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  
•       •       •

18208 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2014 at 12:07 PM (37 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
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:25:01 PM  

Serious Black: 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.


No.. not literal one man one vote, but in terms of influence.  Right now a Koch can come in and buy votes from every constituency in the country.  If that doesn't violate the spirit of one man one vote I don't know what does.
 
2014-04-02 12:25:28 PM  
If Sheldon Adelson wants to buy a president, he should have the right to have a primary so that he can put his hundred million behind the candidate that will at least get the nomination before losing to Hillary in 2014.
 
2014-04-02 12:25:37 PM  

Mugato: 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.


FTFA: The decision provides a financial boost to political parties, which have lost their dominance with the rise of super PACs and other independent political groups that can raise unlimited sums.
 
2014-04-02 12:25:43 PM  

Miss Alexandra: 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.)


Why are we lumping all current members of Congress into the same boat, regardless of their actual positions and actions, and why are we assuming that their replacements will be superior in any way? Without changing the underlying incentives, Congress would attract the exact same kinds of people as it currently does.
 
2014-04-02 12:25:47 PM  
Can we start a fund to bribe the SCOTUS and Congress? Apparently, bribery is the only way to get justice anymore.

I figure 541 members of Congress plus 9 members of the SCOTUS...550 times...let's see, they're all worth about $1 on a good day...so $550 should buy me some representation in Washington DC.

So where do I send my check?
 
2014-04-02 12:26:05 PM  

Teiritzamna: 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.


Forget it, man. No one is listening.
 
2014-04-02 12:26:51 PM  
I understand this seems like a win for the Republicans in the short run, but isn't the trend that the Dems are actually benefitting more from these laws as wealthy donors move to support Democrats?

Perhaps this will come to bite the Repubs in the back end as more of the rich realize they are better off with Dems in office.
 
2014-04-02 12:27:25 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers


Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:

scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2014-04-02 12:27:44 PM  
The Supreme Court has effectively struck down democracy. Perhaps it's time to strike down the SC?
 
2014-04-02 12:27:47 PM  

Kevin72: If Sheldon Adelson wants to buy a president, he should have the right to have a primary so that he can put his hundred million behind the candidate that will at least get the nomination before losing to Hillary in 2014.


www.trunews.com
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:27:50 PM  

Teiritzamna: 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).


I don't think that means that you should allow the rich to buy theoretical bullhorns to drown out everyone else's voice, however.  Big money lobbying came of age in 1980, and I don't think any founding father or politician before that date had any inkling that money would band together in such a way that a single constituent no longer mattered AT ALL.
 
2014-04-02 12:27:51 PM  
A plutocracy?  That's goofy!
 
2014-04-02 12:28:18 PM  
de·moc·ra·cy
/diˈmäkrəsē/
noun: democracy
    1.  a system of government by the affluent population or all the eligible corporate entities of a state, typically through purchased representatives.
 
2014-04-02 12:28:23 PM  

Teiritzamna: 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).


Fortunately, if SCOTUS issues a wrong opinion, they can change their mind later and overturn that opinion in a later case.
 
2014-04-02 12:28:33 PM  

chapman: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:

[scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net image 514x480]


Why would the Koch Bros., as individuals, would show up on a chart of unions, companies, and other similar organizations?
 
2014-04-02 12:28:33 PM  

chapman: Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:


The second half:

scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2014-04-02 12:29:43 PM  

25.media.tumblr.com


"Git me! I'm giving out free speech!"



/out you five pixies go--through the door or out the window
 
2014-04-02 12:29:53 PM  

SphericalTime: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

I presume.  I only see 4 on the opinion, but there has to be one more.


FTA:
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Roberts. Justice Clarence Thomas provided the crucial fifth vote for overturning the limits, but said the others should have gone further to strike all contribution limits.

I see 5.
 
2014-04-02 12:29:54 PM  
Oh FFS.  I'm not actually surprised, but I am saddened.

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-02 12:30:02 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Teiritzamna: 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.

Forget it, man. No one is listening.


No dude, we get that spending money in pursuance of free speech is part of that free speech.  But it is insane to claim that there is some kind of equivalence between the $1,000 I could spend to express my free speech and the $50,000,000 that one of the Koch brothers could spend to express his free speech.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:30:09 PM  

chapman: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:

[scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net image 514x480]


Teamsters union and teachers union in the top 20???  Wow... I don't know what to say to that.  That's some good book cookin'.
 
2014-04-02 12:30:19 PM  
Oh, good.  The US is going to turn into even more of a third world banana republic.  F**k you, SCOTUS.
 
2014-04-02 12:30:30 PM  
SO now it's a giant money war where we all feel compelled to combat the other side's money with our own money.  Millions and billions thrown away in a political pissing match.

What an incredible economic waste...
 
2014-04-02 12:30:32 PM  

qorkfiend: Why would the Koch Bros., as individuals, would show up on a chart of unions, companies, and other similar organizations?


It's a list of all donors since 1989.  I just so happens that the top donors are organizations and also predominantly donate to democrats.
 
2014-04-02 12:30:47 PM  

d23: I don't think that means that you should allow the rich to buy theoretical bullhorns to drown out everyone else's voice, however. Big money lobbying came of age in 1980, and I don't think any founding father or politician before that date had any inkling that money would band together in such a way that a single constituent no longer mattered AT ALL.


Fair enough - except that that was the rationale specifically rejected in Buckley.  I personally agree that the court got it wrong when it indicated that quid pro quo donations are the only type of corruption that can be prevented under the first amendment, but its hard to argue that Buckley wasn't rejecting laws trying to prevent inequality in campaign donations when that is exactly and expressly what it rejected.
 
