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.

(Washington Post) NewsFlash US Supreme Court: The Constitution created a plutocracy, duh   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 212
    More: NewsFlash, Supreme Court, plutocracy  
•       •       •

18217 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2014 at 12:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-04-02 12:08:50 PM  
13 votes:
Here are some facts to aid in the thread:

A bit of background

It is important, for understanding what happened here to look back to Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). In Buckley the Supreme Court, in a fractured opinion (lots of overlapping concurrences, so no simple majority), struck down limitations on campaign donations except those targeting specifically "quid pro quo" bribery.

Buckley also reaffirmed the principle that contributing to a campaign is an expressive activity protected by the first amendment.  An important plurality holding was from a liberal alliance helmed by Brennan who stressed that  "the 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, 424 U.S. at 48-49.  The then conservatives generally dissented. (I put this in here generally as a note that conservative and liberal in jurisprudence generally means something very different from in politics. Generally.)

McCutcheon v. FEC

The law struck down here is not the limits on individual campaign contributions, but the limits on aggregate contributions.  Under the aggregate limits, Congress set a cap ($123,200/two year election cycle) on how much an entity may donate in an election season, no matter how many individuals they donated to.

The court just held under the holding of Buckley, that while the individual caps are justified based on legitimate fear that large money donations will veer into the territory of quid pro quo bribery, the aggregate caps cannot be so said to prevent "pay for play" style corruption.  The majority rejected the government's argument that an entity can normally donate $5,200 to a candidate, but if that $5,200 kicks that entity over the aggregate cap because that entity donated to multiple individuals/committees, it is now bribery.  As the government thus lacked a legitimate interest, the aggregate cap was an unconstitutional infringement of rights under the first amendment.
2014-04-02 10:50:48 AM  
12 votes:

BunkoSquad: And yet if I offer to sell my vote for 100 bucks, I get in trouble.


It's because you aren't thinking big enough.  Steal a TV from Wal-Mart and you'll get thrown in the slammer.  Steal $100,000,000 from Medicare and you get elected as Governor of Florida.
2014-04-02 10:47:22 AM  
11 votes:
Jesus Christ. These justices should dress like NASCAR drivers.
2014-04-02 10:46:26 AM  
11 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers


Yup, along the usual lines.  Being able to replace one of the conservative leaning justices with a more progressive one would do more good for this country than pretty much anything else.
2014-04-02 11:01:26 AM  
10 votes:
republicans know they cannot win a fair fight. one man, one vote doesn't work if you're the one percent.
2014-04-02 10:55:45 AM  
10 votes:
Oh, I get now.

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

/Just like justice, get it?
2014-04-02 11:05:56 AM  
9 votes:
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.
2014-04-02 10:48:44 AM  
9 votes:
And yet if I offer to sell my vote for 100 bucks, I get in trouble.
2014-04-02 10:48:08 AM  
8 votes:
FTFA: Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.

Justice Thomas desperately needs to go EABOD.
2014-04-02 10:32:54 AM  
8 votes:
goddammit motherfarker
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:10:58 PM  
7 votes:
A constitutional convention is a gathering for the purpose of writing a new general constitutional convention is called to create the first constitution of a political unit or to entirely replace an existing constitution. An unlimited constitutional convention is called to revise an existing constitution to the extent that it deems to be proper, whereas a limited constitutional convention is restricted to revising only the areas of the current constitution named in the convention's call, the legal mandate establishing the convention.

We need one, not for the "governmental overreach" bullshiat, but because buying law isn't addressed in our current constitution and needs to be.

Corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech.
2014-04-02 12:10:20 PM  
7 votes:
The only real difference this makes is that it simplifies the network of shell organizations the Kochs have to funnel the money through.
2014-04-02 10:54:17 AM  
7 votes:
John Roberts just said that money doesn't corrupt politics.

He sounds utterly corrupt.
2014-04-02 10:50:23 AM  
7 votes:
FML.

Well, there's just no pretending this is a republic anymore is there?
2014-04-02 12:16:11 PM  
6 votes:
I wish I could say that this decision was surprising. At all.

But it's not.
2014-04-02 10:42:22 AM  
6 votes:
Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers
2014-04-02 12:19:32 PM  
5 votes:
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 12:16:17 PM  
5 votes:
A republic cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until its wealthier members discover it is cheaper to bribe the representatives into exempting them from contributing than to contribute to the public treasury. After that, the wealthy always purchase the candidate promising the least contribution, with the result the republic collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by rule by the violent and anarchic mob, then a dictatorship. - Alexander Tytler RAND PAUL
2014-04-02 12:12:09 PM  
5 votes:

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


Fark that. Put'em in 8-inch heels and mini-skirts like the whores they are.
2014-04-02 12:12:06 PM  
5 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: BunkoSquad: And yet if I offer to sell my vote for 100 bucks, I get in trouble.

It's because you aren't thinking big enough.  Steal a TV from Wal-Mart and you'll get thrown in the slammer.  Steal $100,000,000 from Medicare and you get elected as Governor of Florida.


Reminds me of a quote from "The Jungle"

"Into this wild-beast tangle these men had been born without their consent, they had taken part in it because they could not help it; that they were in jail was no disgrace to them, for the game had never been fair, the dice were loaded. They were swindlers and thieves of pennies and dimes, and they had been trapped and put out of the way by the swindlers and thieves of millions of dollars."
2014-04-02 12:10:51 PM  
5 votes:
Thanks for nothing, useless assholes.
2014-04-02 11:02:30 AM  
5 votes:
U$A Inc.?
2014-04-02 01:18:25 PM  
4 votes:
The "problem" with the Constitution is that it was designed for a responsible and vigilant nation. It recognizes a lot of individual rights that at the time were mostly unheard of. Yes the Magna Carta and other previous documents had a lot of influence on the thinking of the Framers. but never before had a nation been constructed from the ground up with such a framework in place. Intertwined with all that liberty was the danger of it being missused. Bus as Jefferson said, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Well, we haven't been vigilant. Our nation was designed to give the people exactly the government it deserves. A people who pays attention to a candidates  actions, who holds liberty in higher value than temporary free shiat, and wants to be let to live and succeed on their own, not have their hand held like a child gets a government that respects those things. Because that kind of nation would choose a government that does.

But we have a nation that can't be bothered to read anything, much less research what their representatives have done vs. what they say. Combined with the vast majority wanting free shiat from their guy at the expense of the other guy, whether it be a company wanting corporate welfare or a person wanting socialized handouts, we have elected a government that gives us exactly that. Anyone with half a brain could have told us that was a recipe for our own poison. And they did. The Founders told us as much. Churchill reminded everyone that socialism is the gospel of envy, the creed of ignorance which its only inherent value is the equal sharing of misery. Tocqueville told us that a republic can only last until the people realize they can vote themselves free shiat from someone else's pockets. Eisenhower told us to beware the military industrial complex. We have been warned repeatedly that our lack of vigilance in our own government would be our undoing. But instead the entire nation just bought into the idea that if they only just vote for the guy who says they will give their group the most free shiat, everything will be alright. Well, it's not alright. And the fascist nation we live in now is a consequence of our own actions. And actions always have consequences.
2014-04-02 12:27:25 PM  
4 votes:

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 12:20:43 PM  
4 votes:

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 12:16:06 PM  
4 votes:
anamericaninrome.com
2014-04-02 12:14:43 PM  
4 votes:
You want an activist court? You got one right here.

Fark the Roberts Court.
2014-04-02 12:13:22 PM  
4 votes:
Everybody loves buypartisanship.
2014-04-02 10:52:28 AM  
4 votes:

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


Yeah, it may be time to mercy nuke the country to death now.
2014-04-02 10:35:51 AM  
4 votes:
We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?
2014-04-02 01:17:31 PM  
3 votes:

Miss Alexandra: As it stands, we have a Republican/Democrat duopoly.  And with not a dime's worth of difference between them, at least not at the national level, and probably not at the state level.


