regulation.


Of course flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades cause actual harm.  Raised to a certain level, offense can be harmful.  However, our society tends to agree that such offence is worth it in order to protect our First Amendment rights.

The problem with the Justice's analogy is that anyone can burn a flag, join a funeral protest etc., but only a certain class of people can make serious donations to political candidates.

/The analogy is even worse when it comes to Citizens United, since ever fewer people can afford to saturate the TV market with ads making the most outlandishly false claims about Taftcare
 
Displayed 50 of 815 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report