Locally, when running for Parliament, one may spend no more that 60 cents per person in the riding maxing out a $60,000.00, with matching funds available. No union nor company can contribute all donations are held to $1100.00 per annum. And it's all audit, for 2-3 members of the ruling party have been found guilty recently and lost their seats or their campaign workers have been prosecuted. This means the PM can quite literally hold onto his job by raising $30,000.00 on his own and a major party will spend about $18 million to contest all 306 seats and intratransfers of monies from one riding to another is forbidden.
My response is different to the power of big donors to buying elections. Ralph Nader has said that with 1000 activists in each congressional district you could shut this big money down. I think he's right but we don't have the activists. Rather than boycott the elections you need to urge all Americans whose lives are dampened by the exploitation of the rich sucking the money up to themselves, to get out and fight and to get out and vote. We are the 99% and if we voted our own interests rather than Republican propaganda, this nightmare would be over.
So long, Democracy. Been good to know ya!
3
The one good thing this time around about the 'super PACs' is that there are so many candidates vying with each other for the same cash that the slice of the pie get's smaller and smaller. If the money is exhausted all the better. Then either side won't have to keep up with the joneses and maybe we'll have a real election. This is wishful thinking, of course!
Larry Tribe's Uncertain Justice covers Citizens United in great detail. He points out that it really didn't change the law that much. Before CU, corporations/unions could create movies, publish books, etc., absent (1) advocating a vote for or against a particular candidate; and (2) coordination with a candidate. The SC declared in CU that the first requirement was unconstitutional. The second still applies. Many critics say "coordination" is hard to prove/disprove, but that was just as true before CU.
Tribe says the real focus should be on disclosure. Many contributors, to both parties, will contribute through various 501(c) organizations, which aren't required to identify donors. Critics should press those organizations to identify donors -- but guess what: That won't happen.
Tribe says the real focus should be on disclosure. Many contributors, to both parties, will contribute through various 501(c) organizations, which aren't required to identify donors. Critics should press those organizations to identify donors -- but guess what: That won't happen.
1
Both parties use Super PACs, as this article notes:
"President Obama, after initially denouncing unlimited contributions, used a super PAC in his re-election."
Hillary will too. True, she'll say exactly what Obama said: You can't go to a knife fight with only a pea shooter. But each side could say the same thing. If the Republicans didn't use Super PACs, does anyone seriously believe Hillary wouldn't?
"President Obama, after initially denouncing unlimited contributions, used a super PAC in his re-election."
Hillary will too. True, she'll say exactly what Obama said: You can't go to a knife fight with only a pea shooter. But each side could say the same thing. If the Republicans didn't use Super PACs, does anyone seriously believe Hillary wouldn't?
This idea of an unattached group of interested parties running campaigns for office is democracy at its finest. Free speech pooling its resources to direct the message delivered by a candidate for office is an ideal of democracy since the ancient Greeks attempted to give one man one vote.
In this particular instance the 3rd Bush will need to rethink many of the policies he champions when his backers decide otherwise. All you need to do is watch what any given candidate backtracks on to see what his backers are demanding good government look like. Stay tuned to find out just how principled Jeb Bush is on the concept of immigration reform when his uncoordinated backers tell him what policy he really supports with their cash amplified voices.
In this particular instance the 3rd Bush will need to rethink many of the policies he champions when his backers decide otherwise. All you need to do is watch what any given candidate backtracks on to see what his backers are demanding good government look like. Stay tuned to find out just how principled Jeb Bush is on the concept of immigration reform when his uncoordinated backers tell him what policy he really supports with their cash amplified voices.
2
Several laws need to be changed/enacted. Campaign finance is surely at the top of the list, but so too should be length of campaigns. The 2016 election is 18 months away and I'm already sick of it. The thought of billions of dollars being spent on negative advertising - dollars that could fund scholarships for college and/or job-training - is disgusting. And unlikely to change the mind of a single voter. Is there anyone out there who doesn't already know whether they're voting Red or Blue in November '16? I don't think so.
4
Given the sickening corruption of our elected officials and our electoral process by the influence of the extremely wealthy, at what point do we end the pantomime and define our nation for what it really is? The United States is no longer a democratic republic. We are an oligarchy.
6
The Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case reminded me that Connecticut's Supreme Court use to be -- "The Supreme Court of Errors!"
To take the money out of politics, you must take the control of our lives out of the hands of the political class. As that would be anathema to the Left, what the debate is really about is how to take the money out of Republican politics.
Disclosure is great, but only if it didn't result in you losing your job, angry basement-dwelling bloggers attacking you, or in mobs abusing your visiting parents in your house. Tactics strictly from the Left.
And lastly, how exactly would one quantify the political influence of subjective media outlets like the major TV networks and the NYT?
Disclosure is great, but only if it didn't result in you losing your job, angry basement-dwelling bloggers attacking you, or in mobs abusing your visiting parents in your house. Tactics strictly from the Left.
And lastly, how exactly would one quantify the political influence of subjective media outlets like the major TV networks and the NYT?
The length and structure of our election campaigns is determined by competition between groups fighting for rules and structures that will give them an advantage. Some of these groups are trying to get a candidate elected, and will bend or change the rules and structures or keep them the same in order to benefit their candidate. Other groups, such as TV stations or the tourist industries of Iowa and New Hampshire, see an opportunity to make money. Everybody competes to get rules and structures that will help them win, and our election process is whatever comes out of this competition. Candidates and their supporters look for rules and structures that will encourage their voters to vote and encourage other candidates' voters to stay home, waste their votes on fringe candidates (Nader in 2000), or divide their votes between two candidates (Wilson in 1912).
This is a test of the free market's ability to produce the best outcomes, and the free market is failing the test, as it does with each Enron-type scam, burst bubble, or painful recession. We need government to structure our elections, as is done in other countries, making the contests shorter and less dominated by endless negative sound bites. Candidates who make their opponents scarier than their opponents make them win, and this gives us elections with a choice between communism, economic collapse and moral anarchy vs. oligarchic tyranny, poverty of the masses, and crusading prohibitions of various sorts.
This is a test of the free market's ability to produce the best outcomes, and the free market is failing the test, as it does with each Enron-type scam, burst bubble, or painful recession. We need government to structure our elections, as is done in other countries, making the contests shorter and less dominated by endless negative sound bites. Candidates who make their opponents scarier than their opponents make them win, and this gives us elections with a choice between communism, economic collapse and moral anarchy vs. oligarchic tyranny, poverty of the masses, and crusading prohibitions of various sorts.
6
I'm surprised the advanced legal minds in the Supreme Court could not see the potential problems with their decisions. Especially the part where the super PAC is not supposed to communicate with the candidate. How could that possibly be policed? Honor system? "OK, fellas, now you're not allowed to talk to the candidate, OK? No passing notes through brothers-in-law, or whatever. OK?" Gimmie a break.
4
The right-wing, activist majority on the Court know exactly what it was doing.
2
This may be the most compelling reason for higher taxes on the wealthy. Apparently, they are willing to waste money on super pacs and supporting unelectable candidates. Would be better for their money to be spent on items that benefit society. While the Republicans want to supervise the spending of the poor, it appears the rich need more supervision
9
There is no way to control the use of money in campaigns for office. The only way to stop the influence of money to determine who runs for office is to shut off the money entirely. We need public financing of campaigns coupled with a short campaign period and a return to the requirements that tv and radio give time to candidates to make their cases to the electorate. After all, the public owns the airwaves, not the tv and radio stations. A short campaign and free air time reduces the need for campaign funds, making public financing more viable. Of course, we have to somehow convince the Supreme Court that money does not equal speech or pass a Constitutional amendment to take care of that precedent before this proposed plan works.
4
Odd that the Times gets through this entire piece focusing only on Jeb Bush, and never once mentioning "Ready for Hillary". That is an oversight indeed because in the case of Hillary we should all make sure we know which forrleign countries and oligarchs, which international banks and corporations, are bankrolling her campaign.
2
While I hate the CU decision, it does not buy elections. It is still up to masses to go out and vote. If the people in this country are so easily manipulated by adds and don’t seek out the truth then we deserve the government we get. The sad truth about democracies is that it is as strong as the people in it. No matter how much misinformation these politicians put out there with this money, accurate information is out there for people to find. As long these politicians are not handing out money or goods to people to get their vote, these elections are not bought. They are just exposing the fragility of our democracy, it people!!
4
From a European point of view I can say that America is no longer seen as the leading democracy in the world, just the leading country.
2
God ble$$ America where every dollar ha$ an equal voice in government, and where the government of the people, by the people, and for the people has perished from the earth.
3
We limit freedom of speech in many ways when it is harmful to the public. It is painfully obvious that money is a corrosive and harmful agent in modern politics. Even if you grant all of the potential benefits of moneyed influence, the negatives far, far outweigh them. Even if we accept the ridiculous canard that "money is speech," we have every right and ability to regulate its employment.
One man, one vote is a more essential democratic principle than the unlimited expenditure of money as "free expression." I would rather see all money out of the process than any money in.
The problem, of course, is that just about every politician--federal, state, or local--wants that money. Our politicians are not the cream of society, they are instead those most suited for politics--rich offspring, self-righteous "thinkers," statist lifers, failed businessmen, basically anybody who is incapable of working a normal job. And money protects money, so private interests will prop up corrupt politicians who will do the same in return.
These guys and girls are full of it up to their ears. Why on earth do we only have two major parties to serve 315 million citizens? Is it because all of us fall into just one of two political categories? Or is it because the Democratic and Republican parties are the most effective money-making businesses, capable of blowing any underfunded candidacy out of the water?
We are witnessing what could really be the end of the American experiment.
One man, one vote is a more essential democratic principle than the unlimited expenditure of money as "free expression." I would rather see all money out of the process than any money in.
The problem, of course, is that just about every politician--federal, state, or local--wants that money. Our politicians are not the cream of society, they are instead those most suited for politics--rich offspring, self-righteous "thinkers," statist lifers, failed businessmen, basically anybody who is incapable of working a normal job. And money protects money, so private interests will prop up corrupt politicians who will do the same in return.
These guys and girls are full of it up to their ears. Why on earth do we only have two major parties to serve 315 million citizens? Is it because all of us fall into just one of two political categories? Or is it because the Democratic and Republican parties are the most effective money-making businesses, capable of blowing any underfunded candidacy out of the water?
We are witnessing what could really be the end of the American experiment.
2
P.T. Barnum was right.
America, the Greatest Democracy Big Money can BUY!
2
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Hillary Clinton is the first and only presidential candidate to ask for the demise of this terrible Supreme Ct. edict. I also think taking any funds from the Clinton Foundation for her own campaign is absolutely not in the future. She is smart enough to know this cannot be legally done and would disapprove. Until the law is changed super pac money will trickle down again and again ad infinitum.
2
Big money by Super Pac is nothing but bribe and corruption. Our politicians are corrupt and should be tried for corruption. But our judges in supreme court killed our democracy and corruption is Kosher.
1
Here is what retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens recommended to help fix the problem..... http://lstrn.us/1kUTpB8
1
The SuperPACs (and the journalists who cover them) are both guilty of an unsupported leap of logic: That all the money in the world can actually buy an election, with world enough and time.
I believe the scholarship has disproven this thesis, though I don't have the links right in front of me. The findings show that, yes, money CAN help a candidate, give a big boost, but ultimately, it can't polish a turd.
World enough and time, all the king's horses and all the king's men, all SuperPACs combined, for instance, could NOT put Ted Cruz in the White House. Or Rand Paul.
Now the other more middling, mainstream-y types, yeah, they get stuff paid for, they get media cover, they get their names repeated ad nauseum. Funny, though, how all the money in the world just cannot buy the kind of reputation Elizabeth Warren has with voters. Not that she should run, but I'm just making the point: authenticity and integrity should trump money-driven marketing pooh any day.
I still have faith in that. This week, at least.
I believe the scholarship has disproven this thesis, though I don't have the links right in front of me. The findings show that, yes, money CAN help a candidate, give a big boost, but ultimately, it can't polish a turd.
World enough and time, all the king's horses and all the king's men, all SuperPACs combined, for instance, could NOT put Ted Cruz in the White House. Or Rand Paul.
Now the other more middling, mainstream-y types, yeah, they get stuff paid for, they get media cover, they get their names repeated ad nauseum. Funny, though, how all the money in the world just cannot buy the kind of reputation Elizabeth Warren has with voters. Not that she should run, but I'm just making the point: authenticity and integrity should trump money-driven marketing pooh any day.
I still have faith in that. This week, at least.
12
Money may not get ANY candidate elected, all the time. But it sure crowds out candidates who might have actual ideals, ideas, and courage. Ted Cruz may not be viable, but with financial backing, the media will pay attention to him, regardless of who else might be out there.
I have seen similar reports, e.g.
http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-elections-a-new...
where the author found that doubling campaign spending gave a single point advantage.