Strongly disagree.

While there are certain areas where the parties find themselves in broad agreement, to say that there are no differences between the two parties, especially when it comes to domestic policy, is simply incorrect. Fiscal and tax policy is an obvious one. So are the different approaches to social services. And education. And health care. And voting rights. And gay rights. And labor and worker's rights. And religion. And on, and on.
2014-04-02 12:43:55 PM  
3 votes:
When Leona Helmsley said "We don't pay taxes, only the little people pay taxes." in the 80s, she was immediately taken down. If she said this today, she'd get a standing ovation at CPAC.
2014-04-02 12:30:30 PM  
3 votes:
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 12:21:19 PM  
3 votes:
media.desura.com
2014-04-02 12:20:57 PM  
3 votes:
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.
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:17:01 PM  
3 votes:

AcademGreen: It would lead to an all out war of rhetoric and probably violence. There is very little agreement on what the role of government should be and even less trust in our leaders. It would be a bad, bad thing.


If we don't steer the U.S. away from being a corporate fiefdom we're going to have war and violence anyway.  A small minority oppressing a huge majority doesn't usually last all that long.
2014-04-02 12:12:39 PM  
3 votes:
So reword it to receiving limits. Put the limits on what the candidates receive instead of the folks donating. Let the overflow go to the public coffers.
2014-04-02 12:10:27 PM  
3 votes:

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

A bit of background

It is important, for understanding what happened here to look back to Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). In Buckley the Supreme Court, in a fractured opinion (lots of overlapping concurrences, so no simple majority), struck down limitations on campaign donations except those targeting specifically "quid pro quo" bribery.

Buckley also reaffirmed the principle that contributing to a campaign is an expressive activity protected by the first amendment.  An important plurality holding was from a liberal alliance helmed by Brennan who stressed that  "the 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, 424 U.S. at 48-49.  The then conservatives generally dissented. (I put this in here generally as a note that conservative and liberal in jurisprudence generally means something very different from in politics. Generally.)

McCutcheon v. FEC

The law struck down here is not the limits on individual campaign contributions, but the limits on aggregate contributions.  Under the aggregate limits, Congress set a cap ($123,200/two year election cycle) on how much an entity may donate in an election season, no matter how many individuals they donated to.

The court just held under the holding of Buckley, that while the individual caps are justified based on legitimate fear that large money donations will veer into the territory of quid pro quo bribery, the aggregate caps cannot be so said to prevent "pay for play" style corruption.  The majority rejected the government's argument that an entity can normally donate $5,200 to a candidate, but if that $5,200 kicks that entity over the aggregate cap because that entity donated to multiple individuals/committees, it is now bribery.  As the government thus lacked a legitimate interest, the aggregate cap was an unconstitutional infringement of rights under the fir ...


And there's the problem right there. Quid pro quo corruption is not the only kind of corruption one can find in a political system.
jbc [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 11:54:11 AM  
3 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: FTFA: Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.

Justice Thomas desperately needs to go EABOD.


The entire bowl? Can't he just choke on Scalia's? His mouth is already there.
2014-04-02 11:21:25 AM  
3 votes:

somedude210: James!: That's one way to get rich people to plow their money back into the economy.

if only the people they donated too would actually buy shiat in mass amounts and not horde it all


Sure, they pay telemarketers to do push polling.  They pay for print, TV and radio adds.  They pay for bloggers to update their sucky blogs. They hire shiatty statisticians and half retarded pundits.  Security staff at rallies and expensive dinners.

They hire some of the worst people in the world by the bucket full!
2014-04-02 11:14:48 AM  
3 votes:
That's one way to get rich people to plow their money back into the economy.
2014-04-02 11:03:09 AM  
3 votes:

dr_blasto: Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.


Or being a Dupont heir helps you get probation when you are found guilty of raping a three year old.
2014-04-02 10:48:19 AM  
3 votes:

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


Move to Amend.
2014-04-02 10:45:18 AM  
3 votes:
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.
2014-04-02 10:42:03 AM  
3 votes:

James!: It's not even a planet anymore.


Good. Because I don't want to live on this one anymore.
2014-04-02 05:00:36 PM  
2 votes:
R.A.Danny:
Then why the hell did we work so hard at being successful for? Certainly not the two weeks off during August.

Sadly, I see most people slaving away at a job they hate so they can buy off their fricking mortgage already.

It's an old statistic, but IIRC, the average American worker only earns 40% of what he/she produces.  Subtract out taxes--much of which pays for a bloated military and interest on the USA's massive debt--and the American worker makes even less.  Over the span of a typical 30-year mortgage, only 1/3 of the money actually pays off the principal and the other 2/3 goes into the pocket of some goddam banker.  Until then, you're just renting your house and are only a few mortgage payments away from a foreclosure.

And when you do pay off your house--about the only thing of value you could leave to your kids--then you get sick, often from the work you did for 40 years to pay off your mortgage.  Then you get to sell the house to pay for the ridiculously over-priced medicines made by Big Pharma.  In the end, what did you do other than work yourself into an early grave?  Well, other than make a bunch of billionaire bankers richer, that is...
2014-04-02 02:56:27 PM  
2 votes:
It's a good thing advertising doesn't affect anyone's opinion, or we'd be pretty screwed.

I mean, endless money using behavioral trackers and social media, neuromarketing, focus groups, and applied sociology could be dangerous if it did.
2014-04-02 01:37:12 PM  
2 votes:

Teiritzamna: The First Amendment is a negative right - a restriction against government meddling in speech. Thus it could be (and has been) argued that the first amendment doesn't mandate any fairness with regard to the effectiveness of expression. We are not all made to talk as softly as the quietest man, nor dance as poorly as the most uncoordinated. Instead, the First Amendment is generally viewed to prevent only the government from farking with the game.


I understand your argument, and I understand what the court decided in Citizens.  But you and they missing the broader picture that has been carefully explained in decisions for the last century.  Courts have held for generations that limiting the funding of political activity is a compelling governmental interest for the preservation of the fundamental nature of republicanism.  This Court has radically expanded corporate rights and Buckley, and wholly disavowed the long-held finding that on its face, the application of money to politics threatens to distort the equality of governance.

You also need to extrapolate your argument to anonymous political speech. This leads to the the crux of why your and their arguments are constitutionally invalid.  Under the precedents laid down to today and Citizen's, they have effectively raised the bar so high for what they would consider a compelling governmental interest to regulate political spending, that disclosure requirements writ large, are doomed. If the government cannot regulate speech as you have explained and the court has decided, then it may not interfere with anonymous political speech either, for the same reasons cited.  It would be impossible to preserve the constitutional nature of government under such a system.  You are essentially arguing that preserving the money as speech protections awarded by this court are more important than preserving the character of the carefully structured government itself.  It's a silly argument that only a lawyer can make with a straight face, and one that was routinely rejected by courts across the land for the hundred years before this one.
2014-04-02 01:27:39 PM  
2 votes:
The FECKLESS crowd has massive butthurt in this thread. As a public service reminder, FECKLESS is an acronym:

Fark
Echo
Chamber of
Kooky
Liberals
Espousing
Stupid
Shiat.

/welcome
2014-04-02 01:22:39 PM  
2 votes:

qorkfiend: While there are certain areas where the parties find themselves in broad agreement, to say that there are no differences between the two parties, especially when it comes to domestic policy, is simply incorrect. Fiscal and tax policy is an obvious one. So are the different approaches to social services. And education. And health care. And voting rights. And gay rights. And labor and worker's rights. And religion. And on, and on.


