We should not be so naive to believe that a Constitutional Amendment will solve the problem of money in the political arena. There will always be ways for the rich and the powerful to influence those that will represent their interests. In reality, I am not against the rich and the powerful. They are the ones who make the world go round, so to speak. The pyramid as a representative of society is more accurate historically than a flat line. Get used to it.
1
Under such dark money rules, it will hardly be any surprise to find Chinese, Russian, or foreign corporations attempting to influence American elections.
51
It is quite obvious that the Supreme Court has decided that they want to join the haves along with the Political Elite and get whatever they want without having to answer to the electorate that vote their appointers in. There is no way that this is sustainable. Elections should be funded by taxpayer dollars to keep on a level playing field. If we chose to go with public funding it must be limited. This country should not be for sale to the highest bidder. Just follow the Sheldon A. debacle that is unfolding.
23
Hillary collects more dark money than anyone. Obviously the editorial board is praising Donald Trump, who self funds and takes no evil dark money.
12
Everyone in the world except American Republicans knows that U.S. democracy has become a sham. Duh...anyone around in 2000 when the Supreme Court stopped citizen voting and appointed a President? And did it with votes cast by the appointee's Dad? And the commercialization of elections? Heck, forget about Citizen United, what other so-called democracy requires you to buy TV access to watch Prez candidate "debates" which are run like game shows with all the associated superficial musical, logo design, and off-stage announcer trappings? They remind me of the Howard Beale Show from the movie Network.
25
If people would go out and vote, not just in presidential elections, dark money would be less important. It would be possible to put in office officials who will nominate judges who do not lie in their confirmation hearings. They themselves can rollback the secrecy surrounding campaign contributions.
11
The study showing that almost all policies of the federal government are determined by the richest people on the planet and their global corporations, while the rest of us get glossy political advertising, was done before Citizens United even kicked in. We are near the end of a Global Corporate Coup. The U.S. is now being looted by the same global corporations that we helped loot the third world. We may deserve it, but it is not too late to reverse the history we created.
A Pew survey showed that 67% of us think that our representatives are illegitimate. We the People must wake up and govern. Much of the work will have to be done outside of the corrupt system. We will have to meet and organize and take to the streets, because the system will not change until the global 1% (which controls half of the world’s wealth and most of the governments) sees that billions of people are arrayed against them.
Regular people can come together (again) and create norms that increase trust and trustworthiness, so that all people get the resources we need (productivity is already high enough; it is the political will that is missing) to live well, and use our free time to rise to our highest potential, reinventing the world.
The status quo is unstable. We can either slip into a corporate colonization of the world, with most people living as debt slaves owing their souls to the billionaires. Or we can evolve our culture to a new level of cooperation and move into a new age.
Viva La Evolution.
A Pew survey showed that 67% of us think that our representatives are illegitimate. We the People must wake up and govern. Much of the work will have to be done outside of the corrupt system. We will have to meet and organize and take to the streets, because the system will not change until the global 1% (which controls half of the world’s wealth and most of the governments) sees that billions of people are arrayed against them.
Regular people can come together (again) and create norms that increase trust and trustworthiness, so that all people get the resources we need (productivity is already high enough; it is the political will that is missing) to live well, and use our free time to rise to our highest potential, reinventing the world.
The status quo is unstable. We can either slip into a corporate colonization of the world, with most people living as debt slaves owing their souls to the billionaires. Or we can evolve our culture to a new level of cooperation and move into a new age.
Viva La Evolution.
22
The fortress of American Democracy has fallen. A democracy inspired by tyranny and a vision for better and built through tremendous dedication and sacrifice. This shining example of freedom for the world died from a combination of neglect and greed.
The fall started when American voters decided to watch television or distract themselves by shopping and other vacuous acts. They ignored the call to defend democracy by being an informed and active voter.
The refusal to sacrifice just a little time and effort was too much for the average American. That refusal of minimum sacrifice, the absolute selfish indulgence of a coddled and distracted people is an insult to the founders and defenders of our nation.
Now we have corporate "people" buying more freedom of speech than any average person could afford. Millionaires and Billionaires, the tyrannical 1% continue to invest in control of our government. That investment, those bribes, are now just a line item cost of doing business for the greedy entities that will always want more. These are the same entities that ship jobs overseas, fight minimum wage, and get perpetually wealthier from our perpetual wars.
The 1% act like psychopaths, they have no understanding of restraint or sympathy for the little people. The same little people that crossed the Delaware river, stormed the beaches at Normandy but now, for some perverse reason, refuse to fight to preserve our Democracy.
What a twisted mess we have made.
The fall started when American voters decided to watch television or distract themselves by shopping and other vacuous acts. They ignored the call to defend democracy by being an informed and active voter.
The refusal to sacrifice just a little time and effort was too much for the average American. That refusal of minimum sacrifice, the absolute selfish indulgence of a coddled and distracted people is an insult to the founders and defenders of our nation.
Now we have corporate "people" buying more freedom of speech than any average person could afford. Millionaires and Billionaires, the tyrannical 1% continue to invest in control of our government. That investment, those bribes, are now just a line item cost of doing business for the greedy entities that will always want more. These are the same entities that ship jobs overseas, fight minimum wage, and get perpetually wealthier from our perpetual wars.
The 1% act like psychopaths, they have no understanding of restraint or sympathy for the little people. The same little people that crossed the Delaware river, stormed the beaches at Normandy but now, for some perverse reason, refuse to fight to preserve our Democracy.
What a twisted mess we have made.
67
Let me try this again
Liberals are all upset because they feel Citizen's was decided by a pro Republican Court.
But isn't it true that Republican presidents have since 1960 appointed liberal justices?
Nixon
Appointed Harry Blackmun?
Appointed Lewis Powell Jr?
Gerald Ford
Appointed John Paul Stevens
Reagan
Appointed Sandaa Day O'Connor also the first female to serve on the Court
Would anyone like to talk about the landmark cases they were apart of?
And as far as dark money where is the $2 billion that Hillary is projected to spend this election cycle coming from? That is more than Obama and Romney spent combined in 2012
We're the 1,000 donors the foundation "forgot to list" dark money?
Why did Hillary violate the signed agreement with Obama that the foundation would not take money from foreign governments while she was State? They took millions. Dark money?
Cirizen's United does not cover foreign goverments. And since the Clinton's exercise complete control
Over the finances and refuse to undergo an audit for the foundation could not the reason for this is a large amount received indicate it is dark money and don't want that revealed? And can anyone prove that not $1 from the foubndation did not make it's way to her campaigns? If so I'd like to see it
At least I read my own post. No one else will
Liberals are all upset because they feel Citizen's was decided by a pro Republican Court.
But isn't it true that Republican presidents have since 1960 appointed liberal justices?
Nixon
Appointed Harry Blackmun?
Appointed Lewis Powell Jr?
Gerald Ford
Appointed John Paul Stevens
Reagan
Appointed Sandaa Day O'Connor also the first female to serve on the Court
Would anyone like to talk about the landmark cases they were apart of?
And as far as dark money where is the $2 billion that Hillary is projected to spend this election cycle coming from? That is more than Obama and Romney spent combined in 2012
We're the 1,000 donors the foundation "forgot to list" dark money?
Why did Hillary violate the signed agreement with Obama that the foundation would not take money from foreign governments while she was State? They took millions. Dark money?
Cirizen's United does not cover foreign goverments. And since the Clinton's exercise complete control
Over the finances and refuse to undergo an audit for the foundation could not the reason for this is a large amount received indicate it is dark money and don't want that revealed? And can anyone prove that not $1 from the foubndation did not make it's way to her campaigns? If so I'd like to see it
At least I read my own post. No one else will
14
I read it and I applaud you for asking the questions. We are so naive.
Citizens United was a 5 to 4 opinion, with Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy ruling that unlimited amounts of corporate money injected into our elective process was free speech...
All five were appointed by Republican presidents.
Your cherry-picked facts and selective memory reveals your bias.
All five were appointed by Republican presidents.
Your cherry-picked facts and selective memory reveals your bias.
26
Why sooo angry?
Somehow Bush's SCOTUS appointments were left off this list, and, sigh, of course Clinton's PRIVATE FOUNDATION money, a stretch, did. AND an offer to prove a negative. Troll away. Troll away.
Somehow Bush's SCOTUS appointments were left off this list, and, sigh, of course Clinton's PRIVATE FOUNDATION money, a stretch, did. AND an offer to prove a negative. Troll away. Troll away.
5
We cannot blame this abuse of public trust on the Republicans alone. The Democrats are enjoying "having it both ways", feigning disgust with one hand , while accepting the "check" with the other. President Obama enjoyed large donations and the support of those with deep pockets in his election bid. The public has been crying out for reform but Congress, State Legislatures, the White House, Super PACS , and LLC's all have too much at stake to change anything. Corporations and Unions are not the largest offenders here. The Times has written numerous articles about a small group of Plutocrats that are our shadow government. I cannot recall anyone thinking that the Supreme Court Citizens United decision was "rosy" in any way,shape or form, except the extreme right. How about a series of daily investigative reports of elected officials from both parties and the money they accept? After all, it was a dogged press that exposed Watergate and brought about the resignation of Nixon. The power of a free press.
15
Michael, the difference today is that there IS no longer a free press like there was in the 1970s, and that's the difference. Because of deregulation, and the repeal of laws that were in place to contain big money, the media is now in the hands of a very powerful few, who only have the interest of the ultra rich in mind, and their minions in office are consistently passing laws, to bury their crimes, as well as disable any recourse that the common people once had.
11
Bernie Sanders... appointing SCOTUS judges to overturn Citizens United is one of his top priorities. He is the only one in the spotlight, folks, acting on your behalf. Every other candidate in the spotlight, but, maybe, O'Malley, will do nothing but enforce The Establishment.
25
1. The American public pays entirely too much attention to the messenger instead of the message. Who gives a carp who pays for an ad or announcement? Only sheep.
2. Virtually no campaign financing would be necessary if the media weren't solidly in the liberal camp. I'd gladly get rid of CU if the MSM, including NYT, were fair and balanced in their reporting and dissemination of news and opinions.
3. Ever notice how when Dems win it s all about the issues (highly informed American public!) but when the GOP wins it s all about the money?
2. Virtually no campaign financing would be necessary if the media weren't solidly in the liberal camp. I'd gladly get rid of CU if the MSM, including NYT, were fair and balanced in their reporting and dissemination of news and opinions.
3. Ever notice how when Dems win it s all about the issues (highly informed American public!) but when the GOP wins it s all about the money?
10
The reality that most local and state governments across the nation are in Republican hands argues against your unsupported statement about a liberal bias in the media. Take another look, the media are also big corporations and owned by fewer and fewer people. This does not fit the parameter for having a liberal bent -- particularly in terms of the political editorial comments of the media. Straight thinker, your comment implies that across the nation most media outlets have a liberal bias, which ought to result in many liberals getting elected, but the outcome of our elections shows otherwise. How do you figure also that FOX, which promulgated the lie about the President's birth place etc., managed to convince so many people of the truth of that lie in the face of all evidence to the contrary that fully a third of Republicans continue to believe it's true? All voters need to look at many sources for their news and views. The problem is that too many people fail to read anything and live in an information silo where only their own emotions and thinking get reinforced, all hard evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
20
Since the democrats started acting like republicans, overturning Glass-Steagal, the Telecommunications Act, Nafta and a series of other decisions which resulted in the largest number of citizens incarcerated (Thank you Bill Clinton!), the lower and middle classes have lost economic and political power. We can use our political system to get our rights back! Move to Amend the constitution and repeal Citizen's United and other corrupt laws, take responsibility for our futures and bring democracy back to America!
We need to end the oligarchy!
We need to end the oligarchy!
26
If you didn't vote in the last election, YOU are the problem.
21
The troubling fact is that some of this 'dark money' could be Saudi, Chinese, Russian or other. This is what we have become in the 'flat' world today, with the global elites controlling our government. Our elected officials and judges are a bunch of meat puppets. Democracy is dead. Oligarchs rule. Wealthy people will continue to do what ever it takes to remain powerful and fully in control. Even if it is the downfall of our nations and civilization as we know it. For they are not citizens of any country nor do they feel obligated to any citizens. I wish they'd all just build an island in the sky and stay there. Leaving the earth for us mere mortals. "Radix malorum est cupiditas"
8
The Republicans are not the only source of the problem. The main strategists in the Democratic party are doing quite well to enable the corruption.
Remember that the Rs main tactic is to push and push hard to the right, and if that doesn't work, to push harder and with more questionable tactics. Manufactured crises, threats of gov't shutdowns, etc. may be unseemly, but they are effective. The Ds main tactic, in response, is to triangulate, early and often.
Part of the problem is the Ds' self-destructive emphasis on "electability", which counts votes first, and proposes policies second - that is, it plays to the wind. Voters cannot help but smell duplicity. The tactic practically announces itself as being more concerned with what will play well, than what candidates believe. Not a good way to earn trust.
But worse, the D strategists are sticking the party with a fatal self-fulfilling prophecy. They both point out problems that need to be solved, and announce in the same breath that they can't be solved by directly addressing the problems and mounting a strong public opinion campaign. You see, we need to triangulate, which means compromising with power players who play hardball. But such compromises only enable the hardballers' tactics.
That's why we need a Bernie Sanders, not a Hillary Clinton. We need to return to integrity, where responsible policy proposals come first, and electability comes from sticking to sound principles and trustworthy means of persuasion.
Remember that the Rs main tactic is to push and push hard to the right, and if that doesn't work, to push harder and with more questionable tactics. Manufactured crises, threats of gov't shutdowns, etc. may be unseemly, but they are effective. The Ds main tactic, in response, is to triangulate, early and often.
Part of the problem is the Ds' self-destructive emphasis on "electability", which counts votes first, and proposes policies second - that is, it plays to the wind. Voters cannot help but smell duplicity. The tactic practically announces itself as being more concerned with what will play well, than what candidates believe. Not a good way to earn trust.
But worse, the D strategists are sticking the party with a fatal self-fulfilling prophecy. They both point out problems that need to be solved, and announce in the same breath that they can't be solved by directly addressing the problems and mounting a strong public opinion campaign. You see, we need to triangulate, which means compromising with power players who play hardball. But such compromises only enable the hardballers' tactics.
That's why we need a Bernie Sanders, not a Hillary Clinton. We need to return to integrity, where responsible policy proposals come first, and electability comes from sticking to sound principles and trustworthy means of persuasion.
1
Then again, considering the Orwellian-styled suppression tactics Republicans been employing in matters such as climate change and gun control, does it surprise anyone that they would try to drop the issue of campaign finance / dark money down a rabbit hole as well? There is a much larger and worrisome theme here, namely, an encroaching darkening of government, under republican tutelage, one that disregards, if not bluntly censors, the issues facing the nation while simultaneously obscuring the methods and sources that allow it to consolidate power in service to a small circle of interests. Regardless, what the republicans seek is glaringly obvious: a severely diminished environment of political accountability. Of course, they've not been completely successful in shutting the door, and this coming election will hopefully pry things open and force accountability. As we look to the coming year, here's what to keep in mind: Oddly, for all the hand-wringing among republican party elites about the ascendance of Trump, what the republicans need now, more than ever, is, in fact, a demagogue like Trump - one gifted in the art of misdirection and distraction. The republicans don't want to talk about issues, except the ones they contrive, and they certainly don't want to answer questions. Trump may be their answer. Our job is to force the questions anyway.
4
The Republicans are not the only source of the problem. The main strategists in the Democratic party are doing quite well to enable the corruption.
Remember that the Rs main tactic is to push and push hard to the right, and if that doesn't work, to push harder and with more questionable tactics. Manufactured crises, threats of gov't shutdowns, etc. may be unseemly, but they are effective. The Ds main tactic, in response, is to triangulate, early and often.
Part of the problem is the Ds' self-destructive emphasis on "electability", which counts votes first, and proposes policies second - that is, it plays to the wind. Voters cannot help but smell duplicity. The tactic practically announces itself as being more concerned with what will play well, than what candidates believe. Not a good way to earn trust.
But worse, the D strategists are sticking the party with a fatal self-fulfilling prophecy. They both point out problems that need to be solved, and announce in the same breath that they can't be solved by directly addressing the problems and mounting a strong public opinion campaign. You see, we need to triangulate, which means compromising with power players who play hardball. But such compromises only enable the hardballers' tactics.
That's why we need a Bernie Sanders, not a Hillary Clinton. We need to return to integrity, where responsible policy proposals come first, and electability comes from sticking to sound principles and trustworthy means of persuasion.
Remember that the Rs main tactic is to push and push hard to the right, and if that doesn't work, to push harder and with more questionable tactics. Manufactured crises, threats of gov't shutdowns, etc. may be unseemly, but they are effective. The Ds main tactic, in response, is to triangulate, early and often.
Part of the problem is the Ds' self-destructive emphasis on "electability", which counts votes first, and proposes policies second - that is, it plays to the wind. Voters cannot help but smell duplicity. The tactic practically announces itself as being more concerned with what will play well, than what candidates believe. Not a good way to earn trust.
But worse, the D strategists are sticking the party with a fatal self-fulfilling prophecy. They both point out problems that need to be solved, and announce in the same breath that they can't be solved by directly addressing the problems and mounting a strong public opinion campaign. You see, we need to triangulate, which means compromising with power players who play hardball. But such compromises only enable the hardballers' tactics.
That's why we need a Bernie Sanders, not a Hillary Clinton. We need to return to integrity, where responsible policy proposals come first, and electability comes from sticking to sound principles and trustworthy means of persuasion.
21
the signing of an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their campaign spending.
-----------------------------------------
Your naivete is mind-boggling. The executive order you call for is unnecessary because there is already a Hatchet act 441C ban on such contributions by contractors. But the SEC rules allow these contractors to set up PAC's and funnel contributions through those PAC's, which the recommended executive order will not ban.
It is sad to see that the Times is losing all credibility with such shallow and nonsensical editorials that make recommendations that are worthless. If there is already a 441C ban on direct contributions by contractors, why are you recommending that Obama sign an executive order about the same ban? Unless you think that your readers or most of them are low-information kind and ill-informed ilk, your editorial is inexplicable.
-----------------------------------------
Your naivete is mind-boggling. The executive order you call for is unnecessary because there is already a Hatchet act 441C ban on such contributions by contractors. But the SEC rules allow these contractors to set up PAC's and funnel contributions through those PAC's, which the recommended executive order will not ban.
It is sad to see that the Times is losing all credibility with such shallow and nonsensical editorials that make recommendations that are worthless. If there is already a 441C ban on direct contributions by contractors, why are you recommending that Obama sign an executive order about the same ban? Unless you think that your readers or most of them are low-information kind and ill-informed ilk, your editorial is inexplicable.
10
Hatch Act, not Hatchet act. Oops.
3
These abhorrent anti-American decisions are continuously 5 to 4. with the five "Justice" majority ALWAYS consisting of Republican appointees Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy, who ALWAYS side with corporations over American citizens...
Note to the NYTs Editorial Board: In the future, please save enough space to include a sentence revealing who and what may be the single most important reason behind America's accelerated march toward plutocracy:
Republican Presidents, and the radical corporate shills they dump onto our Supreme Court.
Note to the NYTs Editorial Board: In the future, please save enough space to include a sentence revealing who and what may be the single most important reason behind America's accelerated march toward plutocracy:
Republican Presidents, and the radical corporate shills they dump onto our Supreme Court.
23
With the American democracy completely destroyed by five bought-off Supreme Court justices and no no hope that either major political party will do anything about it, it is nevertheless encouraging the read that the Editorial Board of the New York Times recognizes what secret, unlimited contributions to political candidates have done to our country.
20
The American experiment seriously damaged in the aftermath of the Civil War, when federal power increased. It was utterly unrecognizable after FDR.
1
How can you talk about "dark money" when you have the Clinton Foundation laundering foreign money, and George Soros funding protests against the opposition?
11
George Soros donates openly; if the Clinton Foundation is really "laundering foreign money" that's a criminal matter (but where's your evidence). Neither has anything to do with "dark money" which is political funding that is legally permitted to remain anonymous.
Is false equivalency really the best argument you've got?
Is false equivalency really the best argument you've got?
6
Check, and count the number of "leans Republican" versus "leans Democrat." But it doesn't matter ultimately - it's all Plutocratic and should be stopped.: http://www.propublica.org/article/rapid-rise-in-super-pacs-dominated-by-...
7
Why does your ilk always bring up George Soros? There is nothing wrong with the Kochs telling their story through the ads they buy, but not alright for Soros to take a stand?
11
How is that corporations get to choose from column A and column B? If corporations are "individuals" for the purpose of campaign donations, why aren't they taxed at the "individual" rate?
66
I hold the people who were too lazy to get out and vote last time directly responsible.
4
This "problem" has existed since George Washington left office in 1797.
"This is not likely with a Republican Congress, which has made the I.R.S. even more of a target. "
Right and that happened in vacuum right? Strange how this "progressive" media forgets or ignores how the Obama administration has abused the power of the federal government using the IRS and other federal agencies to target and attack conservative groups. I am far more concerned about an out of control federal government abusing it's power than so called "dark money".
Right and that happened in vacuum right? Strange how this "progressive" media forgets or ignores how the Obama administration has abused the power of the federal government using the IRS and other federal agencies to target and attack conservative groups. I am far more concerned about an out of control federal government abusing it's power than so called "dark money".
3
That durned First Amendment!
1
What exactly does the First Amendment have to do with money?
1
Money doesn't equal speech.
That durned Roberts court.
That durned Roberts court.
3
Only rich Americans believe its in their best interest to create a pathway to untold wealth to handpicked politicians. The wealthy Americans in this mindset represent a small percentage of the population. Therefore its up to the remaining public to vote wisely to rid our country of these Republican puppets. We must start electing all politicians based on their voting habits not on what they tell us. We must also have term limits on EVERY elective office not just the President. There's where the problem lays.
3
"We must start electing all politicians based on their voting habits not on what they tell us."
We must start by electing people of good character.
We must start by electing people of good character.
1
" There is no native born criminal class save Congress" Mark Twain,,,,"We have met the enemy and he is us" Pogo.....People really believe today is worse than when the railroad oligarchs ruled Congress? The loony left and right keep pushing the idea that "if only the voter knew.." how evil the other side is they would act responsibly ....Right....its the voter who keeps sending their mirror images to represent them ...its the other (Trump/Obama) who are responsible for all the evil in politics today...no compromise on to victory go team America's number one ....beam me up Scotty
5
There is an aspect of the problem of money in politics that no one sees to see. It's like a negative hallucination. This is a representative democracy. No one can directly buy elections. The only way to buy an election is to spend the money on propaganda to influence voters. If we solve the problem of how to combat propaganda effectively, it won't matter how much anyone donates to politicians. Admittedly, it's not an easy problem to solve. But there's been little effort in that direction yet.
Yes, there have been organizations like Air America, which was on a shoestring budget and near bankruptcy constantly during its whole short life. Not that-- but a serious well-financed effort. Not a media organization determined to show "both sides", even if one side is lies or insanity. There needs to be a real effort to combat the propaganda, complete with in-depth marketing research on how to do it so that it WORKS. Plenty of writers e.g. Lakoff have ideas about "new stories" to tell to the voters. But they need to be tested, the ineffective ones discarded, and new ones created and tested, until something works.
Republicans have been doing this for decades. For example, see Luntz's book Words That Work. Progressives have a lot of catching up to do.
Yes, there have been organizations like Air America, which was on a shoestring budget and near bankruptcy constantly during its whole short life. Not that-- but a serious well-financed effort. Not a media organization determined to show "both sides", even if one side is lies or insanity. There needs to be a real effort to combat the propaganda, complete with in-depth marketing research on how to do it so that it WORKS. Plenty of writers e.g. Lakoff have ideas about "new stories" to tell to the voters. But they need to be tested, the ineffective ones discarded, and new ones created and tested, until something works.
Republicans have been doing this for decades. For example, see Luntz's book Words That Work. Progressives have a lot of catching up to do.
3
It's too bad that most voters, including myself, do not vote independently. We vote emotionally and refuse to see the corruption that is happening in full view. Maybe it's the flood of information that confuses people. Maybe it's the decline of the middle class and its income opportunities that creates apathy about corruption in politics. Maybe its the confused morality that indicts women's health care, but promotes war and greed. We worship millionaire athletes every weekend and fantasize about becoming millionaire business successes. Who hasn't heard this specious argument: "It's their money, they can do what they want with it." Since when does mere possession of money become the calculus for morality? In 21st Century America that's when.
The only thing that will stop this nonsense is to tax the rich and give to the true job creators, the hard working families in the middle class. They'll be sure to spend their money on things that make sense like clothing, housing, health care and transportation, to name just a few. Very few of them will waste their money on corrupt politicians.
Our country has all the money it needs. It's just that the money is all in the wrong places. Give it to the people. They'll know what to do.
The only thing that will stop this nonsense is to tax the rich and give to the true job creators, the hard working families in the middle class. They'll be sure to spend their money on things that make sense like clothing, housing, health care and transportation, to name just a few. Very few of them will waste their money on corrupt politicians.
Our country has all the money it needs. It's just that the money is all in the wrong places. Give it to the people. They'll know what to do.
4
The plain simple truth is that that five-man majority on the court is like the scum on an ocean wave and that is about what they have done to American democracy, bathed it in scum.
Time to elect someone who over time replace the scum on the court: Roberts, Scalit, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy. And, in case it is not apparent to anyone, there is not a Protestant among them. They are five Roman Catholic men, who represent neither the law nor democracy, but the teachings and biases of an arch conservative theocratic view of the world.
We need to elect a president who will cleanse this nation of the scum these men have spread over it and its politics, government and way of life.
Time to elect someone who over time replace the scum on the court: Roberts, Scalit, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy. And, in case it is not apparent to anyone, there is not a Protestant among them. They are five Roman Catholic men, who represent neither the law nor democracy, but the teachings and biases of an arch conservative theocratic view of the world.
We need to elect a president who will cleanse this nation of the scum these men have spread over it and its politics, government and way of life.
4
There is a spectre rising in America, and that spectre is called Oligarchy and there is no other force to stop it with a possible exception.
Both parties want to control who the candidates will be, and Trump and Sanders are breaking that model. It's no wonder why McConnell is in this swirling vortex when he chose remove the mentioned SEC and IRS regulations ( BTW I'm sure part leaders on both sides like this.) It's like the last days of an empire with every power elite in a bunker mentality.
Younger generation with the right tools, to report, investigate and modulate and modify campaign finance will be important. Judicial decisions by SCOTUS are just subversion by other means.
Both parties want to control who the candidates will be, and Trump and Sanders are breaking that model. It's no wonder why McConnell is in this swirling vortex when he chose remove the mentioned SEC and IRS regulations ( BTW I'm sure part leaders on both sides like this.) It's like the last days of an empire with every power elite in a bunker mentality.
Younger generation with the right tools, to report, investigate and modulate and modify campaign finance will be important. Judicial decisions by SCOTUS are just subversion by other means.
4
The Times proposes more transparency, via executive fiat. Why would we expect that? The Democrats have their own machine, similar to, if smaller than, that of the Republicans. Exposing its workings benefits no one but Sanders. Far from what the party's establishment would like to see ...
3
I continue to be astonished at my astonishment at the astonishing lack of historical and governmental knowledge on display in many of these comments.
For one thing, it's amazing to see folks trying to pretend that this is the Democrats' fault: apparently, it must be, because for forty years the po' lil' GOP has been shut out of government.
Or apparently it's Hillary Clinton's fault, because it must be, because it is. Or apparently it's the President's fault, because he controls the Supreme Court and the IRS, and hasn't issued an executive order of the sort that has had the GOP screaming at the top of its lungs about dictatorship.
