SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: SCOTUS: No Cap on Campaign Contributions< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10265
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 02 2014, 2:40 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Un-f'n-believable.

They way I interpret the ruling is that rich people are entitled to more speech than poor people.

http://america.aljazeera.com/article....ps.html

And, yeah, I went full-out America-Hating Islamo-Nazi for the source. :;):


--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43986
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 02 2014, 2:51 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The route to control this is via eliminating the shadow world of dark money, those money-laundering "social organizations" that spend vastly more or all on politics but hide behind IRS  Section 501c(3) regulations for non-profits that self-label as "social" and can hide their donors from public scrutiny.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6649
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 02 2014, 5:09 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Apr. 02 2014, 1:51 pm)
QUOTE
The route to control this is via eliminating the shadow world of dark money, those money-laundering "social organizations" that spend vastly more or all on politics but hide behind IRS  Section 501c(3) regulations for non-profits that self-label as "social" and can hide their donors from public scrutiny.

I don't think full disclosure on who donates to what would have much effect on countering the political influence thusly purchased.

How many American voters are going to track that sort of thing and be influenced to vote against politicians being financed by partuclar special interests? Sure, some political groups will raise a stink, but they'll do that on both sides (Dems receive corporate donations too) and it would likely be pretty much a wash.

Meanwhile, Big Money still buys elections ... but with the caps lifted the influence of Big Money has the potential to be even bigger.

We're already on the road to plutocracy, and this latest SCOTUS ruling paves the way even more.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43986
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 02 2014, 5:11 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

But full disclosure would pass the constitutional test. And daylight can have an impact. They sure fight hard enough to keep the donations secret, why would they bother if it were no matter?

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-fi....mission

Individual caps are still in place.
From the majority: "“An aggregate limit on how many candidates and committees an individual may support through contributions is not a modest restraint at all.  The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse.”"
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6649
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 02 2014, 5:24 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The lifting of caps passed the "constitutional test" 5-4, which means that rulings of this sort are fungible based on who gets to appoint SC members.

Big Money fights it because the light of day has zero upside for them, and because they can. Sure, full disclosure could potentially cause them some headaches, but I don't think it would do much to erode the influence they're purchasing -- especially with the caps lifted.

IMO our representative democracy is severely dysfunctional and needs major reforms, but effective change would probably require Constitutional amendment and politicians who thrive in the current system are very unlikely to advance anything meaningful.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
Walkinman Search for posts by this member.
A rainbow
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7527
Joined: Nov. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 02 2014, 5:30 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
politicians who thrive in the current system are very unlikely to advance anything meaningful.


May well be Post of the Year.


--------------
Guided Alaska backpacking and hiking trips

"What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having?" -- Sting, All This Time.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 7
Raznation Search for posts by this member.
Why surf when you can make waves!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 24421
Joined: Sep. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 02 2014, 6:05 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Drift Woody @ Apr. 02 2014, 4:24 pm)
QUOTE
.... politicians who thrive in the current system are very unlikely to advance anything meaningful.

Congress hasnt done anything in over five years other than do the stupid obamacare repeal vote clown show.

--------------
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 8
SW Mtn backpacker Search for posts by this member.
Born to hike, forced to work ...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7314
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 02 2014, 6:48 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Big waste of money in the Nov 2012 Presidential and Senate elections if one side ticked off independents,... but in theory bad.  Everyone knows the wealthy have more pull but this makes it official.

--------------
Usually Southwest and then some.

In wildness is the preservation of the world. - Henry Thoreau
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43986
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 02 2014, 11:17 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

It's sort of ironic timing: Charles Keating died Monday.

When asked during Congressional testimony if he expected favors and deference for his political contributions he replied "I certainly hope so". Iirc.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6649
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 7:12 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

From the SCOTUS ruling:
QUOTE
In a series of cases over the past 40 years, we have spelled out how to draw the constitutional line between the permissible goal of avoiding corruption in the political process and the impermissible desire simply to limit political speech. We have said that government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford. They embody a central feature of democracy—that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns.

Any regulation must instead target what we have called “quid pro quo” corruption or its appearance.

What I take from this is that money=speech and anything short of blatant quid pro quo does not corrupt the political process. WTF is "general gratitude" (my bold)?