But this begs the question of how much money you can raise (or are perceived to be able to raise) to be taken seriously as a candidate at all. In other words, if Bernie Sanders raises $100K and Hillary raises $100M, the rest of the money and press coverage probably goes to the latter.
http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-elections-a-new...
where the author found that doubling campaign spending gave a single point advantage.
But this begs the question of how much money you can raise (or are perceived to be able to raise) to be taken seriously as a candidate at all. In other words, if Bernie Sanders raises $100K and Hillary raises $100M, the rest of the money and press coverage probably goes to the latter.
Of course the SuperPACS and the media who cover them cannot buy an election. That is the point of concocting elaborate legal schemes to protect them in court from charges of graft, bribery, conspiracy, fraud, reciprocity, etc. by ensconcing millions of huge campaign contributions into a cocoon of protection from scrutiny by outside investigation. Similar to the masterminds who concocted Wall Streets concept of bundling sub-prime mortgages with other loans and debts into collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) which were sold to investors with AAA ratings. The hidden, off-balance sheet derivatives, was a method of convincing raters of their product while keeping the toxic ingredients secret to those who were unaware of the scheme. Yes, Elizabeth Warrens integrity and reputation cant be bought although because of influence peddling by SuperPacs, only one Democratic candidate has the financial power to challenge the GOPs dark funding sources. Just like junk bonds that led to the financial bubble and eventual collapse of the economy, SuperPacs will ensure that the media keeps a focus on their choice of candidates through elaborate schemes, and money drives the media, which drives the election. Just like Wall St though, eventually the system will crash as all elaborate schemes intended to fool the public do, although the losers will be the American people, not the organizations that profited from the excesses of SuperPac money, including the Supreme Court.
1
So, the question becomes one of whether the sPAC supports a particular candidate's platform or whether the candidate's platform changes to conform to the philosophy of the directors of the sPAC (I know, the answer is obvious, but there is need for focus).
Also, I think that there is a typo in the headline. It should read --
"How Super PACs Can Ruin Campaigns"
Also, I think that there is a typo in the headline. It should read --
"How Super PACs Can Ruin Campaigns"
1
Actually. Citizens United was rightly decided [if the 1st Amendment means what it says and can not be amended, in practice, by the peculiar political whims of those who would "interpret" it anew to get to the result they want] - if the First Amendment means anything at all - anything - it means that the government can not {selectively!} prosecute people for political speech, even if they formed a corporate entity, as essentially must be done due to federal and state laws, in order to do that very thing.
The NY Times is a corporation - and no, Virginia, "the press" in the 1st did not mean the news media. The corporate newspapers dont have special rights. "Press" means printed word - Thomas Paine self-publishing his pamphlets.
But he can be jailed for doing so if he files articles of incorporation to raise money? Where in the 1st Amendment does it say anything about people losing their right to speech if they file paperwork with a government which all but requires corporate formation to accomplish a host of things?
If the government can throw you in jail for making an anti-Hillary movie [the underlying premise of Citizens United] - there is literally nothing, no principle, preventing the government from directing newspaper editorial boards that they may not write X or Y.
Unfortunately, the Left is allergic to plain language. They honestly don't understand that the federal government is of limited, enumerated powers.
For the time being.
The NY Times is a corporation - and no, Virginia, "the press" in the 1st did not mean the news media. The corporate newspapers dont have special rights. "Press" means printed word - Thomas Paine self-publishing his pamphlets.
But he can be jailed for doing so if he files articles of incorporation to raise money? Where in the 1st Amendment does it say anything about people losing their right to speech if they file paperwork with a government which all but requires corporate formation to accomplish a host of things?
If the government can throw you in jail for making an anti-Hillary movie [the underlying premise of Citizens United] - there is literally nothing, no principle, preventing the government from directing newspaper editorial boards that they may not write X or Y.
Unfortunately, the Left is allergic to plain language. They honestly don't understand that the federal government is of limited, enumerated powers.
For the time being.
3
Children are nihilistic as they see only themselves as important. America's collective voice now speaks as a nihilistic adolescent, ignoring the common good because it can.
Without the maturity of a unified vision of humanity, all progress in life devolves.
Without the maturity of a unified vision of humanity, all progress in life devolves.
4
Pardon me... was the title of this editorial "How Super PACs Can Run Campaigns" or "How Super PACs Can Ruin Campaigns"?
1
We need a third party in the USA. My choice is Libertarian. They uphold the Constitution and want to protect the rights of citizens. The clowns we currently have in office are a sham, are thieves and don't even bother to hide their criminal ways.
1
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and cause me to tremble for safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic destroyed."
ABRAHAM LINCOLN, letter to Col. William F. Elkins, November 21, 1864
ABRAHAM LINCOLN, letter to Col. William F. Elkins, November 21, 1864
7
Well written and interesting. Would have better if NYT mention Sen Reid's super pAC
3
Any options for voters? The Supreme Court take a look at what you wrought!
What the ruling did was segregate free speech into two distinct categories: Those with huge microphones and those with no microphones. Free speech is one thing, but when you start giving folks the right to proclaim it so loud with no idea as to its source, you've turned free speech into a caste system...
30
Scott Walker/Koch Bros corner the market when it comes to co-ordination between Super-PAC , non-profits and Corporate Pay to Play. Walker/Koch are up to their ears and have spent millions of dollars on attorneys and staging a coup of the Wisconsin Judicial System to shut down the John Doe Investigation that has the records of co-ordination. I challenge any true investigative journalist to come to. WI., do a deep dive, I guarantee high payoff. Kochs not only own Walker but every branch of State Govt. What is sitting in John Doe will make Christie's Bridgegate look bush-league.
2
If Obama wants to leave a great legacy behind, complete the Iran deal on good terms and at least start the fight to overturn Citizens United. He has the character to admit his error in using Citizens United and help fix our political system which is in a destructive mode.
It well probably take an amendment to the constitution to make this happen and even Justice Scalia, http://lstrn.us/R6K4M2, admits this is a daunting task. The task would be much easier if we had a president who supports the effort. A large constituency of people and organizations, including the NY Times, http://lstrn.us/1jYBjj1, benefit from the way things are at present.
Do it Mr. President, what the hell.
It well probably take an amendment to the constitution to make this happen and even Justice Scalia, http://lstrn.us/R6K4M2, admits this is a daunting task. The task would be much easier if we had a president who supports the effort. A large constituency of people and organizations, including the NY Times, http://lstrn.us/1jYBjj1, benefit from the way things are at present.
Do it Mr. President, what the hell.
If we want to move away from our present system of government of, by, and for the rich, we'll have to undergo a complete overhaul of our campaign financing regulations. That means most of all limiting the size of allowed contributions to, say, $100 per person per candidate, and the same limit should apply to corporations as well.
Also, the fiction that superPACs are independent of campaigns should be ended, and they should be considered as arms of a campaign and subject to the same $100 contribution limit. End runs of any kind need to be banned, and criminal penalties invoked in such cases.
With changes like these, plus others, there would be a chance of returning our government to the people. But the entrenched money interests can be counted on to fight tooth-and-nail any effort to loosen their money-laden grip on what rightfully should be our government.
Also, the fiction that superPACs are independent of campaigns should be ended, and they should be considered as arms of a campaign and subject to the same $100 contribution limit. End runs of any kind need to be banned, and criminal penalties invoked in such cases.
With changes like these, plus others, there would be a chance of returning our government to the people. But the entrenched money interests can be counted on to fight tooth-and-nail any effort to loosen their money-laden grip on what rightfully should be our government.
1
corporations, generally, have shareholders, stakeholders, and customers on both sides of the aisle. Corporations set up specifically for the left/dems or the right/gop will presumably mostly cancel one another out.
Goldman Sachs, et al, simply gives to both sides of the duopoly.
Far more dangerous are people like Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban, who, apologies to Abe Foxman, are obviously primarily loyal, by their own words, to a foreign state, and act as Israel's agents.
Billionaires are accountable to no one.
Let's worry about them before moaning that the 1st amendment allows the .gov to fine and jail people for making a political film if, like the New York Times, they set up a corporate entity to publish their view first.
Goldman Sachs, et al, simply gives to both sides of the duopoly.
Far more dangerous are people like Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban, who, apologies to Abe Foxman, are obviously primarily loyal, by their own words, to a foreign state, and act as Israel's agents.
Billionaires are accountable to no one.
Let's worry about them before moaning that the 1st amendment allows the .gov to fine and jail people for making a political film if, like the New York Times, they set up a corporate entity to publish their view first.
2
Hey, this isn't the way that Justice Anthony Kennedy predicted it would all work out when he lined up behind Citizens United.
What could have possibly gone wrong that the Five Amigos on SCOTUS didn't anticipate?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/10/ci...
Or did they?
What could have possibly gone wrong that the Five Amigos on SCOTUS didn't anticipate?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/10/ci...
Or did they?
1
In Europe and most of the World, the success of a Movie is based on the number of people who went to the Theaters to see that movie. In the US the success is based on how much money that movie grossed.
It seems like the same rule will apply to Politics in the US from now on. with the amount of money raised and spent determining who will win the next elections.
It seems like the same rule will apply to Politics in the US from now on. with the amount of money raised and spent determining who will win the next elections.
Welcome to the world of Citizens' United,which allows unlimited,anonymous individual and corporate( people according to CU )contributions to super PACS.as an exercise of their 1st Amendment free speech rights,even though there's not one mention of spending money in the amendment.The only remedy is a Constitutional amendment overturning Citizens' United,and limiting the total amount of money that can be spent on any campaign,regardless of that money's source.But for that to be accomplished will probably require petitions aimed at statewide ballot measures,since other than the occasional political renegade such as Bernie Sanders,politicians are unlikely on their own to introduce such amendment that threatens this campaign cash cow.
This is by no means new but nonetheless distressing, inasmuch as it shows just how far we have strayed from being a meritocracy.
The real threat to democracy is when the consolidated wealth of a nation lies within the hands of a few, making them by default, the ones who will determine its trajectory of its fate.
The real threat to democracy is when the consolidated wealth of a nation lies within the hands of a few, making them by default, the ones who will determine its trajectory of its fate.
I truly believe this will fold back on itself. Ridiculous sums are being spent, pretty much numbing the sense of it's value. There's no doubt our democracy has been undermined and stolen. Hopefully within my lifetime American people will wake up and try to restore it ... take it back. In the meantime across the world, mass devastation, lots of poverty, the shameless donors running these PACS really need to develop some consciousness. What they envision for this country won't manifest as they'd like, it's based on negative forces, eventually it will backfire.
2
Damn this conservative, Republican stacked Supreme Court. They put the US government on the auction block.
The law that forbids coordinating between a candidate's campaign and a super PAC now actually makes things worse, at least technically. Now the candidate presumably has nothing to do with how their campaign is run. Just get a cardboard dummy up there and leave the rest to the professionals. If a candidate gets elected, it has little to do with their skills, convictions, policies, and the like. It's about the efficacy of the advertising campaign. This increases the already significant potential to fill our government with unqualified men and women to govern our country. Can you say WMDs?
So now our democratic election system is simply a matter of which of these special interest PACs raise the most money; which candidates are most convincing to the PAC owners in their promises to serve their special interests; and which of these PACs can spin out the best advertising campaign. The American people are left completely out of the loop. Thank you Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts. Shame on you for the damage you're doing to our Republic. Our Founders warned us about you.
The law that forbids coordinating between a candidate's campaign and a super PAC now actually makes things worse, at least technically. Now the candidate presumably has nothing to do with how their campaign is run. Just get a cardboard dummy up there and leave the rest to the professionals. If a candidate gets elected, it has little to do with their skills, convictions, policies, and the like. It's about the efficacy of the advertising campaign. This increases the already significant potential to fill our government with unqualified men and women to govern our country. Can you say WMDs?
So now our democratic election system is simply a matter of which of these special interest PACs raise the most money; which candidates are most convincing to the PAC owners in their promises to serve their special interests; and which of these PACs can spin out the best advertising campaign. The American people are left completely out of the loop. Thank you Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts. Shame on you for the damage you're doing to our Republic. Our Founders warned us about you.
3
Forget about Hillary's Foundation and the 1% and their "chump change". The real problem is what's going to stop foreign nations and their immense national treasuries from "super pac-king" our election process. The Saudis, China, Iran et al have billions they can secretly invest into their chosen lapdog candidates to assure favorable results. We're doomed as a nation unless we stop this madness with a bipartisan constatutional amendment outlawing this quagmire. Vote only for candidates that take the pledge for election reform.
4
And who makes the most money from these unlimited contributions? The t.v. stations?
1
The best way to change a bad law is to rigidly enforce it.
1
"Super PACs Can Run Campaigns"?
"Can"? They already DO!
And look at the mess they've caused / are causing / will cause!
Why doesn't some group, like Common Cause, bring a new case, which might hopefully lead to a reversal of Citizens United in light of the manifestly disastrous consequences?