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

There may be differences, but the differences are essentially so small that they are inconsequential.  Sure, relatively speaking, Democrat's priorities may line up more with you than the Republican's priority, but don't think for a minute that means the Democrats have your back.
2014-04-02 01:15:14 PM  
2 votes:

R.A.Danny: Why are they bad? They are protecting everyone's right to contribute.


All I can think of is this:

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."
2014-04-02 12:55:26 PM  
2 votes:

vonmatrices: Help me out:

1) money is speech


No.  Expending money in the furtherance of expressive conduct is part and parcel of that conduct.

2) speech is free by way of the 1st amendment

The government cannot generally preclude expressive conduct (outside of certain exceptions, see, e.g., obscenity) without showing that there is a compelling government interest and that the preclusion was necessary in meeting that interest.

therefore

3) money is free

Can I start counterfeiting now?


Alas, no.  Even if counterfeiting was held to be an expressive activity ("i am counterfeiting artistically), preventing counterfeiting is likley a compelling government interest and thus can be precluded.
2014-04-02 12:53:11 PM  
2 votes:
Supremely corrupt.
2014-04-02 12:46:55 PM  
2 votes:
Campaign Finance Reform could be handled in one of two methods - perhaps both.

1.  Donations can only be accepted from registered voters.  If you haven't registered to vote you have elected to not have your voice heard.

2.  Donate as much as you'd like but all donations enter a single pool and all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, can apply for funding.  The amount you're eligible for will depend on the position (Governor, Senator, President, County Clerk, etc.) you're running for and your opposition will receive a like amount.

PAC's, Unions, SIG's, etc. are the biggest detriment we have to fair and equitable representation, spanning the divide between classes, promoting the poor and needy, balancing the budget and just about all other struggles we have.
2014-04-02 12:45:41 PM  
2 votes:

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]


The list now covers 1989 through 2014.  It appears you didn't bother to read or comprehend the disclaimer and explanation from the Center for Responsive Politics / OpenSecrets about their "heavy hitters" (Highlights and [] below are mine...) :  https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

"This list includes the organizations that have historically qualified as "heavy hitters" - groups that lobby and spend big, with large sums sent to candidates, parties and leadership PACs. Individuals and organizations have been able to make extremely large donations to outside spending groups in the last few years. While contributions to outside groups like super PACs do not factor into an organization's designation as a "heavy hitter" (a listing of about 150 groups), those numbers are included for the roster below.

For example, this list does not include casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. He and his wife Miriam donated nearly $93 million in 2012 alone to conservative super PACs - enough to put him at No. 2 on this list [ygd: in one year even though the list covers 25 years of contributions...]. Similarly, the list excludes former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has donated more than $19 million in the past two years, largely to groups that support gun control. Neither Adelson nor Bloomberg - or the organizations they report as their employers - qualifies as a "heavy hitter" under our current definition. It's also important to note that we aren't including donations to politically active dark money groups, like Americans for Prosperity, a group linked to the Koch brothers, or the liberal group Patriot Majority - because these groups hide their donors; see a list of top donors that we've been able to identify to such groups. We are working to revise this list to take into account the new realities of campaign finance created by the Citizens United decision, but as it currently stands, there are significant omissions.

It is also worth noting that certain organizations, such as ActBlue and Club for Growth, are included although they function for the most part as pass-through entities: individual donors give to them with the contributions earmarked for specific candidates."
2014-04-02 12:45:26 PM  
2 votes:
You know, I had a whole rant ready, and upon reflection, there really is only one response: this is just pants on head rucking fetarded...
2014-04-02 12:43:50 PM  
2 votes:
So about ridding ourselves of "campaign contributions" (aka bribery) altogether in favor of publicly funded elections...
2014-04-02 12:43:47 PM  
2 votes:

MattStafford: At the start of each month, the government distributes 1/18th of the fund * their percent of likely voters to each candidate.


Whoa whoa whoa. Why are we giving the people in the lead an advantage?
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:41:54 PM  
2 votes:

DamnYankees: I'm not quite sure what the conservative position on this is.

1) Rich people ought to have more of an influence on politics than poor people.

2) All people should have an equal influence on politics, but the price to make that happen is too high.

3) People actually do have an equal influence on politics, and these restrictions are therefore unnecessary.

It's supposed to be #2, right?


The current GOP position is #1, but make it look like #2.
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:38:32 PM  
2 votes:

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?
2014-04-02 12:37:16 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2014-04-02 12:36:50 PM  
2 votes:
The court has ruled, in its infinite wisdom, that the rich and poor alike are free to donate 3.6 million to political candidates.
2014-04-02 12:30:02 PM  
2 votes:

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

img.fark.net
2014-04-02 12:28:33 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:28:18 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:24:54 PM  
2 votes:

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
2014-04-02 12:22:00 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-04-02 12:21:47 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:19:44 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:19:14 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:18:29 PM  
2 votes:
wait till it backfires like Citizens United and the Democratics take the House due to this ruling
2014-04-02 12:17:57 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:16:42 PM  
2 votes:

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.


THIS.  Roberts just made bribery legal AND tax deductible.
2014-04-02 12:16:37 PM  
2 votes:

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.


As far as i know, that will be the case now.
2014-04-02 12:15:29 PM  
2 votes:

d23: money isn't speech.


Of course it isn't, any more than pomegranates aren't game consoles.  And the distinction is just as irrelevant.

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.

If you believe that the first amendment only covers the expressive conduct made by your body alone (speech, sign language, farting in Morse code, etc.) then cool, carry on.  But if you, like the framers, believed that protected expressive conduct also includes making signs, paying someone to print broadsheets, and the like, than you agree with the Court on that point.
2014-04-02 12:15:21 PM  
2 votes:
Makes me sick.  Not as sick as Citizens United, but damn close.
2014-04-02 12:12:55 PM  
2 votes:
Maybe we should all agree as a society to do diligent research into the candidates and their positions, and not let flashy TV commercials control our opinions.  Yeah, that sure would be swell.

/ A man can dream can't he?  A man can dream...
2014-04-02 12:12:15 PM  
2 votes:
Time to lower the flag and stick a fork in it, as this country is done.
2014-04-02 12:11:54 PM  
2 votes:
Well, at least we can equate political donations with flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades.
2014-04-02 12:04:04 PM  
2 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

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

TuteTibiImperes: Yup, along the usual lines


It's more of a 1-4-4 ruling, with Justice Thomas thinking the other conservatives are too faint-hearted.
2014-04-02 11:22:55 AM  
2 votes:
In 2012,sixty percent of the Super PAC money donated by individuals came from just 91 people, and 97 percent came from just 1,900 donors. The total amount that PACs raised from small donors of $200 or less is roughly equivalent to the amount given by just 629 "megadonors," who each contributed $100,000 or more.
2014-04-02 11:16:44 AM  
2 votes:

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


if only the people they donated too would actually buy shiat in mass amounts and not horde it all
2014-04-02 11:12:15 AM  
2 votes:

Irving Maimway: dr_blasto: Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.

Or being a Dupont heir helps you get probation when you are found guilty of raping a three year old.


Look, if money is one of the primary arbiters of whether one gets prison or freedom or some form of kindly understanding from the judicial system, why shouldn't it be the same for the electoral systems.

I look forward to a return to the days of our noble robber barons running the show. Maybe when it ends this time, we'll nationalize their shiat and take their fortunes to destroy all of those lingering plutocrat dynasties once and for all. In the end, I guess we get what we deserve.