Or it's unions. Or it's...or it's...anybody except the very conservative and right-wing judges on the Court, and the right-wingers and corporate interests in Congress, amd the right-wing voters who've been bellowing about oppressive regulation and the IRS.
This is on you clowns. It's exactly what you wanted. Own it.
For one thing, it's amazing to see folks trying to pretend that this is the Democrats' fault: apparently, it must be, because for forty years the po' lil' GOP has been shut out of government.
Or apparently it's Hillary Clinton's fault, because it must be, because it is. Or apparently it's the President's fault, because he controls the Supreme Court and the IRS, and hasn't issued an executive order of the sort that has had the GOP screaming at the top of its lungs about dictatorship.
Or it's unions. Or it's...or it's...anybody except the very conservative and right-wing judges on the Court, and the right-wingers and corporate interests in Congress, amd the right-wing voters who've been bellowing about oppressive regulation and the IRS.
This is on you clowns. It's exactly what you wanted. Own it.
10
The Scalia court is simply the Plutocrat Court, and at east three members make no bones about it. Justice promotes meritocracy and money is proof of merit.
The problem is that foreign countries, most notably Israel, can now hire their own senators and presidents without any limitations or constraints on behalf of America voters.
The problem is that foreign countries, most notably Israel, can now hire their own senators and presidents without any limitations or constraints on behalf of America voters.
4
Who specifically inserted that language into the bill?
6
We are not the USA anymore we are the CSA the Corporate States of America.
7
Keep convincing The People that it's the GOP v. D, and this nonsense will continue ad nauseam. The Ds are just as filthy...just take a closer look at the DNC, DWS, and HRC.
The two parties before The People have changed. They are now the establishment v. non-establishment. Once people start to see the evidence in this statement, the choice for 2016 becomes very clear.
The two parties before The People have changed. They are now the establishment v. non-establishment. Once people start to see the evidence in this statement, the choice for 2016 becomes very clear.
5
If there is anything dark about political donations, it has been the IRS' tireless and illegal prosecution of conservative donors. This piece of tripe presents the measures aimed at stopping the illegal and political actions of the IRS as the GOP opening the door to dark forces on the right, when it is simply trying to reign in the out-of-control IRS acting as a political arm of the Democrats.
Had the administration and DOJ done anything to stop the action of the IRS in this regard, legislation would not have been necessary. We have all seen that under Obama, the IRS has been a Gestapo-or-Stalin-esque agent of the Democrats. Nothing was done to fix it. Couching this legislation design dot prevent the IRS from attacking conservative donors and groups as opening the door to dark conservative money is hardly worthy of the Times.
Had the administration and DOJ done anything to stop the action of the IRS in this regard, legislation would not have been necessary. We have all seen that under Obama, the IRS has been a Gestapo-or-Stalin-esque agent of the Democrats. Nothing was done to fix it. Couching this legislation design dot prevent the IRS from attacking conservative donors and groups as opening the door to dark conservative money is hardly worthy of the Times.
4
You seem a little selective in your understanding of this issue, which was elaborated into the sound chamber "news" phenomenon by Fox et al and continues echoing along despite having throughly debunked.
3
The inevitable Nazi reference surfaces from one of the few "conservative" commentators on this article.
Do you realize how offensive that is to Jews and other groups caught up in the Holocaust? That an IRS investigation into groups posing as charitable organizations but in truth funneling dark money into campaign coffers is equal to the systematic rounding up of groups of people, transporting them to forced labor camps and then committing genocide?
Go and look at who leads the pack in Super PAC funding this election cycle. He's sitting at 3% in the pols. But that's where the big money is going?
Do you realize how offensive that is to Jews and other groups caught up in the Holocaust? That an IRS investigation into groups posing as charitable organizations but in truth funneling dark money into campaign coffers is equal to the systematic rounding up of groups of people, transporting them to forced labor camps and then committing genocide?
Go and look at who leads the pack in Super PAC funding this election cycle. He's sitting at 3% in the pols. But that's where the big money is going?
1
Stick a fork in us, we're done. Without an engaged and educated electorate there is little hope that we get our democracy back. Americans have been dumbed down to the point that we have middle aged moms in Dayton more worried about Syrian refugees than healthcare.
Top it off with a corporate media that pushes whatever the MIC sells them down our throats (Russia is modernizing their military!) and uses politics for ratings by presenting presidential elections like American Idol.
Our GOP candidates are selling the next two wars to a high fructose audience ready to send an exhausted military down whatever rabbit hole the neocons demand, and the media greases the skids before our very eyes. There is Zero pushback when Rubio says he will tear up the internationally agreed nuclear deal because it "gives" Iran the bomb. If this guy wins, does anyone doubt he manufacture a reason to wage war with another sovereign county? His donors demand it, and the media never bothers to point this out.
Citizens United didn't just shred our democracy, it illuminated to the entire world our susceptibility to cheap propaganda. Too bad Bernie has no chance.
Top it off with a corporate media that pushes whatever the MIC sells them down our throats (Russia is modernizing their military!) and uses politics for ratings by presenting presidential elections like American Idol.
Our GOP candidates are selling the next two wars to a high fructose audience ready to send an exhausted military down whatever rabbit hole the neocons demand, and the media greases the skids before our very eyes. There is Zero pushback when Rubio says he will tear up the internationally agreed nuclear deal because it "gives" Iran the bomb. If this guy wins, does anyone doubt he manufacture a reason to wage war with another sovereign county? His donors demand it, and the media never bothers to point this out.
Citizens United didn't just shred our democracy, it illuminated to the entire world our susceptibility to cheap propaganda. Too bad Bernie has no chance.
16
They know more about the Kardishans than they know about what is going on in America govt. It is truly shameful how dumb the populace has gotten over the years. We have done it to ourselves we have no one to blame and what is going to even more sickening is the world will shake its head in disbelief on how a great nation could fall like this easily.
1
Ye of little faith. Bernie will not just win...by the people, he will win by a landslide.
5
Republicans block transparency so who dies the New York Times call out by name? Why naturally the NYT blames Obama.
5
The kill-transparency provision-laden bill sponsored by Republicans passed with 38 Democratic senate votes out of the 65 yay votes. Only 27 Republicans voted yay for the whole bill including the provision the Times is making a federal case about. And then, Obama, rather than veto the bill, signs it before heading thankfully to HI.
So, who do you blame now, Ronny?
So, who do you blame now, Ronny?
6
For a truth, the greatest threat to our democracy is not terrorism, China, Russia, Iran, or any foreign entity or government, it is the large US Corporation and its captured US Congress, US Supreme Court, and Presidency of the United States of America that is American Democracy’s biggest threat. In other words, it is our “leaders”, in both major political parties, that are now our democracy’s greatest menace.
This is a shame, and given the power that vested financial interests have over our government, there is not much the average citizen, the average voter, the 99% can actually do about it.
But then again perhaps it has always been that way in a less transparent manner; just now more officially and openly institutionalized and codified in the very body of our federal law, statute, and jurisprudence.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
This is a shame, and given the power that vested financial interests have over our government, there is not much the average citizen, the average voter, the 99% can actually do about it.
But then again perhaps it has always been that way in a less transparent manner; just now more officially and openly institutionalized and codified in the very body of our federal law, statute, and jurisprudence.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
8
Government for the people, by the people and of the people is simply a faded memory. Elections have devolved into a sad and expensive comedy production designed to numb minds of the people while plutocrats farm them like sheep and live the good life.
4
Oh wouldn't it be nice to have all campaign donations public. The only problem is having the IRS oversee anything is even more terrifying than knowing that Iran backed a candidate.
1
Part of the appeal of Trump is that he is his own man. He pays his own way on the road to the Presidency. He needs no outside money to campaign, so he can't be bought. He can say whatever he wants, and thumb his nose at the establishment. And the Audience loves it (while the establishment seethes with anger and frustration)
What Citizens United and black money are engendering is a complete distrust of the establishment and its pet politicians who pander to their audience, but deliver to their puppet masters. (To paraphrase Krugman's analysis). Hence, the revolt of the Republican Party base. The base has turned to outsiders and especially to Trump, who comes with no strings attached.
Same can be said of the Democrats with Bernie and Hillary. Bernie is his own man. But who knows who owns Hillary.
What Citizens United and black money are engendering is a complete distrust of the establishment and its pet politicians who pander to their audience, but deliver to their puppet masters. (To paraphrase Krugman's analysis). Hence, the revolt of the Republican Party base. The base has turned to outsiders and especially to Trump, who comes with no strings attached.
Same can be said of the Democrats with Bernie and Hillary. Bernie is his own man. But who knows who owns Hillary.
9
Himself is a master puppeteer. He would go even further off the deep end if he couldn`t control and manipulate.
Citizens united allows corporations to promote their viewpoints and interests to the public the same way that corporations like the new york times and washington post do.
7
Exactly.
1
RICO - The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations act. That law is the mechanism by which we can restore our Democracy, taking it back from the corporate-government cabal we have now.
Campaign casheteering is just one filthy finger of one money grubbing hand of a system of corruption masquerading as a democracy where citizens are no longer are represented. The corporate-government revolving door is helping spin out the cash and representing only it's own interests. It's an entire body of corruption, nicely dressed in suits and flag pinned and medaled chests. The war profiteering Military-Industrial-Surveillance complex are the arms to force its will.
The insidious destruction of democracy must be stopped dead in it's tracks by the application of RICO laws - IF ONLY we could find someone in the Justice Dept who loved their COUNTRY more than power and money. Criminals must not be allowed to profit from their crimes, period, but Wall St. is still holding onto their ill-gained heist, thanks to their partners-in-crime in the corporate-government.
Stealing a Democracy from the rightful owners, the sovereign citizens, is unforgivable. The powerful do not give up power willingly though. It must be pried out of their money-grubbing hands with handcuffs and steel bars.
That's far better than the alternative. Someone in power needs to read the handwriting on the wall. It's called the Declaration of Independence.
Campaign casheteering is just one filthy finger of one money grubbing hand of a system of corruption masquerading as a democracy where citizens are no longer are represented. The corporate-government revolving door is helping spin out the cash and representing only it's own interests. It's an entire body of corruption, nicely dressed in suits and flag pinned and medaled chests. The war profiteering Military-Industrial-Surveillance complex are the arms to force its will.
The insidious destruction of democracy must be stopped dead in it's tracks by the application of RICO laws - IF ONLY we could find someone in the Justice Dept who loved their COUNTRY more than power and money. Criminals must not be allowed to profit from their crimes, period, but Wall St. is still holding onto their ill-gained heist, thanks to their partners-in-crime in the corporate-government.
Stealing a Democracy from the rightful owners, the sovereign citizens, is unforgivable. The powerful do not give up power willingly though. It must be pried out of their money-grubbing hands with handcuffs and steel bars.
That's far better than the alternative. Someone in power needs to read the handwriting on the wall. It's called the Declaration of Independence.
8
I can think of no better reason to elect Democrats into the House, Senate, and the Presidency than the fact that the Supreme Court nominations and appointments in the years ahead (2017 - 2025) will determine that our current march toward national suicide will be curtailed and eliminated.
Are we a democracy or are we a corporate-ocracy.
Take your pick.
Are we a democracy or are we a corporate-ocracy.
Take your pick.
7
And so the GOP continues on its very public political goals of making the US Govt "of the Money for the Money and by the Money." Its been their primary aim for some time now and they are finally seeing the end of the tunnel. Yay them for being the party that will bring the nation to a bitter end where democratic principles and practices will be nothing but nostalgia.
No thanks to the spineless Democrats who seem incapable of mounting any sort of counter offensive.
Conservative Americans wont be happy till they have every civil right erased and replaced by the Rules of the Corporations. Who will usher in all the Big Brother policies that their paranoid, arms hording, canned goods stockpiling, Bible thumping base believes is coming from "the Left".
No thanks to the spineless Democrats who seem incapable of mounting any sort of counter offensive.
Conservative Americans wont be happy till they have every civil right erased and replaced by the Rules of the Corporations. Who will usher in all the Big Brother policies that their paranoid, arms hording, canned goods stockpiling, Bible thumping base believes is coming from "the Left".
6
The editors cast the problem as if it were of party politics: that Republicans have created a special interest set of campaign finance rules that especially benefit them. Not so: the Democrats are salivating and happy to let the current congress take the heat. Of course, such veiled donations are rather commonplace despite any legislative formalities. Foreign countries, especially China, Israel, Japan, Germany, the UK and Saudi Arabia, among others, have highly organized political donation and influence machinery in the U.S. Of course, the poster child of such "dark donations" chicanery is the Clinton Foundation, along with Clinton campaign organizations. They are effectively a corporate and foreign entity. The "public" is not at their table. A classic case is "Chinagate" that resulted in US guided missile technology being illegally transferred as a quid pro quo to the Clinton legal defense fund, foundation and campaign (all fungible). Little noticed was a 2013 "donation" from Chinese company Rilin Enterprises to the Clinton Foundation, for $2 million dollars. The GOP naturally is no less active in comparable schemes, which is why a third party is so desperately required in the current political party duopoly. Happy Holidays.
6
Led by a surprisingly gullible chief and a narrow worldview, the conservative wing of the Supreme Court has burdened us with their uncritical thinking. Super PACs don’t coordinate with campaigns, there is no quid pro quo when elected officials receive large donations from corporations, “social welfare” organizations don’t run ads to effect elections, money is speech, corporations are people, the protesters at women’s health clinics are sweet, little old ladies who want to help, everyone recognizes the Christian cross as a generic memorial symbol, and so on.
Private school, Catholic monoculture, Harvard University and a rarified career in government jobs and corporate law have left Opie as wide-eyed as ever, only with a bigger vocabulary.
With the Supreme Court declaring surrender, conservative lawmakers, armed with donor’s marching orders, pillage at will.
Private school, Catholic monoculture, Harvard University and a rarified career in government jobs and corporate law have left Opie as wide-eyed as ever, only with a bigger vocabulary.
With the Supreme Court declaring surrender, conservative lawmakers, armed with donor’s marching orders, pillage at will.
8
simple solution: publicly funded elections. no contributions, no lobbying, no fundraising. every candidate gets the same amount of money with which to work, over the same period of time. the period of time for campaigning is limited to a specific duration. an argument for anything else is an argument for an un-even playing field—the opposite of democracy.
16
An idea so good you know it will never happen.
8
Except for the media which gives a certain candidate, who shall not be mentioned, millions of dollars of free advertisement every day. You cannot turn on your TV without being assaulted by His Nonsense.
3
It's not just the money that's dark. These are dark times and democracy and our planet are under relentless siege from the right. It has been well documented that Big Money is buying government influence at every level - former Monsanto employees on agencies working to undo our food safety laws, former energy executives at the EPA working to undo our water and air safety regulations and working against effective climate change policies, arms suppliers pushing for war in Iran and Syria, and private prison executives pushing for harsher and longer sentencing - there is no level that has not been corrupted by the influence of big money. And coupled with the lack of any civility in our public discourse and the oppression narcissism everywhere - it feels like we've reached a tipping point into darkness.
19
We could just cut to the chase & go ahead & sell government, from top to bottom to the Oligarchs who are buying it many pieces at a time with each election. We The People could just throw in the towel & admit defeat. The $upreme Court sealed our fate back in 2010. We've been slowly bleeding to death ever since.
Most people don't understand that before there was an America, Oligarchs from across the Atlantic Ocean populated North America with the first slaves, white indentured servants, many of whom were kidnapped & forced onto ships at the end of a sharp knife. The Oligarchs first encounter with Free Trade in North America was a whopping success!
However, families back in Europe were upset because of their kidnapped relatives, so the Oligarchs experimented with Indian slaves. This failed to work well because the Indian slaves, knowing the land, would escape back to their tribe who'd defend them mightily should white Oligarch tools come looking for them.
The first black slaves arrived sorta of by accident, in Jamestown in 1619. At first treated as indentured servants, after a while the Oligarchs decided, why not own them for life. It was a sure fire recipe for success & you know the rest of this story.
Modern Oligarchs have always abhorred Free People who wish to live free & earn decent wages. Some join Unions. This upsets our Oligarchs. Congress has always been the tool of Oligarchs. Today they are Super Tools!
Beware of the real owners of the US. Good luck!
Most people don't understand that before there was an America, Oligarchs from across the Atlantic Ocean populated North America with the first slaves, white indentured servants, many of whom were kidnapped & forced onto ships at the end of a sharp knife. The Oligarchs first encounter with Free Trade in North America was a whopping success!
However, families back in Europe were upset because of their kidnapped relatives, so the Oligarchs experimented with Indian slaves. This failed to work well because the Indian slaves, knowing the land, would escape back to their tribe who'd defend them mightily should white Oligarch tools come looking for them.
The first black slaves arrived sorta of by accident, in Jamestown in 1619. At first treated as indentured servants, after a while the Oligarchs decided, why not own them for life. It was a sure fire recipe for success & you know the rest of this story.
Modern Oligarchs have always abhorred Free People who wish to live free & earn decent wages. Some join Unions. This upsets our Oligarchs. Congress has always been the tool of Oligarchs. Today they are Super Tools!
Beware of the real owners of the US. Good luck!
4
Well, 37 out of 43 Dem Senators voted to authorize the budget bill, and then Obama was happy to sign it into law so he could take the fossil-fuel guzzling, carbon-emitting jet to far far away Hawaii. You have nobody to blame but the Dem senators and the president for the heinous provision you so decry in the bill.
Pass the bill without reading what is in it, and then have the president sign it, also without knowing what's in it: what else is new with the Dems?
Pass the bill without reading what is in it, and then have the president sign it, also without knowing what's in it: what else is new with the Dems?
6
Karl Marx had it right. Capitalist democracy is a contradiction in terms. So long as the rich can buy more "free speech" than the rest of us, the political playing field will be tilted overwhelmingly in their favor, as it is now. We live under a class dictatorship of the 1%. The processes that we think of as "democratic" -- debates, campaigns, elections, lobbying, lawmaking, and the accountability of judicial and executive power to popularly elected officials, is all rigged to limit the range of options to those acceptable to the super-rich -- the big bourgeoisie who own the greater part of the means of production.
This system will not right itself. It will not be reformed into something entirely contrary to its present nature. Ultimately it will have to be overthrown by revolutionary means.
This system will not right itself. It will not be reformed into something entirely contrary to its present nature. Ultimately it will have to be overthrown by revolutionary means.
5
Karl Marx was writing about Britain. The US had corrected the system and it was working fine until the GOP came together under as skillful a plan to manipulate and control them by their vices as I could imagine, to destroy it.
The GOP is nothing more than a mouthpiece for nonAmerican economic interests whose fraudulent economic policies lead them to destruction and instead of changing they chose to consume us as well. That is the form of capitalism Marx spoke of not the well regulated beautiful machine or government and industry we created here by learning from the problems caused by the old model being used now as if it were new and then changing how we behaved. Its almost as if pols were actually sane people back in the 1930's!
The GOP is nothing more than a mouthpiece for nonAmerican economic interests whose fraudulent economic policies lead them to destruction and instead of changing they chose to consume us as well. That is the form of capitalism Marx spoke of not the well regulated beautiful machine or government and industry we created here by learning from the problems caused by the old model being used now as if it were new and then changing how we behaved. Its almost as if pols were actually sane people back in the 1930's!
2
As the GOP perfects the plan they brought to town with reagan in 1980 After "I told you so" all that I can say to this Editorial is this;
"If Republicans want to make an issue of this, let them — and let them defend the scourge of dark money before the voters on the campaign trail."
That would require "The Press" to include the NYT to actually focus on it and hold to actually answering the questions about it. Which is something the Press has not done on any level since sometime during the reagan admin. If I recall correctly it wasn't very long after reagan sold Murdock a famously loyal Commonwealth British Monarchist, a citizenship so that he could run a media company in America. Its been nothing but an LCD downhill run for the money to everyone in "The Press" since.
"If Republicans want to make an issue of this, let them — and let them defend the scourge of dark money before the voters on the campaign trail."
That would require "The Press" to include the NYT to actually focus on it and hold to actually answering the questions about it. Which is something the Press has not done on any level since sometime during the reagan admin. If I recall correctly it wasn't very long after reagan sold Murdock a famously loyal Commonwealth British Monarchist, a citizenship so that he could run a media company in America. Its been nothing but an LCD downhill run for the money to everyone in "The Press" since.
5
Congress is worse than the mafia: they shake down people with money in order to grant favors. But unlike the mafia, Congress delays the process in order to stretch out the payments. All this leaves voiceless voters holding door.
RIP, Lawrence Lessig.
RIP, Lawrence Lessig.
4
Oops...the Times forgot to mention the hundreds of Democrats that voted for this stuff and made no mention that Obama signed the bill and commended it. It's all the fault of those evil Republicans. There is no Democrat Party or establishment in league with big donors and corporations according to the Times. The Democrats are responsible for nothing, like toddlers. It is also amusing that the Times considers the SCOTUS a bunch of crazies but only when it disagrees with the Times and the extreme left.
Serious, honest, adult argument on issues is welcome and necessary. I am afraid though that our public life and discourse has degenerated into dishonest neurotic, hypocritical, childish, pure ideological carping, harassment and outright madness. The American political establishment, Democrat and Republican, has much to answer for but our media is guilty of the greatest betrayal of the nation bar none.
Yet, the establishment and its corporate media can't understand the unstoppable rise of a character like Trump. A sure sign of madness is when you believe your own lies and nonsense. The Times has crossed that line.
Serious, honest, adult argument on issues is welcome and necessary. I am afraid though that our public life and discourse has degenerated into dishonest neurotic, hypocritical, childish, pure ideological carping, harassment and outright madness. The American political establishment, Democrat and Republican, has much to answer for but our media is guilty of the greatest betrayal of the nation bar none.
Yet, the establishment and its corporate media can't understand the unstoppable rise of a character like Trump. A sure sign of madness is when you believe your own lies and nonsense. The Times has crossed that line.
6
it's hard to disagree with the editorial This is one of those cases where the disgust with the money in our politics cuts across the political spectrum. While the NYT (of course) works hard to paint the GOP as the main culprit, there have been plenty of responsible from both sides of the isle. The IRS complaint is somewhat tainted as the recent IRS actions against the conservative organizations have disqualified it as a mechanism and the arbiter of the issue and GOP's opposition can be justified. However, the core problem is with the Citizens United and what is needed is the legislature which counters that mistake. on this GOP is culpable (as are the Democrats) and the voters deserve to know it.
2
It was the GOP appointed justices who are responsible for the Citizens United decision.
2
Ed Board: You're treating a symptom, again.
Problem is more fundamental than monetary code in politics; it's monetary code in relationships.
Monetary code as relationship infrastructure is like a biological genome that ignores, or fails to process innumerable & highly dynamic relationships; e.g., contributing to our conversion of the sky into a lethal gas chamber.
Complexity erodes the efficacy of code as relationship infrastructure.
Exponential complexity increases demand significant additions / changes to our cultural genome.
In the transition from hunter-gatherer social structures to the exponentially more complex information architecture of agri-culture (50,000 people -- city-state), we added alphabet, legal, monetary & etiquette coding structures to our cultural genome.
Human Species Current Manner of Reality Interface:
Unprecedented numbers wielding unprecedented technology yielding an unprecedented reach in and across all networks, and across time, yielding unprecedented, accruing, disruptive relationships in networks (positive and negative).
Our cultural genome is not unprecedented; it's archaic; it can't support exponential complexity.
Our cultural genome needs to be "redomained."
Agriculture redomained food procurement from hunting and gathering; alphabet code redomained writing from pictograph code; electricity redomained power generation from steam power; democracy redomained government from monarchy; eukaryote cells redomained biotech from prokaryote cells.
Problem is more fundamental than monetary code in politics; it's monetary code in relationships.
Monetary code as relationship infrastructure is like a biological genome that ignores, or fails to process innumerable & highly dynamic relationships; e.g., contributing to our conversion of the sky into a lethal gas chamber.
Complexity erodes the efficacy of code as relationship infrastructure.
Exponential complexity increases demand significant additions / changes to our cultural genome.
In the transition from hunter-gatherer social structures to the exponentially more complex information architecture of agri-culture (50,000 people -- city-state), we added alphabet, legal, monetary & etiquette coding structures to our cultural genome.
Human Species Current Manner of Reality Interface:
Unprecedented numbers wielding unprecedented technology yielding an unprecedented reach in and across all networks, and across time, yielding unprecedented, accruing, disruptive relationships in networks (positive and negative).
Our cultural genome is not unprecedented; it's archaic; it can't support exponential complexity.
Our cultural genome needs to be "redomained."
Agriculture redomained food procurement from hunting and gathering; alphabet code redomained writing from pictograph code; electricity redomained power generation from steam power; democracy redomained government from monarchy; eukaryote cells redomained biotech from prokaryote cells.
2
Ever since the extreme right-wing supreme court allowed millionaires to purchase politicians, the GOP in congress have geared their dark, immoral desires, to extend the anti-democratic platform to allow Wall Street and any millionaires, like the Vegas mobster and the Evil Twins, to purchase the entire political system.
Now, more than ever, a presidential veto is a necessity if we want to remain a true democracy.
Now, more than ever, a presidential veto is a necessity if we want to remain a true democracy.
5
A large fraction of all this money goes to pay for ads to be
broadcast over radio and tv stations owned by companies
that purchased the right to use certain frequencies. This use is,
however, one of a renter's rights to use property owned by
someone else.The broadcasters do not own the frequencies. The use is also not completely unregulated in any case. Their
use is regulated by the FCC.
The broadcasters charge rates to place ads on their channels. They
do not distinguish between political and commercial products. This
decision is not in the public interest because it requires large
amounts of money to run sufficiently many ads to be heard through
the electronic white noise. Candidates lust for campaign contributions because of the price to pay for such messaging. This completely perverts
the political process as cannot be seriously denied by anyone.
Why is this arrangement considered to be in the public interest?
Other countries offer airtime for campaign messaging. Why is
this taboo here? Why is it a taboo notion to require
renters of the communication frequencies to charge a significantly
lower price to candidates whose polling indicates they are considered
serious candidates for public office?
Much of the toxic effects of the current lunatic arrangement could be easily
alleviated by a radically different FCC position on what price
broadcasters are allowed to charge to rent their channels.
Could anyone explain why this is off the table as policy?
broadcast over radio and tv stations owned by companies
that purchased the right to use certain frequencies. This use is,
however, one of a renter's rights to use property owned by
someone else.The broadcasters do not own the frequencies. The use is also not completely unregulated in any case. Their
use is regulated by the FCC.
The broadcasters charge rates to place ads on their channels. They
do not distinguish between political and commercial products. This
decision is not in the public interest because it requires large
amounts of money to run sufficiently many ads to be heard through
the electronic white noise. Candidates lust for campaign contributions because of the price to pay for such messaging. This completely perverts
the political process as cannot be seriously denied by anyone.
Why is this arrangement considered to be in the public interest?
Other countries offer airtime for campaign messaging. Why is
this taboo here? Why is it a taboo notion to require
renters of the communication frequencies to charge a significantly
lower price to candidates whose polling indicates they are considered
serious candidates for public office?
Much of the toxic effects of the current lunatic arrangement could be easily
alleviated by a radically different FCC position on what price
broadcasters are allowed to charge to rent their channels.
Could anyone explain why this is off the table as policy?
4
I have to wonder what kind of people Kentuckians are who would reelect McConnell again and again, knowing his stalwart opposition to campaign reform and knowing his efforts to keep the political influence of big money hidden.
7
The alternatives are worse.
Interesting. Why are you bringing this to our attention after it was made into law? A paper, like yours, has time to report on stupid stuff, but not the pending bill.
Do your job.
Do your job.
19
For all the moaning and hand-wringing here, I think most of the comments are off the mark.