2014-04-02 12:31:08 PM  
And yet people laugh at Occupy for being pissed off about the politic system.
 
2014-04-02 12:31:16 PM  
Miss Alexandra:  sheeple

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-02 12:31:18 PM  

Irving Maimway: FML.

Well, there's just no pretending this is a republic anymore is there?


There really isn't. I'm sure people will claim I'm being hyperbolic, but Citizens United and this ruling (along with Patriot Act and it's horrible effects) have effectively destroyed America. It might take another decade or so, but America is gone.
 
2014-04-02 12:31:19 PM  
What a farking joke.
 
2014-04-02 12:32:03 PM  

Serious Black: Fortunately, if SCOTUS issues a wrong opinion, they can change their mind later and overturn that opinion in a later case.


Oh sure - I am just saying if the lion of supreme court liberalism was on the side of Roberts and Thomas, its gonna be an uphill slog to do so.
 
2014-04-02 12:32:09 PM  
The Ford Focus Doritos Loco Tacos Microsoft Office Presidential Election 2016 - brought to you by Halliburton
 
2014-04-02 12:32:17 PM  

Serious Black: Teiritzamna: 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).

Fortunately, if SCOTUS issues a wrong opinion, they can change their mind later and overturn that opinion in a later case.


Here is hoping:  NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
 
2014-04-02 12:32:31 PM  

chapman: Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:


It's almost... ALMOST like you don't understand reporting laws.

ALMOST. I'm betting you do know about unreported political funding, but hope no one calls you on it.
 
2014-04-02 12:32:48 PM  

chapman: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:

[scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net image 514x480]


Whar are LLCs? Whar?

The money you listed above isn't dark money. Dark money from LLCs that conceal who donated how much is what is buying and selling every election at every level of government now. Thanks to Citizens United and cases like today's.
 
2014-04-02 12:32:56 PM  
Let's see... Now liberals hate the First, Second, Fourth , Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Amendments. Spreadsheet updated.
 
2014-04-02 12:32:59 PM  

Churchy LaFemme: SO now it's a giant money war where we all feel compelled to combat the other side's money with our own money.  Millions and billions thrown away in a political pissing match.

What an incredible economic waste...


The only way to win is not to play.
 
2014-04-02 12:33:01 PM  

chapman: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:


That's why we need full disclosure of contributions.

Thanks Citizens United.
 
2014-04-02 12:33:01 PM  

AirForceVet: Oh, I get now.

The more money you have, the more speech you can afford.

/Just like justice, get it?


Ayup.

I mean, our whole system... ALL OF IT... is based on the idea that money talks.

Want to win a court case?  You'd better hope you can afford an expensive lawyer.

Want to get a law passed?  Better have some lobbyists.

Want to become a "representative of the people?"  Better build a large war chest.

Money is power.  Why is this shocking in any way?
 
2014-04-02 12:33:39 PM  

chapman: qorkfiend: Why would the Koch Bros., as individuals, would show up on a chart of unions, companies, and other similar organizations?

It's a list of all donors since 1989.  I just so happens that the top donors are organizations and also predominantly donate to democrats.


How about recently, like the past 5 years?
 
2014-04-02 12:33:40 PM  
Well, since this is what it's coming to, I'll sell my vote for $10 million dollars.
 
2014-04-02 12:33:44 PM  
Sigh.
 
2014-04-02 12:33:52 PM  
Absolutely disgusting... But not surprising. We've been a Plutocracy with a thin façade of Democracy for a long time now.
 
2014-04-02 12:34:50 PM  

keylock71: Absolutely disgusting... But not surprising. We've been a Plutocracy with a thin façade of Democracy for a long time now.


Yes... Since around 1776.
 
2014-04-02 12:35:44 PM  
Well shiat

/on reflection and further reading, this is less dire than I originally thought
//Still, well shiat
 
2014-04-02 12:35:49 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Apparently, bribery is the only way to get justice anymore.


Did you know that lobbying is illegal in India?   Because it is seen as bribery.  Because, well, it is.

Here is is a core part of our political process.

What does that say?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:36:09 PM  

R.A.Danny: Let's see... Now liberals hate the First, Second, Fourth , Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Amendments. Spreadsheet updated.


img.fark.net
 
2014-04-02 12:36:10 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: MaudlinMutantMollusk: James!: That's one way to get rich people to plow their money back into the economy.

It is rather amusing watching a congresscritter spit out a corporate dick to accuse the corporation of wrong-doing, though

Well that was just wrong


Nope.
i.qkme.me
 
2014-04-02 12:36:25 PM  

chapman: The second half:


Weird. Sheldon Adelson isn't on that list at ALL, yet he has confirmed donating nearly 90 MILLION just in one year

And you are claiming the Kochs haven't donated even 30 million?

Like I said, you seem to be counting on people being idiots, like you...
 
2014-04-02 12:36:29 PM  

qorkfiend: chapman: qorkfiend: Why would the Koch Bros., as individuals, would show up on a chart of unions, companies, and other similar organizations?

It's a list of all donors since 1989.  I just so happens that the top donors are organizations and also predominantly donate to democrats.


How about recently, like the past 5 years?


Source is open secrets.  Not sure if they did a five year lookup.
 
2014-04-02 12:36:33 PM  

EyeballKid: How long 'til the Republican Party breaks up into two groups: the Adelson Party, and the Koch Party?


Sometime around the 2000 election.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report