Downright Orwellian, IMO.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 7:57 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

When the Right figures out what an advantage this gives to Hollywood in influencing elections, they're going to be really upset.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
star Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3536
Joined: Jun. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 10:15 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

And yet, here, every city that saw a referendum to overturn Citizens United saw it pass, and pass overwhelmingly. Even the apolitical weary of the constant barrage..  endless commercials on TV, disappearing under stacks of mailers, the constant negativity. The only way truly to get them to knock it off is to vote against it. They only do it because it works. Politicians won't do it, we have to.

--------------
If I wanted to live in a dictatorship I would have picked a place with shorter winters.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
bill g Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 422
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 10:19 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

TIVO

--------------
you don't know what you got till it's gone
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
SW Mtn backpacker Search for posts by this member.
Born to hike, forced to work ...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7314
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 10:27 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(star @ Apr. 03 2014, 8:15 am)
QUOTE
And yet, here, every city that saw a referendum to overturn Citizens United saw it pass, and pass overwhelmingly. Even the apolitical weary of the constant barrage..  endless commercials on TV, disappearing under stacks of mailers, the constant negativity. The only way truly to get them to knock it off is to vote against it. They only do it because it works.

True about the attack ads.  Just makes it easy for me to "cut the cord" (i.e. get off the cable system and cut my cable bill).  I've just stayed with it since I like my HLN in the morning with a pleasant personality to tell me the latest disaster - over a "best cupcake" contest (also televised movies that I wouldn't pay to see in the theatre also, but watching "Ghost Rider" 15 times is overkill).  

I remember when MTV and VH-1 had decent music.  Why have cable after they've gone "reality show"?

That said, it also depends on the state.  One "battleground" state I visited repeated before the 2012 election apparently didn't believe the lies on the attack ads.  So count all that money as "wasted".  I do think it needs to be toned down and logic used to convince skeptical Independents.


--------------
Usually Southwest and then some.

In wildness is the preservation of the world. - Henry Thoreau
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10265
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 10:28 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Apr. 03 2014, 7:57 am)
QUOTE
When the Right figures out what an advantage this gives to Hollywood in influencing elections, they're going to be really upset.

I don't see this ruling as assisting a wealthy donor to buy a certain election (the per candidate cap is still in place... for now), but rather a wealthy donor can buy influence from a certain party. It also means there will be much, much more out-of-district influence on local elections.

--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6649
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 10:45 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Walkinman @ Apr. 02 2014, 4:30 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
politicians who thrive in the current system are very unlikely to advance anything meaningful.


May well be Post of the Year.

Just pointing out what should be obvious.

Also obvious (to me, anyway, if not to the majority on the Supreme Court) is that money buys political influence (favorable legislation & regulation); that money is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands, therefore the political power wielded by rich people and corporate "persons" is greatly disproportionate; and that this is inherently corrupt in a representative democracy.

This corrupt electoral process will only be changed by a groundswell of voting citizens engaged in their own governance demanding meaningful change.

But the voting public is seriously polarized -- far beyond any real conflict of interest among the vast majority of citizens. I believe this polarization has been intentionally fostered and reinforced.

A great man once said A house divided against itself cannot stand. He was talking about the institution of slavery, but I think this concept also applies to the American people today. Divided, we cannot stand and work together for our own best interests.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
UlightBandit Search for posts by this member.
ROAR!!!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2694
Joined: Jun. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 11:16 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Since the supreme court thinks money = speech, we should just pay them in Joel Osteen sermons.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 11:52 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(WalksWithBlackflies @ Apr. 03 2014, 10:28 am)
QUOTE

(HighGravity @ Apr. 03 2014, 7:57 am)
QUOTE
When the Right figures out what an advantage this gives to Hollywood in influencing elections, they're going to be really upset.

I don't see this ruling as assisting a wealthy donor to buy a certain election (the per candidate cap is still in place... for now), but rather a wealthy donor can buy influence from a certain party. It also means there will be much, much more out-of-district influence on local elections.

Hollywood sees it differently. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news....-692951
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10265
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 12:08 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Apr. 03 2014, 11:52 am)
QUOTE

(WalksWithBlackflies @ Apr. 03 2014, 10:28 am)
QUOTE

(HighGravity @ Apr. 03 2014, 7:57 am)
QUOTE
When the Right figures out what an advantage this gives to Hollywood in influencing elections, they're going to be really upset.