Despite efforts to inhibit voting we still have a reliably free and objective election system at all levels. We do not have ballot box stuffing (or boxes that disappear), military interventions, or political leaders who void or otherwise refuse to honor election results (SCOTUS vs. Gore being an exception that sensitized the public to make repeats much less likely).
What we do have is the reasonable expectation that individual votes will be counted and the majority will elect their desired candidate. What we also have is the extreme distortion of the CAMPAIGN process that big money (and big media) have brought. However distasteful and unethical this might be, each of us is still free in the voting booth to select any candidate we choose. And if, after elected, that official does the bidding of big donors and spurns the "will of the people", they are free to vote him or her out of office at the next election.
If what worries you is that big money makes people vote "the wrong way", well then you have your own biases to face. You either think that voters who support candidates that you dislike are not as smart as you, or that they are overly susceptible to campaign speech and deluding themselves. In any case they are not to be trusted--and that starts to seem as undemocratic as any fears of dark money influence.
Despite efforts to inhibit voting we still have a reliably free and objective election system at all levels. We do not have ballot box stuffing (or boxes that disappear), military interventions, or political leaders who void or otherwise refuse to honor election results (SCOTUS vs. Gore being an exception that sensitized the public to make repeats much less likely).
What we do have is the reasonable expectation that individual votes will be counted and the majority will elect their desired candidate. What we also have is the extreme distortion of the CAMPAIGN process that big money (and big media) have brought. However distasteful and unethical this might be, each of us is still free in the voting booth to select any candidate we choose. And if, after elected, that official does the bidding of big donors and spurns the "will of the people", they are free to vote him or her out of office at the next election.
If what worries you is that big money makes people vote "the wrong way", well then you have your own biases to face. You either think that voters who support candidates that you dislike are not as smart as you, or that they are overly susceptible to campaign speech and deluding themselves. In any case they are not to be trusted--and that starts to seem as undemocratic as any fears of dark money influence.
1
You've set a pretty low bar. Heck yeah, our elections are probably more fair than Russia's or Somalia's. Break out the champagne! Now...remind me what other democracy has had their Supreme Court stop vote counting and pick the winning candidate, and where the deciding votes on the Court were cast by people selected by the candidate's Dad?
5
Justice Anthony Kennedy's key finding in the CU decision was that it is unreasonable to assume that a contribution to a political candidate or officeholder is evidence of a quid pro quo. Such a contribution, he wrote, absent any direct proof to the contrary, is perfectly harmless and represents a form of free expression.
Moreover, the SCOTUS majority claimed, if there is an issue with the flow of money into politics, it is up to the Congress, not the Court, to fix.
This is not a case so much of judicial activism as it is judicial fantasy.
Moreover, the SCOTUS majority claimed, if there is an issue with the flow of money into politics, it is up to the Congress, not the Court, to fix.
This is not a case so much of judicial activism as it is judicial fantasy.
5
Of course, dear Editorial Board, Lois Lehrner's actions and her subsequent invocation of her Fifth Amendment rights had nothing to do with the Congress making such actions as she is alleged to have taken illegal.
Nope...Not a smidgen of corruption in the Obama administration's IRS. Not a smidgen!
And you rail about the loonies in the Republican party? I'll take a loonie over a corrupt, autocratic wannabe set of tyrants any day of the week.
Nope...Not a smidgen of corruption in the Obama administration's IRS. Not a smidgen!
And you rail about the loonies in the Republican party? I'll take a loonie over a corrupt, autocratic wannabe set of tyrants any day of the week.
4
As their policies become more extreme and less popular, the Republicans have become masters at cheating the electorate and disenfranchising average voters. It's the only way they can stay in power.
10
Making this a Republicans (bad people) vs Democrats (good people) undermines the cause. Party establishments on both sides benefit from and support these policies. Your article would be so much more credible if you would overtly recognize that!
7
Then why is it only the Republicans placing it in the bill.
1
e.g. candidate Hilary Clinton.
1
I’m sorry, which Democratic Supreme Court Justices voted with the majority on Citizens United? And, just which Democrats pushed for a law allowing secret, unlimited and unregulated corporate donations to political campaigns? The fact of the matter is that there was no Democratic support for this obscene, corrupting influence on our nation’s politics. Our political dynamic may not be a contest between a party of monsters and a party of angels, but at this juncture there are monsters on just one side.
4
No surprise. Just the most recent step that the super-wealthy have taken as part of their step-by-step takeover of the entire US government.
7
Until Citizens United, the USA had not seen a Supreme Court decision that wrought such revolutionary change in US political culture since Brown v Board of Ed and Roe v Wade.
It is shocking how a decision that ostensibly limits government power had the effect of creating a billionaire class with the power to take control of government. The Dred Scott decision had a comparable effect in the 19th century, and also destroyed one of the two major political parties.
It is shocking how a decision that ostensibly limits government power had the effect of creating a billionaire class with the power to take control of government. The Dred Scott decision had a comparable effect in the 19th century, and also destroyed one of the two major political parties.
3
Well, finally. The New York Times is beginning to sound like Bernie Sanders. Welcome aboard.
6
Electioneering should not begin for an election that year until it has begun, January First. No political commercials allowed. All candidates have access to free public media 24/7. Debates are not sanctioned by the major political parties. They have no time limits, they can go on like a tied baseball game, literally forever, until the last person is standing with a question answered. Primaries would be regional, no individual state gaining preeminence. They would be chosen by lottery on the New Year. What we want is NOT transparency of huge amounts of money changing hands. We want no money at all allowed into coffers. The Brits do a fine job in just a few months of electioneering. We live the 21st Century. The moment the President says something, the entire nation is made aware of it in milliseconds. We have more media than needed.
Why won't any reform come? Because we all know folks love to moan and whine till the cows come home after the election how messed up things are. "Their" candidate did not win. Yeah, right.
Too late for that, Pal. Democracy in a free society demands active participation by the people. The public has no problem waiting in lines to see "Star Wars", get all the info they need about it months before its release. They are absorbed completely. If a smidgen of the interest humans are capable of generating were applied to politics it would look quite different than it does.
Stop complaining, do something.
DD
Manhattan
Why won't any reform come? Because we all know folks love to moan and whine till the cows come home after the election how messed up things are. "Their" candidate did not win. Yeah, right.
Too late for that, Pal. Democracy in a free society demands active participation by the people. The public has no problem waiting in lines to see "Star Wars", get all the info they need about it months before its release. They are absorbed completely. If a smidgen of the interest humans are capable of generating were applied to politics it would look quite different than it does.
Stop complaining, do something.
DD
Manhattan
2
Ron writes: "Until we clean out the dark money, there will be no progress on climate change, gun control, income inequality, worker rights, corporate welfare, or healthcare reform.
Is Hillary Clinton the person to do this? Sadly, no."
Ron, you may be right, but it is possible she can and will do something about dark money.
Much as I appreciate some of the positions taken by Bernie Sanders, he is simply not electable. And, even if through some miracle he was elected, he hasn't got the skills necessary to accomplish anything against the opposition he would face.
Hillary is the only electable candidate who might do something about this situation, and who would possess the skills to accomplish something.
Would you rather have had Don Quixote or Lyndon Johnson as President?
Is Hillary Clinton the person to do this? Sadly, no."
Ron, you may be right, but it is possible she can and will do something about dark money.
Much as I appreciate some of the positions taken by Bernie Sanders, he is simply not electable. And, even if through some miracle he was elected, he hasn't got the skills necessary to accomplish anything against the opposition he would face.
Hillary is the only electable candidate who might do something about this situation, and who would possess the skills to accomplish something.
Would you rather have had Don Quixote or Lyndon Johnson as President?
2
The Supreme Court's right wing majority in the 5 to 4 Citizens United threatens the core values and unifying strength of our republic. Private corporate money and billionaire money channeled into our political system aims to subvert our government's central function to ensure the public good, fairness and equality of opportunity not be undermined by a few rich citizens. Unfortunately the bad guys appear to be winning, but the concepts and passions evoked by a "government of the people, by the people and for the people" appear to be making a come back. The central battle is over that "government...for the people" part. Save our republic and overturn Citizen's United.
4
I share readers' doubts about Citizens United. Yet for good reason, the Court has long subjected laws banning political speech to strict scrutiny. The U.S. thus properly had an uphill battle trying to defend the laws challenged in CU. Even Laurence Tribe of Harvard has noted that 1) viewed as an "as applied" rather than "facial" challenge, the Court got it right; 2) money and speech are inseparable in the campaign finance context; and 3) the Court has long, repeatedly held that corporations are persons under the Due Process Clause.
Beyond this, the CU dissenters note, the Free Speech Clause protects speech, not speakers, and so the text of the First Amendment provides no basis to ban speech due to its corporate source. More importantly, if the premise is that U.S. voters are so stupid that in the voting booth we automatically vote as corporate ads tell us, then we've abandoned popular government. As a matter of law, thus, CU is highly defensible.
As a matter of politics, however, an amendment to the Constitution invalidating CU would also be highly justifiable. Beyond our raw power to do so under Article V (and the impetus would probably have to come from the States, not Congress), such an amendment could properly readjust the balance of power between the public and private sectors - between government and corporations. Since corporate personhood is so deeply embedded in our law, however, such an amendment would most likely be successful if it focused on speech alone.
Beyond this, the CU dissenters note, the Free Speech Clause protects speech, not speakers, and so the text of the First Amendment provides no basis to ban speech due to its corporate source. More importantly, if the premise is that U.S. voters are so stupid that in the voting booth we automatically vote as corporate ads tell us, then we've abandoned popular government. As a matter of law, thus, CU is highly defensible.
As a matter of politics, however, an amendment to the Constitution invalidating CU would also be highly justifiable. Beyond our raw power to do so under Article V (and the impetus would probably have to come from the States, not Congress), such an amendment could properly readjust the balance of power between the public and private sectors - between government and corporations. Since corporate personhood is so deeply embedded in our law, however, such an amendment would most likely be successful if it focused on speech alone.
2
The corruption of the Republican Party continues unabated. Or more accurately, the subversion of the political system by wealthy special interests, presumably including multinational corporations and hostile foreign governments, aided and expanded by the Republican Party, continues unabated. This is the most dangerous threat to the American people's sovereignty, and their ability to control their own government, that this country has ever faced.
2
For all those lamenting Citizens United, I have but one question:
Why should the NYT Corporation have greater free speech rights than the Sierra Club, the NRA or any for-profit corporation?
Why should the NYT Corporation have greater free speech rights than the Sierra Club, the NRA or any for-profit corporation?
1
Last time I checked, the NYTimes Corp, newspapers and news media, don't contribute $ to political candidates/organizations.
1
When a newspaper speaks to the people, it informs, it educates, it enlightens. When a corporation (or mafia don for that matter) gives money to politicians, in secret, democracy dies. See the difference?
1
CORRUPTION. LEGALIZED. The US Supreme Corrupted Court. The 5 judges have stained our democracy and the damages that they will have caused to the US will be so hurtful not even them will be able to escape. Anyone who doesn't believe that money cannot be used to buy decisions is not only deranged, let alone be a member of the US Supreme Court. God help us.
2
There are many issues this election as with any other year, but its becoming increasingly clear to me that the top issue is getting money out of politics. The only candidate with a serious plan to take on 'big money' is Senator Bernie Sanders who has earned my caucus vote.
11
Also, the reason for the IRS provision was to prevent future IRS officials from following the example of Lois Lerner by using disclosure requirements to punish political opposition.
3
The more money finds it way to representatives of the people, the less representative of the people they become. And the more representative of money. Is this a mystery? A person with a million dollars to spend to make his voice heard, is more likely to be heard than a person who has ten dollars to spend. So how in honesty can contributions be consistent with a representative democracy? There is no logic that supports the decision. The convoluted notion that somehow campaign money will represent everyone equally is simply denying experience. Makes one wonder whether ivory tower lawyers lose their common sense when they put on their robes. Or maybe their life experience is so narrow they never had any real common sense to start with.
3
Obama, the golden boy of liberal reform, signed it into law; I guess he did not have time to read the bill before jetting off to Hawaii to hit the links. Oh, well.
4
Just to set the record straight, unless he goes on vacation from now to the end of his term, Obama will not reach having taken half as much vacation time as Bush 43 did. Not half as much. Of course Bush 43 took more than 200 more days off than any two term President in modern history (that's not including the 500 days he spent at Camp David on R&R.) Who took the most days off for a one term President?...Bush 41.
3
At no time in the last half-century has the GOP had the slightest interest in the democratic ideal that undergirds our constitutional system of self-government. We see this time and again in the gerrymandering and voter suppression so firmly embedded in the Republican tactical playbook.
The Party that so stridently pounds the podium of patriotism is the same one that spares no effort to protect the narrow interests of elite power brokers dedicated to the proposition that all people are indeed NOT created equal, nor will they ever be.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
The Party that so stridently pounds the podium of patriotism is the same one that spares no effort to protect the narrow interests of elite power brokers dedicated to the proposition that all people are indeed NOT created equal, nor will they ever be.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
6
The thing that irks me the most about the 'phantom' giving is that these rich people get to take a tax deduction for their 'charitable donation' even though none of the money is used to help charitable causes.
5
is anyone naive enough to think arab shieks and chinese tycoons are not using their billions to influence usa elections ?
at its root, cu gave anyone with cash a vote in american elections
at its root, cu gave anyone with cash a vote in american elections
6
>
Quite frankly, I'm surprised that the IRS still exists after so many years of House GOP rule and their penchant for inserting some of the worse legislation into bills under the illusion of compromise and threat of close-down.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised that the IRS still exists after so many years of House GOP rule and their penchant for inserting some of the worse legislation into bills under the illusion of compromise and threat of close-down.
5
Thanks for the brilliant executive order suggestion, NYT editorial board milquetoasts.
Democrats are playing a longer strategy that will settle this issue decisively. The "corporations-are-people" justices nominated by last generation's Republican presidents are, thankfully, nearing retirement. A Democrat will nominate their replacements. The delusional Citizens United decision, as well as equally bizarre Roberts' Court CRA and VRA decisions, will be overturned.
Democrats are playing a longer strategy that will settle this issue decisively. The "corporations-are-people" justices nominated by last generation's Republican presidents are, thankfully, nearing retirement. A Democrat will nominate their replacements. The delusional Citizens United decision, as well as equally bizarre Roberts' Court CRA and VRA decisions, will be overturned.
3
You really have to be a complete phony, if not clinically delusional, to be a Republican and consider yourself a Christian these days.
5
No wonder our dirty faced little boy speaker was all smiles. I think he characterized this bill as a "compromise." What can you expect from soulless liars?
5
My understanding is that SCOTUS brought money into the equation, simply acknowledging that it is an index of social organization. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. All money isn't dark money. But dark money is a bad thing and it was Congress that turned the lights out. It's time for them to pay their bills and turn them back on. Obama needs to send them an overdue notice.
3
For all of you talking about how evil the Republicans are, I'm trying to figure out what the valiant Democrats did to stop this (the destruction of our democracy). I understand that the Democrats criticize it, but what legislative tricks did they use to try and stop it? What grandstanding did they do before the votes to bring attention to the issue?
Not only did the Democrats not take any extraordinary steps to stop this, they did not make any attempt to stop it. They voted for it, just like the Republicans, because it benefits them too.
As evil as the Republicans are, they are at least honest about what they are doing. The Democrats continue to vote against my interests while they tell me that they are representing me. I find that to be even more insidious.
Not only did the Democrats not take any extraordinary steps to stop this, they did not make any attempt to stop it. They voted for it, just like the Republicans, because it benefits them too.
As evil as the Republicans are, they are at least honest about what they are doing. The Democrats continue to vote against my interests while they tell me that they are representing me. I find that to be even more insidious.
39
I can only agree. Our Democratic President has failed to use his "bully pulpit" to dissuade voters of the nihilism now espoused by paid-off Republican candidates for President as reported by our paid-off media. Obama is also courting the billionaires, and looking forward to huge speaker fees after retirement.
The American democracy has been obliterated, and Obama will eventually be seen by future historians, if there are any, as the worst President in U.S. history.
The American democracy has been obliterated, and Obama will eventually be seen by future historians, if there are any, as the worst President in U.S. history.
2
"As evil as the Republicans are, they are at least honest about what they are doing."
Thank God for evil people who are honest about what they are doing. The Republican sure have plenty of them. Trump is completely honest in his hatred of non white and non Christian people. And he is being richly rewarded in the polls by Republicans that feel the same way. I can also think of many monsters in history who were honest about what they were doing. It never occurred to me to praise them because they were transparent in what they were trying to accomplish. The question actually should be; what is it they are being honest about?
Thank God for evil people who are honest about what they are doing. The Republican sure have plenty of them. Trump is completely honest in his hatred of non white and non Christian people. And he is being richly rewarded in the polls by Republicans that feel the same way. I can also think of many monsters in history who were honest about what they were doing. It never occurred to me to praise them because they were transparent in what they were trying to accomplish. The question actually should be; what is it they are being honest about?
1
In a Democracy the government is intended to be the voice of "We the People," but when 200 people at the top of the socioeconomic scale control the political system with vast wealth, the voice of "We the People" is lost and the Democracy becomes an Oligarchy.
6
Gad, but would I love to read follow-on interviews with the pro-Citizens United Justices...surly their rationalizations have gotten more creative, though no more valid.
3
Let them restrict voter knowledge even more. Eventually even the non-voters and dupes who think the teaparty/GOP is trying to protect them will wake up to the control the oligarchs are increasingly amassing. Then it will be either too late and we'll all be serfs or things will get really messy.
3
Come on, NYT and other news media. The 2,000+ pages of the spending bill was packed with hundreds, if not thousands, of tax breaks and regulatory favors. Pathetically, it's the only way the bill got passed — nearly every member of Congress got such payoffs, most of which only serve to increase our society's inequities and unfairness, on behalf of their biggest political contributors. Will someone in the news media please systematically comb through the bill and bring to light all of this?!?
8
True democracy and blatant corruption cannot coexist. It is either-or situation. A democratic leader cannot be corrupted. A corrupted politician cannot be democratic because they serve his or her masters.
The common name for such conditions is a banana republic – a republic just in name, but in essence rotten like a rotten banana…
The concept of the politicians that regularly collect the bribe money but serve the voters honestly is just another fairy tale like Santa Claus…
What is the blatant corruption? If the corporate lobbyists write the legislations and regulations while the elected representatives serve only as a mailman to deliver it to the Congress for the approval…
What is the exact price for such conditions? Almost $20 trillion in the national debt and counting... All that money ended up in the private pockets of “the best and the brightest”… What a flattery term for the notorious crooks…
The only way to save the American democracy is to use the anti-racketeering laws devised to fight Mafia several decades ago in order to defeat the lobbyist organizations that penetrated every segment of the society…
Of course, this is only under the conditions it’s not too late to try it…
The common name for such conditions is a banana republic – a republic just in name, but in essence rotten like a rotten banana…
The concept of the politicians that regularly collect the bribe money but serve the voters honestly is just another fairy tale like Santa Claus…
What is the blatant corruption? If the corporate lobbyists write the legislations and regulations while the elected representatives serve only as a mailman to deliver it to the Congress for the approval…
What is the exact price for such conditions? Almost $20 trillion in the national debt and counting... All that money ended up in the private pockets of “the best and the brightest”… What a flattery term for the notorious crooks…
The only way to save the American democracy is to use the anti-racketeering laws devised to fight Mafia several decades ago in order to defeat the lobbyist organizations that penetrated every segment of the society…
Of course, this is only under the conditions it’s not too late to try it…
3
i find it interesting that theses large pieces of legislation appear to haveno authors! Hear me out. How is it that we get these disembodied fragments of laws given to us eithout knowing who ( or on whose authority) it was written?
Our legislators number in the hundreds. Each of them probably votes on legislation without having read the whole document that amounts to thousands of pages. i think it is clear that they have outsourced writing of the whole document.
i am guessing that the electronic file that was used to generate the final legislative document must certainly have metadata to know exactly who wrote every word. Let's find out! And assign authorship.
Our legislators number in the hundreds. Each of them probably votes on legislation without having read the whole document that amounts to thousands of pages. i think it is clear that they have outsourced writing of the whole document.
i am guessing that the electronic file that was used to generate the final legislative document must certainly have metadata to know exactly who wrote every word. Let's find out! And assign authorship.
2
To the Editors,
Wait, isn't this the same President Obama who was supposed to end our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq? Isn't this the same president who drew that old "red line" then continued to re-draw it as circumstances dictated?
So why on Earth do you expect him to issue an "executive order" to counter act the idiotic SCOTUS decision?
The GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE IS the party which not only "speaks for" but is "owned by" the 1% whom, lately, do not seem to have the "best interests" of the 99% at heart (Tongue firmly in cheek).
I guess the "business of America" IS business and the rest of us just better get used to the idea as those banks that were "Too Big To Fail" back in 2008 are even BIGGER and have a whole new bunch of pre-paid politicians promoting this as "good for the rest of us" as in, "of course, when necessary, the rest of you with your tax dollars can bail us out again".
See, that's how the system works; give the politicians tons of money, take tons of money from everyone else and wrap the whole thing in a flag and call it "democracy".
No wonder the rest of the world views us as hypocrites.
Wait, isn't this the same President Obama who was supposed to end our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq? Isn't this the same president who drew that old "red line" then continued to re-draw it as circumstances dictated?
So why on Earth do you expect him to issue an "executive order" to counter act the idiotic SCOTUS decision?
The GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE IS the party which not only "speaks for" but is "owned by" the 1% whom, lately, do not seem to have the "best interests" of the 99% at heart (Tongue firmly in cheek).
I guess the "business of America" IS business and the rest of us just better get used to the idea as those banks that were "Too Big To Fail" back in 2008 are even BIGGER and have a whole new bunch of pre-paid politicians promoting this as "good for the rest of us" as in, "of course, when necessary, the rest of you with your tax dollars can bail us out again".
See, that's how the system works; give the politicians tons of money, take tons of money from everyone else and wrap the whole thing in a flag and call it "democracy".
No wonder the rest of the world views us as hypocrites.
5
Dear fellow readers,
Please excuse the multiple posting of my earlier comment. It is NOT my doing, it is merely the vaunted and recently featured NY Times moderating crew trying to show me who is boss.
Please excuse the multiple posting of my earlier comment. It is NOT my doing, it is merely the vaunted and recently featured NY Times moderating crew trying to show me who is boss.
1
In other countries, it's out-of-control presidents who eliminate the separation of powers to advance their personal agendas. Venezuela under Hugo Chávez is a good example.
But in the U.S., the collapse of the balance of power in government is being engineered by outside forces that are doing their utmost to be invisible. The Supreme Court cripples campaign finance laws approved by Congress and signed into law by the president. What's the real story? Anyone who knows isn't talking.
Congress hobbles executive agencies to keep them from pulling back the curtain on fundraising activities. Who's behind these maneuvers? Whoever they are, they're stealthy operators.
Were there a Republican president in the White House, who knows which donors' agendas he'd advance through the powers of his office.
Because of this deliberate opacity, all the public can do is try to connect the dots, a task that is becoming increasingly difficult. Anyone who tries to pierce the veil of secrecy to expose the interests that are buying influence risks being dismissed as a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
What America needs is another Edward Snowden or another Wikileaks to make public what the rich and powerful corporate interests don't want you to know about how and why they're undermining our democracy.
But in the U.S., the collapse of the balance of power in government is being engineered by outside forces that are doing their utmost to be invisible. The Supreme Court cripples campaign finance laws approved by Congress and signed into law by the president. What's the real story? Anyone who knows isn't talking.
Congress hobbles executive agencies to keep them from pulling back the curtain on fundraising activities. Who's behind these maneuvers? Whoever they are, they're stealthy operators.
Were there a Republican president in the White House, who knows which donors' agendas he'd advance through the powers of his office.
Because of this deliberate opacity, all the public can do is try to connect the dots, a task that is becoming increasingly difficult. Anyone who tries to pierce the veil of secrecy to expose the interests that are buying influence risks being dismissed as a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
What America needs is another Edward Snowden or another Wikileaks to make public what the rich and powerful corporate interests don't want you to know about how and why they're undermining our democracy.
9
As long as all the PACS' loose their purchased candidates in the running let them drain their private coffers... i know i know... wishful thinking
2
People complain about campaigns being bought by billionaires, yet they admire a billionaire spending his own money and support him heavily, thinking somehow he can't be bought. No, but that does not mean he can't do the buying, does it?
Our illustrious Mayor Bloomberg bought his elections. He even bought an amendment to the city charter to extend his reign. And what did this so-called enlightened bastion of liberalism do? They forgave his outright coup and re-elected. It mattered not that he changed the rules in the middle of the game, he got away it. He was popular, you say? He bought the election.
We have met the enemy and it is us. And so it goes for the rest of America. We could demand reform and vote for someone who refused big money, but we don't. A honest can't be bought Senator Feingold (remember? McCain/Feingold) adhered to his law and what happened? He was defeated by big money supporting his opponent.
When the electorate is too lazy to take the time to access for free information on a candidate but instead allow themselves to be swayed by 30 second ads their complaints about money being the root of all the evil in politics falls on deaf ears.
I have friends who choose to remain ignorant of issues, uninformed. Later, after the election is over and the damage done, and the whining commences, I am in no mood to here about how elections are rigged. In a free society that fault lies not in our stars, it lies with US.
DD
Manhattan
Our illustrious Mayor Bloomberg bought his elections. He even bought an amendment to the city charter to extend his reign. And what did this so-called enlightened bastion of liberalism do? They forgave his outright coup and re-elected. It mattered not that he changed the rules in the middle of the game, he got away it. He was popular, you say? He bought the election.
We have met the enemy and it is us. And so it goes for the rest of America. We could demand reform and vote for someone who refused big money, but we don't. A honest can't be bought Senator Feingold (remember? McCain/Feingold) adhered to his law and what happened? He was defeated by big money supporting his opponent.
When the electorate is too lazy to take the time to access for free information on a candidate but instead allow themselves to be swayed by 30 second ads their complaints about money being the root of all the evil in politics falls on deaf ears.
I have friends who choose to remain ignorant of issues, uninformed. Later, after the election is over and the damage done, and the whining commences, I am in no mood to here about how elections are rigged. In a free society that fault lies not in our stars, it lies with US.
DD
Manhattan
4
The left has been given the last 75 years to implement a democratic process. It turns out to have failed, with nothing to show for it but randomly applied anti-discrimination policies that essentially create unions bringing massive benefits to some small subset of a special interest group, and leaving the rest of that group to flail in the real world, hoping to be lucky enough to suffer enough to warrant a trip to Oprah (or similar), where they get 5 minutes to spin an anecdote before being sent back to the stadium. The idea of balancing society by artificially picking "representatives" of certain groups and grossly rewarding them via identity politics needs to stop.
It is time for this system to be destroyed, for success to be rewarded not condemned, for failure to be discouraged not encouraged, for freedom to be available to all who want it, not just those with the right pedigree. And that means letting money speak to power. And that means removing the shackles of those with money to help those without, and for the government to be deprived of the power to undermine progress by criminalizing financial assistance.
It is time for this system to be destroyed, for success to be rewarded not condemned, for failure to be discouraged not encouraged, for freedom to be available to all who want it, not just those with the right pedigree. And that means letting money speak to power. And that means removing the shackles of those with money to help those without, and for the government to be deprived of the power to undermine progress by criminalizing financial assistance.
1
Translation: I have no idea what I'm talking about and refuse to remember that George Bush, Newt Gingrich, Tom De Lay, Dennis Hastert, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon even existed, but I'm sick of this namby-pamby voting.
Time for corporate fascism, which is what you're arguing for. Good grief.
Time for corporate fascism, which is what you're arguing for. Good grief.
