McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law Shut Down

[Correction]

The line between bribery and campaign contributions would be.... *big shocker coming*... where the line has always been.

So it's just a coincidence that the practical outcome for both is identical?

[Leif]

So it's just a coincidence that the practical outcome for both is identical?

What's the outcome?

[Correction]

What's the outcome?

That the candidate becomes a full-throated sponsor of your special interest when you spend money on them?

[Leif]

That the candidate becomes a full-throated sponsor of your special interest when you spend money on them?

Good. That's true. But the difference between the two is:

When the candidate is bribed, he would not ordinarily support whatever he is being bribed to support.

When someone donates to the candidate, they are donating to him because he already supports an issue or issues.

Now, if the candidate stops wanting to support something, but lies to contributors in order to receive donations, the fraud is on the part of the politician. Punishing the person who donates to the candidate is wrong, not to mention being unconstitutional.


If you want to stop bribery, stop bribery. Don't suppress people's rights so the same money gets shoved through back channels.


There's a reason that George Soros still owns the Democratic Party. Campaign finance reform didn't stop him.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

That the candidate becomes a full-throated sponsor of your special interest when you spend money on them?

Don't spend money on them.

Edit: Oops candidate, not company.

[Olo401]

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," said President Obama in a statement. "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans...

That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision."

Nice to see a stand being taken.. but after the past year I wouldn't be surprised if people questioned the words without actions.

To be honest though, I don't think anything short of a Constitutional Amendment explicitly declaring that corporations are not entitled the same rights as living citizens is going to do the job here. Something kinda like this:

No entity created or sanctioned by the government of the United States, or by the government of any of the several States, shall be considered a person under the law; nor shall it be considered a citizen of the United States; nor shall it be granted rights enumerated for citizens under this Constitution.

[Leif]

No entity created or sanctioned by the government of the United States, or by the government of any of the several States, shall be considered a person under the law; nor shall it be considered a citizen of the United States; nor shall it be granted rights enumerated for citizens under this Constitution.

I guess we'll have to abolish the press and about every book publisher.


You allow all speech or give the government the power to crush any speech.

[zoobernut]

I guess we'll have to abolish the press and about every book publisher.


You allow all speech or give the government the power to crush any speech.

Yeah the constitution couldn't cover the individuals creating the content for the book or the press right?

Why can't the author have the rights of free speech and the publisher can publish whatever they want?

[ravbane]

I guess we'll have to abolish the press and about every book publisher.


You allow all speech or give the government the power to crush any speech.

Sacrifices must be made.

[ZarakiKujata]

Sacrifices must be made.

I wish the Supreme Court reinstituted something ridiculous like PLessy v Ferguson so Leif would have to stand by it and troll people that much harder.

[Kirin]

Nice to see a stand being taken.. but after the past year I wouldn't be surprised if people questioned the words without actions.

To be honest though, I don't think anything short of a Constitutional Amendment explicitly declaring that corporations are not entitled the same rights as living citizens is going to do the job here. Something kinda like this:

It almost sounds, based on Obama's comments, that hes willing to challenge how and why the SCOTUS came to this decision. Is that really the role of the executive branch to do so? I think he should stay mum on it and let Congress decide if it wants to pursue this or not through alternative legislation or differently worded legislation.

No entity created or sanctioned by the government of the United States, or by the government of any of the several States, shall be considered a person under the law; nor shall it be considered a citizen of the United States; nor shall it be granted rights enumerated for citizens under this Constitution.

Now if the above strikes down interaction of private enterprise in politics...should the same then be applied to workers unions as a whole? I don't see why there should be a distinction between Unions and Corporations if were just looking at this within the realm of monetary donations.

[Acturus]

It almost sounds, based on Obama's comments, that hes willing to challenge how and why the SCOTUS came to this decision. Is that really the role of the executive branch to do so? I think he should stay mum on it and let Congress decide if it wants to pursue this or not through alternative legislation or differently worded legislation.

The checks and balances system works for all three branches of government. The President is allowed to question rulings of the Supreme Court, but all he can do is endorse legislation to counter or to nullify the ruling and then sign it into law if Congress does so.

[Kuya]

Seriously, fuck that fucking ruling.

[Gwynplaine]

This has been some great and unexpected news.

[Amastacia]

The world just got a little bit better.

What a shock to see you here.

Corporations controlling government is just the next logical step of capitalism.

Then I guess the question then becomes...

Someday we might have to pick between representative democracy and capitalism, so which is it going to be?

I'll take representative democracy, and I theoretically stand more to gain from capitalism, since I am most definitely a have, and not a have not.

I'm torn.

If the American people cannot tell or don't care which candidates are bought and paid for by certain special interests, then the American people deserve their Haliburton overlords.

But basically what this comes down to is that the only candidate money can't buy is Russ Feingold, so he'd better get his shit together for a 2016 run.

I agree with you in principle, but I still live here and don't want my living experience ruined by the idiocy and incompetence of the people around me. No good can come of corporate overlords, and I'll be damned if Joe Sixpack can be brainwashed by his fucking TV, I don't want them, and I don't want to give idiots the opportunity to vote for them.

Move to Australia/Canada/Europe isn't exactly my idea of an ideal answer, either.

Good. That's true. But the difference between the two is:

When the candidate is bribed, he would not ordinarily support whatever he is being bribed to support.

When someone donates to the candidate, they are donating to him because he already supports an issue or issues.

You make it sound like politicians don't have flexible morals to begin with, and have very few real issues they have a hard line on.

Just about all of them, on every side of the aisle, will happily throw their support behind whatever cause throws the most money at them. Because they didn't have a real opinion on most issues until someone paid them to care.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

If you guys want to limit corporations power, all we need to do repeal the law that limits congress to 435 members. Corporations would have a lot less power if they had to flip the votes of 3500+ people. Millions would turn to hundreds.

[zoobernut]

If you guys want to limit corporations power, all we need to do repeal the law that limits congress to 435 members. Corporations would have a lot less power if they had to flip the votes of 3500+ people. Millions would turn to hundreds.

That would be great. Not only would it prevent this from being a problem but it would make cspan much more entertaining to watch.

[ravbane]

I wish the Supreme Court reinstituted something ridiculous like PLessy v Ferguson so Leif would have to stand by it and troll people that much harder.

Each post makes it more and more obvious.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

To be honest though, I don't think anything short of a Constitutional Amendment explicitly declaring that corporations are not entitled the same rights as living citizens is going to do the job here. Something kinda like this:

Let's see here. If corporations aren't entitled to the same freedoms as people, say free speech, then NBC CNN CBS ABC aren't entitled to free speech either and the government should limit their speech.

[zoobernut]

Let's see here. If corporations aren't entitled to the same freedoms as people, say free speech, then NBC CNN CBS ABC aren't entitled to free speech either and the government should limit their speech.

There are easy ways around this. The individuals in the network are entitled to free speech therefore those news stations only provide a forum for the individuals to express themselves. I don't see how what he said would limit their ability to operate at all.