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 (38 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 | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-02 03:02:41 PM  

sendtodave: Prophet of Loss: We so deserve what is coming for sitting on our asses and doing nothing.

You are right.

We should be out gathering money for campaign funds to get someone to change this!


People around the world have recently demonstrated the right way to handle a government gone off the rails.

We can't because the chest pains keep us Hoveround bound.
 
2014-04-02 03:02:52 PM  

dr_blasto: Churchy LaFemme: If you voted for Dubya give yourself a pat on the back!

with a shiv


Just keep shiv-patting, please. At least one for every preventable death (which would be thousands, despite what delusions may say) on 9/11 and in Iraq.
 
2014-04-02 03:04:07 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Aren't the laws governing lobbying the government pretty much legalized bribery? It's money being given to a politician (or a group of politicians) so that they will do something that the lobby wants them to do (whether it be new tax law, laws governing how employees are treated, etc.). It's just written in such a way that it's not legally considered bribery.


I think the distinction made is that as long as the donation isn't predicated on the action, its fine.  Which is crazypants (see Breyer dissent here) but where i think the law is.
 
2014-04-02 03:04:39 PM  

sendtodave: suebhoney: America the Stupid

Who should have as much political power as you, right?


The only political power I have is my vote.
 
2014-04-02 03:04:45 PM  

sendtodave: dr_blasto: Triple Oak: sendtodave: badaboom: TV's Vinnie: Can we PLEASE start calling for the murder of the rich, pretty please?

I'm not kidding. Kill them before they kill you!

How do comments like this not get a Farker banninated?

Fark first amendment rights.

Vinnie, while normally treading on the line of serious/joking, made a good point. Kill them before they kill you. Survival of the fittest, except having money might not necessarily make you the most fit. I don't see a problem with it, and besides it's not like the 1% reads comments on Fark.

Plus, it is hardly the worst thing posted to Fark, let alone the worst thing to get posted today.

Ya know, I just realized that looks like I'm saying "fark first amendment rights!" when really I was talking about Fark's first amendment rights (to say shiat).

Eh.


All f*cks are corrected to lower case farks, regardless of whether or not the original word was capitalized. Your "Fark" was capitalized, usually meaning you intended it.

/[themoreyouknow.jpg]
//I knew what you meant
 
2014-04-02 03:07:09 PM  

Xanlexian: This is what Jesus would want.


No it isn't.
 
2014-04-02 03:08:15 PM  

Prophet of Loss: People around the world have recently demonstrated the right way to handle a government gone off the rails.


And how is that working out for them?
 
2014-04-02 03:09:18 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Teiritzamna: JungleBoogie: The problem is, giving money to politicians so they do what you want is de facto bribery.

Exactly, and if one has evidence of that, it is not only precluded by the FEC, its also a crime.  The trick is the line between quid pro quo bribery and "I donated $5k to X.  X is now favorable to my positions" is not only fuzzy, but where first amendment protections begin.

Aren't the laws governing lobbying the government pretty much legalized bribery?  It's money being given to a politician (or a group of politicians) so that they will do something that the lobby wants them to do (whether it be new tax law, laws governing how employees are treated, etc.).  It's just written in such a way that it's not legally considered bribery.


Bribery requires being able to prove quid pro quo, which is close to impossible unless you catch them on video or in writing discussing terms of a donation.

Lobbyists and contributors give you money because you're already on their side, you see. They didn't ask you to do anything in return (wink).
 
2014-04-02 03:10:36 PM  

qorkfiend: It sounds like individuals can now donate up to the maximum individual limit to an unlimited number of candidates.


Better: individuals can donate to all the PACs they like.  There's no limit to the number of PACs.  And, yes, many different PACs can support the same candidate.
 
2014-04-02 03:10:37 PM  
"I like X candidate. I can only spend $2600. But I have 95 shell companies who can all also contribute $2600. How much is that?"
 
2014-04-02 03:13:25 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: AurizenDarkstar: Teiritzamna: JungleBoogie: The problem is, giving money to politicians so they do what you want is de facto bribery.

Exactly, and if one has evidence of that, it is not only precluded by the FEC, its also a crime.  The trick is the line between quid pro quo bribery and "I donated $5k to X.  X is now favorable to my positions" is not only fuzzy, but where first amendment protections begin.