2
Well Gee somehow laws to prevent IRS corruption are bad? It is simple give anybody who properly asks the permission. Audit them to see what they are going. Let the owners of corporations decide what they want to know there are ways to do so. Just more regulations of things that are not at the top of the priority list. How about passing an increase in the fuel tax and a way to restore and improve our infrastructure?
There is no IRS corruption there is as is always the case when the GOP claims corruption an honest dedicated Federal Employee doing their job correctly catching out GOP corruption and corrupt practices.
Didja ever notice how every single change to the law by a GOP since reagan was literally designed to decriminalize the crimes they are or want to commit?
Didja ever notice how every single change to the law by a GOP since reagan was literally designed to decriminalize the crimes they are or want to commit?
2
The corruption isn't within the IRS. It lies with corporations who wish to remain anonymous while benefiting candidates who will vote to support their wishes and a Congress that goes along with the wishes of corporate leaders who financially support their election/re-election.
How about, at last, taxpayer funded campaigns, including free TV and radio time for all candidates?
How about, at last, taxpayer funded campaigns, including free TV and radio time for all candidates?
2
So Congress votes to keep the cash flowing, and Obama doesn't step in. We no longer have a democracy.
12
what do you propose obama to do, specifically and in detail, please
th ONLY people who can get money ( lobbyists, pacs, cu) out from politics are your representatives, th ones who benefit from it
now how likely is it they would vote themselves out of that river of money ?
th ONLY people who can get money ( lobbyists, pacs, cu) out from politics are your representatives, th ones who benefit from it
now how likely is it they would vote themselves out of that river of money ?
1
We stopped having a democracy a long time ago. The oligarchs are just consolidating and expanding their almost absolute power.
3
That has been true since 1980 when reagan destroyed PATCO by firing 13000 professional air traffic controllers for standing up for the safety standard of not being forced to work long hours. Its just one more example of hoe the GOP voter/Pol cannot think or see the world past the end of their own noses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/opinion/reagan-vs-patco-the-strike-tha...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/opinion/reagan-vs-patco-the-strike-tha...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organ...
3
History demonstrates politics is all about money at every level from Boss Tweed, Tammany Hall, Albany, etc, which are small potatoes compared to billion dollar presidential campaigns, Super PACs, etc.
21
It was a dark day for the US when the US Supreme Court brought us Citizens United, and it continues. Those who try to apologize for the mistake of the highest court of the land forget two things. First, money is not, as claimed, free speech but a huge volume control of speech. Second, those who are not benefiting from this flood of money does not excuse the very large sums of money in politics since it corrupts all who touch it whether they win or lose.
Here is a suggestion if we want to keep the money in politics (I don't know why), allow anyone to give as much money as they want into a pool of campaign money which will be distributed among all candidates regardless of their party affiliations.
Watch the money start shrinking!
Here is a suggestion if we want to keep the money in politics (I don't know why), allow anyone to give as much money as they want into a pool of campaign money which will be distributed among all candidates regardless of their party affiliations.
Watch the money start shrinking!
13
If you want to take money out of politics, why no limit how much politicians can take in in an election cycle or keep in their slush funds...oops...sorry...their campaign accounts.
If a politician wants to take all of his money from one or two sources, so be it. It will soon become public knowledge and make sure that the spotlight is turned upon the politician's being bought and paid for by one voice.
Stop playing the holy martyr and indignant citizen ACEkin, and start working towards the solution.
...Your perpetual whining because you lost is indicative of your inability to sell a solution that can be accepted by any, let alone all.
If a politician wants to take all of his money from one or two sources, so be it. It will soon become public knowledge and make sure that the spotlight is turned upon the politician's being bought and paid for by one voice.
Stop playing the holy martyr and indignant citizen ACEkin, and start working towards the solution.
...Your perpetual whining because you lost is indicative of your inability to sell a solution that can be accepted by any, let alone all.
1
Reason does not make people martyr or indignant, just reasonable; and stating reasoned arguments hardly make whining. But again, some may chose other paths, to each his/her own.
1
US citizens have relinquished their power in this matter which mean poles will continue to satisfy their lusts. As a tiger cannot change its stripes ...
1
We got Citizens United because, unfortunately, we have at least five on the Supreme Court that are little more than politicians in judicial robes. The corruption that is growing out of Citizens United already had life in SCOTUS prior to that decision -- e.g., Bush v Gore and District of Columbia v Heller decisions.
35
No, we got Citizens United because of 100 years of case law that establishes corporations being viewed as individuals.
It's the way under the law that corporations CAN BE held accountable under the law.
It's the way under the law that corporations CAN BE held accountable under the law.
2
An objective of wealth is to break government down into pieces small enough to be bought. Citizens United in addition cynically gives those bidding to buy the federal government to have the mechanism to do so. The Supreme Court justices knew exactly what they were doing, as is clear from the minority dissenting opinions.
39
They get SO MUCH from us the taxpayers; salaries, and unlimited health care; and a lot more I don't know about; Please, Preet Bharara, please add these complicit controllers to your list of investigations; they have lined their own pockets with gold and have sought to keep it that way - and are not required to make any comment if they so wish..... How far down are we going - will it ever be possible to try them?!!!
4
Growing up in Illinois, where Abe Lincoln practiced law and first ran for political office, I was frequently reminded that the GOP was the "party of Lincoln," the president that spoke eloquently about this nation being "of the people, by the people, for the people."
Those days are long gone. The Republican Party is no longer the "party of Lincoln," and we have become a nation where money literally speaks and politicians listen, ignoring the people and the public/common good.
Those days are long gone. The Republican Party is no longer the "party of Lincoln," and we have become a nation where money literally speaks and politicians listen, ignoring the people and the public/common good.
12
Although the influx of unsourced money sounds ominous, consider the reality. Bush is probably the biggest beneficiary of corporate dollars yet his poll numbers remain in the low single digits. Trump is self-financed and remains number one among the Republicans. Sanders is losing but still holds a significant position as the number 2 candidate among Democrats. Money is important, but (as Lincoln said) you can't fool all the people all the time.
1
Just fool them till after the election day.
1
unfortunately this began on a sunny morning in Dallas in November of 1963 and since it wasn't stopped then I fear for my children and grandchildren's future
7
What a reversal of the meaning of democracy, where a candidate for office may succeed, independent of his or her accomplishments, character or lack thereof, a demagogue or charlatan or bully. Money in itself is meant to be neutral, but its political intent is demeaning and frustrating most people's thought of being active participants in choosing their representatives. Greed and corruption have gained the upper hand, the rich and powerful enhancing their privileges, inequality remains rampant, the inequities of a capitalistic system in the raw for all to see...and experience. Not pretty, nor sustainable.
14
With the Citizens United ruling, "campaign contributions" changed from a euphemism to a synonym for "bribery."
13
They've always been bribery, EuroAm.
But you've been so blinded by the insane rhetoric to understand what the reality has been hundreds of years.
But you've been so blinded by the insane rhetoric to understand what the reality has been hundreds of years.
2
The restriction is not as broad as the Editorial Board suggests. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 in section 707 states "LIMITATION ON SEC FUNDS. None of the funds made available by any division of this Act shall be used by the Securities and Exchange Commission to finalize, issue, or implement any rule, regulation, or order regarding the disclosure of political contributions, contributions to tax exempt organizations, or dues paid to trade associations.”
The key phrase here is "None of the funds made available by any division OF THIS ACT [etc.]” The SEC may not use funds from the 2016 Appropriations Act to enact a corporate political disclosure rule. However, the restriction does not extend to funds made available by other, prior Acts that are available to the SEC. Appropriations laws for the SEC state every year that the funds in the appropriation are “to remain available until expended.” The SEC routinely has some funds left over at the end of a fiscal year, appropriated by Acts not covered by section 707, that the SEC could use to implement the Dodd Frank statutory mandate for corporate political disclosure rules. In addition, the SEC has available to it the SEC Reserve Fund, which is also not covered by section 707’s limitations.
The SEC has funds available to implement the corporate political disclosure mandate, and the Republicans have failed in their effort to erect a statutory roadblock to this needed transparency rule.
The key phrase here is "None of the funds made available by any division OF THIS ACT [etc.]” The SEC may not use funds from the 2016 Appropriations Act to enact a corporate political disclosure rule. However, the restriction does not extend to funds made available by other, prior Acts that are available to the SEC. Appropriations laws for the SEC state every year that the funds in the appropriation are “to remain available until expended.” The SEC routinely has some funds left over at the end of a fiscal year, appropriated by Acts not covered by section 707, that the SEC could use to implement the Dodd Frank statutory mandate for corporate political disclosure rules. In addition, the SEC has available to it the SEC Reserve Fund, which is also not covered by section 707’s limitations.
The SEC has funds available to implement the corporate political disclosure mandate, and the Republicans have failed in their effort to erect a statutory roadblock to this needed transparency rule.
7
Correct. But do you think that the SEC that is already peopled by corporate friendly regulators will ignore the clear signal given in the legislation and actually circumvent the restriction by allocating other funds to promulgate the regulations?
Don't bet on it.
Don't bet on it.
Tony, you're a smart guy. Please, please keep writing.
2
Is there any way of finding out exactly who wrote those word.s? Certainly, someone had to sit down and craft them. let's find out who was the genius so we can follow the money. (and tar them for their treason)
1
I love the Hillary bashing. She's not been in government for years, but it is her evil machinations that got this bill passed.
Bernie's a good guy-- too close to the gun lobby for my taste, but right on many issues. Why Bernie people have to demonize Hillary is beyond me.
One person even compared her to a Darth Vader. Let's get a grip. This story was NOT about Hillary and she had nothing to do with this law since she is NOT in government!
Bernie's a good guy-- too close to the gun lobby for my taste, but right on many issues. Why Bernie people have to demonize Hillary is beyond me.
One person even compared her to a Darth Vader. Let's get a grip. This story was NOT about Hillary and she had nothing to do with this law since she is NOT in government!
3
No. It was Lois Lehrner who got this passed...single handedly.
Her corruption in the IRS whereby she used the strong arm of the tax collector to make political statements was as offensive to freedom as it was illegal.
Her corruption in the IRS whereby she used the strong arm of the tax collector to make political statements was as offensive to freedom as it was illegal.
2
The constitution was written in the eighteenth century, before electricity, airplanes, cars, telecommunications and WMD. Time for an update
5
Kennedy and the SCOTUS majority who handed down the worst decision since Plessy in terms of the vitality of our democracy knew good and well that there was no disclosure mechanism in place for citizens to determine whether "elected officials are 'in the pocket' of so-called moneyed interests."
This was a factual assertion that is worthy of the best alternative universe magical thinking banalities that the Kochs, Fox News and Tea Party crazies et al. fill our political discourse with on a daily basis.
The disclosure assertion is perhaps the most cynical and dishonest statement in the Citizens 5/4 decision, which is replete with same in terms of not only facts but analysis of precedent as well.. Kennedy and the Roberts boys apparently could care less about their legacy as the most politically active and jurisprudentially bankrupt Court in many generations.
It will only take a 5/4 majority to overrule Citizens and that is why is it vitally important for the country to elect democrats to the presidency until the unethical and dishonest justices in the Roberts majority are gone.
This was a factual assertion that is worthy of the best alternative universe magical thinking banalities that the Kochs, Fox News and Tea Party crazies et al. fill our political discourse with on a daily basis.
The disclosure assertion is perhaps the most cynical and dishonest statement in the Citizens 5/4 decision, which is replete with same in terms of not only facts but analysis of precedent as well.. Kennedy and the Roberts boys apparently could care less about their legacy as the most politically active and jurisprudentially bankrupt Court in many generations.
It will only take a 5/4 majority to overrule Citizens and that is why is it vitally important for the country to elect democrats to the presidency until the unethical and dishonest justices in the Roberts majority are gone.
22
Those Roberts boys actually could NOT care less.... They've never uttered a word of regret about their actions. What a deep miscarriage of justice, it cuts into everything the constitution was written to protect. Shame on Supreme Court who voted for their cronies.
4
america commits political suicide by choking on its beloved money
what could be more apt
what could be more apt
18
Using the IRS as an unbiased overseer of political spending? What a joke. Just because the NYT has done everything it can to ignore the politicalization of the agency under the Obama administration doesn't mean others, including Republican members of Congress, are not aware that the agency has been corrupted. If you want IRS oversight as cited in the Citizens United decision you should be demanding accountability and transparency from the IRS for the Lois Lerner-era abuses, but you don't. Easier for you and others to blame the Supreme Court than face the truth about the IRS under Obama.
5
There was no there, there, in terms of an IRS scandal, as hard as the good senator - car thief from California tried, he could find no wrong doing, not to mention, Democratic special interest were investigated on the same scale as Republican special interest, the head of the IRS, by the way, was a Republican.
1
@Rick in Iowa
Riiiight. Lois Lerner took the fifth because there was no there, there.
Fact is the "rosy assumptions of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision" included a non-politicized IRS. Not the Supreme Court's fault that under the Obama administration that simple requirement has become a '"rosy assumption".
Riiiight. Lois Lerner took the fifth because there was no there, there.
Fact is the "rosy assumptions of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision" included a non-politicized IRS. Not the Supreme Court's fault that under the Obama administration that simple requirement has become a '"rosy assumption".
2
An honest and competent Congress could restore McCain-Feingold, with the addition of provisions stating clearly that money is not speech and corporations are not people.
8
Just because Congress says money is not speech is not sufficient to overcome the Constitution and its prohibition against Congress passing no laws that will abridge that essential of freedoms.
Think about it for a while, ch. Either that, or go back and do some more study on the nature of our government, its responsibilities, and its limitations.
Think about it for a while, ch. Either that, or go back and do some more study on the nature of our government, its responsibilities, and its limitations.
1
When the travesty that is Citizens United came down upon America like a sun never to rise again, Republicans did a fair job of feigning high dudgeon. Since then, under both Orange Man and now the Wisconsin Boy Wonder, congressional GOPers have shown their true colors. "Scourge of dark money?" Let's call it what it is, fa***sm.
Of course, like any dark storm, this didn't sneak up on us. Roberts and his minions gave ample overture in many pro-corporate decisions. Jeffrey Rosen's Times Magazine "Supreme Court Inc.", written more than two years before Citizens, remains the definitive background read: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html
Of course, like any dark storm, this didn't sneak up on us. Roberts and his minions gave ample overture in many pro-corporate decisions. Jeffrey Rosen's Times Magazine "Supreme Court Inc.", written more than two years before Citizens, remains the definitive background read: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html
4
Though certainly not the intent of the donor class and the Congressional GOP leadership, they just made Trump's self-financed candidacy more attractive to many undecided voters. As good or bad as people perceive him to be, they know that he alone of the Republican candidates for President is not beholden to special interest financing.
Meanwhile, Bernard Sanders is equally free of such claims on him.
At least voters have one candidate in each party who is not donor dependent.
Meanwhile, Bernard Sanders is equally free of such claims on him.
At least voters have one candidate in each party who is not donor dependent.
6
Sanders is free because he takes in so few donated dollars.
...Not a real selling point on his ability to convince people of his efficacy as a candidate, wouldn't you think?
...Not a real selling point on his ability to convince people of his efficacy as a candidate, wouldn't you think?
1
The corporate plutocracy tightens its grip on America, burying any hope for revival of democratic processes.
The Roberts court executed American democracy and, soon after, American prosperity. The billionaires will choke on their greed while the rest of us starve.
The Roberts court executed American democracy and, soon after, American prosperity. The billionaires will choke on their greed while the rest of us starve.
10
It is ironic that Donald Trump is the front-runner
for the Republican Party given their views on
campaign finance and his views of how the system works.
For example
“I will tell you that our system is broken,” Trump said on stage in Thursday's GOP candidates' debate. “I gave to many people before this -- before two months ago I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what, when I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. That's a broken system.”
for the Republican Party given their views on
campaign finance and his views of how the system works.
For example
“I will tell you that our system is broken,” Trump said on stage in Thursday's GOP candidates' debate. “I gave to many people before this -- before two months ago I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what, when I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. That's a broken system.”
8
Please ... not the "Citizens United" chestnut again.
So-called "dark money" existed long before the Citizens United decision. Heck, just six years before that case George Soros, Peter Lewis and others poured tens of millions of dollars into a network of organizations, like Media Matters, America Coming Together, MoveOn.org, and others, whose main purpose was to defeat George W. Bush.
In fact, Citizens United sued to stop advertising of "Ferenheit 9/11" in the 30 days prior to the election arguing that it was a political piece designed to tip the election. Apparently democrats agreed, as they gave its director, Michael Moore, a prominent seat at the Democratic National Convention.
Having lost at the FEC, Citizens United bankrolled "Hillary: The Movie," using Moore's model. Apparently movies that bash Republicans constitute art, while movies that bash democrats are considered illegal campaign speech. Thus the law suit.
It seems that liberals get indignant when dirty tactics only when their tactics are used against them (Gerrymandering, "dark money," the "nuclear option," pro-forma sessions, etc.
Tough noogies.
So-called "dark money" existed long before the Citizens United decision. Heck, just six years before that case George Soros, Peter Lewis and others poured tens of millions of dollars into a network of organizations, like Media Matters, America Coming Together, MoveOn.org, and others, whose main purpose was to defeat George W. Bush.
In fact, Citizens United sued to stop advertising of "Ferenheit 9/11" in the 30 days prior to the election arguing that it was a political piece designed to tip the election. Apparently democrats agreed, as they gave its director, Michael Moore, a prominent seat at the Democratic National Convention.
Having lost at the FEC, Citizens United bankrolled "Hillary: The Movie," using Moore's model. Apparently movies that bash Republicans constitute art, while movies that bash democrats are considered illegal campaign speech. Thus the law suit.
It seems that liberals get indignant when dirty tactics only when their tactics are used against them (Gerrymandering, "dark money," the "nuclear option," pro-forma sessions, etc.
Tough noogies.
5
The fact that dark money existed before CU, does not make it a good thing. Money needs to be removed from the political system. Period.
Well, unfortunately for the GOP, even though they do their best to keep Democrats from voting, they've only had more votes than the Dem candidate once since Bush 41 in '88, and that was the 2004 Bush 43 win. Since '88, the Dem has thus won/had more votes every time except once (including having more votes in 2000). So the people still get to decide (except in 2000), and it's pretty obvious that they don't want a Republican President.
1
If you know that Soros, Lewis, and others poured tens of millions of dollars into organizations such as Media Matters, America Coming Together, and MoveOn.org, how was this money "dark"?
3
I do not like Hillary, I have reservations about Sanders, but .... The is. inmy opinion, nothing more important than keeping another conservative judge off of the Supreme Court.
Almost everything Bush and friends did to ruin the US could have been undone had it not been for dishonest, amoral (but intelligent) judges on the Supreme Court. Now we have even more dark money with even less oversight. At some point we will stop this or reach the point of no return. We are not far from becoming another state controlled by a Putin-like leader, oligarchs and a tame, bought-and=paid-for, legislative body.
Almost everything Bush and friends did to ruin the US could have been undone had it not been for dishonest, amoral (but intelligent) judges on the Supreme Court. Now we have even more dark money with even less oversight. At some point we will stop this or reach the point of no return. We are not far from becoming another state controlled by a Putin-like leader, oligarchs and a tame, bought-and=paid-for, legislative body.
6
Rest assured that the rich know that it is far more profitable to nip competition in the bud than it is develop anything new. If you think this money isn't spent on sabotage, you don't know rich people.
12
Now then...if the Republicans could only devise a way to gain office without people casting ballots...
8
What Republicans have succeeded in doing through gerrymandering, suppression efforts, fear-mongering, and money, is to assure their election and re-election efforts to maintain majority positions despite voter participation. More votes were cast for Democrats in 2012, yet more Republicans were elected to office. Go figure.
3
They're working on it. They just have to disenfranchise enough democratic leaning voters and they will be where they want to be.
2
Perhaps the editors might want to look at why Republicans want to limit the IRS' ability to disclose donors to social welfare organizations. The IRS clearly targeted conservative organizations, and Lois Lerner "took the Fifth" so she wouldn't have to incriminate herself for what she had done.
Liberals may feel that GW Bush "stole" the 2000 election, but many conservatives feel that Barack Obama "stole" the 2012 election through the IRS intimidation of conservative groups supporting Romney.
But if you want to get "dark" money out of politics, end the limits on how much individuals, corporations and unions can give directly to candidates and political parties.
Liberals may feel that GW Bush "stole" the 2000 election, but many conservatives feel that Barack Obama "stole" the 2012 election through the IRS intimidation of conservative groups supporting Romney.
But if you want to get "dark" money out of politics, end the limits on how much individuals, corporations and unions can give directly to candidates and political parties.
1
Jim, you really need to stop watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh.
1
During an interview at the Common Wealth Club, Fortune's Adam Lashinsky asked Perkins for an idea that would "change the world."
Perkins' answer: the richer you are, the more votes you should get.
"It should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes."
Esquire did the math one what the electorate would like under Perkins's insane plan: 1% of taxpayers would have as much voting power as the bottom 95% of the country.
Perkins' answer: the richer you are, the more votes you should get.
"It should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes."
Esquire did the math one what the electorate would like under Perkins's insane plan: 1% of taxpayers would have as much voting power as the bottom 95% of the country.
3
The Dems love non-disclosure just as much as the Republicans do, and the hypocritical NYT editorial board knows it. Both parties give each other cover when it comes to controversial proposals that supposedly represent a dividing line between the parties. Typically the bill comes to the floor only after it is determined that there are enough votes to pass it. A lot of wheeling and dealing goes on to get the fence-sitters to go one way or the other. With the votes already lined up, the opposition can supposedly vote their "conscience" knowing full well that at that point it's just a charade. To know what they really want, look at what they do, not how they vote. Then watch the Dems tap into dark money and Super-Pacs just like the Republicans. Hillary does it. Obama did it, too, in 2008 after hypocritically stating that the candidates should be limited to public funding and then reversing his position when he realized he could rake in more money the old-fashioned way. You never hear about this from the editorial board because they always go with the party line which tries to make the Dems look as pure as Snow White. So in the NYT and Wash Post editorials, we get nothing but the same old posturing over all the hot-button issues, but this time hidden beneath a coat of journalistic "integrity." The voting public is not so stupid, however. We know what is going on.
5
"The Dems love non-disclosure just as much as the Republicans do."
Really? Or isn't it possible that the Dems, faced with massive black money now allowed, had to also use Superpacks and other groups to even the playing field?
And from where did the push for allowing unlimited corporate contributions come from? Certainly not Dems.
Really? Or isn't it possible that the Dems, faced with massive black money now allowed, had to also use Superpacks and other groups to even the playing field?
And from where did the push for allowing unlimited corporate contributions come from? Certainly not Dems.
1
Ok...But the point is, we all know what they are...
...It's down to negotiating the price, Mr. Riemer.
...It's down to negotiating the price, Mr. Riemer.
In 2010, the new fundamentalist CEO of Target, formerly viewed as gay-friendly, contributed $150,000 to a rabidly anti-gay Minnesota gubernatorial candidate. He and a few others in the executive suite did so without shareholder knowledge or even Board approval. The boycott that resulted from the uncovering of the contribution reduced the market cap of Target by tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions. Now the Republican Congress, to protect their donors, turns the lights out on even the investor class. Apparently investors rank lower than donors for elected representatives of the people.
2
Mandatory disclosure of political funding and regular audit of party finance and expenditure could to some extent help check the flood of dark money in politics and restore a healthy democratic process.
1
Mr. Sharma... I find it offensive that you, a citizen of India has the gall to attempt to interfere with the political process of the United States, a province that is decidedly one with which the Citizens of the Untied States of America are solely and exclusively entitled to determine without outside interference.
Perhaps we should all be writing to the papers in Dehli and Jaipur about the truly criminal treatment your people and government afford women and rape victims?
Perhaps we should all be writing to the papers in Dehli and Jaipur about the truly criminal treatment your people and government afford women and rape victims?
1
Plutotrats hiring cronies hiring the obsequious hiring the sycophant. So what if the Empress/Emperor has no clothes? Perhaps a child can see and state the obvious, but who can hear over the cacophony of supplicants? Our lifespans are too short to experience the long term effects that our selfishness has on generations to come. Our understanding is too limited to weigh the verity of fact or separate it from opinion, and worse: calculated lies. Our values compel us to amass too much before we realize we've all had enough.
Why are republicans not up in arms about the secrecy regarding donors their party keeps pushing? They are putting our democracy up for sale to the highest bidder.
5
Because Republicans do not see reality they only see the enemy whom they must overcome by any means. Their Pols will happily tell them who the enemy is at any particular moment and when the state of war is over (its never going to be over).
1
People, this should convince you that Republicans are taking you for a ride. And this should convince you to vote them out of office. Decent rules should make it possible for people to govern, not for the 1% to take advantage of the poor American voter who is getting robbed.
4
Well around here we think progressives are stealing our wealth to redistribute wealth that they can't or won't earn. The 1% only have money, the people have votes. Purchasing directly votes is illegal and only brainless can be purchased by ads on TV or pandering progressives.
When are we going to start understanding that our opponents have no interest in bipartisan governance? They gin up their supporters with emotional appeals and kick the legs out of democratic process. Not only with illegal money but with out-and-out voter suppression and vote rigging. We are losing, losing, losing in state offices everywhere and being starved of cash. We subsist on the fantasy schadenfreude that their party is dying out due to demographic trends. Meanwhile we continue to wring our hands- for the last fifty years!- over the loss of the working class white vote. I say cuff 'em. Let's get our voters to the polls with buses and bats. And then let's take care of our own.
6
You seem to forget who is getting the MOST money from PACS, private donors, their own foundation, and money never, ever reported...the "Clinton Machine!" Let's be honest here. You have a candidate anointed and crowned by the DNC, no one will contest her because of her/their egregious quest for the Presidency, and their ability to intimidate. Democracy USED to be democratic. No more. The "Clinton Machine" and, yes, the party, has run right over the whole process, that once was honest and fair! There are no more checks and balances...it's ALL about money...their money. Wouldn't it be nice to treat everyone fairly?? They've ruined that for our country. Not the Republucans!!
1
The war to gain freedom from the autocratic rule of the English monarchy, the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, our Civil War to free our slaves, our WWI and WWII fought to free us from the scourge of totalitarian rule, the social revolution of FDR and the legacy of Martin Luther King and LBJ have been washed away by five men in black robes who handed us over to the self centered scions of industry whose deceptions are cloaked in the guise of ideology that Ayn Rand would love. Now in the thrall of American exceptionalism we sit atop the world with the most formidable military in the history of mankind ready to fight ways and waste our tax dollars supporting the illusion that we are right since we have might. We are a Nation corrupted beyond repair. We are in the death throes of our democracy with THE DONALD the presumptive candidate of the party responsible for supporting these forces that will end this once upon a time glorious Nation filled with promise. We need to face the dire straights in which we are and fight with all we have to restore the democratic Nation we once were. Eternal vigilance IS the price of liberty. Get involved, VOTE and encourage your friends and neighbors to join with you to save our cherished dream of liberty and justice for all.
5
It is nice to see the editorial board ask anything of Obama...
2
A risky game. Chinese will soon be able to buy lawmakers and put them in the Congress.
10
soon ?
you mean theyre not now ?
how would anyone know ?
you mean theyre not now ?
how would anyone know ?
3
I have no proof, yet I'm sure they already do it. Not overtly yet.
2
only in america is free speech equated w money
5
When the travesty that is Citizens United came down upon America like a sun never to rise again, Republicans did a fair job of feigning high dudgeon. Since then, under both Orange Man and now the Wisconsin Boy Wonder, congressional GOPers have shown their true colors. "Scourge of dark money?" Let's call it what it is, fascism.