I don't see this ruling as assisting a wealthy donor to buy a certain election (the per candidate cap is still in place... for now), but rather a wealthy donor can buy influence from a certain party. It also means there will be much, much more out-of-district influence on local elections.

Hollywood sees it differently. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news....-692951

I don't see anything in that article that even hints at the idea of individual donors now being able to buy individual elections. Could "Hollywood" itself band together to defeat a certain candidate.. sure. But they could do that before the recent SCOTUS ruling.

What I foresee happening though, is that numerous PACs will be created for the sole purpose of defeating individual candidates (Citizens Against Scott Walker, Scott Walker Must Go, Anyone But Scott Walker, etc. ad nauseam)... and that individuals can contribute the max to each and every one of those. Maybe in that scenario, single donors would be able to buy individual elections.


--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
Old Frank Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1213
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 12:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

No real changes coming. Money is on a winning streak that will continue, helped by the polarization mentioned above.

Wealth has figured out how to persuade too many people to vote against their own best self interests.

A 1-vote swing in the SCOTUS would not change this dynamic.


--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10265
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 12:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

In my congressional (House) district, we are going to have another tight election. The thing that disturbs me the most about this ruling, is that donors from other states will be pumping in far more money than the people from my district. Thus, in the form of a PAC, groups of rich people from other states will be buying influence from MY so-called "representative". I wonder where his allegiance will lie?

--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
UlightBandit Search for posts by this member.
ROAR!!!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2694
Joined: Jun. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 1:51 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

So, while we're on the subject of money influencing politics....

Can someone tell me the difference between a lobbyist giving a politician money to encourage them to vote a certain way & a politician giving 1 or more members of the general public money to encourage them to vote a certain way?

Forgive me for I am a simpleton.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6649
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 3:10 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(UlightBandit @ Apr. 03 2014, 12:51 pm)
QUOTE
So, while we're on the subject of money influencing politics....

Can someone tell me the difference between a lobbyist giving a politician money to encourage them to vote a certain way & a politician giving 1 or more members of the general public money to encourage them to vote a certain way?

Forgive me for I am a simpleton.

I'm going to assume your question implies that poor people voting for politicians who advance safety net programs like food stamps is analagous to rich people giving large campaign contributions in return for policies that make them richer.

While I think that is a bad analogy, for the sake of argument I'll answer your question.

The difference is the poor get one vote per person while the Koch brothers purchase political influence far greater than 2 votes.

Additionally, non-human "persons" (corporations) are not actual citizens, and may be owned in large part by foreign interests.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
UlightBandit Search for posts by this member.
ROAR!!!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2694
Joined: Jun. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 3:53 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Drift Woody @ Apr. 03 2014, 3:10 pm)
QUOTE

(UlightBandit @ Apr. 03 2014, 12:51 pm)
QUOTE
So, while we're on the subject of money influencing politics....

Can someone tell me the difference between a lobbyist giving a politician money to encourage them to vote a certain way & a politician giving 1 or more members of the general public money to encourage them to vote a certain way?

Forgive me for I am a simpleton.

I'm going to assume your question implies that poor people voting for politicians who advance safety net programs like food stamps is analagous to rich people giving large campaign contributions in return for policies that make them richer.

While I think that is a bad analogy, for the sake of argument I'll answer your question.

The difference is the poor get one vote per person while the Koch brothers purchase political influence far greater than 2 votes.

Additionally, non-human "persons" (corporations) are not actual citizens, and may be owned in large part by foreign interests.

Not what I meant, I wasn't trying to make an analogy to anything.  Sorry, my question was actually somewhat off topic.  

What is the difference in a lobbyist buying a vote in congress or the senate, & a politician buying votes with money? (I think the proper term is Electoral Treating)

While I think the ruling of the supreme court is foolish, I'm really more concerned with the amount of money lobbyists are giving to politicians.  It seems to be somewhat taboo to talk about since both parties accept money (gifts & perks if you will) from lobbyists.