Aren't the laws governing lobbying the government pretty much legalized bribery?  It's money being given to a politician (or a group of politicians) so that they will do something that the lobby wants them to do (whether it be new tax law, laws governing how employees are treated, etc.).  It's just written in such a way that it's not legally considered bribery.

Bribery requires being able to prove quid pro quo, which is close to impossible unless you catch them on video or in writing discussing terms of a donation.

Lobbyists and contributors give you money because you're already on their side, you see. They didn't ask you to do anything in return (wink).


Which is one reason why I would love to see the whole idea of lobbyists and lobbying die a painful death.  There's no real reason for them to exist other than to benefit a small group of people (or small groups of people) at the expense of the rest of the population.
 
2014-04-02 03:13:49 PM  

Suflig: "I like X candidate. I can only spend $2600. But I have 95 shell companies who can all also contribute $2600. How much is that?"


Of course, they could do this since 1976.

Still shiatty though.
 
2014-04-02 03:16:05 PM  
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." --Franklin D. Roosevelt
 
2014-04-02 03:21:37 PM  

Suflig: "I like X candidate. I can only spend $2600. But I have 95 shell companies who can all also contribute $2600. How much is that?"


Corporations are still banned from contributing to campaigns.
 
2014-04-02 03:23:08 PM  

FTDA: Xanlexian: This is what Jesus would want.

No it isn't.


Yes, it is.
 
2014-04-02 03:25:26 PM  

piperTom: qorkfiend: It sounds like individuals can now donate up to the maximum individual limit to an unlimited number of candidates.

Better: individuals can donate to all the PACs they like.  There's no limit to the number of PACs.  And, yes, many different PACs can support the same candidate.


Or, you can contribute to every candidate in a party for a state election, and everyone in the party will talk amongst themselves about who they owe the huge infusion of cash to.

It's a lot easier to control 1,000 people than it is to control one.
 
2014-04-02 03:26:39 PM  

Corvus: 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".


So, can I and a few hundred of my friends pony up a few hundred each and buy a tv spot to voice our choices for office?
 
2014-04-02 03:29:49 PM  
I'm just going to vote for whichever candidate got the least amount of campaign money.
It's probably a good metric for which one is the least corrupt.
 
2014-04-02 03:30:07 PM  
Most of the farkers seem to think voters are just automatons who will vote for whomever talks at them the most. It's not true, but if you feel that way, why do you value democracy at all?

/anarchist
 
2014-04-02 03:33:30 PM  
These people are going to be shocked and question why them, on the day they're all put up against the wall.
 
2014-04-02 03:33:33 PM  

give me doughnuts: I'm just going to vote for whichever candidate got the least amount of campaign money.
It's probably a good metric for which one is the least corrupt.


That sounds like a good idea, until you realize those are always Lyndon LaRouche candidates.
 
2014-04-02 03:34:48 PM  

Cataholic: Suflig: "I like X candidate. I can only spend $2600. But I have 95 shell companies who can all also contribute $2600. How much is that?"

Corporations are still banned from contributing to campaigns.


Uh huh. And traveling's not allowed in basketball, either. Wanna guess how many times somebody gets whistled for that?
 
2014-04-02 03:36:08 PM  

KellyX: These people are going to be shocked and question why them, on the day they're all put up against the wall.


And, let's see what those most affected by this assault on democracy have to say:


"SHHHHHH! BE QUIET!!!! DANCING WITH THE STARS IS ON!!!!!"
 
2014-04-02 03:36:40 PM  

give me doughnuts: I'm just going to vote for whichever candidate got the least amount of campaign money.
It's probably a good metric for which one is the least corrupt.


I hear KKK rallies don't bring in what they used to.
 
2014-04-02 03:37:57 PM  

piperTom: Most of the farkers seem to think voters are just automatons who will vote for whomever talks at them the most. It's not true, but if you feel that way, why do you value democracy at all?

/anarchist


A valid question.

"Voters are stupid apathetic sheep, and  only these stupid apathetic sheep can wrest power from the elite!"

Buh?
 
2014-04-02 03:41:39 PM  

Stile4aly: The court has ruled, in its infinite wisdom, that the rich and poor alike are free to donate 3.6 million to political candidates.


When a thing has been said and well said, have no scruple; take it and copy it.
 
2014-04-02 03:43:55 PM  

d23: Mikey1969: Should be noted:

The decision did not affect the limit an individual may contribute to a specific candidate, currently $2,600.

You still can't contribute more than $2600 directly to a single candidate, this just means that you can give $2600 to as many separate candidates as you want. Still not cool, but not quite the "buy a politician" line people are acting like.

If you can't see why donating $2600 to several hundred candidates isn't a problem I don't know what to tell you.

Again, why should one be allowed to donate to candidates one can't vote for?


Why not? I can express my opinion on many laws that don't affect me.
 
2014-04-02 03:44:15 PM  
Money is not speech.

But since that doesn't seem to be an "un-American" viewpoint:

All donations to any person or organization involved in politics must be public and published. Every dollar must be transparent and traceable to its source.
 
2014-04-02 03:46:09 PM  

sugar_fetus: Why not? I can express my opinion on many laws that don't affect me.


 It doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

Also, your opinions.

Also, my opinions.
 
2014-04-02 03:46:12 PM  

Friction8r: FTDA: Xanlexian: This is what Jesus would want.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.


What doesn't help is that I don't remember anyone standing up for former Congressman William Jefferson when he had a freezer full of speech.

Lenny_da_Hog: AurizenDarkstar: Teiritzamna: JungleBoogie: The problem is, giving money to politicians so they do what you want is de facto bribery.

Exactly, and if one has evidence of that, it is not only precluded by the FEC, its also a crime.  The trick is the line between quid pro quo bribery and "I donated $5k to X.  X is now favorable to my positions" is not only fuzzy, but where first amendment protections begin.

Aren't the laws governing lobbying the government pretty much legalized bribery?  It's money being given to a politician (or a group of politicians) so that they will do something that the lobby wants them to do (whether it be new tax law, laws governing how employees are treated, etc.).  It's just written in such a way that it's not legally considered bribery.

Bribery requires being able to prove quid pro quo, which is close to impossible unless you catch them on video or in writing discussing terms of a donation.

Lobbyists and contributors give you money because you're already on their side, you see. They didn't ask you to do anything in return (wink).


Where was everyone when poor former Congressman William Jefferson was busted for having a freezer full of speech?
 
2014-04-02 03:47:39 PM  
Ooh, I failed at quotes today.
 
2014-04-02 03:49:48 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: give me doughnuts: I'm just going to vote for whichever candidate got the least amount of campaign money.
It's probably a good metric for which one is the least corrupt.

That sounds like a good idea, until you realize those are always Lyndon LaRouche candidates.



R.A.Danny: give me doughnuts: I'm just going to vote for whichever candidate got the least amount of campaign money.
It's probably a good metric for which one is the least corrupt.

I hear KKK rallies don't bring in what they used to.


No, I meant actual candidates with a change to win. Not the piddly crap they put on the bottom of the ballot to shore up the idea that there are more than two political parties, aside from the rare Independent fluke.

You know: Giant douche or turd sandwich.
 
2014-04-02 03:52:25 PM  

dr_blasto: Where was everyone when poor former Congressman William Jefferson was busted for having a freezer full of speech?


You mean the guy in jail with 12 years to go on his sentence?
 
2014-04-02 03:53:11 PM  

Friction8r: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas will all suck cocks in hell. Fark these sacks of anus gravy.

The butthurt in this comment is delectable goodness. Great thread!


This is a typical reaction. Wreck the country? Does it hurt the Libs? Then FARK IT, WRECK ON, MOTHERFARKER!
 
2014-04-02 03:53:40 PM  
Bowser outspent the other candidates in the last two weeks, spending more than half a million dollars and dropping $107,000 on television ads.

http://blogs.gwhatchet.com/newsroom/tag/muriel-bowser/

DEMOCRACY WORKS!
 
2014-04-02 03:54:03 PM  

SphericalTime: This is disgusting:

"Moreover, the only type of corruption that Congress may target is quid pro quo corruption. Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner "influence over or access to" elected officials or political parties. Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 310, 359."

Really?  I think that's exactly what it farking means.



Yeah, but once you're appointed to the Supreme Court, you're allowed to be completely out of touch with reality as lived by ordinary mortals.
 
2014-04-02 03:54:43 PM  

sendtodave: Bowser outspent the other candidates in the last two weeks, spending more than half a million dollars and dropping $107,000 on television ads.

http://blogs.gwhatchet.com/newsroom/tag/muriel-bowser/

DEMOCRACY WORKS!


Also, wrong thread.  Still works, I guess.
 
2014-04-02 03:54:56 PM  

give me doughnuts: No, I meant actual candidates with a change to win. Not the piddly crap they put on the bottom of the ballot to shore up the idea that there are more than two political parties, aside from the rare Independent fluke.


Oh. Losers.

The problem with those guys (I know, I was one once) is still money,

The people against you will start mudslinging campaigns and whisper campaigns that you won't have the resources to combat.

If you get to the point that you might actually win, PACs will outspend you and change your message. You won't be able to control it, and you'll end up looking like all the other candidates.
 
2014-04-02 03:56:56 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: dr_blasto: Where was everyone when poor former Congressman William Jefferson was busted for having a freezer full of speech?

You mean the guy in jail with 12 years to go on his sentence?


Yeah. Freezer-money guy, although the intarwebs told me that he only has 9 years to go.
 
2014-04-02 03:59:22 PM  
This is bullshiat.
 
2014-04-02 04:00:47 PM  

AirForceVet: Looks like the Republicans wanted to make it absolutely legal that that they can be bought by the higher contributor.

/Never thought the Roberts SCOTUS would be so liberal on conservative dreams.


You should familiarize yourself with where the democrats get most of their own campaign money.
 
2014-04-02 04:02:29 PM  
sendtodave: How will people with no money or power change the world?

Loadmaster: People with no power or money by definition cannot change the world.
That's why representative forms of government were invented. In most instances, by forceful revolution.

sendtodave: I guess we operate under the pretense that our representatives actually represent our interests, and not their own.


Smart voters vote for representatives whose interests come closest to their own interests.
 
2014-04-02 04:07:15 PM  

ciberido: Stile4aly: The court has ruled, in its infinite wisdom, that the rich and poor alike are free to donate 3.6 million to political candidates.

When a thing has been said and well said, have no scruple; take it and copy it.


Talent Borrows, Genius Steals - Rand Paul.
 
2014-04-02 04:07:40 PM  
So long, democracy, you died without even a whimper. Greetings and salutations to our new plutocratic overlords!
 
2014-04-02 04:08:20 PM  

Loadmaster: sendtodave: How will people with no money or power change the world?

Loadmaster: People with no power or money by definition cannot change the world.
That's why representative forms of government were invented. In most instances, by forceful revolution.

sendtodave: I guess we operate under the pretense that our representatives actually represent our interests, and not their own.

Smart voters vote for representatives whose interests come closest to their own interests.


Guess that make sense.  Republican voters prefer self-serving rich people who talk about self-reliance, while Democrats prefer people who talk a good game about fairness.
 
2014-04-02 04:11:37 PM  

vonmatrices: I've worked in State Government and Federal Government as an employee, contractor, and member of the military.

At each level I have been given strict ethics classes and training saying that I cannot accept any kind of monetary value over a certain dollar amount in my position.  Accepting any gifts or donations in this manner would be construed as possible graft, bribery or corruption.

Why are candidates for office different?


Because they make the rules.
 
2014-04-02 04:12:31 PM  
This will do for political donations what legalizing pot has done for pot smokers -

Legalize an activity that is occurring regardless.

Still sucks
 
2014-04-02 04:16:54 PM  

Epic Fap Session: This will do for political donations what legalizing pot has done for pot smokers -

Legalize an activity that is occurring regardless.

Still sucks


Dude. Buying the power in this country is not related to pot.
 
2014-04-02 04:20:41 PM  

Loadmaster: sendtodave: How will people with no money or power change the world?

Loadmaster: People with no power or money by definition cannot change the world.
That's why representative forms of government were invented. In most instances, by forceful revolution.

sendtodave: I guess we operate under the pretense that our representatives actually represent our interests, and not their own.

Smart voters vote for representatives whose interests come closest to their own interests.


Politics is a contest of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.

I can't believe the Prog butthurt on display today. It's sweet to drink in the tears, but kind of sad at the same time -- emotional children who sincerely believe the whole "voting" story about "representatives" and "democracy."

It's like seeing a 10 year-old learning there's no Santa.
 
2014-04-02 04:23:36 PM  

Triple Oak: Epic Fap Session: This will do for political donations what legalizing pot has done for pot smokers -

Legalize an activity that is occurring regardless.

Still sucks

Dude. Buying the power in this country is not related to pot.


Okay. So you think that all of the sudden corporations will have an unreasonable amount of influence over our elected officials due to this ruling?

That'll really shake things up from the status quo.
 
Displayed 50 of 815 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | 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


  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