Of course, like any dark storm, this didn't sneak up on us. Roberts and his minions gave ample overture in many pro-corporate decisions. Jeffrey Rosen's Times Magazine "Supreme Court Inc.", written more than two years before Citizens, remains the definitive background read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html
Of course, like any dark storm, this didn't sneak up on us. Roberts and his minions gave ample overture in many pro-corporate decisions. Jeffrey Rosen's Times Magazine "Supreme Court Inc.", written more than two years before Citizens, remains the definitive background read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html
Travesty??? Yes that unions and other progressives can spend money to get a pandering, ineffective president elected. Obama or HILLARY are great examples.
1
Corporate and rich guy interests have many times the $$ available than all the unions put together. He's actually been quite effective and NOT pandering is often cited as one of his faults (though I disagree).
When the travesty that is Citizens United came down upon America like a sun never to rise again, Republicans did a fair job of feigning high dudgeon. Since then, under both Orange Man and now the Wisconsin Boy Wonder, congressional GOPers have shown their true colors. "Scourge of dark money?" Let's call it what it is, fascism.
Of course, like any dark storm, this didn't sneak up on us. Roberts and his minions gave ample overture in many pro-corporate decisions. Jeffrey Rosen's Times Magazine "Supreme Court Inc.", written more than two years before Citizens, remains the definitive background read: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html
Of course, like any dark storm, this didn't sneak up on us. Roberts and his minions gave ample overture in many pro-corporate decisions. Jeffrey Rosen's Times Magazine "Supreme Court Inc.", written more than two years before Citizens, remains the definitive background read: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html
2
Democrats have to start considering fresh strategies to take back the Republic for the people.
Here's a suggestion.
Develop a well-placed court challenge on campaign finance to give SCOTUS a second bite at the Citizens United apple.
Republicans purposefully - and successfully - have used the court system to unravel once triumphant Democratic achievements on civil rights, such as the Voting Rights Act.
And now they are about to succeed in knocking out one of the last props for affirmative action at the college and university level with Fisher v. University of Texas.
Each of these victories (Fisher will be decided shortly) came about from the persistence of one guy, Edward Blum, a disgruntled loser in a Congressional election in the early 90s - the financial skids greased by the likes of "self-made" trust fund babies such as Richard Mellon Scaife.
So?
Kennedy was the author of the Citizens United opinion, with all its high-minded rhetoric about disclosure.
Find a case where lack of disclosure is the heart of the matter.
And then run it up the judicial flag pole to give Kennedy one last shot at correcting his error.
Worst case?
The case doesn't make it to SCOTUS until after Kennedy has gone on to his reward.
And has been replaced by a Hillary appointee who has a clearheaded view - i.e., just reads the newspapers - of how plutocratic money is rotting our democratic system at its core, viz., in the electoral process.
Just do it!
Here's a suggestion.
Develop a well-placed court challenge on campaign finance to give SCOTUS a second bite at the Citizens United apple.
Republicans purposefully - and successfully - have used the court system to unravel once triumphant Democratic achievements on civil rights, such as the Voting Rights Act.
And now they are about to succeed in knocking out one of the last props for affirmative action at the college and university level with Fisher v. University of Texas.
Each of these victories (Fisher will be decided shortly) came about from the persistence of one guy, Edward Blum, a disgruntled loser in a Congressional election in the early 90s - the financial skids greased by the likes of "self-made" trust fund babies such as Richard Mellon Scaife.
So?
Kennedy was the author of the Citizens United opinion, with all its high-minded rhetoric about disclosure.
Find a case where lack of disclosure is the heart of the matter.
And then run it up the judicial flag pole to give Kennedy one last shot at correcting his error.
Worst case?
The case doesn't make it to SCOTUS until after Kennedy has gone on to his reward.
And has been replaced by a Hillary appointee who has a clearheaded view - i.e., just reads the newspapers - of how plutocratic money is rotting our democratic system at its core, viz., in the electoral process.
Just do it!
6
And the supreme court should be watching the newspapers to decide cases? If it is so important amend the constitution. Go for it. Now your idea of affirmative action is different, it is only to redress previous illegal actions, not to manage our culture. Race should have nothing to do with admissions to public universities. If you want to do social engineering in college admissions go support a private college to do it, no using the government.
political TV ad spending will top $4.4 billion for federal races this year, up from $3.8 billion in 2012,
now where is all that money coming from ?
koch bros ?
china?
saudi arabia?
th vatican ?
thx to pacs and cu, youll never know, will you
thats whats called democracy in amerrica
now where is all that money coming from ?
koch bros ?
china?
saudi arabia?
th vatican ?
thx to pacs and cu, youll never know, will you
thats whats called democracy in amerrica
6
Well Gee the Koch brothers are worth a lot of money, but it is not cash so idiots that say they are spending a billion dollars are well idiots.
Who cares where it comes from, what does it actually do? Vote for those that act properly, not those who pander like say HILLARY!!!
Who cares where it comes from, what does it actually do? Vote for those that act properly, not those who pander like say HILLARY!!!
2
Citizen's United was a horrible decision, definite proof that our Republican-dominated Supreme Court simply isn't working. But I'm getting very tired of media outlets, trying to give an impression of balance, making sure to shoehorn in unions when complaining (justifiably) about corporate lobbying. Yes, unions and corporations are both technically allowed to spend whatever they want. Which is about like saying that neither poor people nor rich people are forbidden to buy yachts. Union spending is not the issue here.
6
Horrible to you, logical to me. If you and others want more restrictions how about an amendment to the constitution. Include term limits, restriction of the federal government, and other improvements.
Excuse me...The United States Supreme Court is, first and foremost, a court of law, not a court of equity.
You show a stunning lack of understanding of the principles on which our legal system is based.
You also show a stunning lack of understanding of the legal precedents, going back more than a century, that establish corporations as individuals under the laws of the land.
Put it more directly, it is the principle that allows YOU as an individual to sue a corporation for such essential elements as freedom of speech and religion.
You show a stunning lack of understanding of the principles on which our legal system is based.
You also show a stunning lack of understanding of the legal precedents, going back more than a century, that establish corporations as individuals under the laws of the land.
Put it more directly, it is the principle that allows YOU as an individual to sue a corporation for such essential elements as freedom of speech and religion.
1
people talk of a class warfare in th usa
nonsense
th rich won handily long ago
youre just awakening to it now
america, which was founded on th ideals of freedom, willingly surrendered itself into slavery
nonsense
th rich won handily long ago
youre just awakening to it now
america, which was founded on th ideals of freedom, willingly surrendered itself into slavery
5
If our country was so wrong it how it was formed or what it did why are so many fighting to get here and why are so many discontents staying here. Leave.
3
Curious what little tidbits the Democrats included in this bill that of course this liberal left paper is not going to mention?
3
Tell us, if you know. Surely you can get that from Fox? Or is this just another example of fact-free speculation from our anti-intellectual right?
5
What part of "Republicans control both houses of Congress" do you not understand?
4
And you call DARK money tidbit? No wonder America is being taken down bit by bit by voters who react the way you do. Ha ve a nice day.
2
Just another reason to vote for Trump. The powerbrokers inside and outside both parties hate Donald Trump in favor of anyone else like Hillary or Bush, because he refuses to be corrupted like most of them who are running for political office.
2
I would beg to differ, he's already corrupted the system by being what he is, a billionaire. You don't get to be that rich in the environment he operates in without knowing who is who and what is what. Remember his 1998 statements that Republicans were idiots? They would buy anything?
2
I won't vote for Trump. He states he knows how to help our economy in this country. BUT he has filed bankruptcy five times, leaving many businesses and people destitute. That many bankruptcies, at least to me, is corruption.
1
This is what we as a country do and accept as normal but a Watergate size scandal will come along and remind us why it does not work in a democracy. We don't seem to want it any other way. And both sides of the aisle have a 50/50 shot of one of their own being the one that is caught despite the GOP chicanery this time around.
2
Mr. Obama's executive order is not likely to be issued prior to the 2016 election. The Clinton campaign - and so many other democratic congressional campaigns - benefit too much from the same funding sources. Perhaps after the election, depending on the results, of course, will some weak order be issued, then quietly watered down. Campaign finance reform is just another side plot in the kabuki show.
As to Citizens United, somehow it is perfectly acceptable for the corporations that own the New York Times, Fox, CBS, the Washington Post, MSNBC, etc from subtly - and not so subtly - supporting candidates and elected officials they agree with, and disparaging the ones they don't agree with, but it's not ok for the corporations that own energy, or telecom, or healthcare or other companies?
As to Citizens United, somehow it is perfectly acceptable for the corporations that own the New York Times, Fox, CBS, the Washington Post, MSNBC, etc from subtly - and not so subtly - supporting candidates and elected officials they agree with, and disparaging the ones they don't agree with, but it's not ok for the corporations that own energy, or telecom, or healthcare or other companies?
5
I am terribly discouraged by this latest assault on transparency in campaign finance but not especially surprised. The Republicans are dismantling our democracy piece by piece while the Democrats sit on the sidelines acting like deer caught in the headlights.
My thoughts on who to vote for in 2016 are "anyone but a Republican" yet I question whether entrenched power on the Democratic side really wants this situation to change either. Our elected officials, including Democrats, are getting fabulously wealthy at our expense and probably like things the way they are regardless of the meaningless platitudes they perpetually regurgitate.
Bernie is a good man but I don't think he will be the candidate. If I vote for Hillary am I just voting for more of the same? Honestly the whole things looks like game, set match for the plutocracy and though Hillary likes to pretend she is "one of us" I wish I felt more sanguine about that assertion.
Our democracy is dying the death of a thousand cuts. Trump is hogging the lime light right now but he is not the problem only a symptom of endemic political rot. Corruption seems built into our system by design now. Sigh.
My thoughts on who to vote for in 2016 are "anyone but a Republican" yet I question whether entrenched power on the Democratic side really wants this situation to change either. Our elected officials, including Democrats, are getting fabulously wealthy at our expense and probably like things the way they are regardless of the meaningless platitudes they perpetually regurgitate.
Bernie is a good man but I don't think he will be the candidate. If I vote for Hillary am I just voting for more of the same? Honestly the whole things looks like game, set match for the plutocracy and though Hillary likes to pretend she is "one of us" I wish I felt more sanguine about that assertion.
Our democracy is dying the death of a thousand cuts. Trump is hogging the lime light right now but he is not the problem only a symptom of endemic political rot. Corruption seems built into our system by design now. Sigh.
11
Christine
Will you agree that Planned Parenthood benefits from receiving $500 million from the Obama administration but also 501 (c) (3) status? I don't see you complaining about that. Why?
You complain about the Court and tax policy. Can you please list every case under the Roberts Court that factually backs your statement?
What I find interesting is you don't celebrate their refusing to uphold DOMA and more importantly gay marriage. Didn't that decision affect survivor benefits? End of life decisions? Impact the rights of gays and lesbians in general? I will state that decision had a far greater impact than tax policy
Finally the Court has ruled 13 times against Obama by a 9-0 vote including the recessed appointments. That would mean Obama appointees Sotomayor and Kagan voted aginst Obama in every case. Did they betray Obama?
Will you agree that Planned Parenthood benefits from receiving $500 million from the Obama administration but also 501 (c) (3) status? I don't see you complaining about that. Why?
You complain about the Court and tax policy. Can you please list every case under the Roberts Court that factually backs your statement?
What I find interesting is you don't celebrate their refusing to uphold DOMA and more importantly gay marriage. Didn't that decision affect survivor benefits? End of life decisions? Impact the rights of gays and lesbians in general? I will state that decision had a far greater impact than tax policy
Finally the Court has ruled 13 times against Obama by a 9-0 vote including the recessed appointments. That would mean Obama appointees Sotomayor and Kagan voted aginst Obama in every case. Did they betray Obama?
2
A craven Congress. That should be the phrase on everyones lips.
4
Well I can't read the article because the Times iPad app is broken again, the adverts, which grow larger and more intrusive every day, won't let me scroll to read.
It seems big money is affecting more than politics, as this never ends.
It seems big money is affecting more than politics, as this never ends.
1
Sanders is the only candidate whose hands are clean. We know this because he is entirely funded by small donators.
He also has a decades long history of voting for things that are in the public interest (what a concept!), and he has the corrupting influence of corporate involvement in writing laws and stacking watchdog agencies with insiders in his crosshairs. He will chose cabinet members and supreme court appointees who are in line with these values.
For these reasons, he has my vote. Folks, if you want to fight back - and take back our government - vote for Sanders. He is our only hope.
He also has a decades long history of voting for things that are in the public interest (what a concept!), and he has the corrupting influence of corporate involvement in writing laws and stacking watchdog agencies with insiders in his crosshairs. He will chose cabinet members and supreme court appointees who are in line with these values.
For these reasons, he has my vote. Folks, if you want to fight back - and take back our government - vote for Sanders. He is our only hope.
8
While the views that rightly criticize Citizens United and now "social welfare" constructs designed to buy political favors are appropriate, and shine a light on the SCOTUS and the GOP Congress, a guy with his own jet (Trump) and funding and another without a super PAC (Sanders) continue to garner enough (or mega) media coverage that they have greatly diminished the campaign effect of dark money. As such, the degree to which the negative actions of two of our government institutions (both of which many Americans no longer respect) are thwarting democracy is a matter for debate, not a game changer. Fox News has a far more debilitating effect on potential voters than dark money ever will.
Basically, even though some POTUS candidates are still vying for Koch brother's or some other tawdry billionaire's money for extension of ill fated primary runs or for the general election to come, dark money is not the determinant of who will become the next President. Trump's "so far, so good" effort of monopolizing media coverage is another example of the baselessness of the dark money argument.
Gerrymandering and rulings like Shelby County have poisoned Congress such that it can never recover its footing as a legitimate branch of government. Dark money hurts more there, but again not like the other effects. Taking this country back would need to start with more Dem SCOTUS seats, voter rights, and reversal of gerrymandering - what are the chances.
Basically, even though some POTUS candidates are still vying for Koch brother's or some other tawdry billionaire's money for extension of ill fated primary runs or for the general election to come, dark money is not the determinant of who will become the next President. Trump's "so far, so good" effort of monopolizing media coverage is another example of the baselessness of the dark money argument.
Gerrymandering and rulings like Shelby County have poisoned Congress such that it can never recover its footing as a legitimate branch of government. Dark money hurts more there, but again not like the other effects. Taking this country back would need to start with more Dem SCOTUS seats, voter rights, and reversal of gerrymandering - what are the chances.
2
I don't understand why a case cannot be brought before SCOTUS, that Citizen's United's stipulation for reporting is being intentionally scuttled by congress, lobbyists, and Big Money in a way so large that it constitutes serious crimes against the state with wide reaching effects like election manipulation including gerrymandering, voter id laws, etc, but also keeping millions from being able to partake of federal law like ACA, right to work laws (I can never remember the real name of it the rhetoric trips up my brain it's so twisted!) and minimum wage laws.
It IS all connected and we all know it. It's time for the SCOTUS to have this cold horse apple of a decision dumped back on their laps, stink and all and be forced to address what they blithely wrote off as not their affair.
If money as speech counts, then the silencing of the vote as speech weights at least as much. There is a case with the force of a freight train that can and must be brought before the SCOTUS so obvious and monumental that it would shame even the likes of Scalia to not correct their truly heinous, craven mistake.
As Rosa Parks demonstrated, all it takes is one strong case of breaking a law with wide and deep implications for our citizens to make change. There are millions of them to choose from to make this case.
The time to make it now before the 2016 election!
It IS all connected and we all know it. It's time for the SCOTUS to have this cold horse apple of a decision dumped back on their laps, stink and all and be forced to address what they blithely wrote off as not their affair.
If money as speech counts, then the silencing of the vote as speech weights at least as much. There is a case with the force of a freight train that can and must be brought before the SCOTUS so obvious and monumental that it would shame even the likes of Scalia to not correct their truly heinous, craven mistake.
As Rosa Parks demonstrated, all it takes is one strong case of breaking a law with wide and deep implications for our citizens to make change. There are millions of them to choose from to make this case.
The time to make it now before the 2016 election!
4
Obama was the recipient of huge donations from Wall Street.
2
Even the master of corruption, George Washington Plunkett, would be amazed at the ease and opportunities for legal graft the Tame Five unleashed with Citizens United! How soon before Plunkett's specialty, bid-rigging, is legalized (now someone in government must "wire" an RFP)?
Despite the fact that the new law shielding mgt from divulging political contributions to their investors violates CU, think THIS court will throw it out? Not those 5 hypocrites!
Despite the fact that the new law shielding mgt from divulging political contributions to their investors violates CU, think THIS court will throw it out? Not those 5 hypocrites!
1
Throw Republicans under the bus35 yeas of failed policies have hurt all segments of society. Without Social Justice you have terrorism.
3
Oh, this can't be blamed on sneaky Republicans. Everybody who voted on this bill was completely aware of the provision to keep their corruption hidden, just as they were aware of the fact that privacy protections for citizens were being dismantled by their cowardly, bi-partisan inclusion of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act into the budget bill without public debate.
Now, let's look at the numbers and properly place the blame:
In the House, 150 Republicans and 166 Democrats voted for the budget bill.
In the Senate, the bill passed with a 65-33 vote. 26 Republicans voted for it, while 37 Democrats voted to keep dark money secret and to make spying on innocent civilians easier for the N.S.A. Those corrupt cowards voting yes included both Democratic Senators from New York. Then the Democrat in the White House signed the bill into law.
You know who voted against the bill? That's right. Senator Bernie Sanders.
Now, let's look at the numbers and properly place the blame:
In the House, 150 Republicans and 166 Democrats voted for the budget bill.
In the Senate, the bill passed with a 65-33 vote. 26 Republicans voted for it, while 37 Democrats voted to keep dark money secret and to make spying on innocent civilians easier for the N.S.A. Those corrupt cowards voting yes included both Democratic Senators from New York. Then the Democrat in the White House signed the bill into law.
You know who voted against the bill? That's right. Senator Bernie Sanders.
3
The trouble is that it isn't just a finance bill, it's either fund the government with all of these corrupt add ins - Republican corrupt add one it had to be said, or not fund the government with all the attendant risks. It's the rules that need to be changed in what gets into a bill.
2
The GOP has figured it cannot win elections without changing the rules to favor them. Citizen's United, gerrymandering and voter suppression (ID rules) have been their methods of choice. Now, they have virtually crippled federal oversight and the IRS.
Some would just say that the pendulum has swung from the Democrats and unions to balance things out. But, never in post WWII history have millions of Americans feel like their government has totally failed them, never had wage disparity been so great, and never has the middle class eroded as much as it has. The US has turned into a nation of 1% of haves and 99% of have nots.
This article reveals how dark it really has become for a person who works hard to raise a family, eat, find viable work, and scrimp to save. While they watch their wages stagnate, or see their job off shored or replaced by a foreign national.
Those of means continue to hijack the nation; both Republican and Democrat. The powerful have already chosen who will run for various office and manipulate the system to their choice. Hillary Clinton, a certainty fro the Democrat oligarchs, but it will take time for the Republican oligarchs to decide on their choice. Not only for president, but all federal and state offices.
You, as an American, if you can,will decide the next group of minions for the oligarchy. If you think fro one minute that your vote counts; it only does for the good of the few, not the many.
Welcome to the dark side of so called Democracy.
Some would just say that the pendulum has swung from the Democrats and unions to balance things out. But, never in post WWII history have millions of Americans feel like their government has totally failed them, never had wage disparity been so great, and never has the middle class eroded as much as it has. The US has turned into a nation of 1% of haves and 99% of have nots.
This article reveals how dark it really has become for a person who works hard to raise a family, eat, find viable work, and scrimp to save. While they watch their wages stagnate, or see their job off shored or replaced by a foreign national.
Those of means continue to hijack the nation; both Republican and Democrat. The powerful have already chosen who will run for various office and manipulate the system to their choice. Hillary Clinton, a certainty fro the Democrat oligarchs, but it will take time for the Republican oligarchs to decide on their choice. Not only for president, but all federal and state offices.
You, as an American, if you can,will decide the next group of minions for the oligarchy. If you think fro one minute that your vote counts; it only does for the good of the few, not the many.
Welcome to the dark side of so called Democracy.
5
When the travesty that is Citizens United came down upon America like a sun never to rise again, Republicans did a fair job of feigning high dudgeon.
Since then, under both Orange Man and now the Wisconsin Boy Wonder, congressional GOPers have shown their true colors. "Scourge of dark money?" Let's call it what it is, fascism.
Of course, like any dark storm, this didn't sneak up on us. Roberts and his minions gave ample overture in many pro-corporate decisions. Jeffrey Rosen's Times Magazine "Supreme Court Inc.", written more than two years before Citizens, remains the definitive background read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html
Since then, under both Orange Man and now the Wisconsin Boy Wonder, congressional GOPers have shown their true colors. "Scourge of dark money?" Let's call it what it is, fascism.
Of course, like any dark storm, this didn't sneak up on us. Roberts and his minions gave ample overture in many pro-corporate decisions. Jeffrey Rosen's Times Magazine "Supreme Court Inc.", written more than two years before Citizens, remains the definitive background read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html
4
Yes, and a great many Democrats have behaved no better than the Republicans in feigned opposition to big money buying politics.
Look at what they do, as they say the opposite. What they do now is the best guide to what they will continue to do.
Look at what they do, as they say the opposite. What they do now is the best guide to what they will continue to do.
3
Well, if one is running for elective office and "taking a stand" against X (acceptance of non-public financing, PACS, corporate donations, "social education orgs", etc) means almost a guaranteed electoral defeat what's one to do.
I'm sorry but I must reject your "pox on both their houses" argument in this instance. GOP/Democrat corporate/lone rich guy donation ratios in recent cycles make it clear which party is doing more for them.
I'm sorry but I must reject your "pox on both their houses" argument in this instance. GOP/Democrat corporate/lone rich guy donation ratios in recent cycles make it clear which party is doing more for them.
This underscores the importance of the Supreme Court on our society. The court reigned havoc on our election process by literally codifying bribery. Only a new Supreme Court majority chosen by a new president will undo the damage.
If you care about this issue, vote accordingly.
If you care about this issue, vote accordingly.
9
We would be terribly disappointed by the Supreme Court justices nominated by Hillary. She is on the side of big money in politics, a master of it. She has hedged on every issue to the right of Bernie. That is her, well to the right of Bernie, and that is where she would find her nominees, well off to the right. Get real.
5
Increasingly, wealthy individuals are "creating" candidates for elected office. This is not new but the scope and depth has broadened and deepened. How else can one explain the slate of Republican presidential candidates. Competition for funding, although again not new, has far outstripped the campaigns for voters, as that has also become the task of the funders.
By example, the brothers Koch, dangle the money, anoint the candidate(s), shape the message and then solicit the voters.
By example, the brothers Koch, dangle the money, anoint the candidate(s), shape the message and then solicit the voters.
6
So sorry, YIKES, but the organized Republican destruction of our elections looks like organized crime! !
12
But ... but .... this was essentially a Democrat bill. There were more, substantially more, nay votes in each house from Republicans!
And of course Obama signed it.
So there goes your argument, smashed to bits.
There really is only one problem with this country: left wing Democrats.
And of course Obama signed it.
So there goes your argument, smashed to bits.
There really is only one problem with this country: left wing Democrats.
1
Should Sec. Clinton be elected, though this has been one of her campaign pledges, given her reliance on Wall Street for campaign funding, this, too, would likely be a second term "unfinished business" agenda item.
4
Anerica faces a stark choice: Elect Bernie Sanders or accept the fact that we'll never know who actually owns our government.
It's really that simple.
It's really that simple.
17
We can not depend on either political party to fix this problem since they are both drinking from the same money trough. I honestly believe that the only way to solve this for consumers to stop buying from big corporations - literally starve them to death by patronizing local businesses over chain stores and restaurants. There is a new economy rising that is being fueled by local people in your cities and towns. Keep your money local by patronizing locally owned businesses. Cut back on discretionary purchases that you don't need and make corporations rich. Starve the corporate beast.
4
We have three branches of government to provide fairness and balance. A lifetime appointment for Supreme Court Justices was instituted to prevent political and societal interference in the decision making of the court. In many of the interviews with Justice Anton Scalia it becomes easy to see a man many consider petulant, petty, and precipitously close to insanity. Yes I understand that the court throughout history leans left or right. In this case the court is not "leaning" but appears to have completely fallen down.
11
I'm sorry I wasn't aware that Republicans could pass and sign into law legislation without any Democrat help whatsoever...
6
How's all that "dark money" working for Jeb!, Hillary, Rubio, Kasich and Christie?
The big ticket establishment candidates are tanking. Trump is taking no money, except small donations he isn't even soliciting. Socialist Bernie is getting small donations from leftists tired of Democrat double-speak.
Pols who spend money on commercials, like Jeb! and Rubio, may as well burn their cash to warn their houses. Those days are long over. Money isn't everything. Just ask Jeb!
The big ticket establishment candidates are tanking. Trump is taking no money, except small donations he isn't even soliciting. Socialist Bernie is getting small donations from leftists tired of Democrat double-speak.
Pols who spend money on commercials, like Jeb! and Rubio, may as well burn their cash to warn their houses. Those days are long over. Money isn't everything. Just ask Jeb!
3
I'm kind of in favor of disclosure, but honestly I don't think it does much good. I'm more concerned about non-profit-like entities avoiding taxes to support politicians. But even then, I think of Scott Walker and I cheer up fairly quickly.
The deal is that some guy has to agree to be the pawn, and it is the obligation of the voters to see through the nonsense spouted by the pawn/politician. And by his supporters. That's what government by the people requires. The Republicans have fielded some pretty awful candidates, despite (Or is it because of?) a surfeit of money. On that basis we could say let the billionaires spend all that money. It's not doing them much good unspent.
I'm an optimist, I admit it, but at some point someone is going to start to characterize the Republicans and its armed wing, the NRA/and anti-abortion groups, as terrorists and terrorist-enablers. True, the Republican Party is a nominally Christian terrorist entity, but how long will it be before someone uses the RICO Act to get the information they need against some corporate CEO that supports it?
The deal is that some guy has to agree to be the pawn, and it is the obligation of the voters to see through the nonsense spouted by the pawn/politician. And by his supporters. That's what government by the people requires. The Republicans have fielded some pretty awful candidates, despite (Or is it because of?) a surfeit of money. On that basis we could say let the billionaires spend all that money. It's not doing them much good unspent.
I'm an optimist, I admit it, but at some point someone is going to start to characterize the Republicans and its armed wing, the NRA/and anti-abortion groups, as terrorists and terrorist-enablers. True, the Republican Party is a nominally Christian terrorist entity, but how long will it be before someone uses the RICO Act to get the information they need against some corporate CEO that supports it?
5
Clinton: crony-capitalist crook quintessential
Her dark-money growth is exponential
Bernie's money's transparent
His honesty's apparent.
Only Bernie is presidential.
(Make Clinton inconsequential!)
Her dark-money growth is exponential
Bernie's money's transparent
His honesty's apparent.
Only Bernie is presidential.
(Make Clinton inconsequential!)
19
Another consequence of Citizens United is that most of us just assume that every pol is bought and sold, since we have no way to know for sure. This leads to apathy and further suppresses voting, which in recent Presidential elections was around 60%. We are heading to a point where less than the majority of Americans will choose the people to lead us, and that's just what the GOP wants....
20
The lack of transparency is intended to keep the public uninformed about the interests served by the huge sums spent to buy office. Do we want our representation to be sold to the highest secret bidders? The rich are protected from economic reprisal so why is this necessary? If you know who is behind an ad, you have a better idea of its truth. Knowing the truth is very dangerous in politics.
21
NB, I agree! There is very little difference between the vast majority of Dem and Repub elected officials--we all are in big trouble. They might differ on social issues, but, when it comes to $$, secrecy, and power grabbing, there are few differences.