I've always thought this was a major issue, as a vote for the good of the country or the people of the country can easily be compromised when someone's personal wealth is at stake.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
jcb Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4115
Joined: Dec. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 4:16 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Drift Woody @ Apr. 03 2014, 7:12 am)
QUOTE
From the SCOTUS ruling:
QUOTE
In a series of cases over the past 40 years, we have spelled out how to draw the constitutional line between the permissible goal of avoiding corruption in the political process and the impermissible desire simply to limit political speech. We have said that government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford. They embody a central feature of democracy—that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns.

Any regulation must instead target what we have called “quid pro quo” corruption or its appearance.

What I take from this is that money=speech and anything short of blatant quid pro quo does not corrupt the political process. WTF is "general gratitude" (my bold)?

Downright Orwellian, IMO.

They embody a central feature of democracy—that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns.

This part really bothers me. I'm no legal scholar, but is the majority ruling basically stating that an elected official only represents those who voted for them as opposed to everyone in their district?


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 4:39 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(WalksWithBlackflies @ Apr. 03 2014, 12:08 pm)
QUOTE

(HighGravity @ Apr. 03 2014, 11:52 am)
QUOTE

(WalksWithBlackflies @ Apr. 03 2014, 10:28 am)
QUOTE

(HighGravity @ Apr. 03 2014, 7:57 am)
QUOTE
When the Right figures out what an advantage this gives to Hollywood in influencing elections, they're going to be really upset.

I don't see this ruling as assisting a wealthy donor to buy a certain election (the per candidate cap is still in place... for now), but rather a wealthy donor can buy influence from a certain party. It also means there will be much, much more out-of-district influence on local elections.

Hollywood sees it differently. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news....-692951

I don't see anything in that article that even hints at the idea of individual donors now being able to buy individual elections.

I didn't say that it did. It does show that they believe it enables them to "buy an election" as you put it.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6649
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 5:11 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(jcb @ Apr. 03 2014, 3:16 pm)
QUOTE

(Drift Woody @ Apr. 03 2014, 7:12 am)
QUOTE
From the SCOTUS ruling:
QUOTE
In a series of cases over the past 40 years, we have spelled out how to draw the constitutional line between the permissible goal of avoiding corruption in the political process and the impermissible desire simply to limit political speech. We have said that government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford. They embody a central feature of democracy—that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns.

Any regulation must instead target what we have called “quid pro quo” corruption or its appearance.

What I take from this is that money=speech and anything short of blatant quid pro quo does not corrupt the political process. WTF is "general gratitude" (my bold)?

Downright Orwellian, IMO.

They embody a central feature of democracy—that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns.

This part really bothers me. I'm no legal scholar, but is the majority ruling basically stating that an elected official only represents those who voted for them as opposed to everyone in their district?

There's nothing wrong with candidates being responsive to their constituents, but you miss the point here. What the SCOTUS essentially ruled is that money equals speech and that anything short of quid pro quo does not corrupt the process.

There are 2 major problems with this:

1) When money equals speech there is a vast inequality in how constituent interests are represented.

2) Wealthy contributors who are not constituents in the district (or even the state) can greatly influence elections.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6649
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 03 2014, 5:14 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(UlightBandit @ Apr. 03 2014, 2:53 pm)
QUOTE
What is the difference in a lobbyist buying a vote in congress or the senate, & a politician buying votes with money? (I think the proper term is Electoral Treating)

I'm not familiar Electoral Treating. How widespread is the practice of politicians giving money directly to voters, and how do they confirm the choice made in the voting booth?

--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
UlightBandit Search for posts by this member.
ROAR!!!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2694
Joined: Jun. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 04 2014, 8:31 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Drift Woody @ Apr. 03 2014, 5:14 pm)
QUOTE

(UlightBandit @ Apr. 03 2014, 2:53 pm)
QUOTE
What is the difference in a lobbyist buying a vote in congress or the senate, & a politician buying votes with money? (I think the proper term is Electoral Treating)

I'm not familiar Electoral Treating. How widespread is the practice of politicians giving money directly to voters, and how do they confirm the choice made in the voting booth?

It doesn't happen in the US, because it's illegal, and considered election fraud.  I'm just wondering why there seems to be a double standard.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6649
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 04 2014, 8:40 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

For there to be a double standard it would have to be analagous and actually occurring, so I'm wondering why you even brought it up.

--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
37 replies since Apr. 02 2014, 2:40 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply SCOTUS: No Cap on Campaign Contributions
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions