Supreme Court ends Montana ban on corporate political spending

[Hugo Chavez]

Bummer

Voting 5 to 4, the justices found, in a two-paragraph opinion, that the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling applied to a 100-year-old Montana anticorruption law barring corporate money in elections.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-montana-20120626,0,1924829.story

[Fury]

Boohoo, whatever will do without the unions able to dominate election spending like they have for the last 25 years? 

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

[Hugo Chavez]

I agree it's wrong to limit corporations but let unions contribute unlimited amounts in the same state.  that seems unfair.

[Straw Man]

If Corporations are "people" then Unions must be "people" in the exact same way

both should have equal requirements

If one is more restrictive then then the other then it's not a level playing field

Currently it is not level playing field because the rule of the money machine are tilted toward Corporate Persons and Wealthy Individuals

If a handful of people can literally outspend the entire voting public then that is not fair

One simple solution would be to cap total dollars spent and let each side raise it any way that want

This way you have no restrictions on any person (corporate or real) and you have a level playing field

Also, campaigns would have to be judicious on how they spent the money since each side would have a strict dollar limit that they could not exceed

[Hugo Chavez]

If Corporations are "people" then Unions must be "people" in the exact same way

both should have equal requirements

If one is more restrictive then then the other then it's not a level playing field

Currently it is not level playing field because the rule of the money machine are tilted toward Corporate Persons and Wealthy Individuals

If a handful of people can literally outspend the entire voting public then that is not fair

One simple solution would be to cap total dollars spent and let each side raise it any way that want

This way you have no restrictions on any person (corporate or real) and you have a level playing field

Also, campaigns would have to be judicious on how they spent the money since each side would have a strict dollar limit that they could not exceed

I don't think corporations are people so fuck them.  And with unions, each individual member is free to donate money to whoever they want.  seems kind of wrong to take a person's money and donate it to a candidate.

[Straw Man]

I don't think corporations are people so fuck them.  And with unions, each individual member is free to donate money to whoever they want.  seems kind of wrong to take a person's money and donate it to a candidate.

I am in 100% agreement that corporations are not people but if our legal system is going to call them that and states are writing laws that restrict unions in ways that corporations are not restricted then we have an inbalance

I think states should also be able to write laws restricting money from outside their state from being spent in their elections

I know right wingers will have a problem with this but they will scream "states rights" as soon as it's something they are in favor of

[Skip8282]

Nobody will agree to what the cap should be and allegations of fraud would be rampant, IMO.

I wouldn't mind seeing money not be an issue...but I've got no better solution, so...

[Hugo Chavez]

I think states should also be able to write laws restricting money from outside their state from being spent in their elections

totally agree with this.  It's dumb as hell this is allowed to go on like it does.

[tonymctones]

I am in 100% agreement that corporations are not people but if our legal system is going to call them that and states are writing laws that restrict unions in ways that corporations are not restricted then we have an inbalance

I think states should also be able to write laws restricting money from outside their state from being spent in their elections

I know right wingers will have a problem with this but they will scream "states rights" as soon as it's something they are in favor of

will never happen corporations, unions, individuals will just donate to in state organizations sympathetic to their cause and they will funnel that money to the candidates.

[tu_holmes]

will never happen corporations, unions, individuals will just donate to in state organizations sympathetic to their cause and they will funnel that money to the candidates.

That's the way it's SUPPOSED to be... I give my money to who i want knowing they will spend it in a certain way.

Unions spend it however THEY want to without member input.

[tonymctones]

That's the way it's SUPPOSED to be... I give my money to who i want knowing they will spend it in a certain way.

Unions spend it however THEY want to without member input.

I agree, with you on that...

my comment was to straws idea to cut off states from outside funding................. ............

[Dos Equis]

Meh. Big deal.  Money has already corrupted the system.  This isn't going to change anything.

[Straw Man]

Meh. Big deal.  Money has already corrupted the system.  This isn't going to change anything.

This is true

we might as well cut out the middle man and give corporations the right to vote and also to run for office

[Straw Man]

I agree, with you on that...

my comment was to straws idea to cut off states from outside funding................. ............

my idea was not to "cut off" states but to let states have the ability to pass their own laws that regulate financing in their own state elections

[tonymctones]

my idea was not to "cut off" states but to let states have the ability to pass their own laws that regulate financing in their own state elections

that results in cutting off states from outside funding....LMFAO

it wont happen, donations will just go to middle men who will then donate that money to candidates...

are you going to say that corps,union,ppl outside of states cant give money to the like in other states?

[Straw Man]

that results in cutting off states from outside funding....LMFAO
it wont happen, donations will just go to middle men who will then donate that money to candidates...

are you going to say that corps,union,ppl outside of states cant give money to the like in other states?

so you don't think states should have the right to make rules regarding financing of their own elections ?

[Hugo Chavez]

Meh. Big deal.  Money has already corrupted the system.  This isn't going to change anything.

Brilliant!!!... Everyone should apply the BB "Meh, big deal, if it's already broke, don't fix it" philosophy to all of our problems lol...

[Straw Man]

Brilliant!!!... Everyone should apply the BB "Meh, big deal, if it's already broke, don't fix it" philosophy to all of our problems lol...

to a certain extent I agree with Bum

There is no will from politicians for this and since half the country doesn't even vote we can assume they don't give a shit about how campaigns are financed either

As it stands now our politicians spent a large part of EVERY DAY soliciting donations.  It's literally something they have to do daily for many hours.   It's insane when you find out how much time they spend raising money rather than actually working at their job


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office

[Fury]

to a certain extent I agree with Bum

There is no will from politicians for this and since half the country doesn't even vote we can assume they don't give a shit about how campaigns are financed either

As it stands now our politicians spent a large part of EVERY DAY soliciting donations.  It's literally something they have to do daily for many hours.   It's insane when you find out how much time they spend raising money rather than actually working at their job


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office

Good point. Your God-King, the Usurper himself, has blown away any previous president in terms of time spent fundraising. More than double Bush 2 at this point in his presidency.

[howardroark]

If Corporations are "people" then Unions must be "people" in the exact same way

both should have equal requirements

If one is more restrictive then then the other then it's not a level playing field

Currently it is not level playing field because the rule of the money machine are tilted toward Corporate Persons and Wealthy Individuals

If a handful of people can literally outspend the entire voting public then that is not fair

One simple solution would be to cap total dollars spent and let each side raise it any way that want

This way you have no restrictions on any person (corporate or real) and you have a level playing field

Also, campaigns would have to be judicious on how they spent the money since each side would have a strict dollar limit that they could not exceed

You have a level playing field if people are able to use their money any way they see fit. All of the campaign finance restrictions are nothing more than another barrier to entry created by politicians seeking to protect themselves from the grassroots. Try navigating all of these ludicrous laws without a lawyer and an accountant if you don't believe what I'm saying.

[Straw Man]

Good point. Your God-King, the Usurper himself, has blown away any previous president in terms of time spent fundraising. More than double Bush 2 at this point in his presidency.

can you ever make a post without sounding like a jackass ?

and if you had any sense you'd realize that I'm not happy with the amount of time they have to spend raising money

regarding Obama, I'm sure it's beyond your limited comprehension to understand that the world has changed after Citizens United and now every politician has to compete with the virtually unlimited money of super PACS

OF course Obama has to spend more time that Bush

Bush didn't have to deal with competing agaisnt money from super PACS

[Straw Man]

You have a level playing field if people are able to use their money any way they see fit. All of the campaign finance restrictions are nothing more than another barrier to entry created by politicians seeking to protect themselves from the grassroots. Try navigating all of these ludicrous laws without a lawyer and an accountant if you don't believe what I'm saying.

what do you think about a strict dollar limit

both side can raise "X" any way they see fit

same $'s to spend = level playing field and one side can still out hustle the other side with boots on the ground type stuff with volunteers

if both have the same $'s then one rich person or super pac can influence an election by simply outspending and opponent and neither one would be as beholden to their donors

[Fury]

can you ever make a post without sounding like a jackass ?

and if you had any sense you'd realize that I'm not happy with the amount of time they have to spend raising money

regarding Obama, I'm sure it's beyond your limited comprehension to understand that the world has changed after Citizens United and now every politician has to compete with the virtually unlimited money of super PACS

OF course Obama has to spend more time that Bush

Bush didn't have to deal with competing agaisnt money from super PACS

Yeah, that's it. Citizens United. Got it. Except for the fact that the guy was actually fundraising before that even came out.

can you ever make a post without sounding like a jackass ?

and if you had any sense you'd realize that I'm not happy with the amount of time they have to spend raising money

regarding Obama, I'm sure it's beyond your limited comprehension to understand that the world has changed after Citizens United and now every politician has to compete with the virtually unlimited money of super PACS

OF course Obama has to spend more time that Bush

Bush didn't have to deal with competing agaisnt money from super PACS

And how do you assign a number to the free advertising the left gets from the clearly biased MSM (of which Gallup says 50% of Americans think is too liberal)?

[Straw Man]

Yeah, that's it. Citizens United. Got it. Except for the fact that the guy was actually fundraising before that even came out.

And how do you assign a number to the free advertising the left gets from the clearly biased MSM (of which Gallup says 50% of Americans think is too liberal)?

so what

do you expect any incumbant politician to do no fundraising?

you made a comparison to Bush 2 "at this point in his presidency"

Citiizens United decision was in January 2010 and I'd be suprised if Obama was doing much fundraising in 2009 compared to what he's done in the last 12 months

[Fury]

What it really looks like is leftists are crying that they can't crush the right in spending via gifts (taxpayer money) to unions which are then kicked back in campaign donations.