I mean, lets just stop pretending that limits on contributions do anything to stop corruption or bribery. It just makes it a more complex game that regular individuals lack the ability to participate in. I say an overall win.
Chief Justice John Roberts won the backing of Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito for an opinion finding that the aggregate limits did not help prevent corruption — the sole rationale the high court has blessed for limits on political donations.
It seems that we have hit a saturation point on political propagandizing. While contributions may continue to grow until they drive 1/4 of the US economy, I think we may have nearly hit an asymptotic limit on shifting attitudes. What’s another couple billion (or trillion) thrown at a vanishing percentage of undecided (and uninformed) voters?
You don’t necessarily have to agree with the outcome of free speech, but you must defend it.
I don’t like race pimps being allowed to call everybody who politically disagrees with them being called a racist, but I don’t support gagging them. But I do have a problem with unconstitutional laws or worse, poorly written laws that complicate processes. As it stands, people will be able to contribute, and you will be able to see what they contribute. If you choose to vote for them, you are the problem. People just want to feel better about themselves because they are too lazy to do the research.
There was a well prescribed process to alter the constitution. It was designed this way to ensure that carefully and well thought out ideas had obstacles to becoming supreme law. Both parties seems to forget this fact, but only libertarians and real conservatives seem to understand a respect the process. Liberals and statist republicans try to circumvent the constitution whenever it suits them.
If what you say is true, then this so-called “problem” is self-solving.
If what you say is true, then this so-called “problem” is self-solving.
Only true if the contributing entities are using non-coerced and non-extorted funds. There is no practical limit or restraint on the amount of someone else’s money that an entity will use.
Let me guess. The three very unattractive members of SCOTUS all voted against?
Of course they did. The Supreme Court has become a political sham. Why is it, we always split with the same people.
Let me guess. The three very unattractive members of SCOTUS all voted against?
Scalia turns you on?
Let me guess. The three very unattractive members of SCOTUS all voted against?
Scalia turns you on?
Oh yea. He and Ernie Borgnine. Totally.
Who isn’t turned on by Borgnine.
Let me guess. The three very unattractive members of SCOTUS all voted against?
No, he said Scalia voted for it. Or did you just say you think Scalia is hot?
OK, time for some idealism: don’t you think that, in general, corporations have far too much power, and ordinary citizens, far too little? It seems like your attitude is that, well, it’s fucked anyways, so let’s just let them do what they want; that way, at least the rules are simpler. But don’t you think we should do something to curb the immense power corporations have? What about the deregulation of the coal industry in W. VA directly fucking over people’s lives because of their stranglehold on state politics? Even if you don’t “believe” in climate change, or don’t think that nature is worth protecting, you have to admit that all the spills, leaks, etc. are both extremely damaging to ordinary citizens living there and basically preventable with adequate regulation no?
OK, time for some idealism: don’t you think that, in general, corporations have far too much power, and ordinary citizens, far too little? It seems like your attitude is that, well, it’s fucked anyways, so let’s just let them do what they want; that way, at least the rules are simpler. But don’t you think we should do something to curb the immense power corporations have? What about the deregulation of the coal industry in W. VA directly fucking over people’s lives because of their stranglehold on state politics? Even if you don’t “believe” in climate change, or don’t think that nature is worth protecting, you have to admit that all the spills, leaks, etc. are both extremely damaging to ordinary citizens living there and basically preventable with adequate regulation no?
I do think that companies have to much power, and this power manifested itself in gov’t having too much power that they then grant to crony capitalist. What good is regulation if the most powerful companies right the rules strangling out competitors? What good are laws if they are selectively enforced? The coal mines in WV are able to ruin the lives of so many people because the gov’t at a local, state and federal level have allowed it to go on forever. The courts were designed to address issues where companies have too much power and cause harm, but have been corrupted themselves or rendered powerless through regulations that define what constitute acceptable harm.
Going back to spills and leaks. Say I run a factory in Missouri on the Mississippi river. Say, I dump a bunch of waste and people get sick, maybe die. What is the worst that can happen to me. Well under a truly free system, I would be sued by all people who prove damages and that would likely cause me to no longer exist. The worst possible scenario for a business. Instead, I bribe some politicians, I mean lobby for regulations that define safe. Maybe that protects me, but what if I violate this rule. I may face fines, I may face lawsuits, but the hurdles for the everyman are so hard to prove damages now. But what if millions are damaged. Perhaps the gov’t steps in and creates a fund managed by Feinberg (with a management fee) so that I can keep on trucking and people will get payouts the gov’t sees fit. Corporatism/Fascism at work baby, and you are supporting it.
So you don’t at all envision a model of government that, ya know, advocates for the people, and stands firm against the worst of corporate America? You don’t think that that is either desirable, or even possible?
OK, time for some idealism: don’t you think that, in general, corporations have far too much power, and ordinary citizens, far too little? It seems like your attitude is that, well, it’s fucked anyways, so let’s just let them do what they want; that way, at least the rules are simpler. But don’t you think we should do something to curb the immense power corporations have? What about the deregulation of the coal industry in W. VA directly fucking over people’s lives because of their stranglehold on state politics? Even if you don’t “believe” in climate change, or don’t think that nature is worth protecting, you have to admit that all the spills, leaks, etc. are both extremely damaging to ordinary citizens living there and basically preventable with adequate regulation no?
This particular ruling is about an individual aggregate contribution cap has nothing to do with corporations, just rich people who like to throw money at politics. I’m not sure how this could have come down any differently. Being able to speak louder than others doesn’t seem like a good basis to limit speech.
The rest of your post is an entirely different conversation.
True, just wanted to ask TheForge his own opinion though. Haha. Although, I’m less comfortable with “Being able to speak louder than others doesn’t seem like a good basis to limit speech” than you or others might be.
I don’t think it is the roll of gov’t to advocate for anybody at a federal level. Local? Yes. State? To a level greater than the federal, but less than local.
Federal gov’t is to ensure that interstate commerce is consistent, courts exist to settle disputes, and a national defense nowhere near the size our active military is now. Maybe some other small things. In other words, I think 98% of what the federal gov’t does is not constitutional and way beyond what it was for. But people like you wanting it to advocate for the weak and poor is what justified its growth.
Gov’t do not advocate for people. Gov’t control people via force. Bureaucrats do not care about people. They care about themselves. Politicians do not care about people, they care about getting reelected. Money is the mother’s milk of politics. Take away what gov’t can do for people that give money to politicians, and you have less money going into politics. It is a pretty simple solution, but not one liberals and statist want to admit. Instead, they want their cake and eat it to. They want to concentrate a lot of power into the hands of the few so it can help people. Then they want these same people to limit how they can control or disburse this power. Say that out loud and tell me that makes sense? How it really works is that the poor get token scraps to buy their votes, laws are superficial in nature, and the corporate or other elite get what they want. You really think that Obama dictated to these wall street CEOs what they are going to do for him? Hell no, they told him what he is going to do for them, and to what extent he can vilify them.