"Can"? They already DO!
And look at the mess they've caused / are causing / will cause!
Why doesn't some group, like Common Cause, bring a new case, which might hopefully lead to a reversal of Citizens United in light of the manifestly disastrous consequences?
1
Everyone (almost) here seems to blame the Supreme Court for this nonsense. It seems that their job is to interpret the law...as written by lawmakers (aka congress). All congress has to do is pass a law that stops super pacs' money. Good luck on that, suckers.
1
Jeb Bush's decision to effectively outsource his campaign to his largest contributor will seal his fate as a losing candidate, even before the campaign begins in earnest. The old maxim that "if they'll give me $5, they'll give me their vote" still rings true in voting. Having 50 of your father's closest business partners pony up $1 million each for your campaign is hardly an exercise in connecting with voters (and receiving their votes).
15
Just wondering when you will add Soros to the SUPER $ he gives to drive D's in all elections. He OWNS lots of people, magazines foundations that ALL throw $ at D causes everywhere by the millions if not more.
By leaving Soros out of your article you diminish the old grey lady again.
By leaving Soros out of your article you diminish the old grey lady again.
2
This is an op-ed about super PACs, not the individuals who create them and fund them. Do you have any numbers on George Soros, anything remotely close to the $900 million the Koch brothers are planning to spend on the upcoming election?
But since we are both distrustful about how political campaign are funded, can we therefore agree to support public financing of political campaigns and an end to lobbying?
But since we are both distrustful about how political campaign are funded, can we therefore agree to support public financing of political campaigns and an end to lobbying?
Stolen elections. Wars based on lies about WMD. Torture. Destruction of the public education system. Brownie nepotism. Partial collapse of the financial system.
The American people truly have short memories, perhaps they are even comatose, if they elect another Bush to the presidency.
The American people truly have short memories, perhaps they are even comatose, if they elect another Bush to the presidency.
6
Or a Clinton.
Attention, Times editors: You left the "i" out of the word "ruin" in your headline.
1
What's good for the Koch Bros is good for me ... I mean ... you
Why not create some grassroots Super PACs on Kickstarter, and give some control back to the voters?
3
It's a good idea, but you are still left with a competition to raise money between the haves and the have-nots. That said, here's one such super PAC that shows promise: https://mayday.us/
The Board Chairman and Founder, Lawrence Lessig, has a proven track record on fighting against government corruption. It's hard to gain my trust on this issue, but he's a tireless crusader.
The Board Chairman and Founder, Lawrence Lessig, has a proven track record on fighting against government corruption. It's hard to gain my trust on this issue, but he's a tireless crusader.
The lopsided power of Super PACs is why I have come to ignore the ubiquitous "last chance before midnight!" requests in my inbox for campaign contributions. I'm a "little guy." For most of my life it's been important to me to make small contributions to candidates that I support, in addition to finding a little time to volunteer as elections approach. But why would I sacrifice a dime from my middle class income when I can be sure that a PAC contribution will eclipse any meager funds I might add?
6
This is proof that the Supreme Court is, if one is charitable, out of touch with reality. If one is less charitable, five of the Justices of the Supreme Court thought they would decide an issue to benefit the Republicans, and this is what we get.p
One can at least be amused to recognize that since only one of the Republicans can win the nomination, most of the PAC money wil be poured down the drain. Hopefully, the Republican who is nominated will pull a Romney, and blow the election, pouring the remainder of the PAC money down the same drain.
I am not holding my breath waiting for the Citizens United decision to be reversed. It will be seen as worse than even the Dred Scott decsion of 1857.
One can at least be amused to recognize that since only one of the Republicans can win the nomination, most of the PAC money wil be poured down the drain. Hopefully, the Republican who is nominated will pull a Romney, and blow the election, pouring the remainder of the PAC money down the same drain.
I am not holding my breath waiting for the Citizens United decision to be reversed. It will be seen as worse than even the Dred Scott decsion of 1857.
6
I am no fan of Citizens United. I understand it, but not happy with the results. What amazes me from the left if this assumption that the right is bought off by Corporate America, with no admission that the left if bought off by Public Sector Unions.
It's just as crooked for Corporations to have outsized influence on policy as it is for unions.
Let's all start pointing fingers at all the corrupters instead of just across the aisle.
It's just as crooked for Corporations to have outsized influence on policy as it is for unions.
Let's all start pointing fingers at all the corrupters instead of just across the aisle.
2
And in our considered efforts to follow Elliot’s call for fairness all around, as one starting point, let’s put an end to such false equivalencies as that which he and the right continue to make between the nature and influence of unions (public and/or private) and the reach not only of dark money super pacs but the grotesquely outsize influence of mega-wealthy individuals such as the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson.
Fair enough. But keep in mind, Citizens United is a right wing lobbying group. The eponymous case was originally around the right to show a movie, the right wing Supreme Court inflated it to overturning the McCain-Feingold Act. And liberals would gladly pass a law or even a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the SCOTUS decision.
Labor unions have not been granted "personhood" by the Supreme court as have corporations.
Nor do they command anywhere near the hundreds of millions of dollars that corporations and their top managers donate.
Corporations and their political minions have been very successful in quashing unions under the guise of "right to work"-successfully framing the issue so that workers vote against their own self-interest.
I don't condone corruption whether corporate or labor union.
What we have now is a very unlevel playing field. We need a sea change re campaign finance and especially banning political advertising. Take a page out of the UK or French playbook re equal media time for candidates and no political ads.
Nor do they command anywhere near the hundreds of millions of dollars that corporations and their top managers donate.
Corporations and their political minions have been very successful in quashing unions under the guise of "right to work"-successfully framing the issue so that workers vote against their own self-interest.
I don't condone corruption whether corporate or labor union.
What we have now is a very unlevel playing field. We need a sea change re campaign finance and especially banning political advertising. Take a page out of the UK or French playbook re equal media time for candidates and no political ads.
Anybody know if it is possible to sue the Supreme Court for malpractice? If not, action to impeach all Five should be initiated.
3
In the interests of impartiality should you not include a photo of Hillary Clinton along with Bush?
1
If anyone has a serious solution to this problem, please start sharing it. What is the end-game for democracy? The Boston Globe ran a story showing the history of ballot initiatives and the amount spent on ad campaigns. In the largest majority, money spent equaled position won. There is no more debate on merits, it's just on who can spend the most on PR-funded focus groups and hit just the right emotional and logical note to get people to vote one way or the other. Thanks for spending all this money hijacking our brains. How do we take our brains - and our country - back and have a real democracy?
3
Thank you NY Times for bringing attention to the most serious issue undermining our Democracy. It is deeply ironic, if it wasn't so depressing, that Peter Schweizer's new book, "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary" is publicized as exposing alleged corruption. What is not mentioned in media coverage, except by George Stephanopoulos on ABC News & Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, is that Mr. Schweizer is the president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), a conservative group with close ties to a billionaire family funding Sen. Ted Cruz's presidential run. GAI has also received substantial support from groups backed by Charles and David Koch. IRS tax forms reveal GAI is funded by some of the top donors on the right, including the billionaire Mercer family who have close ties to Ted Cruz. The Koch Brothers, "the Super Pac dark-money ATM of the right," gave $1,500,000 to GAI in 2013.
Peter Schweitzer, who seeks to smear the Clintons, according to The Nation, spoke at the Koch's brothers "secret billionaire summit" in June 2014. At the conference, attendees reportedly "discussed strategy on campaign finance, climate change, healthcare, higher ed & opportunities for taking control of the Senate." Schweizer was a Bush speech writer, adviser to Sarah Palin, & paid headliner for Republican Party fundraisers. While Schwitzer admits the Clintons broke no laws, he is guilty of quid pro quo by association.
Peter Schweitzer, who seeks to smear the Clintons, according to The Nation, spoke at the Koch's brothers "secret billionaire summit" in June 2014. At the conference, attendees reportedly "discussed strategy on campaign finance, climate change, healthcare, higher ed & opportunities for taking control of the Senate." Schweizer was a Bush speech writer, adviser to Sarah Palin, & paid headliner for Republican Party fundraisers. While Schwitzer admits the Clintons broke no laws, he is guilty of quid pro quo by association.
11
"Operatives close to the candidates are, in effect, running extensions of the campaigns.” It is the height of disingenuousness to even suggest - let alone act as the conservative justices of the Supreme Court have done so flagrantly - otherwise. And yet, here we are...
15
Years ago, during the debate over the McCain-Feingold bill, our former senator, George Mitchell, made a prophetic statement that the influx of big money into our political campaigns will some day reach an irreversible tipping point where all citizens, regardless of party, will believe that the entire political system is corrupt and that all politicians are more beholden to their contributors than to their constituents.
We have reached that tipping point today. The voters intuitively grasp that the system is being run for the benefit of the big donors. As a result, we will see increased apathy on the part of ordinary citizens, with the system being left to the super-rich and their well-financed political operatives. Given the rigged nature of the system, I question whether the turnout in the 2016 election will even reach 50%.
We have reached that tipping point today. The voters intuitively grasp that the system is being run for the benefit of the big donors. As a result, we will see increased apathy on the part of ordinary citizens, with the system being left to the super-rich and their well-financed political operatives. Given the rigged nature of the system, I question whether the turnout in the 2016 election will even reach 50%.
48
So who'll be the game show host who determines the political winner, while we the american viewing audience sit idle and watch?
Why all the fuss? Five learned men on the Supreme Court have assured us that unlimited spending on campaigns, even by billionaire corporate titans like Charles and David Koch, pose no risk of corrupting the political process. In fact, to prevent them from spending, oh, say $900 million, would amount to "censorship" and a grievous violation of their First Amendment rights. If Super PACs are the mechanism they want to use to channel their "free speech" into support of a presidential candidate, who are we, mere voters, to question the "justices'" wisdom?
6
I find it interesting that the NYT would find this interesting. What did we expect when the so-called democratic process was handed over to those with the most money? An independent candidate? Not on your life.
6
The real problem that I see with this anti-democratic trend is the non-disclosure of the ultimate source of the hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into the SPACS. If individuals and corporations have the right to give unimited funds because money=speech, why don't I, as a voter and the target of all these political messages, have a right to know who's screaming in my ears?
11
They set up these SUPER PACS with every intention of breaking the law and they want us to vote for them for president. I am sick of it.
Lets have Steven Colbert run for PRESIDENT. At least he understands, the law and the Constituion.
Lets have Steven Colbert run for PRESIDENT. At least he understands, the law and the Constituion.
4
How is this different from the money being channeled into the Clinton Foundation? Elections are being bought. End of story.
5
The difference is that a foundation doesn't run political campaigns, political ads, etc. Now, that does not mean that the potential for influencing the Clinton's actions doesn't exist, but it is a bit more indirect as far as the political process is concerned. So there is a real difference, although there are some similarities.
Money donated to the Clinton Foundation is not dark money, hidden from public view, as it is structurally and integrally different from how Super Pacs are structured. The Foundation has a clear mission statement of how contributions will be spent which is by uniting businesses, governments, NGOs and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change. It is required by law to be transparent. It is a positive act if Saudi Arabia wants to improve the lives of women, rather than a criminal act as innuendoed by pundits and repeated as a dirty rumor.
The corporations are people philosophy enabled by the Supreme Court allows dark money to contribute to political campaigns which are shielded from outside scrutiny, therefore completely opaque which implies dishonesty. So, therefore, if a corporation contributes up to 1 billion to a presidential campaign and the politician who is selected is pro-fossil fuel energy policies and refuses to admit the seriousness of climate change, the public is told this is totally legal and legitimate even though there is a clear link between donor and political policy.
The corporations are people philosophy enabled by the Supreme Court allows dark money to contribute to political campaigns which are shielded from outside scrutiny, therefore completely opaque which implies dishonesty. So, therefore, if a corporation contributes up to 1 billion to a presidential campaign and the politician who is selected is pro-fossil fuel energy policies and refuses to admit the seriousness of climate change, the public is told this is totally legal and legitimate even though there is a clear link between donor and political policy.
Now that money=speech, according to the Supreme Court, billionaires contributing unlimited amounts of cash to campaigns and corporate (and union) people spending millions on “issue” ads thru various pass thru organizations and PACS, combined with the billions spent on lobbying our Congress, and our state legislatures, drown out the voices of the individual voter’s political “speech”. Voters know the game to be rigged. The media spends much of its campaign coverage tallying campaign funding because it is well known that raising the most money usually ensures victory. Sure, Barack Obama raised a billion bucks largely from individual contributions in 2008, but by 2012 he had decided to join his opponents in finding the cash from the wealthy to be irresistible.
50% of those eligible find voting in presidential election years not to be worth their time. During the last midterm elections, only about 30% of eligible voters bothered to vote on Election Day. Democracy is dead in the USA and has been for a long time; we ruled by the wealthy and the connected, by lobbying firms and their clients, and corporate cash. The electorate knows this to be true, when will it become a topic of real discussion and interest to the 4th estate instead of journalists acting as cheerleaders for the status quo and their pursuit of cash?
50% of those eligible find voting in presidential election years not to be worth their time. During the last midterm elections, only about 30% of eligible voters bothered to vote on Election Day. Democracy is dead in the USA and has been for a long time; we ruled by the wealthy and the connected, by lobbying firms and their clients, and corporate cash. The electorate knows this to be true, when will it become a topic of real discussion and interest to the 4th estate instead of journalists acting as cheerleaders for the status quo and their pursuit of cash?
There is a simple test of a PAC's independence: Does it provide services to more than one candidate or potential candidate?
With the Pac money (the Koch bros ALEC) filtering down even to local assemblies (local legislators go cheap- a dinner, a plane ticket to a snazzy convention and 3-4 hundred dollars for the ole campaign) -your best bet is to vote for the Uncle Wiggly party.
That’s the problem with freedom, isn’t it? Those who are damaged by what they claim is its too-free expression will call it “license”.
Well, blame the U.S. Supreme Court for not being as clever as they were with Roe on a very different issue when seeking balance between what corporations with a view and unions with a view could say, and how much they could spend to flog the electoral interests of candidates they favored. Personally, I would have preferred imposing on unions the same limits then in place on corporations, but that’s not how it happened – except that IS what happened, isn’t it? The justices evened the playing field by giving freedom rather than withholding it.
So … unions can’t run campaigns? At least super PACs hardly are limited to conservative mouthpieces – there are very muscular liberal super PACs out there to help out the unions in getting liberals elected; and, once elected, does anyone really question that those candidates do the unions’ bidding? Even during a campaign, in order to keep the help coming, don’t those candidates do the unions’ bidding?
Political funding in America, directly or indirectly, is dysfunctional. But, not surprising for America, that dysfunction takes the form of too MUCH liberty, not too little. If we’re going to go the other way, it still needs to inconvenience BOTH sides equally to be fair.
Well, blame the U.S. Supreme Court for not being as clever as they were with Roe on a very different issue when seeking balance between what corporations with a view and unions with a view could say, and how much they could spend to flog the electoral interests of candidates they favored. Personally, I would have preferred imposing on unions the same limits then in place on corporations, but that’s not how it happened – except that IS what happened, isn’t it? The justices evened the playing field by giving freedom rather than withholding it.
So … unions can’t run campaigns? At least super PACs hardly are limited to conservative mouthpieces – there are very muscular liberal super PACs out there to help out the unions in getting liberals elected; and, once elected, does anyone really question that those candidates do the unions’ bidding? Even during a campaign, in order to keep the help coming, don’t those candidates do the unions’ bidding?
Political funding in America, directly or indirectly, is dysfunctional. But, not surprising for America, that dysfunction takes the form of too MUCH liberty, not too little. If we’re going to go the other way, it still needs to inconvenience BOTH sides equally to be fair.
1
Too little liberty for some persons and too little for some other persons. The problem with the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House is that none of them are remotely like the vast peasant mass of Americans in experience, temperament, wisdom or power. No member of the Supreme Court has ever run for and been elected to office.
Our divided limited power democratic republic was born in revolution that discarded one privileged class and replaced it with another. All the while spouting radical revolutionary rhetoric while practicing preserving the status quo ante. Ever since we have been expanding the definition of person in the Founding Fathers documents. And since each "new" person does not come on stage "equal" Ab initio treating them equal is not fair nor equal..
Our divided limited power democratic republic was born in revolution that discarded one privileged class and replaced it with another. All the while spouting radical revolutionary rhetoric while practicing preserving the status quo ante. Ever since we have been expanding the definition of person in the Founding Fathers documents. And since each "new" person does not come on stage "equal" Ab initio treating them equal is not fair nor equal..
When 2 billionaires wield sufficient power to hold their own primary and when their declarations of which candidates have "a good chance of getting elected" make headlines, when campaign contributions become the primary consideration for becoming a candidate at all, then yeah, dysfunctional is putting it mildly.
Knowing what they know now, I wonder if Justice Roberts et al would still make the same ruling in Citizens' United. Has any journalist thought to ask them?
2
See Paul Krugman's op-ed today. No one admits wrongdoing anymore.
Roberts knows the answer; he also knows the consequences if he says anything.
The CU decision should be regarded as consciously recognizing the status quo for what it is: an oligarchy. Everything around you is made by corporations. We could not function without them, much as the Eloi could not function without the Morlochs in HG Wells', The Time Machine. And like the Morlochs, corporations could not function without cannibalizing us.
I'd be curious if constitutional lawyers would weigh in here about a lawsuit based on having our civil rights taken away as citizens by Super PACS. On what basis might a lawsuit against the current mess be filed? Or, as a few commenters have said, it is a legislative matter in which Congress would have to change the laws first?
3
So now it's politics by wink wink and nod nod. There will be NO coordination between campaign and PAC (wink wink, nudge nudge.) Elections ala Monty Python brought to you by a terrible Supreme Court decision.
The real question is, do they see what a monster they've created? And if so, is this the monster they intended? Living with it does not inspire confidence in our system.
The real question is, do they see what a monster they've created? And if so, is this the monster they intended? Living with it does not inspire confidence in our system.
26
The only reason this is even an issue is not the behavior of the super rich on either side, nor the decisions of the Supreme Court, but the willingness of the American voter to take the lazy way out.
If the voters were willing to cast their vote on the basis of thinking about the candidate's actions and how closely those actions coincide with the voter's beliefs, all the money in the world would not influence an election.
Instead, most of the electorate does not even bother to vote (consider the elation in Ferguson in the recent election over 30% turnout), and of those who do, their vote is influenced not by the candidate's record but by who has the most or the cleverest sound bytes.
Money can buy ads, but when the voter goes into the voting booth the money does not buy his vote (or if it did we have a different kind of problem). The individual still votes based on what is important to him or her, be that the candidate's record, the latest sound byte he or she heard, or the fact that the candidate is the same race of gender as the voter. Only one of these is a valid reason, and it is the least common. If people are going to allow themselves to be easily swayed by ads, than cash is king and the voters get the best government money can buy. If people vote on their own, logic and history would rule and all the cash in the world could not put an unsuitable candidate into office.
If the voters were willing to cast their vote on the basis of thinking about the candidate's actions and how closely those actions coincide with the voter's beliefs, all the money in the world would not influence an election.
Instead, most of the electorate does not even bother to vote (consider the elation in Ferguson in the recent election over 30% turnout), and of those who do, their vote is influenced not by the candidate's record but by who has the most or the cleverest sound bytes.
Money can buy ads, but when the voter goes into the voting booth the money does not buy his vote (or if it did we have a different kind of problem). The individual still votes based on what is important to him or her, be that the candidate's record, the latest sound byte he or she heard, or the fact that the candidate is the same race of gender as the voter. Only one of these is a valid reason, and it is the least common. If people are going to allow themselves to be easily swayed by ads, than cash is king and the voters get the best government money can buy. If people vote on their own, logic and history would rule and all the cash in the world could not put an unsuitable candidate into office.
But it appears there is pervasive bipartisan support among politicians to continue this way. I expect they correctly judge that many of us will vote for one of them anyway.
1
The Bush families and the Saudi Royal families are joined at the hip. I wonder how many Saudi dollars are trickling their way to Jeb Bush super PAC's. And the media just worries about the Clinton Foundation's source of money? Give me a break.
5
One overlooked advantage of the PAC’s is it increased the cost of purchasing “Power”. It made “Cash under the Table” obsolete and increased the cost “Power” from millions to billions. Also it is starting to move up the ranks in an attempt to be a leading job creator. We will all have the benefit of our favorite TV programs being sponsored by political ads for about a year before the 2016 elections. We can thank the top one percent for their generosity.
When will Justice Kennedy finally admit his mistake in voting for Citizens United?
Money Corrupting?
Apparently, he doesn't know it when he sees it.
Money Corrupting?
Apparently, he doesn't know it when he sees it.
2
From "Citizens United" to Republicans (most recently, the failed former president G.W. Bush) kissing the...ring of the odious Sheldon Adelson, SCOTUS has undermined out democracy both substantively and aesthetically. The so-called conservative majority has no shame.
2
It IS hilarious and tragic at the same time that a gambling casino magnate is funding the party of evagelicals and supposedly morally superior conservatives. Money is their true diety.
Not being an attorney, let's see if I get this right. The Supreme Court hears cases brought to it. These cases establish a precedent and determine how the rest the country follows the law. I think that might be close.
With the present makeup of the court, is there a possible solution?
Lawyer to SCOTUS: There are oligarchs who gave a zillion to a PAC for John Doe for president...he won. President Doe made it possible for Said oligarchs to purchase three national parks.
Scalia, Thomas, et. al: We see nothing wrong with that. Free speech. Case closed.
With the present makeup of the court, is there a possible solution?
Lawyer to SCOTUS: There are oligarchs who gave a zillion to a PAC for John Doe for president...he won. President Doe made it possible for Said oligarchs to purchase three national parks.
Scalia, Thomas, et. al: We see nothing wrong with that. Free speech. Case closed.
1
"Presidential Foundations or Pre$idential FUndations" is a blog post at www.libertytakeseffort.com that links the specific Clinton Cash issue to a broader concern about the commercialization and selling of the Office of the President.http://www.libertytakeseffort.com
The Clintons and Bushes, historically entrenched in a system run by moneyed elites, are unlikely to confront it. NoBushClinton2016 is a rallying cry for action to end the Bush and Clinton dynasties and take a new direction in national leadership. The campaign began with the recent NoBushClinton2016 post on the http://www.libertytakeseffort.com blog. It has expanded to include the sale of stickers at http://www.nobushclinton2016.com
The Clintons and Bushes, historically entrenched in a system run by moneyed elites, are unlikely to confront it. NoBushClinton2016 is a rallying cry for action to end the Bush and Clinton dynasties and take a new direction in national leadership. The campaign began with the recent NoBushClinton2016 post on the http://www.libertytakeseffort.com blog. It has expanded to include the sale of stickers at http://www.nobushclinton2016.com
We are certainly no longer a democracy, unless you define the "demos" part as pertaining to the Corporate People, not real human citizens. For entities that cannot vote, these Corporate People (who have international biases) certainly have THE voice in swaying the vote. Is there something wrong here?
1
I weep for democracy in America.
41
Citizens United is illegal...an Illegal and unconstitution decision by the
US Supreme Court.
The individual is not a group....or conversely ...a group is not an individual.
So...dear Citizen ...of the USA ...your vote does not matter at all...you are
being programed to vote...and in my view...that is what we fought a cold
war about with the USSR...that fellow comrades is what the Citizens United
is today....legal Communism...so how about this as an argument about
revoking Citizens United...because...otherwise the 2016 POTUS campaigns
are stacked against...every single qualified United States of American
voter...
What is your opinion...about having your right to vote ...stripped from you..
Well editors..just think...your vote won't count either..do you really feel
good about this..huh !!!
US Supreme Court.
The individual is not a group....or conversely ...a group is not an individual.
So...dear Citizen ...of the USA ...your vote does not matter at all...you are
being programed to vote...and in my view...that is what we fought a cold
war about with the USSR...that fellow comrades is what the Citizens United
is today....legal Communism...so how about this as an argument about
revoking Citizens United...because...otherwise the 2016 POTUS campaigns
are stacked against...every single qualified United States of American
voter...
What is your opinion...about having your right to vote ...stripped from you..
Well editors..just think...your vote won't count either..do you really feel
good about this..huh !!!
2
The Supreme Court has made a mockery of democracy in the country. Only in some altered reality can money be seen as the same of free speech. It is more like the old property qualifications that were required before one was allowed vote. Influence peddling is now the standard operating procedure. Democracy in the country was already under siege in the old system. Now it is flagrant running after the billionaires like Adelson by politicians. Who if he got his way would like to see Benjamin Netanyahu as the next President.
13
So the NYT is allowed to use its power as a corporation to voice its opinion on issues, as it does regularly on the editorial pages, but I lack that same power apparently, in your world. I apparently can't buy space in the NYT to voice my opinion.
What gives the corporations such as the NYT powers that I don't have or that a group of me and my friends don't have?
What gives the corporations such as the NYT powers that I don't have or that a group of me and my friends don't have?
It is worth $2700 to many con artists to have photographs of themselves with famous and powerful public figures to hang on their office walls to show how well connected they are.
2
i do it free with photo shop
Super PACs are replacing our political parties--the ones who did the local get-out-to-vote campaigns and the local ralleys and requests for local donations. Realistically, one billionaire can control a congressional campaign. Several can control a presidential campaign. Once a candidate accepts such money, he/she becomes the mouthpiece of the investor. And that is what elections have become--an investment by those who can. So if political candidates are for sale, where does that leave the rest of us?
56
Given the lucrative favors that politicians can bestow, I would argue that there is still a market failure in our election system - the high returns from backing successful candidates mean that those candidates should be able to demand even higher prices from their supporters.
What contempt for democracy! But who will hear my voice?
15
There is one letter missing in the headline of this editorial. "I". Instead of "run", the word should have been "ruin".
37
Sure seems like a clear case of voter fraud. Funny how the republicans went after non existent voter problems by insisting on everyone show ID to vote, but then chooses to ignore the greatest threat of all to fair elections. Dark money is criminal money, no other way around it.
16
Does this criticism also apply to Democrats who receive mega donations from the likes of Steyer, Soros, etc.?
We all know that the only election fraud, in recent history, was the Republican tomfoolery in Florida in 1999-2000. And, we have paid the piper, big time. Democrats--get out the vote. DNC--clean up your act, and reclaim some personal pride.
JFK won the presidential election on nonexistent Chicago voters thanks to the mayor. What else is new?
It seems that, not only do the ultra openly own US politicians, they can now put them on a leash.
5
First we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, which demonstrated that we had forgotten the mistake that was Vietnam.
Second, we discarded the lessons of the mid-70s Church Committee and allowed the nation's national security apparatus to again run roughshod over the civil liberties and privacy of American citizens who are not even suspected of having done anything wrong in the continuing overreaction to 9/11.
This all comes against a backdrop of 35 years of economic policy that has created a new Gilded Age and completely forgotten the postwar distribution of income that created the greatest broadly shared prosperity the nation has ever known -- the lessons of the Great Depression.
Now we have returned the flow of secret money to politics and have forgotten the lessons of Watergate and the corrupt Nixon administration.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Harry Truman was right: there is little in human affairs that is new except the history you do not know.
Second, we discarded the lessons of the mid-70s Church Committee and allowed the nation's national security apparatus to again run roughshod over the civil liberties and privacy of American citizens who are not even suspected of having done anything wrong in the continuing overreaction to 9/11.
This all comes against a backdrop of 35 years of economic policy that has created a new Gilded Age and completely forgotten the postwar distribution of income that created the greatest broadly shared prosperity the nation has ever known -- the lessons of the Great Depression.
Now we have returned the flow of secret money to politics and have forgotten the lessons of Watergate and the corrupt Nixon administration.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Harry Truman was right: there is little in human affairs that is new except the history you do not know.
111
What a hypocritical way to run elections in a plutocracy, er, democracy. The Supreme Court, having its members being named by the president, and not by voting them in democratically, has turned things upside-down with their ill-advised 'Citizens United' decision to allow money to corrupt the system. Add to that the awfully long campaign, and the less than stellar control and denunciation of disinformation by the News Media, and chaos can be expected as a matter of course. Pity the citizenry, they are still trying to make a living, liable to disengage before the real show starts...and ends.
1
"that distinction has just about vanished..." As if there ever was any distinction in the first place. Just as the involvement of churches in the election process despite laws to the contrary has been a fact for decades now, so too is the practical control of politicians by wealthy donors. The only change is that it is now clearly visible and the plutocrats are openly running the campaigns of their chosen puppets. Is this a great country or what?
1
Super Pacs are designed to influence the Sheep. Real Americans make up their own minds. If the purported values is not in line with the voters values, then the vote goes elsewhere.
I understand what the author is implying -- bait and switch. Campaigns can be directed towards majority values in each state, but that's where good reporting by the press comes into play. If they are successful in bait and switch, we should blame the press that ignores what they hear and see.
The fact that super pac influence exists is an advantage to known candidates like Clinton and Bush. We tend to feel we know their vallues before this sliding of hands trick by the spuer pacs got their feet wet.
I understand what the author is implying -- bait and switch. Campaigns can be directed towards majority values in each state, but that's where good reporting by the press comes into play. If they are successful in bait and switch, we should blame the press that ignores what they hear and see.
The fact that super pac influence exists is an advantage to known candidates like Clinton and Bush. We tend to feel we know their vallues before this sliding of hands trick by the spuer pacs got their feet wet.
1
If the Democratic candidates--congressional, Presidential, and state legislators denounced PACs, pointedly and publicly asking their own PACs to spend money on voter-registration, and a Constitutional amendment to overturn CU, we might be able to get somewhere. But they won't.
Obama had a wonderful opportunity to accept only public funding and private donations under $2500. Had he done so, his grass-roots donations would have soared (in my opinion). And his vaunted ground game would have attracted more volunteers.
Until someone (even a Republican) displays a gutsy vision on getting money out of politics, "they are all the same, so why bother voting" will be the operative meme.
Obama had a wonderful opportunity to accept only public funding and private donations under $2500. Had he done so, his grass-roots donations would have soared (in my opinion). And his vaunted ground game would have attracted more volunteers.
Until someone (even a Republican) displays a gutsy vision on getting money out of politics, "they are all the same, so why bother voting" will be the operative meme.
1
You don't think Obama won on Super Pac money? The social network fun raising was a complete fraud and you should know that.
With campaign financing now the playing field of the 1%, thanks to the Supreme Court, and a significant percentage of Americans poorly informed about what is actually happening in America and the world, the 2016 Presidential campaign is going to be one giant experiment.
It could easily determine the fate of our democracy.
Can democracy survive in a nation where a small group of people possess most of the wealth and the concomitant power to influence the politicians they choose to elect to run the government?
Can democracy survive in a nation where giant multi-national corporations and the military-industrial complex have more power to determine the future of the United States than the rest of its citizens combined?
Can democracy survive in a nation where the majority of its national leaders don't even have to pretend to be serving the interests of their ordinary constituents --except in campaign rhetoric?
I fear America has begun a downward spiral of endless war, burgeoning political corruption and a rending of the social fabric that is taking on the quality of an unstoppable juggernaut.
Our grandchildren will live in the ashes of what was once a country of the people, by the people and for the people.
I wonder how they will view our generation.
It could easily determine the fate of our democracy.
Can democracy survive in a nation where a small group of people possess most of the wealth and the concomitant power to influence the politicians they choose to elect to run the government?
Can democracy survive in a nation where giant multi-national corporations and the military-industrial complex have more power to determine the future of the United States than the rest of its citizens combined?
Can democracy survive in a nation where the majority of its national leaders don't even have to pretend to be serving the interests of their ordinary constituents --except in campaign rhetoric?
I fear America has begun a downward spiral of endless war, burgeoning political corruption and a rending of the social fabric that is taking on the quality of an unstoppable juggernaut.
Our grandchildren will live in the ashes of what was once a country of the people, by the people and for the people.
I wonder how they will view our generation.
5
Samsara - we are beyond that now. we are no longer a democracy and the corporations and people who own us and not going to just give up their ownership and obscene amounts of money
We must not tolerate such a blatant violation of the law. I cannot even believe that we, as a society, are willing to look the other way. Are we so dumbstruck because we feel helpless to combat the moneyed interests?
To quote many a conservative regarding, say, immigration policy, gun laws, and so on: "We don't need to pass a law. Just enforce the laws that are already on the books."
To quote many a conservative regarding, say, immigration policy, gun laws, and so on: "We don't need to pass a law. Just enforce the laws that are already on the books."
1
The amount of money that will be raised for the upcoming election makes me dread the 2016 campaign. We will be bombarded by a continual barrage of misleading, uninformative, and often untrue TV and radio ads that have little or nothing to do with the real issues that face our country. To paraphrase the famous McCullough vs. Maryland case in which the Supreme Court stated that "the power to tax is the power to destroy" we now have "the power to raise money for political campaigns is the power to destroy."
3
Subverting our elections is subverting our democracy. It should be enforced and punished for what it is - treason.
4
Yesterday, I heard the author of Clinton Cash talk about a "pattern" of behavior that "suggests" some kind of misbehavior, maybe even criminal acts, by the Clinton family and the donors to the Foundation.
Writing that book and pushing out "leads" to journalists was brilliant. It fed into a narrative that has been carefully constructed over years by political operatives funded in part by dark money. It's as impossible to answer the innuendo as it is to respond to the question: When did you stop beating your wife? I wonder who funded the project.
The same Republicans who are contributing to or running super PACs are OUTRAGED. Mitt Romney reportedly said he thought the donations looked like "bribery." But, contributions to political candidates should not be construed as buying influence.
There is also a systematic effort to make people suspicious of government, which benefits those "small government" Republicans and arguably hurts the American people. Who is funding that campaign, which has been active since Barry Goldwater ran for president? Back then the John Birch Society was considered fringe; now a lot of their ideas are mainstream.
Writing that book and pushing out "leads" to journalists was brilliant. It fed into a narrative that has been carefully constructed over years by political operatives funded in part by dark money. It's as impossible to answer the innuendo as it is to respond to the question: When did you stop beating your wife? I wonder who funded the project.
The same Republicans who are contributing to or running super PACs are OUTRAGED. Mitt Romney reportedly said he thought the donations looked like "bribery." But, contributions to political candidates should not be construed as buying influence.
There is also a systematic effort to make people suspicious of government, which benefits those "small government" Republicans and arguably hurts the American people. Who is funding that campaign, which has been active since Barry Goldwater ran for president? Back then the John Birch Society was considered fringe; now a lot of their ideas are mainstream.
12
Well you lost me when you started building victim status for the Clinton's. But lets play out your conspiracy theory; Could it be that Hillary, the only Goldwater girl in this campaign, is in fact a deep cover mole for John Birch Society?
Your comment, Betsy, nailed the deeply tragic nature of the talking points debate between dark money funded GOP candidates and Hillary Clinton. Billions of conservative money is funneled, legally thanks to the Roberts court, which has the audacity to smear the Clinton Foundation accusing it of quid pro quo. Every transaction the Clinton Foundation has made is open to the intense light of day and lawful scrutiny of the hidden dark money, Super Pac monied interests who have ties to ultra Conservative candidates. The ultimate irony is their attempt to smear the Hillary Clinton campaign through innuendo without any clear evidence of illegality, while simultaneously arranging similar quid pro quo agreements between government and Super Pac contributors. One only look no further than the collective action of the majority GOP to pass the Keystone Pipeline project to appease Koch Industries as the first priority of the majority party in 2015. How much more apparent is the link between money and politics than pushing for the Keystone Pipeline which, if GOP legislation had passed, would have allowed Koch Ind. to profit by roughly $100 billion as a result of their Tar Sands project. How much more apparent is the quid pro quo element of Florida Gov. Rick Scott's ban on the use of the phrase Climate Change by governmental officials, even while water is rising on sunny days, because scientists are liberals. The censorship of scientific facts in government is the real proof in the pudding.
As I read through the comments here, I see a lot of complaining that the SCOTUS did this and the Teaparty did that. In reality, we did this. We the people are responsible. While whiled away our time contemplating the lint in our navel being too busy or too lazy to understand what was happening our country has been taken over.
We have no one to blame but ourselves and the sooner we recognize this and take action, the sooner these egregious miscarriages of power will be righted.
This is our fault. Like children that have too much we didn't bother to see or understand as our country was sold out from underneath us. 349 million of us were just too busy to be bothered. You get the government you deserve was never truer than it is today.
Take a moment today and think about how many people bled and died for this "free" nation. Think about how they fought and died so we could have something better. And here because of our lazy inattention a few hundred years later we are well on our way to a plutocracy. Is that who we are as a people? We used to know how to fight.
We have no one to blame but ourselves and the sooner we recognize this and take action, the sooner these egregious miscarriages of power will be righted.
This is our fault. Like children that have too much we didn't bother to see or understand as our country was sold out from underneath us. 349 million of us were just too busy to be bothered. You get the government you deserve was never truer than it is today.
Take a moment today and think about how many people bled and died for this "free" nation. Think about how they fought and died so we could have something better. And here because of our lazy inattention a few hundred years later we are well on our way to a plutocracy. Is that who we are as a people? We used to know how to fight.
9
The people who post on stories like these are not the ones that need to be convinced to wake up and see what is being done to our country. We all know and you can tell by the responses. We need to wake up the other 63% so they vote every election, not just presidential.
1
How much money does it take to embellish the resumes of these well known lackluster candidates? Is there any scientific proof that endless repetition of profoundly misleading, and annoying, sound bites are critical to voters' choices? There are ample opportunities for the candidates to explain themselves via the newspaper, internet, and TV news media, where their credibility is (marginally) enhanced.
I think the primary purpose of the big bucks is to alter the public perception of the issues at stake. For example, work at convincing the public that burning carbon is good for America. Hopefully enough voters will buy that message (which can be presented in a much more sophisticated way than a "vote for Joe Doe" soundbite) to influence outcomes. The "carbon" candidate(s) will be easy to find.
The more sinister collaboration is not super PAC to candidate, but super PAC to super PAC. With all that money, and all that secrecy, manipulation of the public perception of the critical issues, and facts is the big bottom line payoff. From a super PAC viewpoint why even associate the candidates with the issues? The big money cooks the food and sets the table, the candidates show up for dinner.
I think the primary purpose of the big bucks is to alter the public perception of the issues at stake. For example, work at convincing the public that burning carbon is good for America. Hopefully enough voters will buy that message (which can be presented in a much more sophisticated way than a "vote for Joe Doe" soundbite) to influence outcomes. The "carbon" candidate(s) will be easy to find.
The more sinister collaboration is not super PAC to candidate, but super PAC to super PAC. With all that money, and all that secrecy, manipulation of the public perception of the critical issues, and facts is the big bottom line payoff. From a super PAC viewpoint why even associate the candidates with the issues? The big money cooks the food and sets the table, the candidates show up for dinner.
4
5 justices on the supreme court are totally controlled by corporations and all their decisions will be made on that basis, not on the constitution. Haven't they read the preamble that starts 'We the people' and then goes on to list things that corporations don't and can't do.
11
Of course they read the Preamble. They accordingly ruled that corporations are people. And not merely people like you and me, but people with superior rights due to their immortality and superior wealth. The five Republican justices were appointed specifically to uphold and advance Republican ideology about the superior rights of corporations and wealthy donors, and they're doing their job well.
Seem you arrows are misdirected. The S Court gets to interpret the laws as written by Congress. Do you get my meaning?
Jeb Bush will falter despite his super pac windfall. Why? He has no real accomplishments and thinks he is entitled, as a Bush, to inherent the presidency. It takes nerve to run for president when you are a previous governor who took a seven year vacation essentially doing nothing civic minded and then suddenly think that you deserve to be president. No thanks.
6
Once again the NYT Editorial Board attacks the Court for the failure of the legislative branch. It is shameful that a prominent member of the press would express strong desire for the government to limit speech anyway anyhow. Citizens United did not start anything. It stopped a law that briefly limited contributions by corporations.
If you want to change the situation then amend the statute to a Constitutionally acceptable form or amend the Constitution. Now that the Democrats no longer control Congress you would expect the NYT to be more honest in its assessments of required legislative action.
If you want to change the situation then amend the statute to a Constitutionally acceptable form or amend the Constitution. Now that the Democrats no longer control Congress you would expect the NYT to be more honest in its assessments of required legislative action.
3
I would like to see all political donations by corporations banned. Let shareholdesrs spend dividend money lobbying as ordinary people.
26
If you read these comments you will see that other American don't agree with you…because once these people who are paid for are elected they don't make changes for the better for the people, they make changes to make it better for themselves to even bring up any bills.
I also have a problem with donations from individuals wealthy enough to purchase special attention from politicians eager to sell access and influence.
Shame on the Roberts'Court. "One man, one vote" is displaced by unlimited, blind money choosing our elected officials. The future of The Republic is at great peril at the hands of this tyranny. My mind recalls the words "When in the course of human events...".
8
Do you really think Robert's cares?
The SCOTUS is not responsible for bad legislation. They only determine if good, or bad, laws are legal.
The problem in the US is not only the super Pacs with their dark money now even running campaigns trying to buy themselves a member of Congress and a president as well.
Compared to other nations with a parliamentary election - where the PM or Chancellor is selected by the party ahead of the election - we actually do not have a direct vote for president either, thanks to the antiquated Electoral College with its Winner Takes All system. A Democrat in deep red Alabama, or a Republican in deep blue California, might as well leave the the little box for president open. His/her vote won't count.
In addition, no other advanced country in the world starts its election cycle with non-stop press coverage of all the announcement speeches of those running for the highest office in the land almost two years before the election - which are publically financed - takes place.
For heaven's sake, the current campaign for Prime Minister in the UK started in March, with the election already being in May, and public airwaves have to give equal time to all sides of the political spectrum.
The US is the oldest democracy in modern times since Athens, but it is now also the most undemocratic one. Corporations are people, money is speech, and equality and human right such as healthcare are decided based on religious dogma, e.g. Hobby Lobby. What a concept....., one that is neither free nor brave.
Compared to other nations with a parliamentary election - where the PM or Chancellor is selected by the party ahead of the election - we actually do not have a direct vote for president either, thanks to the antiquated Electoral College with its Winner Takes All system. A Democrat in deep red Alabama, or a Republican in deep blue California, might as well leave the the little box for president open. His/her vote won't count.
In addition, no other advanced country in the world starts its election cycle with non-stop press coverage of all the announcement speeches of those running for the highest office in the land almost two years before the election - which are publically financed - takes place.
For heaven's sake, the current campaign for Prime Minister in the UK started in March, with the election already being in May, and public airwaves have to give equal time to all sides of the political spectrum.
The US is the oldest democracy in modern times since Athens, but it is now also the most undemocratic one. Corporations are people, money is speech, and equality and human right such as healthcare are decided based on religious dogma, e.g. Hobby Lobby. What a concept....., one that is neither free nor brave.
88
Sadly true, $ has ruined our democratic republic. Corporations are not people, and Citizens United must be undone. Oil, insurance, and pharma lobbiest are running the agenda and the majority of our citizens are discounted and powerless.
1
The ethical obligation of a lawyer and a judge is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Super Pac's go well beyond the appearance of impropriety. Particularly when both our judicial merit selection nomination process and our judicial election process are so politically partisan.
1
Can American Democracy Survive the Roberts Court? It is not a sure thing. Four recent decisions of the five conservative justices have the potential to make our cities dangerously gun-infested (Heller), to put public office up for sale (Citizens United), to deprive many citizens of their right to vote (Shelby County), and to accord a competitive advantage to businesses owned by religiously-devout persons over businesses not so owned (Hobby Lobby).
For details see: TheRobertsCourtvUSdemocracy.blogspot.com
For details see: TheRobertsCourtvUSdemocracy.blogspot.com
2
Sickening, which is why this country must have a democratic president to halt the appointing of these right wing conservative "justices". They rule on ideology, not the law.
Why do you refer us to a blog? A blog is not the place for accuracy or facts. It is simply an opinion, or several opinions.
Discussing politics over breakfast one morning, my uncle said to me "Our generation screwed this country up. Now your generation has to fix it." Initially I loved the idea. Here is an opportunity to correct what is clearly unjust and corrupt. But the seemingly never-ending tides of open corruption, bigotry, hypocrisy, and general lack of foresight and intelligence on display by our members (both sides of the aisle) of government at all levels is nauseating.
1
By far the most insidious and detrimental manipulation of political campaigns is the unlimited power of "press" to define, limit and overwhelm the political conversation.
The power of money (PAC's) pales in comparison with the tyranny of the press. Time and time again, it is the press that ignores virtually every critical political issue in favor of personality quirks, scandal, long-forgotten peccadilloes and the promotion of the point of view of the owners/managers of media.
Candidates need some defense against the unfettered assault of opinion media!
The power of money (PAC's) pales in comparison with the tyranny of the press. Time and time again, it is the press that ignores virtually every critical political issue in favor of personality quirks, scandal, long-forgotten peccadilloes and the promotion of the point of view of the owners/managers of media.
Candidates need some defense against the unfettered assault of opinion media!
2
We need some true gutsy journalists, in the mold of Walter Cronkite and Tim Russett, who would not accept "talking points" and question beyond the superficial. Today we have panderers (Chuck Todd, etc.) who are more egocentric than news centric. How about some policy questions about jobs and economics and peace options? Too much religiosity, fear tactics, and negativity allowed to be spewed. I know the First Amendment Allows, but journalists don't need to cover and demand credible issues answers. What is your specific plan to solve.......? No more should it be ok for "I'm not a scientist," etc. These clowns think their ideological opinions are facts and need to be challenged!
"Three-card Monte is an example of a classic "short con"[2] in which a shill pretends to conspire with the mark to cheat the dealer, while in fact conspiring with the dealer to cheat the mark.
This confidence trick was already in use by the turn of the 15th century."
Yes, this whole "super pac" game is "Three card Monte" Go to you tube to see how this works. I suspect that really tight observation of "super pacs" will result in the same outcome as cops breaking up a game. Depends on how many suckers you can line up
This confidence trick was already in use by the turn of the 15th century."
Yes, this whole "super pac" game is "Three card Monte" Go to you tube to see how this works. I suspect that really tight observation of "super pacs" will result in the same outcome as cops breaking up a game. Depends on how many suckers you can line up
The non-coordination rule should be extended from the expenditure of money by a super-PAC to the raising of money by a super-PAC. Most attacks on super-PACs fail to propose a solution that would withstand constitutional scrutiny, but I don't think there is a legal impediment to banning Bush from raising money for a super-PAC and subsequently benefiting from that super-PACs spending.
Why is it that the Times Editorial Board never mentions the corrupting effect of political contributions from labor unions? The Teachers Unions donate hundreds of millions of dollars to democratic candidates every year. The same for SEIU. Those candidates openly coordinate their efforts with those same union leaders. The mayor of New York could not have been elected without money from organized labor. If we really want to get money out of politics, big labor is part of the problem.
2
Unions contribute a FRACTION of these corporate entities. There is no parody. Sick and tired of false equivalencies. And the GOP Governors are doing their best to end unions, as well as free voting.
I believe we need a constitutional amendment to change the pernicious culture of money in politics. Without that, things will get worse and worse and we'll see the demise of an originally great experiment in governance.
Any historian will tell you that great empires fell when corruption reached critical mass. Cynical leaders, disgusted and apathetic citizens, and the end of the social contract between those at the top and those at the bottom are hallmarks of a nation in decline.
The old cliché, money is the root of all evil, is the only way I can describe our current political process. There is no such thing as a "donation" to a superPAC: it comes with strings attached of supreme strength. This week we've been treated to a line of stories about candidates prostituting themselves before the money kings of this country in Las Vegas and Kansas.
I have very little understanding of the platform, beliefs, or rationale for running of the undeclared candidate Jeb Bush. But I sure know more than I care to about the millions, probably billions, he's amassing for his "war chest" if he runs (who doubts that).
We don't have discussions of the issues. We have discussions of who is funding whom and how much is being spent.
Is this what Americans want? Bring on that amendment to rid money from politics.
Any historian will tell you that great empires fell when corruption reached critical mass. Cynical leaders, disgusted and apathetic citizens, and the end of the social contract between those at the top and those at the bottom are hallmarks of a nation in decline.
The old cliché, money is the root of all evil, is the only way I can describe our current political process. There is no such thing as a "donation" to a superPAC: it comes with strings attached of supreme strength. This week we've been treated to a line of stories about candidates prostituting themselves before the money kings of this country in Las Vegas and Kansas.
I have very little understanding of the platform, beliefs, or rationale for running of the undeclared candidate Jeb Bush. But I sure know more than I care to about the millions, probably billions, he's amassing for his "war chest" if he runs (who doubts that).
We don't have discussions of the issues. We have discussions of who is funding whom and how much is being spent.
Is this what Americans want? Bring on that amendment to rid money from politics.
98
I totally agree, though it will be an uphill battle with the GOP control over so many states. We are Americans before dems or repubs, and the majority of our citizens are powerless and need to be represented in our government. How many airplanes, homes and jewelry does any CEO or corporation need when the US has starving and uneducated children? Yet the former get all the consideration and tax breaks. I am ashamed of our government and sad it has come to that.
I agree. But we are stuck with the current Congress, White House, Judiciary and state governments that specialize in not doing anything to govern and manage the affairs of the United States of America. Who knows what mischief and mayhem these Confederate Tea Party Aryan Brotherhood Evangelical Republicans could stir up if there was talk of amending the Constitution?
I like the idea of such an amendment but, since an amendment requires the approval of the state legislatures, run by politicians, such an amendment would fare no better than a snowball in Hades.
Such a travesty and mockery of one man one vote.
1
Operatives close to the candidates are, in effect, running extensions of the campaigns.
Does this include Bill Clinton and his machine?
Does this include Bill Clinton and his machine?
5
Now is the time to get rid of the campaign finance laws.
As you have correctly shown, they have made everything worse, not better. Further "reforms" would probably only exacerbate the situation.
Allowing unlimited contributions to campaigns from wealthy individuals with full disclosure would fix the problem. There are plenty of billionaires on both sides who are eager to give, so let them do it. With modern technology, anyone who is interested can go on the web and read a full list of donors and how much they gave.
As you have correctly shown, they have made everything worse, not better. Further "reforms" would probably only exacerbate the situation.
Allowing unlimited contributions to campaigns from wealthy individuals with full disclosure would fix the problem. There are plenty of billionaires on both sides who are eager to give, so let them do it. With modern technology, anyone who is interested can go on the web and read a full list of donors and how much they gave.
3
The problem isn't just knowing. It is buying.
Candidates are for sale. Without that money, they can't run. To get that money, they do what they must and promise what they must.
It is an auction of our government. It isn't enough just to know who bid and whose bid was highest.
Candidates are for sale. Without that money, they can't run. To get that money, they do what they must and promise what they must.
It is an auction of our government. It isn't enough just to know who bid and whose bid was highest.
14
The result of that will be a system in which knowing more than a few billionaires will be a prerequisite for running for any office. Is that really going to strengthen representative democracy?
To me, that seems to be admitting defeat before even trying reform and the repeal, by constitutional amendment if necessary, bad Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United.
If things are that bad, we might as well drop the pretense of elections and move to an auction system.
To me, that seems to be admitting defeat before even trying reform and the repeal, by constitutional amendment if necessary, bad Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United.
If things are that bad, we might as well drop the pretense of elections and move to an auction system.
1
The problem is that the same people who are breaking down campaign finance laws are also working to limit disclosure rules. So really we are going to end up with the worst of both worlds.
If Congress mandated that all donations were posted into a fully searchable online database in real time, sure. I'd support that. The technology is there to do it and easily available. Nonetheless, we all know that's not going to happen.
If Congress mandated that all donations were posted into a fully searchable online database in real time, sure. I'd support that. The technology is there to do it and easily available. Nonetheless, we all know that's not going to happen.
1
Money rules campaigns
Ignoring We The People
SCOTUS is to blame
Ignoring We The People
SCOTUS is to blame
16
Here's the mnenomic I use to recall the names of the supreme court justices who foisted citizens united/corporations are people on America: KRATS.
I believe most Americans would find the current process of campaign finance unacceptable if they understood what is going on. Given the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United, there does not seem to be much that can be done unless there is a huge turnover in congress. So the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and others will own our government. Maybe we should grant them naming rights. We could have the Koch Brothers House of Representatives, or the Adelson/Israeli Senate.
78
The Justice Dept could do a wave of indictments to enforce existing law.
Win or lose, that would change the present pattern of just ignoring laws.
It could be the first step to better laws, by making the subject real for politicians and the public.
Win or lose, that would change the present pattern of just ignoring laws.
It could be the first step to better laws, by making the subject real for politicians and the public.
3
The understanding is the tough part, since so many voters only read headlines, or listen to 30 minutes of network news everyday. Ask them relevant questions, on the street, and most can't answer. We allow these folks to vote!
Was Citizens United a terrible decision? I would believe a majority of NY Times readers would agree that it was. However, the CU decision, bad as it was, had nothing to do with soft money entering the political arena; if I recall correctly, the 2000 Bush "smear" campaign against Senator McCain, and the 2004, "Swift Boat" attack ads against Senator Kerry both predate the CU decision.
The major problem with CU, was declaring that corporations were people, which gave rise to the disastrous, and IMO unconstitutional "Hobby Lobby" decision.
The major problem with CU, was declaring that corporations were people, which gave rise to the disastrous, and IMO unconstitutional "Hobby Lobby" decision.
34
The CU decision should be regarded as consciously recognizing the status quo for what it is: an oligarchy. Everything around you is made by corporations. We could not function without them, much as the Eloi could not function without the Morlochs. And like the Morlochs, corporations could not function without cannibalizing us.
2
Your comment, though accurate, is a matter of semantics. The Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court in January, 2010, was made by five highly partisan Republican justices. It led to the complete destruction of the American democracy.
During the 2012 Presidential campaign Stephen Colbert in character on "The Colbert Report" with his attorney exposed the inherent corrupt crony criminal nature of super PACs as a triumph of form over substance. Allowing the American corporate plutocrat oligarchs, who are not people, to pay lobbyists to use lawyers to buy legislators to allow them to act like barbarians pillaging America and corrupting the American political system by "speaking" with their money.
Colbert created his own Super-Pac with the assistance of expert counsel. It was clear powerful insightful and tragic.
Congress and the Supreme Court are both "Dens of Thieves" full of money changing corporate plutocrat oligarchs.
Colbert created his own Super-Pac with the assistance of expert counsel. It was clear powerful insightful and tragic.
Congress and the Supreme Court are both "Dens of Thieves" full of money changing corporate plutocrat oligarchs.
58
As long as you say "Congress" and "the Supreme Court" are dens of thieves, you contribute to obscuring the source of the problem, I.e. rich Republicans.
Yes, Democrats are forced into this money game rather than cede elections, but it was Republicans on the Supreme Court who gave us Citizens United over the objections of Justices appointed by Democratic Presidents, and Republicans in Congress who obstructed Democrats who introduced repeated legislation to overturn it, as you can't see quite dramatically by reported votes on Thomas.gov
Meantime, the original Citizens United case itself was about Republican money directed against Hillary Clinton.
Yes, Democrats are forced into this money game rather than cede elections, but it was Republicans on the Supreme Court who gave us Citizens United over the objections of Justices appointed by Democratic Presidents, and Republicans in Congress who obstructed Democrats who introduced repeated legislation to overturn it, as you can't see quite dramatically by reported votes on Thomas.gov
Meantime, the original Citizens United case itself was about Republican money directed against Hillary Clinton.
29
There must be a fundamental change in how campaigns are financed. It is not lost on the voters, with many politicians being Lawyers, any law that is written on campaign finance has language that can be left for "interpretation". It is not only true of national elections. With the recent hack of emails from SONY, it came to light that New York Governor Cuomo's campaign office coordinated the amount and timing of "legal" donations to his re-election. Unless there is a transparent and true monitoring of every penny involved in a campaign, "from cradle to grave", we are going to have this "secret " stash of cash and "secret" faces behind those donations. It is no wonder that voter turnout is so low in elections.
67
Americans need to understand that it is legal for political TV ads to lie and mislead. Since we can't seem to get the money out of our never ending campaign process let's hope Americans will not believe the lies thrown at them for the next year and a half. I consider the pro-fracking ads to be their own sort of political ads (California, with its water shortage, needs to stop fracking there). And those ads are continual money for TV networks. Don't expect the TV networks that profit from these ads to support any anti-fracking, non corporate-money-taking candidate like Senator Sanders. I think he should run for president on his very good ideas and make a big deal about the fact that he does not take and never has taken money from corporations. And DRASTIC campaign finance is needed because 25% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth...so you can tell them anything and they'll believe it. Or maybe we can bring back truth in advertising.
9
I'm disappointed in the NYT for this editorial.
NYT talks about super PACs and which candidates are using them and how they skirt the law, what there is of it.
With NYT's investigative journalists, we need to know what businesses the contributors are in and what they are likely to expect for their money.
Sometimes when the facts are put before the public they drop their complacency.
American.
NYT talks about super PACs and which candidates are using them and how they skirt the law, what there is of it.
With NYT's investigative journalists, we need to know what businesses the contributors are in and what they are likely to expect for their money.
Sometimes when the facts are put before the public they drop their complacency.
American.
9
micki, you might not realize that one of the most pernicious aspects of Citizens United is that it allows all of this unlimited political contribution to be done in such secrecy that even investigative journalists may not discover its origins or full extent. That, along with the lack of reasonable limits like $2,700 per person, is what makes this situation so inimitable to a meaningful democracy.
Except the prohibition on coordination between candidates' organizations and super PACs isn't "fast becoming a fiction"; for all intents and purposes, it already is. That this is allowed to happen is a scandal in plain view. On campaign finance more generally, the fact that there are people (like the WSJ's editorial board) who truly think this is the best, fairest, and most democratic method of doing business is shocking. Suppose there is some kind of right-seeming theoretical justification for allowing the wealthiest to spend freely. Doesn't reality militate against theory when the effects are so disturbing?
We have to find some way of enabling our representatives to actually represent us, rather than "special interests," big companies, and the superrich. And this way we have of financing campaigns is completely antithetical to that goal. Would reform solve all our problems? No, but at least it would stop actively contributing to them.
Campaigns should be about ideas, about identifying the best person to lead America, not about raising cruise liners full of dough from God knows where. This cornucopia of cash makes what was already a difficult objective all but unattainable. (And it's likely true that much of the intellectual rigidity in the GOP would slacken if it weren't for the fact that it is dependent on providers whose interest is to sustain, even amplify, that rigidity.)
Democracies don't put their politicians on the auction block.
We have to find some way of enabling our representatives to actually represent us, rather than "special interests," big companies, and the superrich. And this way we have of financing campaigns is completely antithetical to that goal. Would reform solve all our problems? No, but at least it would stop actively contributing to them.
Campaigns should be about ideas, about identifying the best person to lead America, not about raising cruise liners full of dough from God knows where. This cornucopia of cash makes what was already a difficult objective all but unattainable. (And it's likely true that much of the intellectual rigidity in the GOP would slacken if it weren't for the fact that it is dependent on providers whose interest is to sustain, even amplify, that rigidity.)
Democracies don't put their politicians on the auction block.
8
The immediate problem is Citizens United, not the FEC or the super PACs, both of which must deal with the law of the land. To show a prohibited level of coordination between a PAC and a candidate is impossible unless someone finds a smoking gun in the form of a memo or email. The overarching inference is that the PAC coordinates with the candidate, such as by timing media purchases with primaries or caucuses and so on, but, standing alone, such an inference proves too much because it would prohibit all PACs, which can't be done under Citizens United.
Short of a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision limiting or overruling Citizens United, the only remedy is for the voters to exercise discernment. After all, how many of us buy a car--or, more fittingly, don't buy a competing manufacturer's car--on the strength of an ad campaign? How many of us would overcome our fear of food poisoning and rush to the store to buy Blue Bell ice cream after the recall, even with $1-off coupons popping up in our mailbox? For now, we need to pick politicians with the same care that we pick cars and ice cream. That doesn't seem too much to ask, does it?
Short of a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision limiting or overruling Citizens United, the only remedy is for the voters to exercise discernment. After all, how many of us buy a car--or, more fittingly, don't buy a competing manufacturer's car--on the strength of an ad campaign? How many of us would overcome our fear of food poisoning and rush to the store to buy Blue Bell ice cream after the recall, even with $1-off coupons popping up in our mailbox? For now, we need to pick politicians with the same care that we pick cars and ice cream. That doesn't seem too much to ask, does it?
8
the five justices have the same ethics as Francis Underwood in House Of Cards, a cynical vision of Washington DC. I wish I could say that they will regret their legacy, but the winner write history and voters continue to put the 1% in greater and greater power in a racist protest against our bi-racial president.
4
"This would essentially amount to making the super PAC the true campaign center, without money limits that would apply to traditional campaigns."
That is precisely the point, and thus let the prostitution of public office continue apace. While plutocracy fits, perhaps we need a new term for this evolving form of monied politics--a word that describes an à la carte approach where contributions equate to a level of influence. Contribute $2 million and earn a position in a governmental department of your choice. $250 million, ambassadorship. How about a Ledgocracy--government via spreadsheet or ledger where contributions equal influence? A ledgocracy could even eliminate the pesky task of staying informed and voting--the winner is simply the candidate with the largest balance!
That is precisely the point, and thus let the prostitution of public office continue apace. While plutocracy fits, perhaps we need a new term for this evolving form of monied politics--a word that describes an à la carte approach where contributions equate to a level of influence. Contribute $2 million and earn a position in a governmental department of your choice. $250 million, ambassadorship. How about a Ledgocracy--government via spreadsheet or ledger where contributions equal influence? A ledgocracy could even eliminate the pesky task of staying informed and voting--the winner is simply the candidate with the largest balance!
5
Maybe the Supreme Court justices should be required to be billionaires -- that would end the charade of who's in charge.
3
Aren't they? They give a ton of highly paid speeches to conservative think tanks who are the entities really running the world.
Scotus needs term and age limits, too as much as I admire Ruth Ginsburg. There a lot of our Constitution that needs to be revisited.
Referring to the court decisions which have led to the Super PACs taking over the presidential elections as "misguided", is one of the biggest under statements I've heard in a long time. The Supreme Court and its "PAC-MEN" have put American democracy on a fast track to oblivion.
24
Since their clear conflict of interests will prevent politicitians in our dysfunctional Congress from taking any steps to fix campaign finance problems that are destroying our form of democracy, we are left with no alternative but to have grass root, state level campaigns with referendums seeking a constitutional amendment to remove private money in any form from politics. Until that happens, this is just fodder for political pundits.
4
Democrats have tried to get legislation passed that will do what you ask, but have been blocked by Republicans. So an additional solution is to elect more Democrats.
5
The big money is moving into the local arena also. They want to own the country top to bottom.
2
True, but not the Schumer variety. I hope you in NY knock him out to the private trough. He is a disgrace to the word democrat. What we really need is true term limits, whether we like our own reps or not. This would make it more difficult for lobbyists to leech on. Also gerrymandering must be abolished. (There were more dem votes in some southern districts and repub won, tho it can work both ways).
"This is not a Democracy, it's an auction." (a bumper sticker)
87
I would like that bumper sticker.
Trying to get money out of politics is impossible. But what really offends democracy is the anonymity of the super PAC; Money goes in, money goes out, and nary a person's real name is ever attached.
I quite honestly don't care if lots of political money goes directly to candidates; if rich people want to squander their fortunes in this way, it's much worse than giving to charity, but it is their money after all.
What we should do is find a way to make these PACs more transparent. If you could go to each PAC's website and see the names of the individuals and corporations (and no "AnyCorp, LLC" please) who gave the money, I think that would help plenty.
I quite honestly don't care if lots of political money goes directly to candidates; if rich people want to squander their fortunes in this way, it's much worse than giving to charity, but it is their money after all.
What we should do is find a way to make these PACs more transparent. If you could go to each PAC's website and see the names of the individuals and corporations (and no "AnyCorp, LLC" please) who gave the money, I think that would help plenty.
8
Yes, that would help. In fact, Democrats in the US Senate introduced the Disclose Act to do exactly what you suggest, but it was blocked by the Republicans.
10
If we can ban cigarette advertising from television, we should be able to have some restriction on campaign advertising. Turn off the need for unlimited funds and you might just shrink the supply.
15
What campaign advertising? In NY there is no advertising on national campaigns because NY is not a swing state. Florida and Ohio get all the fun.
It's official: our political system has now run its course to full and outright corruption.
34
Welcome to the oligarchy. Elections long have been theater but now even the pretense to "government of the people, by the people, for the people" has evaporated. The most powerful wings of the American government are now extra-legal and extra-constitutional.
26
The US is rapidly sliding into a condition where an individual's net financial worth is the principle measure of everything.
34
That "misguided court decision" phrase glows on the page. It is supremely ironic that the SCOTUS specific decision to allow wider latitude in interpreting the First Amendment as it applies to campaign contributions is rapidly destroying American democracy as a whole.
24
Were the Republicans on the Supreme Court misguided, or crazy like a fox?
When is the Supreme Court, led by its doughty band of "originalists" going to decide that by "free speech" the framers of the Constitution clearly meant only the freedom to give as large campaign contributions as possible and what is traditionally meant by free speech is just some liberal claptrap?
5
I would add the Clinton Foundation to your list of Super Pacs.
4
Bill, if all Super Pacs had the same goals and successes as the Clinton Foundation, that would be wonderful.
"We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change." https://www.clintonfoundation.org/
"We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change." https://www.clintonfoundation.org/
3
That's actually a charity, not a political action committee. You may not like what they do as a charity, but supporting political candidates directly is not what they do; see for yourself: https://www.clintonfoundation.org
1
"Misguided court decisions" is an interesting way to put it. From whose perspective is the Supreme Court actually well-guided?
45
I would hope that the Supreme Court would make decisions supportive of the basic philosophy of American democracy, which relies on the one-person/one-vote principle.
Instead the Court, or the Republican appointees on the Court decided in the Citizens United case to shift our electoral system toward a one-dollar/one-vote contest. By claiming, in an outrageously misguided and undemocratic decision, that money donated to campaigns is "free speech" and needs to be protected, they have said, in effect, that the economic machinery underlying political campaigns will henceforth favor the rich and will disenfranchise those without access to "free speech," i.e. lots of cash.
I would say from any rational perspective that favors real democracy, the Court's Citizens United decision was misguided. Since the GOP leadership does not favor real democracy, this decision is, of course, considered by them to be perfectly well guided.
Instead the Court, or the Republican appointees on the Court decided in the Citizens United case to shift our electoral system toward a one-dollar/one-vote contest. By claiming, in an outrageously misguided and undemocratic decision, that money donated to campaigns is "free speech" and needs to be protected, they have said, in effect, that the economic machinery underlying political campaigns will henceforth favor the rich and will disenfranchise those without access to "free speech," i.e. lots of cash.
I would say from any rational perspective that favors real democracy, the Court's Citizens United decision was misguided. Since the GOP leadership does not favor real democracy, this decision is, of course, considered by them to be perfectly well guided.
2
' "Misguided court decisions" is an interesting way to put it. From whose perspective is the Supreme Court actually well-guided? '
Hmmm. What a stumper!
Hmmm. What a stumper!
All those millions of dollars raised could serve a constructive purpose if political advertising could be regulated like drug advertising. Drug advertisers must include all kinds of disclaimers so as not to mislead the consumer. Political advertising is basically without rules. The interest of the electorate in truth is at least as substantial as that of drug consumers, It has been assumed that political speech can only be minimally regulated. If the First Amendment would allow it, meaningful standards in political advertising would go a long way toward improving the quality of our elections.
4
Nice hit on Bush but no one cares. He's toast anyway. Now, let's look at HRC and her foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Where do you wonder the undisclosed contributions would wind up? No, she would never ever do something like that, right? Ah, wait a minute.... Maybe we should go back to debating global warming. Yes, that's it. Caution, the planet's getting hotter because of man-made gases.
1
We all love "our" super pac. The other guy's super pac should be illegal.
2
No, WE don't. You may, but many of us would prefer that no candidate, including our preferred one, have a super pac. No matter who it is, it's a distortion of the electoral system and a detriment to democracy.
1
I wonder if in a few hundred years' time historians will look at the democratic tendencies the young American nation adopted from its European roots as a historic aberration towards a capital-dominated political structure. For better or worse, decision by the dollar is the American way...
30
All Thurd Bush needs to win is massive amnesia to strike American voters.
They must forget his criminal corruption of the 2000 election, while Governor, where he disenfranchised tens of thousands of legitimate voters and corrupted the actual counting of ballots.
If Americans remember Abu Ghraib, enhanced interrogation (torture) extraordinary rendition ( kidnapping followed by torture) the entire criminal abomination known as The Charge of The Fools Brigade into Iraq, none of it could have happened without Thurd Bush's criminal enabling of family retainers on the Supremes appointing his supremely unqualified, dimwitted, brother as the worst President in US history.
They must forget his criminal corruption of the 2000 election, while Governor, where he disenfranchised tens of thousands of legitimate voters and corrupted the actual counting of ballots.
If Americans remember Abu Ghraib, enhanced interrogation (torture) extraordinary rendition ( kidnapping followed by torture) the entire criminal abomination known as The Charge of The Fools Brigade into Iraq, none of it could have happened without Thurd Bush's criminal enabling of family retainers on the Supremes appointing his supremely unqualified, dimwitted, brother as the worst President in US history.
124
The candidates are now making an open mockery of the law, but the Supreme Court's five-man majority has seen no need to reconsider its dubious rulings, or perhaps it simply does not care. It is quite likely that all five justices are rather well acquainted with wealthy people, significantly more so than the average citizen and infinitely more so than an American in the bottom-income quartile. These plutocrats are their friends and it is natural for friends to help friends without even thinking of the larger ramifications.
The Citizens United majority should be embarrassed by such machinations, particularly by the all-but-official Bush campaign. Yet as long as Bush is not caught on tape or in paper records accepting an explicit quid pro quo, well, all is fine. These people are simply good pals of Jeb (and Hillary, too, on the other side) who just want him to win; they certainly do not expect any special treatment, no matter that Jeb has likely been good to them in the past. Why would we ever think that?
The Super PAC *is* becoming the new campaign operation. And these are legal because the five-man majority finds it repugnant or un-American to think that we can limit the wealthy's ability to influence elections in any way, shape or form short of allowing corporations to directly contribute to the candidate's coffers. And that doesn't even mean much anymore since a corporation can simply "sponsor" a PAC or, much more ominously, sink enormous funds into 501(c)(4)s.
The Citizens United majority should be embarrassed by such machinations, particularly by the all-but-official Bush campaign. Yet as long as Bush is not caught on tape or in paper records accepting an explicit quid pro quo, well, all is fine. These people are simply good pals of Jeb (and Hillary, too, on the other side) who just want him to win; they certainly do not expect any special treatment, no matter that Jeb has likely been good to them in the past. Why would we ever think that?
The Super PAC *is* becoming the new campaign operation. And these are legal because the five-man majority finds it repugnant or un-American to think that we can limit the wealthy's ability to influence elections in any way, shape or form short of allowing corporations to directly contribute to the candidate's coffers. And that doesn't even mean much anymore since a corporation can simply "sponsor" a PAC or, much more ominously, sink enormous funds into 501(c)(4)s.
98
And google "The Carlyle Group".
1
Super money will be Jeb Bush's boss if he gets into office anyway. As you describe it super money is just starting a little earlier. Corporations like to start early, to anticipate rather than to react. I'm sure this all seems very sensible to the super PACs big money oligarchs.
3
Does it bother anyone that Jeb Bush has not declared his candidacy for president but is raising millions of dollars that does not have to be accounted for? I see the media only concentrating on Hillary Clinton and letting Republicans like Bush free to do anything they want.
147
Bill & Hill have done the same, e.g. to finance her pre-announcement astroturf groups. She expects a $2.5B war chest, a historic 1st by far.
Much of the media has had strong hand in distorting what's occurring. Why? We're back to the $$ issue again. Media outlets are controlled by an owners and it's commercial backers slant on how information should delivered to it's audience. There should be separation of church and state in media too ... but that rarely exists. Editorial content is often undermined by commercial interests. So they paint the picture as they like it. As an aside, attacking Hillary seems like a media habit, it's so overdone, it's downright silly and redundant ... boy who cried wolf, type of thing.
An intervention is in order. Candidates are addicted to campaign contributions, media companies and primary states are addicted to campaign spending and large donors are addicted to power and influence. The net of this is a long, economically inefficient campaign process that is fraught with the kind of inequality that should make a student of democracy shudder. We probably can't entirely eliminate the "money effect" but we can greatly reduce its size.
7
You can change your headline from "Super PACs" to "Money". Which is what campaigns have become - the buying of our elected officials, indirectly. And everyone knows it. Yet we permit it. Openly. "The enemy is us".
71
Super pacs should change their names to Corruption, Bribery, and Oligarchy buying clubs. Penn and Teller reveal the Seven Principles of magic:
Palm: To hold an object in an apparently empty hand.
Ditch: To secretly dispose of an unneeded object.
Steal: To secretly obtain a needed object.
Load: To secretly move a needed object to where it is hidden.
Simulation: To give the impression that something that hasn’t happened, has.
Misdirection: To lead attention away from a secret move.
Switch: To secretly exchange one object for another.
Palm: To hold an object in an apparently empty hand.
Ditch: To secretly dispose of an unneeded object.
Steal: To secretly obtain a needed object.
Load: To secretly move a needed object to where it is hidden.
Simulation: To give the impression that something that hasn’t happened, has.
Misdirection: To lead attention away from a secret move.
Switch: To secretly exchange one object for another.
1
For the first time in my voting life I to say why bother. Our country sold to the highest bidder.
23
That's precisely why you have to bother, shhhhh. They can only perpetrate these crimes if you don't fight for your rights.
One vote may not seem like much against billions of dollars, but you can volunteer some of your time, make phone calls to prospective voters, work on registering like minded voters, and participate in the system. You can pressure lawmakers to change voting laws. There are hundreds of things you can do.
Or, you can say, "shhhhh!" and not bother to do anything and let them win. Next time, they won't have to spend as much money or try as hard to win, because they will have already neutered all the voters and replaced them with sheep.
One vote may not seem like much against billions of dollars, but you can volunteer some of your time, make phone calls to prospective voters, work on registering like minded voters, and participate in the system. You can pressure lawmakers to change voting laws. There are hundreds of things you can do.
Or, you can say, "shhhhh!" and not bother to do anything and let them win. Next time, they won't have to spend as much money or try as hard to win, because they will have already neutered all the voters and replaced them with sheep.
36
Yes it has been sold. That said, your vote matters because of future Supreme Court nominations - so I will vote for the Democratic nominee even if it turns out to be the AIPAC, Wall Street, Saudi-aligned HRC.
4
Which robber baron are you going to work for? We need a good revolution!
1
So now after counting the 9 SCOTUS, our government is now being run by a dozen or so billionaires with a few hundred puppets (Congress) and a very expense arm candy (President). Was this what you had in mind, Tea Party? "Taking back your country" would have been a bit more guine with a disclaimer " to sell to the highest bidder". You succeeded in doing the opposite of the movement you so ignorantly named yourself after. Now we really have no representation which was actually the original Tea Party's.
51
Once again as a citizen (non $Billionaire) if the US I would like to thank the corrupt fossils on the SCOTUS who deliberately destroyed the American Democratic experiment. That will be the legacy of the Roberts Court, giving the country away completely to the wealthy and locking ordinary Americans out.
208
The Super PAC wags the campaign
Democracy pretense is frayin',
And lies in profusion
Spread utter confusion,
New lows we've begun to attain
Banana republic at last?
And we've done it all rather fast,
A much tainted SCOTUS
Has served to demote us,
Old Glory ought to hang half mast!
Democracy pretense is frayin',
And lies in profusion
Spread utter confusion,
New lows we've begun to attain
Banana republic at last?
And we've done it all rather fast,
A much tainted SCOTUS
Has served to demote us,
Old Glory ought to hang half mast!
111
It makes me want to cry.