People re-elect douchenozzles like Reagan, elect his VP and then elect the former VP's son. We get the SCOTUS we ask for. For shiat's sake, Reagan nominated farking Bork. We only narrowly dodged that shiat show and got the Alitos and Scalias and Thomas. farking Clarence Thomas. "OOH, there's NOT ENOUGH money."
2014-04-02 11:01:15 AM  
2 votes:

AirForceVet: Oh, I get now.

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

/Just like justice, get it?


Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.
2014-04-02 11:00:36 AM  
2 votes:

i.imgur.comi.imgur.comi.imgur.com

 

i.imgur.comi.imgur.comi.imgur.com

 

i.imgur.comi.imgur.comi.imgur.com

2014-04-02 10:50:22 AM  
2 votes:

SphericalTime: 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?


"The government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combatting corruption and its appearance," Roberts wrote. "We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption - quid pro quo corruption - in order to ensure that the government's efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them."


Do I have a First Amendment right to kick John Roberts in the groin whilst wearing a steel-toed boot?
2014-04-02 10:47:44 AM  
2 votes:

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


This country was unable to get child labor or equal rights amendments passed, there's no chance of an amendment on this passing. Not with everyone in Congress potentially having the chance to profit from this ruling.
2014-04-02 10:44:48 AM  
2 votes:
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

2014-04-02 10:36:48 AM  
2 votes:
It's not even a planet anymore.
2014-04-02 11:52:49 PM  
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: So money spent on advertising is wasted?  Commercials actually do nothing whatsoever to convince viewers/listeners to buy products?  Is that what you're saying?


That's standard Fark wisdom.


That's not anyone's saying at all.
2014-04-02 10:45:26 PM  
1 votes:

Pharmdawg: Irving Maimway: dr_blasto: Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.

Or being a Dupont heir helps you get probation when you are found guilty of raping a three year old.

Please tell me you are making an exaggerated joke in poor taste.


I wish it were a joke, but no, it's real.
2014-04-02 07:46:36 PM  
1 votes:
And now that I'm on a roll--and my dial-up is taking pathetically long to download porn--I want to rip further on a couple of tools of the plutocrats.

First is Ayn Rand.  It's ironic that Glenn Beck worships her because Rand was one of those militant atheists who actively mocked believers--she even ripped on her religious Jewish relatives who got her out of the Soviet Union.  Of course, Beck's version of Christianity is the fascist health-n-wealth triumphalist false Christianity that goes 180-degrees counter to the stuff Jesus said, so I guess it's not too incompatible with Objectivism.  Basically she was a mean-spirited meth addict (take that, you drug war Nazis) and her concept of 'thinking for yourself' is synonymous with 'believe everything I tell you'.  And she sucked at the teat of the welfare state (IIRC it was Medicare or something like that) in her old age.  Finally, she was a ponderous, terrible writer--I'm a hard-core reader who will try to finish any book I read, but of the 5 or 6 books I simply couldn't finish, she has the distinction of having written two of them.

Then there's Herbert Spencer, the guy who started the idea of "social Darwinism".  You'd expect that an asshole with such a brutal political theory would be just another billionaire industrialist, but he wasn't.  No, he was just another tiresome pseudo-intellectual who lived under impoverished means and was too stupid or insane to realize that if the weak and powerless were left to starve to death, he'd be among the first to go.

Finally, I used to be sympathetic to the whole Libertarian Party thing but then I had an 'a-ha' moment.  I was going to the Libertarian Party booth at the Minnesota State Fair when I noticed something peculiar.  Every one of the 4-5 people in the booth had a very oppressive sneer--it was so palpable that I noticed it despite being sympathetic at the time.  Hell, I'd swear that they spent an hour a day looking at a picture of St. Ayn and practicing their sneers.  Exactly the kind of sneer you'd expect out of an insecure asshole who thinks that libertarianism will make his dick grow by three sizes.  I'd love to see these pricks show their faces (and sneers) at a neighborhood bar--I'd take bets on how long it would be before they got their butts kicked.

I'm still a strong civil libertarian, but I think that civil libertarianism and financial libertarianism are actually contradictory.  Why?  Because if some greedball thinks he can make money by banning marijuana or gay sex, you can kiss your civil liberties goodbye.  Hell, the only way to guarantee civil liberties is to systematically put bullets through the heads of greedball blue-nosers...
2014-04-02 06:06:24 PM  
1 votes:

R.A.Danny: dr_blasto: R.A.Danny: ciberido: Road Rash: You would think Soros, Bloomberg, the unions, etc., would be happy about this.

You MIGHT think that, if you were rather dim.

Or is this an attempt to resurrect that old "liberal elite" claptrap?

Are you saying Bloomberg doesn't like to use his money to get his way?

He was a Republican. I don't think he qualifies as "liberal elite" other than the fact that his weirdo nanny state shiat is often and incorrectly associated with leftism and not the regular old fascism he actually represents.

He should be wearing a tutu in the Tenderloin district he's so liberal.


Ha. OK.

He's more the conservative British nanny type.
htmlimg3.scribdassets.com
2014-04-02 05:41:30 PM  
1 votes:

Psycat: Here's a bit o' insight.


...from the FWD: FWD: FWD: world. If you think Bill Gates is evil, you're pretty dim. BSAB, brilliant deduction kitty.

Psycat: I know my posts are an exercise in futility...


Not for reasons you can understand, but yes they are.
2014-04-02 05:36:59 PM  
1 votes:

magicgoo: Sigh. Meanwhile, here in not-even-making-close-to-median-income land, the IRS wants $1500 from 2012 because we paid off a debt then, and that's considered "extra income." The money we paid. Away. The money of which taxes were already removed. The money we no longer have in our pockets because it went to a corporation. That money is considered extra income. And now, 2 years later, we owe the IRS. That's how you get "rewarded" for paying off a debt. You get to owe money. I know, I know, this has nothing to do with the story, except for that it's just disgusting how much politicians are given to do nothing. The hell is wrong with this rich country? OK, I'm done venting about money now. I feel better. Back to the politicians and whatevers and such and junk.


This is wrong, you're leaving something out. You probably did't repay the debt; you probably had it forgiven. Which is income. Very, very different.
2014-04-02 05:30:05 PM  
1 votes:

o5iiawah: 8 of the 10 wealthiest members of congress are democrats
goldman sachs overwhelmingly contributed democratic in the 2008 and 2012 elections.

And you morons still think that republicans are the party of the rich....which surprises me not at all.


Nice ad hominem argument.  But I'll believe it when the Dems go out of their way to work as a party to benefit only a small group of citizens (like the present day Republicans and 'conservatives' have been doing since the 80's).

Do I think the Dems are a great party?  No, but they are far and above better than the clown car that has become the present day Republican party.  They also haven't gone out of their way to put 'party before country'.

If they ever decide to go as right wing and authoritarian as the Republicans have, then we are well and truly farked as a nation.
2014-04-02 05:29:51 PM  
1 votes:
AdamK:
this sounds like the premise of Idiocracy

I often think that this is where human society is headed.  I live in an artists' co-op and most of my fellow artists are well above average in intelligence and education.  Out of 52 units, only 3-4 have children in them.  I have other friends who are in the top percentile of intelligence and in spite of having lucrative jobs, they decided to not have kids to the point where he got a vasectomy because they're convinced that things are going downhill.  Of all my intelligent friends and acquaintances, only two have children; one has two and the other has three.

The only people I know who have more than 3 kids are on welfare and never worked a day in their lives.  One has 5 kids from at least 2 baby-daddies (and at least 2 have birth defects) and the other is a big-time meth addict with 4 kids from 4 baby-daddies.  Other than that, there's the Duggars and other fundies who are just too goddam stupid to realize they're just tools of the rich.

I can totally see the human race splitting into two subspecies like in H.G. Well's book "The Time Machine".  The stupid religious nuts and welfare queens will turn into the Eloi, mindless simpletons who exist solely to provide meat for the Morlocks.  And, no doubt, the Koch brothers and all the other billionaires (the Church of the Subgenius refers to them as the Supersonic Nazi Hell Creatures) will turn into the Morlocks, cannibals who feed on the Eloi.  And this will happen because most of the intelligent people who aren't billionaire Nazi Hell Creatures will simply drop out of the gene pool.

Maybe runaway global warming or nuclear Armageddon isn't such bad options after all.  Just so the world blows up after I've had my fun and am dead and buried...
2014-04-02 05:16:29 PM  
1 votes:

Road Rash: You would think Soros, Bloomberg, the unions, etc., would be happy about this.


You MIGHT think that, if you were rather dim.

Or is this an attempt to resurrect that old "liberal elite" claptrap?
2014-04-02 04:46:51 PM  
1 votes:
Although I know it will fall on deaf ears, I'll repeat it again since you fellow Farkers are slow on the uptake...

DON'T HAVE ANY FARKING KIDS ALREADY.

Got it?

DON'T HAVE ANY FARKING KIDS ALREADY.

Comprendes?  Verstehen Sie?

Not having kids will make your life easier.  You'll save a few bucks and actually have a non-impoverished existence.  Better yet, you'll never have to apologize to your kids for bringing them into an increasingly fascist and farked-up society.  And most of all, the less kids we peasants have, the more you are going to fark over the goddam Koch brothers of the world.  Got it?

In the words of Desi Arnaz, lemme esplain:

There's only been one conspiracy in the world, the 0.01% who own 99.99% of everything.  They use all human institutions for their gain, and the biggest institution they use is parenthood.  You poor farkers (and myself) are seen as nothing but an inexhaustible supply of cheap labor and cannon fodder for the rich.  Stop breeding like brainless animals and you'll starve the plutocratic motherfarkers who need you far more than you need them.

Or just pop out more kids--and don't biatch when your kids and grandkids become the slaves of the New World Order...
2014-04-02 04:30:03 PM  
1 votes:

FlashHarry: In 2012,sixty percent of the Super PAC money donated by individuals came from just 91 people, and 97 percent came from just 1,900 donors. The total amount that PACs raised from small donors of $200 or less is roughly equivalent to the amount given by just 629 "megadonors," who each contributed $100,000 or more.


From that article:  "6% of Super PAC funding came from unions, the fourth largest source."  Unpossible.  Union Thugs are teh evul.
2014-04-02 04:00:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:44:15 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:59:21 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-04-02 02:38:15 PM  
1 votes:

Phinn: AurizenDarkstar: That was the Progressive Era. It sucked because of Progressivism, not Lochner.

Yeah, you're right. We really need to bring back slavery, indentured servitude, child labor, and take away the right to vote (and many other fought for rights) for women and minorities. How dare this nation try to move forward into the future, when it's so much easier to fall back into the past? You're right, we should be a truly fascist, authoritarian nation.

Or better yet, we'll kick it Old School Progressivism and bring back Prohibition, eugenics, and ramp up the centralized control of the economy.

That'll make everything better.


Hurrrrrr, I know so much about American history and political science, hurr

Fark off, teatard.
2014-04-02 02:29:01 PM  
1 votes:
Yeah, "campaign contributions." If you're foolish enough to believe even half that money doesn't mysteriously disappear somewhere, then you're foolish enough to believe money doesn't create corruption like "Honorable" Justice Roberts.

Sorry, but this is a national security threat more than anything else. There's literally nothing stopping multinational Billionaires from buying any politicians they want now. Sure, you have to call it "campaign spending" but since all politicians are always campaigning and now have enough money to freespeech the people responsible for overseeing whether or not they're spending it on their campaign, it's all a bit moot, now isn't it?

The Justice here just said that basically money is more important than anything else. The acquisition of wealth is now your ticket to actual representation. Woe to those who can't freespeech their way out of all the problems, just like Mexico!

Sounds like Bribery on the wide-scale just became legal folks. If a cop doesn't accept your freespeech you can now sue him for arresting you. That wad of cash you handed him was the same thing as you singing a song about Jesus, or asking for your lawyer. You can't discriminate against people for expressing their beliefs with huge sums of money.
2014-04-02 02:27:12 PM  
1 votes:

Phinn: Serious Black: Phinn: Serious Black: So how about this idea?

1) All contributions to a candidate's campaign must be made through a secret donation booth, i.e. the candidate cannot find out who gave them money or what amount of money they gave to them.
2) Informing a candidate that you gave a non-zero sum of money to their campaign is a felony.

I have an even better idea -- Let's make the federal government INCREDIBLY POWERFUL, all in the name of something that sounds good, like "Progressivism" or something, and work tirelessly to expand the scope of its powers and level of control, in particular over the economy, and then pretend that we're SHOCKED when people try to control that very same all-powerful government to make a buck.

You know, the last time we crushed the government's power was when Lochner v. New York was the law of the land. That wasn't a good time for anyone except the wealthy either.

That was the Progressive Era.  It sucked because of Progressivism, not Lochner.


Yeah, you're right.   We really need to bring back slavery, indentured servitude, child labor, and take away the right to vote (and many other fought for rights) for women and minorities.  How dare this nation try to move forward into the future, when it's so much easier to fall back into the past?  You're right, we should be a truly fascist, authoritarian nation.
2014-04-02 02:21:37 PM  
1 votes:
This is a downward slope people, it's been obvious to everybody paying attention and hasn't had their head stuffed up their own ass watching reality television.
2014-04-02 02:11:58 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-04-02 01:55:13 PM  
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Ok. I'm still confused how this gets us to having the right to give money to candidates.

There's a fundamental difference between "express your view, and use whatever resources you have access to to do it" and "bankroll someone's election campaign". I don't see them as being in the same category of thing.


Well this is laying the necessary predicate.  We now have the principle that expending money in the furtherance of an expressive act is part of that act.

Which is how we get to second order support of those expressive acts.  Bear with me.

Imagine that John Johnson is running for the job of city comptroller.  You want to help bankroll his campaign which will require quite a few buttons and lawn signs (expressive).  So you offer $50 to buy those buttons, signs and so forth.  Now your gift of money has two expressive purposes.  It funds the expressive actions of the campaign (buying buttons, signs, airtime, etc.) AND it is also expressive in and of itself - it is a symbol saying "i support John Johnson!"  By giving to the campaign you are making a statement - just as how donating to the ACLU or the KKK or "the Girls Scouts but never the Boy Scouts" is often a political statement.

Thus campaign contributions are hyper political expression, in that they fund other expressive acts and act as a sign of affiliation with a group (which is why i favor major disclosure requirements).
2014-04-02 01:51:31 PM  
1 votes:

grimlock1972: UGH just Ugh.    one of the worst rulings ever



um how about no....
2014-04-02 01:42:06 PM  
1 votes:
I can honestly say, I have never been happier to be living in Canada.  In the short time since I have been here, the US has completely gone off the goddamn rails.  At this point, I may yet renounce my citizenship, just so I'll never be associated with a plutocratic pseudo-theocracy based on the premise of anti-intellectualism and just generally being an asshole on the world stage.

God damn, I'm ashamed to call myself American any more.
2014-04-02 01:36:15 PM  
1 votes:
The filthy rich are only allowed to cast just one vote. That's it. No matter how many bazillions you have in offshore accounts, it's just one vote. Period.

So long as that law still applies, they are allowed to live.

Once they start trying to pull some "one million dollars per vote" sh*t, out come the torches and guillotines.
2014-04-02 01:35:19 PM  
1 votes:
I would argue that an ignorant electorate is the actual problem here, not the amount of money spent.  We're still the ones voting these people into office.  We do it for various reasons: because of advertising, to prevent the 'other guy' from winning, or being genuinely fooled into thinking that the mainstream candidate represents us and our best interests.

In the last election, there were several candidates on the ballot who would never get into the national spotlight because of lack of funding, but I took an hour or two before voting to read up on each, and decide which one I would most like to represent me.

Leveling the playing field would be great, but so long as people aren't willing to put even this minimal effort into deciding who to vote for, it won't make a bit of difference.
2014-04-02 01:33:48 PM  
1 votes:

Teiritzamna: DeaH: Please point me to the exact place in the Constitution that says money is speech.

Well this is the problem with texualism.  But lets try it anyway.

The First Amendment states in relevant part:

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech"

Hrm.  Well that's rather, short, isn't it?  So now we need to ask some further questions.  Primary of them is "What the heck is 'the freedom of speech'?" Does that mean only the freedom to make noises from your throat?  Well while it is possible, it is unlikely.  Given the war that the revolutionaries fought and the arguments made in the federalist papers, a better way to read "the freedom of speech" is "the freedom to express yourself to others."

"Ok.  Well i still dont see 'money' there!" you may decry.  And you would be right, as far as text goes.  However, the ability to express yourself doesn't really mean too much if it is limited only to the ability to do so with only your body.  Surely it must encompass writing, and distributing those writings, right?  Well if that is the case, you had to use physical objects from the real world to facilitate your expression.  It wouldn't be much of a protective right if the government could stop you from talking, but could easily stop you from printing things, or distributing those writings.

So now we have a construction of the first amendment wherein the government cannot restrict your ability to express yourself, which includes the expenditure of resources to do so.  And there you go.  For the first amendment to mean anything, it must include not only speaking out loud with your voice but also expending money to get your message out there.

the problem is when we then shorten that very complicated understanding to a phrase like "money is speech" which is so divorced of the above nuance that it seems a gross contradiction.


Except this is not about printing. It is not about broadcasting. It is about giving politicians unlimited amounts of money. So, not at all the same. And there is a compelling interest to prevent just such a thing for the preservation of a representative democracy and republic.
2014-04-02 01:32:36 PM  
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: John Roberts just said that money doesn't corrupt politics.


I notice that you provide neither a direct quote nor a link.  Care to amend?

John Roberts did not say that.  He did say that not all spending (on opinion ads) is corruption. Thus all people's spending because some might be corrupt is an abridgement. I see that you are total fark; thus you spent money on -- well, this!  You are giving opinions and the means to your ends involve spending.  Roberts is protecting YOU.
2014-04-02 01:30:59 PM  
1 votes:

Friction8r: The FECKLESS crowd has massive butthurt in this thread. As a public service reminder, FECKLESS is an acronym:

Fark
Echo
Chamber of
Kooky
Liberals
Espousing
Stupid
Shiat.

/welcome


img.fark.net
2014-04-02 01:29:51 PM  
1 votes:
Regardless of how much money is spent in politics, money won't actually, literally buy votes unless the electorate decides to let their vote be bought. George Soros could spend 2 billion dollars over the next two years, and he probably will, but it won't mean a thing if people decide they don't want to vote what he stands for.
2014-04-02 01:28:35 PM  
1 votes:
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." ― Thomas Jefferson
2014-04-02 01:28:31 PM  
1 votes:
Our government is the WWE. During a match, the different wrestlers spend a good while getting the crowd riled up, making speeches, trash talk, and getting them to hate their opponent. They get half the crowd to hate one guy and the other half to hate the other. The WWE spends millions of dollars renting arenas, putting out ads, and most importantly....paying both of the wrestlers. When the match is over and the crowds go home, those two "enemies" still collect a paycheck from the same people. And they move to the next town to start it all over. We are that crowd. We buy into the trash talk. We believe every word they say.
2014-04-02 01:27:16 PM  
1 votes:

MattStafford: qorkfiend: While there are certain areas where the parties find themselves in broad agreement, to say that there are no differences between the two parties, especially when it comes to domestic policy, is simply incorrect. Fiscal and tax policy is an obvious one. So are the different approaches to social services. And education. And health care. And voting rights. And gay rights. And labor and worker's rights. And religion. And on, and on.

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 317x159]

There may be differences, but the differences are essentially so small that they are inconsequential.  Sure, relatively speaking, Democrat's priorities may line up more with you than the Republican's priority, but don't think for a minute that means the Democrats have your back.


Actually, I didn't say "the Democrats have [my] back". What I did say, for those of us lacking in reading comprehension skills, was, "there are vast differences between Republicans and Democrats on many policy issues".

You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on fiscal policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on education policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe the differences between Republicans and Democrats on social services are "so small that they are inconsequential"?

Upon what do you base this belief?
2014-04-02 01:21:43 PM  
1 votes:
So the ruling doesn't want to limit contributions because there's no guarantee it's a corruptive influence. Ok, no prob. Naturally, it should then favor going absolute disclosure of dates, amounts, in individual + organization names of where those contributions are coming from.

Right?

Right?

Hello?
2014-04-02 01:20:08 PM  
1 votes:

DeaH: Please point me to the exact place in the Constitution that says money is speech.


Well this is the problem with texualism.  But lets try it anyway.

The First Amendment states in relevant part:

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech"

Hrm.  Well that's rather, short, isn't it?  So now we need to ask some further questions.  Primary of them is "What the heck is 'the freedom of speech'?" Does that mean only the freedom to make noises from your throat?  Well while it is possible, it is unlikely.  Given the war that the revolutionaries fought and the arguments made in the federalist papers, a better way to read "the freedom of speech" is "the freedom to express yourself to others."

"Ok.  Well i still dont see 'money' there!" you may decry.  And you would be right, as far as text goes.  However, the ability to express yourself doesn't really mean too much if it is limited only to the ability to do so with only your body.  Surely it must encompass writing, and distributing those writings, right?  Well if that is the case, you had to use physical objects from the real world to facilitate your expression.  It wouldn't be much of a protective right if the government could stop you from talking, but could easily stop you from printing things, or distributing those writings.

So now we have a construction of the first amendment wherein the government cannot restrict your ability to express yourself, which includes the expenditure of resources to do so.  And there you go.  For the first amendment to mean anything, it must include not only speaking out loud with your voice but also expending money to get your message out there.

the problem is when we then shorten that very complicated understanding to a phrase like "money is speech" which is so divorced of the above nuance that it seems a gross contradiction.
2014-04-02 01:17:40 PM  
1 votes:

sendtodave: We accept that every day.


I 'accept' that people get cancer. That doesn't mean I like it or don't try to support causes fighting against it.
2014-04-02 01:16:36 PM  
1 votes:

Generation_D: Road Rash: You would think Soros, Bloomberg, the unions, etc., would be happy about this.

Not being statist assholes, probably not.

The Koch brothers and that fat rich jew in a wheelchair that owns the Venetian sure are though.


"Nanny" Bloomberg and Soros not statists? Your troll-fu is weak.

1/10
2014-04-02 01:12:02 PM  
1 votes:

R.A.Danny: 1) Have you ever contributed to a candidate or party?


Yes.

R.A.Danny: 2) Are you now pissed that someone with more money can also contribute to a candidate or a party?


No, why would I be pissed at that?

Or did you mean to ask if I'm pissed they can contribute *MORE* money? Not really pissed at that either. I didn't give that much.

R.A.Danny: Justify your ire.


My ire on this is mostly my loathing of how bad the justices who make up the conservative majority are. It's a legal ire. Their opinions on this, the VRA and the Obamacare commerce-clause issue are just horrible peices of legal reasoning.
2014-04-02 01:08:44 PM  
1 votes:

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?


The same reason insider trading laws don't apply to them (hint they make the laws)
2014-04-02 01:06:30 PM  
1 votes:

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


If we're going to craft an amendment, my personal vote is that we restrict donations to entities that actually reside within the district of the election they're donating to, e.g. no donating to Texas gubernatorial elections if you live in Massachusetts or your company is incorporated in Delaware.

I don't actually have a problem with the specific thing the court decided on here (aggregate caps are just an effective limit on how many candidates you can support since individual candidate caps are still in play, which is silly), I just think that if we're going to let money play as votes we need to do it in a fashion that's representative, meaning out-of-district interests shouldn't be able to hijack in-district elections.

// The example of "incorporated in Delaware" was  not chosen at random.
2014-04-02 01:04:13 PM  
1 votes:
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?
2014-04-02 01:01:43 PM  
1 votes:

bglove25: So, yeah, pretty sure he would have shiat all over CU.



Fair enough - forgot about his concurrence in Austin.

Man I miss Brennan.
2014-04-02 01:01:36 PM  
1 votes:

MattStafford: I like this concept, but why even donate? Just have the government fund it straightaway. The only question is what requirements would have to be met to apply for funding, and will all applicants receive the same amount? For example, if the Neo-Nazi candidate applied for funding, should we give him the same amount that Obama would receive?


If the Neo-Nazi candidate can satisfy all the requirements to get on the ballot then yes, they receive the same amount as the other candidates running for that office.  We don't have to agree with their ideology or platform but they have just as much right to be on the ticket as any other candidate.  We also need to make changes to eliminate the barriers to entry that the Republicans and Democrats have crafted over the years to prevent lesser parties from entering the race.  The two party system clearly doesn't work and bi-partisanship only comes into play when it involves politicians protecting what they have created.
2014-04-02 01:00:06 PM  
1 votes:

DeaH: Contrabulous Flabtraption: I hate this ruling but it is technically correct (the best kind of correct.jpg). Our system isn't perfect and this is one of its baked-in flaws. But it IS what is right according to the Constitution.

Please point me to the exact place in the Constitution that says money is speech.


Show me where it says it is not.
2014-04-02 01:00:03 PM  
1 votes:

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


Yes, we really need a clear constitutional amendment that limits our rights.  We haven't had one of those since Prohibition.
2014-04-02 12:59:48 PM  
1 votes:

AngryDragon: Hear that sound?

That's the sound of 535 people instantly and simultaneously achieving sexual release.  Cleanup in the aisle please!


The worrisome point of Congressional bribery isn't that the politicians are for sale. It's that they sell for so cheap.
2014-04-02 12:58:01 PM  
1 votes:

Teiritzamna: bglove25: Except that same liberal justice would have laughed at the reasoning of Citizen's United and would never have considered the idea of corporations having a free speech right. Accordingly, he may just have changed his ruling with that consideration (unlike our current idiot brigade).

I am honestly not sure about Brennan's reaction to CU, as his position was almost always the expansion of rights and CU is heavily based on Buckley as well. 

As to McCutcheon, I am glad Breyer actually got his shiat together for this dissent, it is a corker:

"What has this to do with corruption? It has everything to do with corruption. Corruption breaks the constitutionally necessary "chain of communication" between the people and their representatives. It derails the essential speech-to-government-action tie. Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard. Insofar as corruption cuts the link between political thought and political action, a free marketplace of political ideas loses its point." Slip Op. at 57 (J. Breyer, Dissent)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce

So, yeah, pretty sure he would have shiat all over CU.
2014-04-02 12:57:27 PM  
1 votes:

MattStafford: I love playing Devil's Advocate on these kinds of things, but I seriously have nothing.  Constitutionally, it makes sense, but trying to come up with a reason that this particular practice should be allowed outside of "constitution sez so" is a pretty tough task.


Shouldn't a court ruling on constitutionality be based only on "constitution sez so"?
2014-04-02 12:57:06 PM  
1 votes:

cchris_39: So those of us still paying taxes get to have a bigger say things. Great news! That's the way it should be.

It will be a good counter balance to the 47% who pay nothing and vote for the party that promises them endless free stuff.


47% of the country voted for Romney.  Weird coincidence, huh?

Also, no, this means people that can afford to offshore their money have a bigger say in things, not tax paying Americans.  Anyone who thinks this isn't a giant F you to the vast majority of tax paying Americans is an idiot.
2014-04-02 12:56:05 PM  
1 votes:

Bendal: I wonder if the biggest effect from this decision will be seen at the lower levels of government; the local and state levels, not the Federal. Congress and Presidential elections already had millions of dollars funnelled their direction either through PAC's or direct contributions. Local candidates though almost always had to claw and beg for every dollar, and there were few PAC's supporting them either. Now there's no limit to how much money by one person (or corporation) can spend to elect politicians; sure they are still limited to a certain amount contributed directly to one politician, but suppose some rich guy decides he wants to contribute that much to EVERY state legislator running for office in his chosen political party? And then contribute the maximum allowed to EVERY local legislator from his party for his city? Here in NC back in 2012 we had the most expensive school board campaign ever; outside state organizations poured money into both sides. Now more of this is going to happen, drowning out the individual voices in favor of those with the most money.

The Oligarchy of America is what we've become.


This is what pisses me off.  I'd strongly favor limiting contributions somehow if you aren't even eligible to vote for the person.  If you live in Maine you don't need to be farking with politics in Florida for example.
2014-04-02 12:55:25 PM  
1 votes:
Mr. Justice Roberts' Words FTFA:

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects," Roberts wrote. "If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades - despite the profound offense such spectacles cause - it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.

Conclusive proof Roberts is a moron. And so is every person--every single one--who agree with this passage.

The issue isn't that campaign donations are "offensive." It is that they corrupt the process of government.   Neither flag burning nor funeral protests nor Nazi parades do so.

Conservatives: you want to impeach Roberts for NFIB v. Sebelius. I'm on board with you now. Not because I disagree with this decision, but because his reasoning proves he has been fully lobotomized and is therefore unfit to serve. Let's get this fancy lad off the court ASAP.
2014-04-02 12:54:41 PM  
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: FTFA: Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.

Justice Thomas desperately needs to go EABOD.


If there's any Justice that needs to volunteer for an immediate fatal coronary, it's him.  It would be the only original or useful thing he's done his entire time on the Court.

/but there isn't any justice
2014-04-02 12:53:17 PM  
1 votes:

FlashHarry: In 2012,sixty percent of the Super PAC money donated by individuals came from just 91 people, and 97 percent came from just 1,900 donors. The total amount that PACs raised from small donors of $200 or less is roughly equivalent to the amount given by just 629 "megadonors," who each contributed $100,000 or more.


Understand this is not about the 1% controlling elections, it is about the .01% controlling elections.
2014-04-02 12:52:26 PM  
1 votes:

Teiritzamna: Grungehamster: I absolutely disagree with the ruling and think it's ridiculous, but Roberts does concede that money does corrupt politics. He just argues that there is nothing you can do to prevent such influence beyond contribution caps on individual races (and Clarence Thomas claims even those are unconstitutional.)

Yup.

Also Jesus Thomas, outside of a few patent opinions, you are always the crazy guy in the corner.  Doesn't that bother you?


I can't wait to watch Republicans squeal in impotent rage when the Democrats start using this decision as a bludgeon after regaining the House in '16.
2014-04-02 12:52:19 PM  
1 votes:
"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 such quid pro quo corruption," Roberts wrote.

Where does Roberts live? In the USA you donate to elections and later you cozy up to your rep and say, "remember all that money?"

Been the same way the last 40 years I've been here anyway.
2014-04-02 12:48:13 PM  
1 votes:

EmmaLou: 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.


To be fair, SCOTUS also upheld "separate but equal" for 50 years.
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:46:57 PM  
1 votes:

MrBallou: All that money goes into the economy, so technically it's not "wasted". Advertisers, event managers, I don't know who else, all profit. This actually helps spread the wealth and stimulates the economy.


Yeah... ask that guy with the "will work for food" sign how that is working out for him.
2014-04-02 12:46:20 PM  
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers


Clarence Thomas would eagerly overturn the 13th Amendment if given a chance, and then sing a happy song as he's lead off in chains to work in Masshuh David Koch's plantations.
2014-04-02 12:46:13 PM  
1 votes:

R.A.Danny: Money is a tool.


Money is power.
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:46:07 PM  
1 votes:

R.A.Danny: d23: JungleBoogie: So, if money is political speech, rich guys have a lot more political speech than you do.

Top Romney and Obama donors, from Politico.

I think that's precisely the flaw in the argument... and why the "money = speech" argument is such tortured logic.

Money is a tool. Using it to be heard is protected.


Bullshiat.  The argument IMPLIES that the rich person should have more speech than you do.
2014-04-02 12:45:46 PM  
1 votes:

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.)


Wrong. That mentality is why we are in this mess. Votes for Nader beget Bush, which beget Roberts and Alito who shat this vile decision out of their asses.
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:43:02 PM  
1 votes:

JungleBoogie: So, if money is political speech, rich guys have a lot more political speech than you do.

Top Romney and Obama donors, from Politico.


I think that's precisely the flaw in the argument... and why the "money = speech" argument is such tortured logic.
2014-04-02 12:40:06 PM  
1 votes:
How is this a step in the right direction? Bunch of savage farking baboons.
2014-04-02 12:37:31 PM  
1 votes:
Biggest spenders in the country? Teacher's unions. Support Democrats. Why no outrage there, libs?

FL recent election? Dems outspent the pub by what, 5 times over? Why no outrage there?

Hippiecrits, all it is.
2014-04-02 12:37:21 PM  
1 votes:

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


That's why the "Founders" set up a republic.  Most of them hated democracy, hated the demos.  But of course we venerate them like ancient lawgivers, so we can't talk about that.
2014-04-02 12:36:48 PM  
1 votes:
media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com
2014-04-02 12:36:47 PM  
1 votes:

AliceBToklasLives: 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 George Soros

  could spend to express his free speech.


So it's more of an "it's not faaaaaaaaaaair" argument.
.
2014-04-02 12:36:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:36:10 PM  
1 votes:

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
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:36:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:35:49 PM  
1 votes:

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?
2014-04-02 12:35:44 PM  
1 votes:
Well shiat

/on reflection and further reading, this is less dire than I originally thought
//Still, well shiat
2014-04-02 12:33:52 PM  
1 votes:
Absolutely disgusting... But not surprising. We've been a Plutocracy with a thin façade of Democracy for a long time now.
2014-04-02 12:32:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:32:09 PM  
1 votes:
The Ford Focus Doritos Loco Tacos Microsoft Office Presidential Election 2016 - brought to you by Halliburton
2014-04-02 12:31:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:31:08 PM  
1 votes:
And yet people laugh at Occupy for being pissed off about the politic system.
2014-04-02 12:30:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:30:19 PM  
1 votes:
Oh, good.  The US is going to turn into even more of a third world banana republic.  F**k you, SCOTUS.
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:30:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:29:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:28:33 PM  
1 votes:

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
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:27:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:27:47 PM  
1 votes:

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
2014-04-02 12:25:47 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:25:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:25:28 PM  
1 votes:
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.
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:25:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:23:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:23:35 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:23:06 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:23:03 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:22:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:22:35 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:22:22 PM  
1 votes:

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.
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:22:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:21:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:20:28 PM  
1 votes:
How long 'til the Republican Party breaks up into two groups: the Adelson Party, and the Koch Party?
2014-04-02 12:19:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:19:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:19:04 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:18:41 PM  
1 votes:
This is SO not good.

This next election cycle is going to be clown shoes.
2014-04-02 12:18:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:17:21 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:16:55 PM  
1 votes:

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.
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:15:28 PM  
1 votes:

theorellior: You want an activist court? You got one right here.

Fark the Roberts Court.


It's not activism if they do something you like.
2014-04-02 12:15:23 PM  
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers


We just need one, Nino maybe, to keel over, and sanity can be restored.  But you KNOW from 2014 on ward the Senate GOP will Desperately try to run out the clock on any Obama supreme court nominees
2014-04-02 12:14:44 PM  
1 votes:

Teiritzamna: Serious Black: And there's the problem right there. Quid pro quo corruption is not the only kind of corruption one can find in a political system.

Oh agreed - but under ~30 years of precedent, it is the only corruption that the government can legally point to to trump the First Amendment.


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?
2014-04-02 12:14:19 PM  
1 votes:
i.imgur.com

Well, it'll be the best government money can buy.
2014-04-02 12:14:18 PM  
1 votes:
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?
2014-04-02 12:14:17 PM  
1 votes:
AND a kakistocracy.
2014-04-02 12:13:48 PM  
1 votes:

d23: A constitutional convention is a gathering for the purpose of writing a new general constitutional convention is called to create the first constitution of a political unit or to entirely replace an existing constitution. An unlimited constitutional convention is called to revise an existing constitution to the extent that it deems to be proper, whereas a limited constitutional convention is restricted to revising only the areas of the current constitution named in the convention's call, the legal mandate establishing the convention.

We need one, not for the "governmental overreach" bullshiat, but because buying law isn't addressed in our current constitution and needs to be.

Corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech.


It would lead to an all out war of rhetoric and probably violence.  There is very little agreement on what the role of government should be and even less trust in our leaders.   It would be a bad, bad thing.
2014-04-02 12:13:12 PM  
1 votes:
At least Rmoney didn't buy the president's seat.  Not saying it's not possible for someone a bit smarter to do it.
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:13:02 PM  
1 votes:

Misch: Well, at least we can equate political donations with flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades.


How can we equate political bribery to gay sex?  People would actually pay attention then...
2014-04-02 12:12:36 PM  
1 votes:

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

This country was unable to get child labor or equal rights amendments passed, there's no chance of an amendment on this passing. Not with everyone in Congress potentially having the chance to profit from this ruling.


Bingo.
2014-04-02 12:11:57 PM  
1 votes:

Serious Black: And there's the problem right there. Quid pro quo corruption is not the only kind of corruption one can find in a political system.


Oh agreed - but under ~30 years of precedent, it is the only corruption that the government can legally point to to trump the First Amendment.
2014-04-02 11:56:20 AM  
1 votes:
So, who is next to retire on that court? Ginsberg? That won't help. :'(
2014-04-02 11:17:40 AM  
1 votes:

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
2014-04-02 11:14:09 AM  
1 votes:
....

well then, I can't wait to see just how expensive 2014 is going to be then....

/on the bright side, we have proven that money doesn't necessarily buy an election
//see 2012
2014-04-02 11:06:55 AM  
1 votes:
more money equals better than

check mate, libtardatron 40k
2014-04-02 11:01:33 AM  
1 votes:
Everyone has free speech. The rich just have more of it and the ability to give to people in charge of regulating them.
2014-04-02 10:55:16 AM  
1 votes:

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

Move to Amend.


Ah.  I've signed up.  And I don't really ever do that.
2014-04-02 10:51:18 AM  
1 votes:
Speech is free, money is not
2014-04-02 10:48:21 AM  
1 votes:

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?



"The government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combatting corruption and its appearance," Roberts wrote. "We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption - quid pro quo corruption - in order to ensure that the government's efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them."
 
Displayed 212 of 212 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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