If we want real changes, our only 2 options are Sanders and Cruz, but, we have no idea how they will be if they win--they seem to be independent thinkers and not afraid to vote against their parties (Bernie usually votes with the Dems, but, his ideas, whether you like them or not, are frequently different from mainstream Dems. Cruz frequently refuses to support GOP bills.) We must pay more attention to those who run for Congress and vote for those we think will try to clean up both Houses. Then we can only follow what they do, cross our fingers, or pray.
If we want real changes, our only 2 options are Sanders and Cruz, but, we have no idea how they will be if they win--they seem to be independent thinkers and not afraid to vote against their parties (Bernie usually votes with the Dems, but, his ideas, whether you like them or not, are frequently different from mainstream Dems. Cruz frequently refuses to support GOP bills.) We must pay more attention to those who run for Congress and vote for those we think will try to clean up both Houses. Then we can only follow what they do, cross our fingers, or pray.
Only the oligarchy in America know any transparency in its dealings with government. And so far, it pretty much gets exactly what it demands in return for the its money. For the rest of the tax-paying public, our tax dollars disappear into a giant black box which, in the reverse of a powerful river forming from the confluence of countless tributaries, distributes our monies through a series of ever smaller black boxes until finally one develops a crack here and there large enough to spill a few coins within our field of vision. Proof that government is serving us, sufficient to stave off the revolution for another day, month, year, election cycle.
If I'm sounding like a TEA Partier, I most assuredly am not. I find this breed to be, by and large, paper tigers, snarling at the world from the safety of their cage, curling up next to the Christian Right that is neither christian nor right.
Pork barrel politics has never gone away, probably never will. But in a way, it was, as practiced in the 19th and 20th centuries, a fairer, more visible way to steal the public's money for the purpose of redistributing it, once the military costs and a few other essential items were covered, to the constituents of those who slapped the most backs, shook the most hands and were very discreet about how much stuck to their fingers in the process.
Neither of the major parties was guiltier than the other in this undertaking. It worked because they distrusted, but did not hate each other.
If I'm sounding like a TEA Partier, I most assuredly am not. I find this breed to be, by and large, paper tigers, snarling at the world from the safety of their cage, curling up next to the Christian Right that is neither christian nor right.
Pork barrel politics has never gone away, probably never will. But in a way, it was, as practiced in the 19th and 20th centuries, a fairer, more visible way to steal the public's money for the purpose of redistributing it, once the military costs and a few other essential items were covered, to the constituents of those who slapped the most backs, shook the most hands and were very discreet about how much stuck to their fingers in the process.
Neither of the major parties was guiltier than the other in this undertaking. It worked because they distrusted, but did not hate each other.
6
We should expect this. We live in a plutocracy where money rules. Our owners don't give fig about average citizens. Know who does? Bernie Sanders!
38
Because of so much corruption throughout the World these days the FBI should have the right to know WHO donates what to whom politically, otherwise it leaves the door open to all kinds of the WRONG people donating and invites special interest obligations to politicians who receive those donations !
11
Yes, a spending frenzy by the richest plutocrats trying to buy the 2016 Presidency by pouring millions of dollars into the coffers of Republican candidates without disclosing who is giving what to which candidates. The new congressional budget bill blocks the IRS from revealing rich special-interest donors from effective disclosure, and bars the SEC from rules requiring their corporations to disclose their campaign spending spending to investors. No transparency, no disclosure. Political dark money indeed. While President Obama is kicking back and sinking putts in Hawaii on his Christmas and New Years holidays, one hopes he is mulling a decision - finally - that will burnish his legacy: to sign an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their campaign spending. This would not solve the problem of rampant Republican corruption and all the money being transferred from the richest donors into the 2016 GOP wannabe POTUS candidates' pockets, but it would shine a light on the dark monies being showered on unelectable and unworthy Republican candidates. Democratic election process? not until the richest Republicans disclose their humongous gifts of moolah to the GOP contenders.
13
Think of money as votes. The rich get more votes than the non rich? Sound fair?
15
The Supreme Court decided ina977 in Buckley v. Valeo that the first amendment protects financial contributions to support issues advertising during political campaigns. Citizens United applied that basic principle to organized groups of individuals such as labor unions and corporations. A large percentage of political contributions, however, are from individuals (viz., George Soros, Tom Steyer, Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers), which were permissible before Citizens United. The New York Times shies away from disclosing or discussing those basic facts because they undercut the Times's narrative. So much for the Times's honesty or reliability.
4
Do you mean to suggest that dark money in any form is even remotely pardonable?
You seem to feel aggrieved that a fuller story concerning transparency in campaign finance disclosure is not evident in the above article. You don't attempt to argue the premise of the piece by defending non-disclosure. So what is your point here, that the NYT has some skin in the game against donations that favor rich corporate donors that go traditionally to Republican candidates?
@stiff, note that you know the names of those individual donors. This article laments the anonymity of donors after Citizens United, not the fact that donations are made but that we have no way of knowing who made them.
As I recall, it was Lois Lerner...Obama contributor and employee of the IRS...who chose to avoid transparency by hiding behind the 5th Amendment. It would be nice to see the NYT express some chagrin at Civil Servants who refuse to testify before Congress about the performance or non-performance of their respective duties.
8
So you think that working for the U.S. government requires a surrender of Constitutional rights? Huh.
28
Oh please, how do you equate a constitutional protection against self incrimination with campaign finance transparency. Talk about diverting the real issue of substance to an unrelated subject. Puhlease!
4
What is the purpose of your comment, that some "dark money" is OK? I fail to see your point.
1
THE DARKEST MONEY OF ALL…
Thou art arm'd that hath thy crook'd schemers straight.
Cudgel thy brains no more, the clinton plots are great.
This latest scam of the Clintons makes their 90s White House quid pro quo look like, (if you’ll pardon the oxymoron), penny ante treason.
While Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State, the couple pocketed billions in “pay to play.” The multifarious vectors of transaction and the massive, disproportionate Clinton gains are prima facie evidence of the crime. Why else would so many pay so much for so little?
The Clintons' appetite for money and power is insatiable. Like laboratory rats, put enough of the goodies in front of these two and they will gorge themselves to death.
The Clintons have a long history of selling out this country to the enemy, often in plain sight. For eight years, the Clintons methodically, seditiously and with impunity auctioned off America’s security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder.
And they are selling out the country in plain sight today with the biggest cover and slush fund of all time: The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation… which brings us full circle and explains why Hillary Clinton chose to scrub the server and risk being charged with obstruction of justice. The alternative is a capital offense.
You put these two miscreants back in power at your own peril. And your children’s.
Thou art arm'd that hath thy crook'd schemers straight.
Cudgel thy brains no more, the clinton plots are great.
This latest scam of the Clintons makes their 90s White House quid pro quo look like, (if you’ll pardon the oxymoron), penny ante treason.
While Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State, the couple pocketed billions in “pay to play.” The multifarious vectors of transaction and the massive, disproportionate Clinton gains are prima facie evidence of the crime. Why else would so many pay so much for so little?
The Clintons' appetite for money and power is insatiable. Like laboratory rats, put enough of the goodies in front of these two and they will gorge themselves to death.
The Clintons have a long history of selling out this country to the enemy, often in plain sight. For eight years, the Clintons methodically, seditiously and with impunity auctioned off America’s security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder.
And they are selling out the country in plain sight today with the biggest cover and slush fund of all time: The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation… which brings us full circle and explains why Hillary Clinton chose to scrub the server and risk being charged with obstruction of justice. The alternative is a capital offense.
You put these two miscreants back in power at your own peril. And your children’s.
6
When Hillary and Bill do it, it's alright with the NYT which always applies a double standard in its political coverage.
1
So we should vote for who? Trump?
2
You're hilarious!
In your story, Clinton is Darth Vader, able to force people to do her evil bidding. I can hear the evil laughter.
What's amazing is that Clinton isn't in the government but is able to force all these innocent Republicans and Obama to do her bidding. She really is a powerful force for evil.
Or you're just wrong. Which is more likely?
In your story, Clinton is Darth Vader, able to force people to do her evil bidding. I can hear the evil laughter.
What's amazing is that Clinton isn't in the government but is able to force all these innocent Republicans and Obama to do her bidding. She really is a powerful force for evil.
Or you're just wrong. Which is more likely?
2
I hope I am wrong but I don't see our President signing that executive order, the entire system is broken, corruption has crossed the aisle, the charade continues, making the election of a candidate not part of the mainstream even more essential if we are to escape the morass of wars fought for special interests and halt the wanton abandonment of the middle class. Feel the Bern! Feel the Bern! Feel the Bern!
11
Look, it has been obvious for some time that politicians are bought by the wealthy. We also know that people do not care which is why they do not vote for anyone in any numbers approaching a majority of voters. The purchase is now being guaranteed. The wealthy/corporations have always been in control but now they do not have to pretend. It is no secret that their lobbyists control policy and then the writing of regulations to make certain their advantage. How do you think so many of the largest corporations do not pay any federal taxes. Their control of large media outlets then assure distraction from that control with the man-made ideological false issues surrounding guns, planned parenthood, the dissing of Christmas and other fantasy pretensions. Those few would-be educators using fact and logic to warn the populace have become the objects of ridicule and are discounted as any real threat. So write away folks. I'm sure it makes you feel better after a good rant but it will be to no avail. Make a new year's resolution to get a hobby to get your mind off of this. Learn to ignore the loss of your democracy so you can get on with life.
7
"The wealthy/corporations have always been in control but now they do not have to pretend."
That is what Jacksonian Democracy was about, 1829-1837. That is what the Teddy Roosevelt trust busting targeted, and why he formed the Bull Moose Party when he saw it being undermined.
It has been a cycle in American politics. We defeat it, and it comes back. Well, it's baaack, like the Terminator. This is one we have to fight and win over and over again.
That is what Jacksonian Democracy was about, 1829-1837. That is what the Teddy Roosevelt trust busting targeted, and why he formed the Bull Moose Party when he saw it being undermined.
It has been a cycle in American politics. We defeat it, and it comes back. Well, it's baaack, like the Terminator. This is one we have to fight and win over and over again.
3
"...President Obama has dithered and withheld the one blow he could easily strike for greater political transparency: the signing of an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their campaign spending...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/university-missouri-protesters-bloc...
To paraphrase your foot-soldier and water-carrier:
"...We need some muscle over here...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/university-missouri-protesters-bloc...
To paraphrase your foot-soldier and water-carrier:
"...We need some muscle over here...
3
To tar one side of this issue with the brush of a single idiot is so lame.
It is not a surprise that Congress would want to keep financing obscured; they are more like a marketplace than a government. Lots of money moves around, but very little governance takes place.
But for all of it, there are lights shining on Capitol Hill, as this editorial shows.
The evil of dark money is that it is spread in a lot of places where we are not shining lights - in state elections, in local elections, even school boards. And organizations like Americans for Prosperity and ALEC have undue influence. Stand Your Ground laws, for profit prisons, and the move to try to get schools to teach American History in a way that makes America always look good are just a few of the outcomes.
For all of it, Federal legislation is the least of our worries - we still for the time being have a veto to work as a balance of powers. (And for those who would point out that Executive Action is undemocratic - we still have a Congress, that if it did its job, could write laws and curtail Executive Actions.) It is in our states that the real impact of money is undemocratic and un-American and almost invisible.
But for all of it, there are lights shining on Capitol Hill, as this editorial shows.
The evil of dark money is that it is spread in a lot of places where we are not shining lights - in state elections, in local elections, even school boards. And organizations like Americans for Prosperity and ALEC have undue influence. Stand Your Ground laws, for profit prisons, and the move to try to get schools to teach American History in a way that makes America always look good are just a few of the outcomes.
For all of it, Federal legislation is the least of our worries - we still for the time being have a veto to work as a balance of powers. (And for those who would point out that Executive Action is undemocratic - we still have a Congress, that if it did its job, could write laws and curtail Executive Actions.) It is in our states that the real impact of money is undemocratic and un-American and almost invisible.
7
What troubles me most about this, and I am very troubled about it, is that we have now opened our political process to international money. Not just wealthy Americans but people from all over the world wish to influence decisions made in our Congress and in our state legislatures. This is treason.
27
That would be true in theory, but in practice we are doing such a job of corrupting ourselves that any foreign money is bid out of the market.
Our problem is right here at home. In Wisconsin, it is Scott Walker, not some shadowy foreign money. Here in Michigan, it is Rick Snyder, CPA, who channels US money sources to control the State for money sources.
Our problem is right here at home. In Wisconsin, it is Scott Walker, not some shadowy foreign money. Here in Michigan, it is Rick Snyder, CPA, who channels US money sources to control the State for money sources.
So if the Supreme Court's justifications for their position on campaign financing have fallen away with such changes, then maybe the issue can be revisited. And if we got the same-sex marriage ruling in part on account of where the public stands on the issue, maybe we can harness public energy on this issue, too, maybe we can in a way "shame" the court into doing the legally correct and ethical thing again.
10
To date just 158 families have provided nearly half of the early money for efforts to capture the White House. Only 28 of these families contributed to Democrats. The Koch’s alone pledge to spend nearly a billion dollars to put their right wing candidates into office. We must abandon the notion that this is a democracy by the people and for the people and acknowledge that we live in an oligarchy controlled by a wealthy few drifting rapidly toward a nation of haves and have-nots
269
"To date just 158 families have provided nearly half of the early money for efforts to capture the White House. Only 28 of these families contributed to Democrats."
So what? Just ask (no, demand) those 28 families to give more - that's what Democrats want from anyone who is rich, right? Obviously those 28 families haven't given their "fair share".
"The Koch’s alone pledge to spend nearly a billion dollars to put their right wing candidates into office."
Good for them.
So what? Just ask (no, demand) those 28 families to give more - that's what Democrats want from anyone who is rich, right? Obviously those 28 families haven't given their "fair share".
"The Koch’s alone pledge to spend nearly a billion dollars to put their right wing candidates into office."
Good for them.
The people got what they voted for. Sc**w them!
6
It's to those who didn't vote or never voted in past elections, I say... Sc**w them!!!
Well, we can all lament over the system. The Supreme Court is of position that freedom of speech as sacred, combined with a fact that not a single justice on the Court had to run for an election to a public office, it is unlikely avenue to change.
It would be wonderful if sick Congress could perform self surgery and commit mass political suicide; maybe next Xmas.
President wants a democrat to preserve a status quo, and might sign executive order, which will be then blocked from enforcement by injunction.
The only avenue is to innovate. Who goes to rallies and why is there a need for TV adds-venues can be virtual. speeches uploaded. and social media is a conduit of information. All is needed is a will and a hub to connect the threats of discontent.
It would be wonderful if sick Congress could perform self surgery and commit mass political suicide; maybe next Xmas.
President wants a democrat to preserve a status quo, and might sign executive order, which will be then blocked from enforcement by injunction.
The only avenue is to innovate. Who goes to rallies and why is there a need for TV adds-venues can be virtual. speeches uploaded. and social media is a conduit of information. All is needed is a will and a hub to connect the threats of discontent.
1
Crookorations spend money on political campaigns. Those Crookandidates with the most money win. Crookoliticians write and pass legislation that enriches Crookorations. Crookorations give even more money to Crookoliticians who stay in power then write more legislation they pass to further enrich Crookorations. Then Crookolicians pass more legislation to hide the Crookorations giving and on and on and on...................
Oil comes to mind.
Couldn't we call it outright "Bribery"?
I guess the feds are too busy arming the nations cops to bust poor people to make money to go after real hard to beat moneyed crooks.
Those with the money always win. The cops and feds always protect those with the money. Remember how the NYPD abused the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrators? They were protecting the big bucks.
President Obama needs more than an "Executive order". He needs to "Order" the Justice department to bust some Congressmen and former Government Leaders.
Oil comes to mind.
Couldn't we call it outright "Bribery"?
I guess the feds are too busy arming the nations cops to bust poor people to make money to go after real hard to beat moneyed crooks.
Those with the money always win. The cops and feds always protect those with the money. Remember how the NYPD abused the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrators? They were protecting the big bucks.
President Obama needs more than an "Executive order". He needs to "Order" the Justice department to bust some Congressmen and former Government Leaders.
You have to admit that the Republicans in Congress are very smart about protecting their supporter's interests. They attack the IRS whom nobody likes. They make it seem that the IRS is picking on right-wing organization when, in fact, the IRS was simply enforcing the tax code about 501(c)(4) ("social welfare") organizations. Then, they slip in clauses into the finance bill to block the IRS and the SEC from enforcing the law.
You have to grudgingly admire them for their audacity. They have no shame in pulling such maneuvers. Much of the American people get upset over 'hot button' social issues (thrown out by the right-wing Republicans to distract attention from the real aim of the party, the tax code). Thus, the political argument becomes these extraneous social issues rather than over the very fundamental economic ones for which the government really does have some effect.
And, by the way, I don't know if you realize it but in the last budget bill there was a clause that allows telemarketers to make robo-calls to cell phone numbers. Previously they were blocked from making such calls to cell phones. But, some Congressman (or woman, but most likely a Republican man) stuck this in at the last minute when the government was about to shut down over lack of money; no one was going to go through the budget in detail at that point.
You have to give these Republicans credit. They 'pulled the wool' over the American public once again!
You have to grudgingly admire them for their audacity. They have no shame in pulling such maneuvers. Much of the American people get upset over 'hot button' social issues (thrown out by the right-wing Republicans to distract attention from the real aim of the party, the tax code). Thus, the political argument becomes these extraneous social issues rather than over the very fundamental economic ones for which the government really does have some effect.
And, by the way, I don't know if you realize it but in the last budget bill there was a clause that allows telemarketers to make robo-calls to cell phone numbers. Previously they were blocked from making such calls to cell phones. But, some Congressman (or woman, but most likely a Republican man) stuck this in at the last minute when the government was about to shut down over lack of money; no one was going to go through the budget in detail at that point.
You have to give these Republicans credit. They 'pulled the wool' over the American public once again!
8
Re: "It was Citizens United that foolishly envisioned a world in which 'Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.' ”
Now hold on just a second. Suppose that Citizens United were CORRECTLY "envisioning a world" is which this were so. Are we intended to believe that "political speech that advances the corporation's interest in making profits" would be a GOOD thing? Why don't we try to envision a world in which corporations don't make political ''speech'' at all? Especially when that "speech" is not speech but, rather, money, which is a very different thing altogether.
Now hold on just a second. Suppose that Citizens United were CORRECTLY "envisioning a world" is which this were so. Are we intended to believe that "political speech that advances the corporation's interest in making profits" would be a GOOD thing? Why don't we try to envision a world in which corporations don't make political ''speech'' at all? Especially when that "speech" is not speech but, rather, money, which is a very different thing altogether.
3
It is clear that the Republican Party has no interest in real democracy. Whether it's voter suppression or outright campaign bribery, they seem determined to move the United States ever closer to authoritarianism, where the influence on decisions that matter in this country, whether it is to send our children and siblings to war, or to determine the acceptable amount of pollutants our corporations put into our bodies and our ecosystems, has absolutely no bearing on the needs and desires of the voting public.
There was a time when I would have been thrilled to support Hillary Clinton's campaign for presidency. For a while in 2008 I preferred her precision to Barack Obama's prose. But given that she is just as deep in the pockets of Wall Street and other megadonors, I have no reason to believe she will make any effort to strike at the metastasizing tumor corrupting our political system at every level.
Help us, Bernie Sanders. You're our only hope.
There was a time when I would have been thrilled to support Hillary Clinton's campaign for presidency. For a while in 2008 I preferred her precision to Barack Obama's prose. But given that she is just as deep in the pockets of Wall Street and other megadonors, I have no reason to believe she will make any effort to strike at the metastasizing tumor corrupting our political system at every level.
Help us, Bernie Sanders. You're our only hope.
21
DARKER MONEY So what! Look at the raft of hopeless GOP presidential hopefuls. No amount of money, dark, bright or dull--not even visiting the Wizard of Ooze, giving out brains, heart or courage will make silk purses out of those pig's ears. The larger problem by far is the blocking access to the polls, especially in the deep South, long notorious for disenfranchising voters, specifically persons of color. Fortunately there's nearly a year left to bring federal court injunctions nationwide. What's really laughable is that the dim-witted do-nothings in Congress thought that they got away with something big. Since they're already in the dark, what difference does it make if the money they get is dark, darker or darkest. They're still lumps of coal. Their presidential hopeful front runner, the orange painted trumpster, is neurologically impaired--he's got frontal lobe dementia; the second, KKKruzer the BBBruzer is despised by everyone except the super-nasties; the third one, Marko Snarko, has struck a deal with the devil and drunk the purple Kool Aid of the true believers. Then there are the also-rans who dropped into the single digits and are headed out of the race. They've virtually handed the presidency to Hillary on a silver platter. The GOP, fortunately for us, has not yet learned that money won't buy honesty, integrity, truthfulness and caring. Oh gee--those are traditional family values. Hmmm you don't hear anything about them anymore, except for abortions.
10
Hillary possesses no integrity, honesty, truthfulness, or compassion. Weeks after Bengazhi she told the victim's families that she would find the originators of the video and punish them. She benefits from " dark " money in the political process; thus; she will continue to pander to Wall Street and other corporations,
What is the end-game? On the one hand, the Senate and House of Representatives have evolved into "intern" positions- stepping stones for more lucrative lobbying jobs; so is the money funneled into campaigns by the phantom-deep-pockets nothing than quid pro quo-" I'll pass your legislation- in turn, you have a job waiting for me"? Or is it more insidious, where one party has collectively embraced an ideology-a vision of U.S. Democracy that looks and functions more like a Capitocracy, and how do those who see the frightening consequences, reach the average citizen? The magnitude of money- most cannot relate because it is so staggering. Most do not grasp the significance of money and the influence it has on shaping their perceptions: People can be swayed to believe that which is important-isn't and what isn't important-is. and ultimately the decisions made- based upon those perceptions that were shaped by money We see candidates with enough money re-frame, invent or destroy to benefit the few with the willing participation of an ignorant and uninformed constituency still holding to the false-believe that those who seek their votes are actually committed to "doing the people's business". My fear is, this country will become either like the frog-in-the-pot or will come very close to another revolution.
6
The GOP may like this status quo, but it's not like the Democrats turn away money. They are all for sale.
The NY Times Editorial Board is cranky because the GOP gets more "dark money", but has no issue with the Clinton foundation's acceptance of money from foreign corporations that were interested in swaying US policy while Hilary was secretary of state.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-a...
It may not be dark money, but it's not exactly an American dream.
The NY Times Editorial Board is cranky because the GOP gets more "dark money", but has no issue with the Clinton foundation's acceptance of money from foreign corporations that were interested in swaying US policy while Hilary was secretary of state.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-a...
It may not be dark money, but it's not exactly an American dream.
4
So, if anyone was wondering how the game is rigged, this article gives a concrete example. In an age where we are looking for greater transparency, the Republicans give us the opposite, and Mr. Obama dithers. What possible issue could the Republicans make of him using executive privilege to correct an injustice? Well, it is sorrowful to have to say this, but the Republican base is so confused about how things work, that the mere use of "executive privilege" will become the issue, but so what? It is just the use of one more battle cry by the Republicans to lather up their base. Lather only goes so far. On the other hand, Mr. Obama may well try to avoid it, since the Democrats may have something to lose in the process in the form of campaign contributions from it's own "dark side." Not until we have an elected Congress of non corporate men and women will we have a correction to "Citizens United," and that is not likely to happen any time soon, if ever. One wonders if in the face of this gridlock an independent organization might develop with the resources to pursue litigation to challenge it, since it is not just the "dark" money, but money in general that seems to determine the outcome of an election, rather than the policies and ideas needed to address this country's problems. However, you wonder if "dark" money is not preventing that from happening, too.
10
we have successfully dumbed down our citizens through what I truly believe is a conspiracy a long time in the making after careful planning. If anyone doubts that just look at the surge for history books that continue to tailor history, but then, we've always done that. There is, in the country, a compliancy, or as President Carter called it, a malaise, feed by cheap Chinese goods, poor nutrition, diminishing critical thinking, lack of access, controlled education, a lack of understanding at what global climate change means for everyone The fact that George Bush was appointed to office twice and Donald Trump/Ted Cruz are the leading contenders, are some of the many confirmations of this. This country will need to hit a kind of bottom before there is any kind of change. It may happen with the next election. The real progress in global climate change will come from Europe and Asia. The most powerful countries will not be countries but corporations, already a fact, and the emerging banana republic will be the U.S.
16
Many thanks to the New York Times Editorial Board for this article. President Obama should sign an executive order, which - while not solving the problem - would direct the public's attention to the issue, given the probable fury of the Republicans. And because shadow money is indefensible, it would advance the cause of transparency both with regard to campaign finance, and lay bare the agenda of many questionably motivated politicians.
We are losing our great nation to corruption. Roberts' Supreme Court has supported corruption in such an unconscionable way that the United States - once considered a bastion of opportunity - is fast becoming a wasteland of oligarchic control with money dictating everything from educational opportunity to health care. The ultra rich are dictating policy, gobbling up private enterprise, and even crushing American entrepreneurialism. We are losing the country - and to a degree, the world - to a very small minority. And the ugly aftermath - if the trend continues - is that the United States, once a land of opportunity, will be weakened and - ironically as Khrushchev once threatened - destroyed from within.
So the American public must do its part, but first, it needs to be informed. Thanks again, to the NYT Editorial Board.
We are losing our great nation to corruption. Roberts' Supreme Court has supported corruption in such an unconscionable way that the United States - once considered a bastion of opportunity - is fast becoming a wasteland of oligarchic control with money dictating everything from educational opportunity to health care. The ultra rich are dictating policy, gobbling up private enterprise, and even crushing American entrepreneurialism. We are losing the country - and to a degree, the world - to a very small minority. And the ugly aftermath - if the trend continues - is that the United States, once a land of opportunity, will be weakened and - ironically as Khrushchev once threatened - destroyed from within.
So the American public must do its part, but first, it needs to be informed. Thanks again, to the NYT Editorial Board.
14
Do we not learn from History?
This reminds me of Brooksley Born's warning to congress about the risk of the unregulated derivatives market. In response to her warning, Larry Summers, Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin pushed legislation outlawing any attempt to regulate derivatives, which still stands today. She was proved right in 2008 when they blew up, contributing to the global economic melted down, from which we have yet to emerge.
Frontline: "The Warning"- a must watch
http://www.pbs.org/video/1302794657/
Obama made Summers his chief economic adviser in 2008.
Senator Sanders is the only candidate not taking money from Wall St.
He'll have my vote.
This reminds me of Brooksley Born's warning to congress about the risk of the unregulated derivatives market. In response to her warning, Larry Summers, Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin pushed legislation outlawing any attempt to regulate derivatives, which still stands today. She was proved right in 2008 when they blew up, contributing to the global economic melted down, from which we have yet to emerge.
Frontline: "The Warning"- a must watch
http://www.pbs.org/video/1302794657/
Obama made Summers his chief economic adviser in 2008.
Senator Sanders is the only candidate not taking money from Wall St.
He'll have my vote.
58
Thank you for bringing this to public attention. If anyone hasn't figured it out by now: Obama is on the same payroll as his adversaries. It is the lack of discernment of the electorate which causes it to refuse to see what is clearly in its face. The wealthy buy both parties with the exception of Bernie Sanders.
4
So sick of the organized Republican Party destruction of our democratic elections, governance. Sure, individual Democrats are guilty of self-serving, rather than constituent serving (and they should be held accountable by courts and replaced by elections); but the Democratic Party principles serve the interests of the middle class--the working class--the lower class struggling to rise and those who are simply struggling to survive. The Democratic Party has been responsible for ALL of the social programs that serve the people. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has been engaged in destroying the American promise, selling our government to special wealthy interests, shutting down (or threatening to shutdown) our government as a means to get what THEY want, and hiding their agenda with laws to shroud their malfeasance with opaqueness. I don't give the 5 Republicans on the SCOTUS the benefit of any doubt--they knew what they were doing, they knew their intended consequences of Citizens United, they are simply the Republican Party's infiltration of and warping of our courts and justice. This has got to end. Republicans are antithetical to our democracy and to the American promise of a better future to those who work hard and play by the rules. (And to steal a line of cynicism from Trump: I'm sure there are some good Republicans.)
216
"So sick of the organized Republican Party destruction of our democratic elections, governance."
So sick of the incessant whining of the Democrats, especially since they started the idea of group-identity politics under FDR. Make every conceivable group seem like a victim, and then assure them that their paternal and benevolent federal government has just the program to handle their needs. All we have to do is get other people to pay for your so-called "right".
So sick of the incessant whining of the Democrats, especially since they started the idea of group-identity politics under FDR. Make every conceivable group seem like a victim, and then assure them that their paternal and benevolent federal government has just the program to handle their needs. All we have to do is get other people to pay for your so-called "right".
What a shock. Please don't forget Trump says he has a plan to fix everything because all the other narcissists presently ruining everything must be wrong. It is difficult to believe how far we have fallen, but when ignorance is your primary tool the possibilities are bottomless.
15
Who will be to blame when the people finally stand up to the absurdity of US governance and injustice? Those that shed the blood or those that enacted the law and rule of tyranny?
4
We continue to pay for the 1%.
Without people ORGANIZING it will end in chaos when enraged millions take to the street... Or within a decade or two, the 99% will have given in with a whimper within an undeniable plutocracy.
Without people ORGANIZING it will end in chaos when enraged millions take to the street... Or within a decade or two, the 99% will have given in with a whimper within an undeniable plutocracy.
16
Ah yes, the myth of transparency in campaign finance. Why is it that the only people in the USA who seem to think it exists are conservative jurists with wealthy, highly-connected, Republican friends? Small wonder that the party of the Right (wing) again decides to do the wrong thing and grant their friends and families the chance to donate big money - for big tax write-offs - to the party of their choice in the name of "social welfare", something in which they otherwise do not believe in the slightest. Perhaps it's all a part of a GOP strategy to make themselves look like Santa before the 2016 elections, so they can take off the mask and revert to the dark side if their great miracle (and our country's debacle) - a GOP president - should actually come to pass. Should that evil occur, then we in the 99% will undoubtedly be severely punished for daring to hope for change these past eight years.
9
What I’m perplexed about is---even if campaign spending and donors are disclosed and identified, what are we going to do about it? Many of them are identified anyway, and their aims are obvious.
The question is how can we start public financing? Both parties are totally dependent on private money, prompting Pres. Jimmy Carter to call the US an oligarchy.
Our system is precisely set up to tailor our laws to the wishes of the 1 %, and ignore the majority of citizens, as we see repeatedly on various issues. How could it not?
Thus our political discussions stay within the parameters the big donors allow. Just 1 example is the fact that single payer h/c, or even govt negotiating with insurance/drug companies is not even debated in the 2016 campaign, though there’s a crying need for improvement in Obamacare. We stay an outlier vs other countries where such regulation is the norm. Here it’s off the table. We can’t make progress on any issue without campaign finance reform.
The Nation writer John Nichols wrote that 15 states and 600 cities have moved to reverse Citizens United. Where is any discussion of this on the NYT op ed pages, so the public is aware? If the media keeps this dark, how can pressure be strengthened to start the process of taking our democracy back? The super rich have a lock on our elections. We stand in line to vote for 1 of their choices. The Dems will harm us less.
The question is how can we start public financing? Both parties are totally dependent on private money, prompting Pres. Jimmy Carter to call the US an oligarchy.
Our system is precisely set up to tailor our laws to the wishes of the 1 %, and ignore the majority of citizens, as we see repeatedly on various issues. How could it not?
Thus our political discussions stay within the parameters the big donors allow. Just 1 example is the fact that single payer h/c, or even govt negotiating with insurance/drug companies is not even debated in the 2016 campaign, though there’s a crying need for improvement in Obamacare. We stay an outlier vs other countries where such regulation is the norm. Here it’s off the table. We can’t make progress on any issue without campaign finance reform.
The Nation writer John Nichols wrote that 15 states and 600 cities have moved to reverse Citizens United. Where is any discussion of this on the NYT op ed pages, so the public is aware? If the media keeps this dark, how can pressure be strengthened to start the process of taking our democracy back? The super rich have a lock on our elections. We stand in line to vote for 1 of their choices. The Dems will harm us less.
19
"Public financing" means that about half the people (the roughly 50% who actually pay income taxes) will end up paying for all candidates...even those whom they oppose. Seems we've tried that system with the "check off" on our tax returns. How's that worked out for you? As I recall its was Obama who rejected public financing for his own campaign. I choose to give to candidates worth my support; please don't assume you can use my tax dollars to pay for their opponents.
1
Kinda glad I am 55 and past my peak working years, with retirement in sight...I won't be around to see where this train is going, but it is a destination I instinctively do not want to visit. As someone mentioned earlier, I am tired of feeling insecure.
I fear for the young people just starting their careers. What kind of America will they live in?
I fear for the young people just starting their careers. What kind of America will they live in?
22
The Republican Party, the gift that keeps giving....
... to the top .01%
A lump of coal in their stocking, I say.
Oh, and one for justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas as well for their United Citzens gift to America. The .01% couldn't have done it without you guys.
... to the top .01%
A lump of coal in their stocking, I say.
Oh, and one for justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas as well for their United Citzens gift to America. The .01% couldn't have done it without you guys.
22
Dark money has taken a big hit, otherwise Bernie and Trump wouldn't be players this political season. Voters, who can sometimes seem dumber than rocks, are not stupid about this issue. The ONLY way to reverse this is to get off our collective rears and vote. We need a D in the WH, reclaim the Senate and add seats to the House. And hello, Supreme Court appointments.
11
This is just one of many reasons a lot of ordinary citizens despise the five Republcians on the Roberts court. We see those five as disregarding the Constitution completely, and inserting their extreme right wing ideology on all of America. They are only for the one percent and the corrupt corporations, with ordinary working people being disposable and having no rights
Republicans have controlled this court since the 1950's, it is time for a change. Elections matter.
Republicans have controlled this court since the 1950's, it is time for a change. Elections matter.
23
Do you really think a democrat is going to solve it? Both parties are greedily accepting influence money and enriching themselves at our expense. There may be a small minority honest politicians left - Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren come to mind- but the rest of them are all playing the same game. Our government has been sold lock stock and barrel to the highest bidder.
Perhaps it is time for all thinking Americans to become refugees - political and economic refugees - fleeing America.
5
maybe to move to a country that provides health insurance, doesn't think they control the world, does not want to arm all citizens and is not control by the obscenely rich
3
And here's Wisconsin's Republican legislators' siege of additional darkness.
They passed legislation so donor employers would not be public.
They passed legislation to do away with the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board. Basically, they did away with accountability of overseeing who is responsible for dark money, if it's kosher or not, and the means to find out where it has come from. What is next for our poor state of the corruption journey?
Oh, country of ours, be so glad Scott Walker "suspended his campaign" and only Wisconsin has had to live with his stampede on our state. But to endure this man and his demonization of our state for three more years.....
As predicted, will Wisconsin be totally bought and paid for by the end of his tenure?
Supreme Court upholding the country's justice? Their decision is indeed at the bottom of the bought and paid for machine. What's just about that?
They passed legislation so donor employers would not be public.
They passed legislation to do away with the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board. Basically, they did away with accountability of overseeing who is responsible for dark money, if it's kosher or not, and the means to find out where it has come from. What is next for our poor state of the corruption journey?
Oh, country of ours, be so glad Scott Walker "suspended his campaign" and only Wisconsin has had to live with his stampede on our state. But to endure this man and his demonization of our state for three more years.....
As predicted, will Wisconsin be totally bought and paid for by the end of his tenure?
Supreme Court upholding the country's justice? Their decision is indeed at the bottom of the bought and paid for machine. What's just about that?
17
President Obama dither until it is too late in his administration? What a non-surprise. So, why is he dithering? Which bunch of contributors is he trying to allow to hide?
1
If according to you Obama is "dithering", then what the Republicans have been chronically up to cam be called ORGANIZED CRIME.
5
Where do we turn when the highest court in the land spits in our eye? Are their lawyers or groups of lawyers capable of presenting usable arguments to SCOTUS that are viable enough to overturn Citizens United? If we have to wait for presidential High Court selections to make the changes, will changes ever occur?
This uncontained purchase of political leaders is frightening, but more frightening yet is that there appears to be no end of it in sight.
This uncontained purchase of political leaders is frightening, but more frightening yet is that there appears to be no end of it in sight.
14
I thought it was the right that used political dark money. Sounds from this that the left uses it as well. Well, I will be!
4
I completely agree. What can be done? How could the Supreme Court feel that this is legitimate. Can "we the people " let it be known that we do not agree or condone these actions
2
We could all stop voting to re-elect the representatives who pass these laws and start demanding that candidates vow to get rid of them. Mitch McConnell who recently was re-elected Senator from Kentucky comes to mind. But people just keep voting for guys like McConnell when they have the option not to.
4
Time to rewrite the constitution.
2
Dithering by Mr. Obama? Why would he ever want to differentiate himself and the Democratic Party from the conduct of the Republicans? He hasn't accomplished it yet. Why start now?
1
One way to show your displeasure at the way campaigns are funded is to donate to, work for, and vote for only the candidates whose campaigns are assiduously transparent and above board; candidates who don't take money from large corporate interests or the wealthy elite who are rigging the system for their benefit. A certain senator from VT comes to mind.
It may take a few election cycles to make much headway, but at this point, what else can the average voter do? A revolution in political thinking is indeed in order.
It may take a few election cycles to make much headway, but at this point, what else can the average voter do? A revolution in political thinking is indeed in order.
9
Give it up, for a political system steeped in corruption will never be taken down. Hey, its what politicians do. Since the 'system' is 'dark', the results will always be. Who would be surprised that all politicians, Dem's and GOP, just love these Omnibus budget bills, for sneaky is the best way to govern. Wise up and stop these editorials that are rooted in stupidness.
2
People who see no difference between Democrats and Republicans are part of the Problem
1) Republican Supreme Court appointees gave us Citizens United ( thank you, Nader voters)
2) the Citizens Unoted Case involves Republican money directed against Hillary Clinton
3) Democrats introduced legislation to overturn Citizens United, as well as related legislation, such as the Disclose Act, to reveal the names of major donors. Republicans blocked it
4) Republican Mitch McConnel inserted the language that was the subject of the article into the Omnibus, knowing that Democrats opposed it.
1) Republican Supreme Court appointees gave us Citizens United ( thank you, Nader voters)
2) the Citizens Unoted Case involves Republican money directed against Hillary Clinton
3) Democrats introduced legislation to overturn Citizens United, as well as related legislation, such as the Disclose Act, to reveal the names of major donors. Republicans blocked it
4) Republican Mitch McConnel inserted the language that was the subject of the article into the Omnibus, knowing that Democrats opposed it.
5
While Americans sleep the sleep of denial, a handful of rich oligarchs and banks are robbing our house, abetted by our "representatives" in congress. The GOP and their handlers are laughing at us behind closed doors - and all the way to the bank. Democrats are also at fault, but ultimately, the gift our Founding Fathers gave us is being squandered by the very people it was to benefit, the "We the People" of the preamble of the Constitution.
12
Why don't we call it what it is? A Coup d'etat by the Rich and Corporations.
Funny how it is always the Republicans slipping these bills into must sign legislation. They are not just an opposition party. They are an enemy of the state.
Stand and fight or get on your knees. Bernie 2016
Funny how it is always the Republicans slipping these bills into must sign legislation. They are not just an opposition party. They are an enemy of the state.
Stand and fight or get on your knees. Bernie 2016
13
Ted Kennedy, actually, was a master at that. And what about that sneaked-in provision the times trumpeted yesterday to throw money at the Carter-era Iran hostages? A few billion here, a few billion there. And don't tell me there was money available. That money was the public's, and should have been applied to the deficit.
1
Hate to tell you this, but Bernie Sanders alone can't fix it. It's much more complicated than that. The Congress passed the law and would have to get rid of it.
3
I, who writes a lot, is too despondent and depressed to write more than three lines after reading this. Is there a list of countries that American citizens and residents are happy to migrate to? Any research on the latter...
3
New Zealand, that is, if they'll let any of us in. Right thinking nations may not want Americans with their tainted money.
There are two kinds of corruption in politics. In one, cash or its equivalent is delivered in exchange for political favors. People can go to jail for that. But the far more serious form -- highlighted by this editorial -- is perfectly legal because shameless politicians wrote the enabling laws. Is there any clearer evidence of rot at the heart of the American political system than legislative manipulations (including gerrymandering) that are an open mockery of the bedrock principles of governance that each new crop of elected officials professes to protect and uphold? And we wonder why know-nothing demagogues rise to the top of the Republican primary circus?
152
"There are two kinds of corruption in politics. In one, cash or its equivalent is delivered in exchange for political favors. People can go to jail for that. But the far more serious form -- highlighted by this editorial -- is perfectly legal because shameless politicians wrote the enabling laws."
The reality is that there is only one form. It is all money for political favors. The rest is just smoke screen.
The reality is that there is only one form. It is all money for political favors. The rest is just smoke screen.
1
"People can go to jail for that. But the far more serious form -- highlighted by this editorial -- is perfectly legal because shameless politicians wrote the enabling laws."
Yet most of those people (from both sides of the aisle) are probably still in office. A few millionaires don't make that happen. We do, because national level politics is all about catering to special interest groups, and this applies to the Dems and the Repubs equally. We get what we vote for.
Yet most of those people (from both sides of the aisle) are probably still in office. A few millionaires don't make that happen. We do, because national level politics is all about catering to special interest groups, and this applies to the Dems and the Repubs equally. We get what we vote for.
I agree with your suggestion that President Obama sign an executive order and expose the truth of the scourge of dark money, but if you believe that Republicans would care about that truth I think you're sniffing glue, alas. Still, that's no reason not to sign the executive order.
Has Obama been dithering? I don't know. I haven't spoken to him. I don't know his reasons for not signing an order on this issue and I don't see a quote from you to show that you've heard his rationale. Whatever his reasons somehow I suspect dithering isn't one of them.
Why is it so hard for people to respect this great man and be in awe of what he's achieved in the face of such monumental obstacles? Not to mention grateful. For a country that has a public holiday celebrating gratitude I see very little of it for a President who deserves it more than any other.
Has Obama been dithering? I don't know. I haven't spoken to him. I don't know his reasons for not signing an order on this issue and I don't see a quote from you to show that you've heard his rationale. Whatever his reasons somehow I suspect dithering isn't one of them.
Why is it so hard for people to respect this great man and be in awe of what he's achieved in the face of such monumental obstacles? Not to mention grateful. For a country that has a public holiday celebrating gratitude I see very little of it for a President who deserves it more than any other.
8
Signed by President Trump on 1/20/17:
I do hereby revoke the following executive orders and declare them null and void:
(list three pages long)
I do hereby revoke the following executive orders and declare them null and void:
(list three pages long)
President Obama gets no positive press. None. The purpose of propaganda is to misinform and republicans have been hugely successful at disparaging the man. I have maintained and continue to maintain that the republican machine and ultra conservative think tanks have direct communication links with every newsroom in the country. Although that does not explain the almost total silence of democrats. Or does it? When was the last time you heard of a respected democrat, other than the president, speaking up forcefully on any issue? Something is horribly wrong with the politics in this nation. The Supreme Court had it right. Money is speech. What the Court got wrong is that money viewed as speech does not necessarily lead to positive outcomes for a nation or its citizens when the absolute control of the economic system is in the wrong hands. The fox is in the henhouse and will not be sated until all of the hens have been eaten. It is difficult to surmise what happens when all of the hens are gone. It is a good bet that the nation has been through the experience and learned that it is avoidable unless it is ignored. Some people are not hurt by economic depression.
4
The revelations in this article confirm my resolve never to contemplate voting in a US election. Future historians will probably reveal that the sideshow antics of Trump and the derision heaped upon the other candidates in various ways are nothing more than smokescreens to obfuscate the more important ethical issues underlying the electoral process in the United States of the 21st century.
Corrupt oligarchs from all directions essentially bribe future elected officials to adopt policies which run counter to the common good : Eisenhower's ominous warning about the stranglehold of the military-industrial complex never rang so true as today. At least Washington does not have the audacity to criticize such sterling examples of democracy as Eritrea or Qatar in light of the deplorable state of democracy across the board in the United States.
Corrupt oligarchs from all directions essentially bribe future elected officials to adopt policies which run counter to the common good : Eisenhower's ominous warning about the stranglehold of the military-industrial complex never rang so true as today. At least Washington does not have the audacity to criticize such sterling examples of democracy as Eritrea or Qatar in light of the deplorable state of democracy across the board in the United States.
4
The more we know about this deal the more we know that Dems and the president were out maneuvered again. They gave the GOP substantially everything to wanted, the GOP didn't even have to shut the government down and the Dems got nothing...someone will say we got the 9/11 first responders money. Yes, but the GOP was going to do that anyway and now they get to be heroes on that issue too. I'm so sick of caving Democrats and the corporatists in both parties. go Bernie!
4
It certainly looks like experience is proving that some of our Supreme Court Justices (specifically those nominated by Republican Presidents) are political hacks who have zero idea (or zero desire to understand) how money corrupts. The Citizens United decision is going to be seen by historians as worse than even the Dred Scott decison.
Please keep in mind that the President gets to nominate candidates for Supreme Court vacancies.
In the next Presidential term, there will be four Justices aged 75 or more.
Be careful who you vote for for President in 2016. The results of this election may well determine the composition of the Supreme Court for several decades to come.
Please keep in mind that the President gets to nominate candidates for Supreme Court vacancies.
In the next Presidential term, there will be four Justices aged 75 or more.
Be careful who you vote for for President in 2016. The results of this election may well determine the composition of the Supreme Court for several decades to come.
10
What needs to happen is for a big Mexican drug cartel to form a "legitimate" US corporation and mae a huge, multimillion-dollar to a leading candidate of the Republican Party, and then leak its largesse to a reporter like me. In the 1996 Clinton campaign, it was just such an occurrence that led me to find and report to the Open Source Intelligence Quarterly a $350,000 contribution from an ill-disguised Chinese company that was a front for the Politburo. I discovered it because I was checking contributions that were (supposedly) made from my Zip Code at the time, 90028. The investigators' path eventually led to the Chinese Embassy. A similar cartel move would force the GOP to reconsider the wisdom of Citizens United!
4
"Is there a ray of light.." Yes, it's called voting. Next fall the Oval Office and seats in both houses of U.S. Congress are up for grabs. Keep in mind, which ever Democrat gets elected can't do it by his or herself. They'll need a better Congress. (Heck, I wouldn't ask Mahatma Gandhi to cope with this batch.)
Also, the NYT could get off the pot and actually officially endorse someone, i.e., preferably, the one candidate they seem to take pleasure in virtually ignoring: Bernie Sanders.
12-26-15@2:14 a.m. e.s.t.
Also, the NYT could get off the pot and actually officially endorse someone, i.e., preferably, the one candidate they seem to take pleasure in virtually ignoring: Bernie Sanders.
12-26-15@2:14 a.m. e.s.t.
3
Well, Mx Obama signed the bill. So he smiles on all its provisions. So there.
When he wrote
"Money doesn't talk. It screams.",
Bob Dylan had it right.
But it's alright, ma. I'm only crying.
"Money doesn't talk. It screams.",
Bob Dylan had it right.
But it's alright, ma. I'm only crying.
1
Unlimited -and increasingly corporate and anonymous- donations make a mockery of democracy. With the media and digital reach that "financed" political speech gets, Citizens United handed the rich a deafening loudspeaker, and the poor a comparative muffle.
Add to that the distortions of gerrymandering and the warping of the popular will that the Senate represents (giving outlandish power to small populations that happen to live in certain states), our democracy can hardly pretend to be called representative any longer.
Add to that the distortions of gerrymandering and the warping of the popular will that the Senate represents (giving outlandish power to small populations that happen to live in certain states), our democracy can hardly pretend to be called representative any longer.
4
How about some concrete examples?
The Guardian had it that the Republican senators voting for TPA ended up with about $17,000, Democrates got a bit less from PACs.
How can we verify these numbers?
Can the NYT pull some specifics out like that?
The Guardian had it that the Republican senators voting for TPA ended up with about $17,000, Democrates got a bit less from PACs.
How can we verify these numbers?
Can the NYT pull some specifics out like that?
1
If they claim specific Senators are corrupt they must prove it or else be sued. Accordingly they keep to generalities.
Corruption in Congress is prevalent among both Democrats and Republicans. They will definitely not change the systems/laws which protect their access to financial support. Even if you vote for a candidate proposing legislative changes...once in office they will avoid the issue. This is never going to change....I think we must face this reality.
I propose that members of Congress every year simply provide a price list for each proposed law. What is the price for their vote? With the price in mind, various groups (not just the current lobbyists) can see if they can raise enough money to pay for the amount of votes they need to pass a law. Members of Congress would love this as the competition would surely drive up their "income."
I propose that members of Congress every year simply provide a price list for each proposed law. What is the price for their vote? With the price in mind, various groups (not just the current lobbyists) can see if they can raise enough money to pay for the amount of votes they need to pass a law. Members of Congress would love this as the competition would surely drive up their "income."
3
Merry Christmas to all the good people at Fox News. As Norman Mailer said, there is nothing further from the bleeding heart of Christ than the American corporation - and therein lies the sickness that splits the mind from the soul. The America of the GOP is a criminal cartel.
Happy Holidays to everyone else.
Happy Holidays to everyone else.
5
Republicans do whatever it takes to win--whatever it takes--because the goal is just to win. Governing is never a priority.
7
Hey, I've got an idea.
Let's stop voting for anyone who takes Super PAC or covert money.
You know, someone who is not for sale.
Let's stop voting for anyone who takes Super PAC or covert money.
You know, someone who is not for sale.
6
The US is, based on dollars and influence, probably the most corrupt country on the planet right now. The worst part is that it's 100% legal.
184
I'm not sure if we're the most corrupt, but we are definitely corrupt. But that's the government we elected - what does that tell you about the American public in general?
USA is not the worst corrupt country in the planet but it's rank in corruption scale may be or should be in top 20 countries. We preach democracy and want to spread democracy all over the world . it is simply a big joke and hypocrisy. What kind of democracy we have? All our politicians are sold or on auction . Billions of dollars is needed to run for presidential election and needs two year campaigning for four year term.
For destroying democracy, I blame Robert's Supreme court . Supreme court is not our supreme court any more. It belongs to rich and special special interest group like citizens united.
For destroying democracy, I blame Robert's Supreme court . Supreme court is not our supreme court any more. It belongs to rich and special special interest group like citizens united.
1
Instead of the usual bemoaning and restatement of the problem, how about focusing on solutions knowing that the people are all powerful if we act as one.
Listen…
Polls show over 90% of us reject our current corrupt system. We know campaign money buys politicians and favors the interests of the wealthy. Average people suffer.
Let's choke the money with a law or constitutional amendment limiting presidential campaigns to only three months. Wouldn't you love to not see campaigning non stop like we have today?
How about shorter campaigns and this -
"The maximum contribution for use in political speech, whether to an individual candidate, political campaign or political advocacy group shall be $250 US dollars in any three month period not to exceed $500 in any twelve month period."
(three months for a contribution during shorter primaries and then a shorter general election. Long campaigns keep the money flowing. Let's close the spigot.)
Image an app for the 100 million phones we all use. Call it "Super Majority" because over 90% of Americans want what I describe above.
The app lets us bombard our representatives with a message - "You must immediately publicly pledge support for a constitutional ammendment to clean up our campaigns or I WON'T VOTE FOR YOU AGAIN!"
A million hits, they'll get the message.
App developers, get going. Media promoters (Jon Stewart, Steep, Cloony, sports figures) join in.
The rest of us, stop whining.
Start fighting.
Listen…
Polls show over 90% of us reject our current corrupt system. We know campaign money buys politicians and favors the interests of the wealthy. Average people suffer.
Let's choke the money with a law or constitutional amendment limiting presidential campaigns to only three months. Wouldn't you love to not see campaigning non stop like we have today?
How about shorter campaigns and this -
"The maximum contribution for use in political speech, whether to an individual candidate, political campaign or political advocacy group shall be $250 US dollars in any three month period not to exceed $500 in any twelve month period."
(three months for a contribution during shorter primaries and then a shorter general election. Long campaigns keep the money flowing. Let's close the spigot.)
Image an app for the 100 million phones we all use. Call it "Super Majority" because over 90% of Americans want what I describe above.
The app lets us bombard our representatives with a message - "You must immediately publicly pledge support for a constitutional ammendment to clean up our campaigns or I WON'T VOTE FOR YOU AGAIN!"
A million hits, they'll get the message.
App developers, get going. Media promoters (Jon Stewart, Steep, Cloony, sports figures) join in.
The rest of us, stop whining.
Start fighting.
7
So technically, a Russian oil billionaire could finance the election of an American presidency and there would be no disclosure about where the money is coming from. Of course, the billionaire would not want anything in exchange.
Scalia and his gang of 5 are anti-American. Or are they? Maybe they are the true embodiment of what America has become today. A country that can be bought. That Republicans in Congress have further obscured any transparency is a disgrace. The founding fathers did not envision anything even close to this. They would be appalled at the so called "original intent" Scalia. We are a country that has lost our way.
I am old enough to remember when we were the good guys the world looked up to. I don't feel that way any more. Not by a long shot.
Scalia and his gang of 5 are anti-American. Or are they? Maybe they are the true embodiment of what America has become today. A country that can be bought. That Republicans in Congress have further obscured any transparency is a disgrace. The founding fathers did not envision anything even close to this. They would be appalled at the so called "original intent" Scalia. We are a country that has lost our way.
I am old enough to remember when we were the good guys the world looked up to. I don't feel that way any more. Not by a long shot.
225
The difficulty is that would greatly advantage the Democratic Party with their control of mass media and unions, and it would have about as much chance of flying in a Republican Congress and a nation where two-thirds of the state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, as I do of being elected president. (although I am constitutionally eligible as at l am at least 35, a resident 14 years in the US and a natural born citizen, nor am I barred for being elected to the presidency twice before or once and serving more than two years of another's term) (hm, how about "Vote Right Here")
Like you, I can remember when we were a functioning democracy that served the common good, when roads and bridges were safe, when clean air and water were never in doubt, and when our schools were the envy of the world. All, all broken by nearly forty years of Republican shenanigans on behalf of the wealthy.
We remain an example for the world: a negative one. World, do not allow unfettered access to guns, or unfettered capitalism, or unfettered legal bribery of elected officials or your country will become as corrupt as ours. We are now the world's wealthiest banana republic.
We remain an example for the world: a negative one. World, do not allow unfettered access to guns, or unfettered capitalism, or unfettered legal bribery of elected officials or your country will become as corrupt as ours. We are now the world's wealthiest banana republic.
4
"So technically, a Russian oil billionaire could finance the election of an American presidency and there would be no disclosure about where the money is coming from."
Well, yes. Of course, we have overthrown duly elected leaders of other nations, all in the name of promoting democracy. What's the difference?
Well, yes. Of course, we have overthrown duly elected leaders of other nations, all in the name of promoting democracy. What's the difference?
3
Over the last 35 years we have slowly but continuously moved towards a second world country like Mexico or Brazil.
2
The second world is the former Soviet/communist bloc. I might agree with you, but your examples are wrong.
In the Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court said corporations are people, and money is speech. Republicans just completed the hat trick, adding, "And it's none of your business which "people" are "talking" the loudest.
12
Americans are enslaved by corporate interests and most are blind to this fact. Sadly, Bernie's biggest downfall is that he's right, and people are clueless.
6
With Justices Beyer and Ginsburg not retiring despite their advanced ages, we will probably see more Republican leaning Justices in the Supreme Court -- their appointments coming from the next US President.
1
The Roberts majority, the most regressive Supreme Court in modern history, has done more to undermine democracy in the United States than any foreign enemy. Through Citizens United they are promoting the rise of corporate fascism which is being brought to fruition by the Republican Party.
12
Those five Republcians also said voter suppression was OK. Republcians ahte the democratic process and know they cannot win without lying, cheating and stealing elections.
6
Roberts' creepy smile makes me cringe.
3
Apparently it's okay if Hillary and Obama use dark money, but no mention of Trump accepting no money at all and calling fundraising a "begathon." Rubio called the media Hillary's biggest Super-Pac. No mention of that, either. Guess the NYT doesn't want any competition when it comes to influencing elections and won't even admit it.
2
The President should not sign any bill advanced by the congress to further disguise "dark money" contributions to Republicans. If he does, and does not "out" the intent of these bills, his legacy will be tainted beyond repair. It is already imperiled.
Democrats benefit as much, or more. Do you think he'd get a one-third blocking minority in the House? I don't think so. Wrong issue to veto major spending bill over.
"Conservative social-welfare organization" seems like an oxymoron. Can anyone give an example of such an organization?
9
pete: Not nearly as much as "liberal public-interest group"
The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation!
1
The Clinton/Obama NYT doesn't like the Republican's success in wiping out the Democrats' use of "full disclosure" rules to blackmail contributors to their political opponents.
Totalitarians use their government powers to silence their opponents. That's what Clinton and Obama try to do every day. The Republicans have ended their blackmail and their hypocritical efforts to silence political contributors who support their opponents.
The more money candidates spend on their campaigns, the better informed voters will be. Regulating donations to political campaigns is nothing but the work of totalitarians who don't believe in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Totalitarians use their government powers to silence their opponents. That's what Clinton and Obama try to do every day. The Republicans have ended their blackmail and their hypocritical efforts to silence political contributors who support their opponents.
The more money candidates spend on their campaigns, the better informed voters will be. Regulating donations to political campaigns is nothing but the work of totalitarians who don't believe in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
1
Massive amounts of propaganda on the airwaves has nothing to do with informing the electorate as we know well from the barrage of misinformation that streams daily, nonstop from Fox News.
5
What is so funny is we accuse other countries of there corruption when we need to look at our own backyard because we look like hypocrties in front of the world.
3
I saw a politician on Shark Tank asking for investment money for his campaign.
He sold a 50% stake with good returns on investment( not really, but it is possible). Anyone who does not see the conflict of interests in the legalized bribing of politicians has their eyes closed, but like gun violence, nothing will be done.
He sold a 50% stake with good returns on investment( not really, but it is possible). Anyone who does not see the conflict of interests in the legalized bribing of politicians has their eyes closed, but like gun violence, nothing will be done.
4
Making IRS and SEC into a political football is not the way though. It starts with the SCOTUS and it should be ended by it. Saying President Obama should do all the heavy lifting simply obscure the issue.
This is not endorsing the right but at least it has followed through with the Citizen United lawsuit. Has the left done anything like that? People like Ralph Nader don't hesitate to call attention to themselves at the expense of others but in no instance they put their money where the mouth is. For goodness sake, same sex marriage was taken to the Supreme Court by none other than David Boies and Ted Olson, the two legal gunslingers.
So it NYT editorial wants to shame anyone into doing something, it should look what is really happening
This is not endorsing the right but at least it has followed through with the Citizen United lawsuit. Has the left done anything like that? People like Ralph Nader don't hesitate to call attention to themselves at the expense of others but in no instance they put their money where the mouth is. For goodness sake, same sex marriage was taken to the Supreme Court by none other than David Boies and Ted Olson, the two legal gunslingers.
So it NYT editorial wants to shame anyone into doing something, it should look what is really happening
When government policies and rules can be purchased, new and powerful scams become possible -- scams that can crash the whole economy and that unavoidably render it less economically efficient. Financial deals and dealings cannot be the bedrock of a large nation's economy, but much of the money made in the past few decades is being made in this way.
8
Can anyone be surprised that as the year draws to a close, the majority party would vote in a Christmas stocking of special tax benefits?
Is it any wonder that the party which relies the most on dark money would block any attempt to make it less opaque?
This SCOTUS has done more damage to the equalizing structure of full tax and disclosure laws that any court in history. If anyone doubts that 2016 and the ability of either party to define the direction of this country for the next decades they are willingly blind.
Is it any wonder that the party which relies the most on dark money would block any attempt to make it less opaque?
This SCOTUS has done more damage to the equalizing structure of full tax and disclosure laws that any court in history. If anyone doubts that 2016 and the ability of either party to define the direction of this country for the next decades they are willingly blind.
52
One can wonder how much is understood by how many.
I'm surprised that you believe it was the majority party that passed the bill.
@Louise: did you read the article? Take a look: "In acting to seal that pocket and hobble the I.R.S., congressional Republicans are advancing what has become the dark age of plutocratic money in campaign spending." While I'm sure some Democrats did vote for this, the Editorial Board makes it clear that it is the "Republican Congress" that is calling the shots--just about every paragraph says so.
5
It's a dark day indeed when Congress complicates the rise of another Lois Lerner, abusing power at the IRS, an agency that should be concerned with absolutely nothing else than collection of taxes. The basic problem is the taxation of earnings -- as soon as you resolve to do that, you open society to whatever predations government can hatch to identify every dime of earnings, down to Suzie's lemonade stand, and you empower the IRS to poke into absolutely every facet of our lives. It has been used again and again as a cudgel by whatever power holds the White House, but this small attempt by Congress to put a leash on a wild beast is pilloried by the editors.
Get used to a free exchange of ideas expressed loudly and, typically for Americans, sulphurously, since Citizens United made that possible; and the left might consider ways that they can compete effectively in this brave new world rather than constantly tossing sour grapes when they can't.
Then, the editors find MORE cause for carping in Congress's action to keep Democrats from targeting corporations for ruinous economic attacks when they have the monumental chutzpah to contribute to Republican campaigns. The entreaty will fall on deaf ears; but it might help attract such contributions if the left learned not to despise private enterprise and corporations. Opening up the lists of private corporate contributions won't happen.
"Dark Money": now THAT'S a hoot. What you wish to destroy you must first demonize.
Get used to a free exchange of ideas expressed loudly and, typically for Americans, sulphurously, since Citizens United made that possible; and the left might consider ways that they can compete effectively in this brave new world rather than constantly tossing sour grapes when they can't.
Then, the editors find MORE cause for carping in Congress's action to keep Democrats from targeting corporations for ruinous economic attacks when they have the monumental chutzpah to contribute to Republican campaigns. The entreaty will fall on deaf ears; but it might help attract such contributions if the left learned not to despise private enterprise and corporations. Opening up the lists of private corporate contributions won't happen.
"Dark Money": now THAT'S a hoot. What you wish to destroy you must first demonize.
3
If political activity is taxed and charitable activity isnt, some entity must decide and have ways to decide which is which, so the IRS can figure out who owes what. It is logical and efficient for the IRS itself to make this decision, but if we wanted we could create a separate Activity Classification Service to decide whether activity is political or not. Either would be staffed by civil servants and commanded by a political appointee.
If the expenditure of vast sums of money sways elections, then the winner is the one with the most money and the most competence and wisdom in spending it. What should sway elections, if democracy is to work, is the validity of candidate ideas and the ability of the candidates to get things done. Vast sums of money get in the way of this rather than helping.
There are three candidates who are introducing ideas not usually available for free exchange: Trump, Sanders, and Rand Paul. Two of them do not do what Citizens United made possible, and the third tries unsuccessfully. What Citizens United has made more and more widespread is a visceral dislike of establishment politicians, and this dislike undercuts the effectiveness of establishment-type campaigns and campaign tactics and promotes candidates who are perceived as not friendly to or respectful of the establishment and the ordinary ways of politics in this country.
If the expenditure of vast sums of money sways elections, then the winner is the one with the most money and the most competence and wisdom in spending it. What should sway elections, if democracy is to work, is the validity of candidate ideas and the ability of the candidates to get things done. Vast sums of money get in the way of this rather than helping.
There are three candidates who are introducing ideas not usually available for free exchange: Trump, Sanders, and Rand Paul. Two of them do not do what Citizens United made possible, and the third tries unsuccessfully. What Citizens United has made more and more widespread is a visceral dislike of establishment politicians, and this dislike undercuts the effectiveness of establishment-type campaigns and campaign tactics and promotes candidates who are perceived as not friendly to or respectful of the establishment and the ordinary ways of politics in this country.
13
Get rid of corporate charade and allow individual unlimited anonymous contribution?
You know corporations are supposed to be a form by which humans join together in a legally chartered entity controlled and or charted by the state. For the benefit of limited liability the corporations is supposed to be an entity with limited powers or at least that's what the founders thought. Now that they are "people", humans are the ones with no power and few rights. Get s grip man --no one hates corporations, they are legal fictions. What we dispose is the way in which certain humans use them to abuse other humans and steal our tax money and get away with it!
5
"Money talks" is not the same as "Money is speech."
70
Sadly, with Citizens United, money doesn't talk, it quietly screams.
Only an idiot believed the Supremes' lie.
52
While nondisclosure is bad, and it is important that the Times Editors point it out, the unlimited campaign contributions which the Supreme Court authorized in Mccutcheon and Citizens United have already made clear that Republicans on the Supreme Court and in the House and Senate are bent on destroying the integrity of the electoral system of the United States. When they're not opening the floodgates of non-disclosed campaign contributions they are instituting Voter ID laws to discourage segments of voters that lean Democratic from voting.
The curious thing is that the American people don't just throw the anti-democratic bums out of the government. They haven't yet. But I believe they will. While the Republican Party looks powerful while it is gerrymandering itself into a disproportion of elective offices and other should-be scandals against democracy, in actuality there is a shred of democracy left in the country, and when it become fully apprised of the wickedness of Republicans, those bums will in fact be thrown out.
When and how it will happen? It is a very hard thing to predict. But one possibility is that a broad spectrum of the populace will come to see that the government is essentially responsive to plutocrats. The Editors of the Times made reference to the role of plutocrats. My feeling is that, as the people become aware of the plutocratization of the policymaking process, the Republican government in the US will be brought down.
The curious thing is that the American people don't just throw the anti-democratic bums out of the government. They haven't yet. But I believe they will. While the Republican Party looks powerful while it is gerrymandering itself into a disproportion of elective offices and other should-be scandals against democracy, in actuality there is a shred of democracy left in the country, and when it become fully apprised of the wickedness of Republicans, those bums will in fact be thrown out.
When and how it will happen? It is a very hard thing to predict. But one possibility is that a broad spectrum of the populace will come to see that the government is essentially responsive to plutocrats. The Editors of the Times made reference to the role of plutocrats. My feeling is that, as the people become aware of the plutocratization of the policymaking process, the Republican government in the US will be brought down.
15
Exactly how are they gerrymandering the Senate?
Here: Exactly where did I say they were gerrymandering the Senate? There they don't have to gerrymander. Because Senate races are so much more expensive than House races, Republicans can rely on the financial advantages given them, as the party of business, by the Supreme Court.
2
Our government "representatives" have solved the illegal immigrant problem right under our noses.
Instead of deporting 12 million people back to Mexico, Central and South America, this people are effectively turning the United States into a Third World county, not only for the 12 million illegals, but for 99% of the legal citizens.
No need to send anyone anywhere else.
Instead of deporting 12 million people back to Mexico, Central and South America, this people are effectively turning the United States into a Third World county, not only for the 12 million illegals, but for 99% of the legal citizens.
No need to send anyone anywhere else.
43
It was 99 years ago that Texas Oil Magnate William F Buckley Senior decided that the United States should declare war on Mexico to regain the Buckley's Mexican oil properties. The Buckleys have worked long and hard to create the Fascist state envisioned by William Senior.
It is indeed ironic that the son of Bill senior Senator James Lane Buckley is a principal architect of Citizens United.
No longer do we need to put up with the theatre that is Washington DC. In the age of the internet the men calling the shots can remain in New York, Dallas, Riyadh, Las Vegas, Houston, London, Zurich, Kansas, Tokyo, Beijing and the other centers of business and industry.
American Industry has already eliminated much of lower middle management and think of the savings as we close down Washington and its cast of middle managers representing themselves as elected officials.
It is indeed ironic that the son of Bill senior Senator James Lane Buckley is a principal architect of Citizens United.
No longer do we need to put up with the theatre that is Washington DC. In the age of the internet the men calling the shots can remain in New York, Dallas, Riyadh, Las Vegas, Houston, London, Zurich, Kansas, Tokyo, Beijing and the other centers of business and industry.
American Industry has already eliminated much of lower middle management and think of the savings as we close down Washington and its cast of middle managers representing themselves as elected officials.
113
Campaign finance reform is far down the list of priorities for most GOP voters. Though they might disagree on some level with Citizens United, as long as the GOP keeps saying the right things regarding immigration, guns, taxes, Muslims, Benghazi, etc., etc., there's not snowball's chance in you-now-what that the GOP feel pressure to enact campaign finance reform.
19
With an uncooperative Congress, Mr. Obama has understandably resorted to his executive powers to get things done. But a President's executive powers are limited -- he cannot circumvent Congress. Obama's executive order on immigration was far-reaching. But his legal advisors and all the legal experts consulted by the Times were confident. They were all wrong. There were also key appointment to the NLRB made during a Congressional recess. The same lawyers were confident they would be approved. They were all wrong. Not deterred, major campaign reform by executive action is now contemplated. All the same lawyers are reportedly confident. May I be so bold to suggest that Obama and the Times consult with some better lawyers?
5
The President can veto corrupt bills that pass his desk!
1
Congress was not in recess at the time of the NLRB appointments. That is why they were ruled unconstitutional.
Just further clarifies that the only thing that matters in this country is money. The only value this country has can only be measured in dollars. All the other stuff - moralizing and waving the flag is superfluous.
40
Why aren't people worried about wealthy people from other countries buying our elections?
45
Wealthy people, like money itself, does not recognize national boundaries.
4
Oh, trust me, I am. Actually, no. I'm not worried. Freaked out is a lot closer to it.
12-26-15@1:46 a.m. e.s.t.
12-26-15@1:46 a.m. e.s.t.
5
They should be, if out-of-state money for what used to be purely local and state elections is any indication.
4
Peter writes: "It is hard to fathom the thinking of the 5 SCOTUS judges who ruled on Citizens United. Were they were completely blind to the real world consequences of their decision?"
Peter, as you most likely suspect, The Five were just performing as they were hired and required to do: to increase the political power of the Republican Party.
The fix has been, and continues to be, in on this issue and on voter ID laws.
Other decisions, that appear to favor liberals, are almost always designed to prevent a backlash from those voters likely to vote Democratic.
The goal: a country by the Corporation, for the Corporation, all the time.
They own the judges, the arbitrators and the legislatures.
Welcome to America, the Dutiful.
Peter, as you most likely suspect, The Five were just performing as they were hired and required to do: to increase the political power of the Republican Party.
The fix has been, and continues to be, in on this issue and on voter ID laws.
Other decisions, that appear to favor liberals, are almost always designed to prevent a backlash from those voters likely to vote Democratic.
The goal: a country by the Corporation, for the Corporation, all the time.
They own the judges, the arbitrators and the legislatures.
Welcome to America, the Dutiful.
53
The more corrupt the government becomes, the more far reaching and unrelenting will be the impending revolution. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It's the law of nature.
11
'60s slogan updated: Suppose they gave a revolution but nobody came?
11
@Josh Thomas - That's why we're working hard as volunteers for the Political Revolution. The only way it works is if everyone shows up; the only way everyone shows up is if we motivate them to show up somehow - by reaching out and talking to our loved ones, our friends, asking them to talk to their loved ones, their friends and so on...
and then, on caucus/ election day, we meet people, drive them with us... so that people do SHOW UP. We must elect the one candidate who is determined to end the scourge of dark money: BERNIE SANDERS
(Why can't you write his name, Paul, especially as relating to this issue? What's the matter, the boss told you he's persona non grata?)
and then, on caucus/ election day, we meet people, drive them with us... so that people do SHOW UP. We must elect the one candidate who is determined to end the scourge of dark money: BERNIE SANDERS
(Why can't you write his name, Paul, especially as relating to this issue? What's the matter, the boss told you he's persona non grata?)
1
Anyone else feeling tired? How come we have all these problems with so many answers as to why they are too big to fix? How is it that our neighbors to the north have so much figured out? Better healthcare, better public education, better public transpot, better police, cheaper higher education, more tolerance, less crime, better politicians.
My life is decent, I love my work, my neighborhood, but I'm tired of having the nagging feeling that if I'm doing OK it's at the expense of someone else, and I'm tired of feeling insecure, that in an instant I can lose it all. And above all I'm tired that somehow we can't do better.
My life is decent, I love my work, my neighborhood, but I'm tired of having the nagging feeling that if I'm doing OK it's at the expense of someone else, and I'm tired of feeling insecure, that in an instant I can lose it all. And above all I'm tired that somehow we can't do better.
513
Yes, and the Canadians have turned their bums out of office too.
However, they are a more moderate, better educated and more politically attuned populace by far than are we.
However, they are a more moderate, better educated and more politically attuned populace by far than are we.
8
Canada just went through a cycle of politicians dismantling that. Harper was set to destroy all that you say about them.
They threw him out, and elected someone of the opposite views.
Vote for Bernie. Do what Canada did.
They threw him out, and elected someone of the opposite views.
Vote for Bernie. Do what Canada did.
9
"How is it that our neighbors to the north have so much figured out? Better healthcare, better public education, better public transpot, better police, cheaper higher education, more tolerance, less crime, better politicians."
You can always vote with your feet and move. But that's a lot more difficult when the rules in every state are the same. When the Constitution was ratified, none of this would have happened because the states had most of the power. If you disagreed with what was going on politically in your state, you could go to another state. Not any more. Big party politicians and their supporters (most of whom have their hand out) have led us here.
You can always vote with your feet and move. But that's a lot more difficult when the rules in every state are the same. When the Constitution was ratified, none of this would have happened because the states had most of the power. If you disagreed with what was going on politically in your state, you could go to another state. Not any more. Big party politicians and their supporters (most of whom have their hand out) have led us here.
1
If I want to anomalously donate to a cause I believe in what is the problem with that? This administration has shown that it will use the extreme power of the federal government to punish those with opposing political beliefs.
False parallel. Democracy isn't something that just 'happens'. If it did, all countries would be democratic by now. Strict rules need to be put in place or it will inevitably be lost to whichever power gets the leverage, domestic or foreign.
31
So you have no issue with a particular company giving "anonymously", nudge-nudge wink-wink, $10M to a candidate who may be deciding policy for all of us? How about a foreigner? How about a foreign corporation? How about a foreign government? (All via "anonymous" channels, only known to the recipient of course.)
The problem with anonymous donations is that, with the rare exception of the truly selfless anonymous donations, they end up being anonymous for all but the donor and the recipient.
The problem with anonymous donations is that, with the rare exception of the truly selfless anonymous donations, they end up being anonymous for all but the donor and the recipient.
107
That's no problem for me. I just don't like company charging me in order to make a contribution to some politician who I can't stand. I think each corporation should advertise who they made a contribution so I can vote with my dollars.
4
President Obama, in his year's-end address, promised to be a "major player" in 2016. The implication in this promise, of course, is to finish his final calendar year with a flourish, leaving office with his important agendas realized or at least seriously attempted. He has nothing to lose by signing perhaps the most crucial executive order in his tenure, one that will place, front and center, this corrosive issue of oily campaign "financing." Citizens United is anything but transparent; it's an embarrassingly clear attempt by a reactionary Supreme Court to conceal the sources of money that enables the candidacies of especially questionable, if not overtly dubious office-seekers, to masquerade as acceptable, especially those individuals whose political philosophy is inherently hostile to social progress. Citizens United has allowed a Trojan horse into the public court. This president has an urgent responsibility to "make this an issue." The viability of our government depends upon it.
135
Unfortunately Democrats also voted for this bill. There are crocodile tears shed for Citizens United, but Democrats too take the money, don't they?
The disgrace is with us, the citizens, who elect people -- Democrats and Republicans -- who would vote for these things.
The disgrace is with us, the citizens, who elect people -- Democrats and Republicans -- who would vote for these things.
34
None of them will fix both Democrats and Republicans why do you think a third party cant win is because the bankers control it all. They dont want to ruin the greatest scam in democracy. So they force candidates that want to run a third party into the two party oligarchy.
4
But when we elect them, do we specifically know that they will be voting for something like this? Who even thought to formulate a question around slipping these provisions into a spending bill 5, 6, 7 years ago? Do you know what to ask going forward to make sure that the next slick and secret move doesn't happen? I just don't understand what there is for us, average citizens, to do about it. It's very depressing.
7
Greg: Re: "Unfortunately Democrats also voted for this bill."
Democrats are outnumbered by Republicans in both the House and the Senate. That means that to get anything passed at all they have to compromise with the Republicans, which is what appears to have happened here. You write as if the measures discussed in this editorial were the only things in the bill. The editorial clearly states that this is not the case.
Democrats are outnumbered by Republicans in both the House and the Senate. That means that to get anything passed at all they have to compromise with the Republicans, which is what appears to have happened here. You write as if the measures discussed in this editorial were the only things in the bill. The editorial clearly states that this is not the case.
4
At least in Dickens' time, Scrooge came to his senses. Tiny Tim and his family were beneficiaries of his awakened compassion. Now, vilification of the poor is boilerplate and their redemption can only be brought about by increasing the wealth of wealthy "job creators". Self interested, narrow philanthropy supplants public investment while robbers in robes facilitate the ongoing larceny of the majority for the benefit of the few.
42
Re: "At least in Dickens' time, Scrooge came to his senses."
Scrooge came to his senses because he was a fictional character.
Scrooge came to his senses because he was a fictional character.
3
Hey folks the real Christmas tree was not at the White House it was in the tax code. Face it both parties are owned by the wealthy and the vast majority of the people are pawns in the game.
50
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
2
If these sources of dark money can afford to spend outrageous amounts of money on political campaigns and buying politicians (ex. Kochs who plan to spend at least 900 mil), they can afford to pay more taxes.
285
Hey they just want the biggest bang for the buck. At least when the Mafia ran the buying of government there was at least a modicum of Noblesse Oblige, the dark money gamers believe in Noblesse just not Oblige.
1
It is important to realize that the amounts being spent on politics are not really so large. A tax cut can easily cover the expense, with a lot of change to spare. So can landing a government contract. So can a change in regulatory policy.
I don't doubt that the big political donors are in it for the quid pro quo; from their point of view, it is a very reasonable investment.
I don't doubt that the big political donors are in it for the quid pro quo; from their point of view, it is a very reasonable investment.
3
Yes, yes, yes! But who will vote for more taxes when voting more tax cuts for the rich will make you so much money? For the very rich such "contributions" have an excellent return on the investment. We have legalized graft until the Supreme Court acknowledges its mistake and corrects it. But plutocrats have no intention of allowing a change at the Supreme Court either.
1
It's difficult to watch Republicans whittle away our democracy more and more every year. Corruption, and there's no other word for this kind of legislation, has to be the primary issue in this presidential campaign. Until we clean out the dark money, there will be no progress on climate change, gun control, income inequality, worker rights, corporate welfare, or healthcare reform.
Is Hillary Clinton the person to do this? Sadly, no.
Is Hillary Clinton the person to do this? Sadly, no.
125
Really? YES!
This brings to mind the lyrics of an old Leonard Cohen song from 1992 : 'Democracy is coming/To the U.S.A.', scathing irony from the northern neighbours thrown in the face of a United States feeling so self-righteous after the collapse of the Iron Curtain, remaining oblivious to the perennial internal problems plaguing the nation.
Does anyone remember the term 'peace dividend'? I forgot, that was spent to finance the war in Iraq.
Does anyone remember the term 'peace dividend'? I forgot, that was spent to finance the war in Iraq.
2
Obama is not going to sign an executive order for greater transparency because these are the corporations and the people running them that are going to make him filthy rich after he is out of office. Just look at the Clintons.
14
It is long past time to acknowledge that the two parties in the US are: the Democratic Party and the Anti-democratic Party. Voter suppression, plutocratic enablement, gerrymandering... the GOP is a dangerous disgrace.
214
Or the Semi-Dems and the Anti-democratic parties, you think?
We just lost staight ticket voting in Michigan...
Democrat vs. Republican...Tweedledee vs. Tweedledum.
For every dollar in dark money spent by the NRA, 99 cents is spent by Planned Parenthood. Dark money spending by Democrats matches such spending by the Republicans. The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United is the reason that such money flows. The IRS specializes in accounting. It is ill-suited to distinguish political and social welfare purposes. Both Republicans and Democrats have had good reason to question accountants trying to make such distinctions. Could we address the real problems instead of taking pot shots across the aisle?
As so-called "dark money' is anonymous by definition, how can you say that
"for every dollar in dark money spent by the NRA, 99 cents is spent by Planned Parenthood" .No one knows where "dark money "comes from. Do you have some special knowledge of the source of "dark money" ? If you do please let the rest of us in on the secret.Otherwise your statement "for every dollar in dark money spent by the NRA, 99 cents is spent by Planned Parenthood" has absolutely no basis in fact.
"for every dollar in dark money spent by the NRA, 99 cents is spent by Planned Parenthood" .No one knows where "dark money "comes from. Do you have some special knowledge of the source of "dark money" ? If you do please let the rest of us in on the secret.Otherwise your statement "for every dollar in dark money spent by the NRA, 99 cents is spent by Planned Parenthood" has absolutely no basis in fact.
57
We do have real problems and we all have to work together. Here in Canada and the western Democracies all that Planned Parenthood does is a function of government and unfortunately the propaganda machine on your side of the border does not make it simple enough for people to understand how preposterous your analogy is.
In Canada there are still some politicians that are bought and sold but there are consequences of breaking our laws meant to suppress political bribery.
In Canada there are still some politicians that are bought and sold but there are consequences of breaking our laws meant to suppress political bribery.
10
These must be FOX news "facts".
11
Yes, of course Citizen's United was a call for the hogs to feed in earnest, and you're right to call attention to those who want even more money in politics, and less accountability. And you even point out the ONE candidate running who has put his money where his mouth is - Bernie Sanders. But who have you unofficially endorsed? Not Sanders, but one who knows her way around the campaign money trough. So why don't you put YOUR money where your mouth is and support the only candidate who actually does what you say all the candidates should do? If we finally begin to see more articles and coverage of Bernie's campaign by you, we'll know you're serious. Otherwise, it's just more empty rhetoric from the Ivory Tower.
314
When you're right, you're right and you are painfully right.
NYT you know you're busted AGAIN. But do you CARE that you're busted again?
And you're of the papers of record? Some record.
12-26-15@1:35 a.m. e.s.t.
NYT you know you're busted AGAIN. But do you CARE that you're busted again?
And you're of the papers of record? Some record.
12-26-15@1:35 a.m. e.s.t.
3
This is the best comment-- NYT- do justice now by Bernie Sanders, who Wants to and WILL fix this.
3
Nice sentiments but the fact is, NYT cannot be read to support someone they think is a loser.
The only way to fix this mess is to amend the Constitution by grassroots efforts at the state level. The president and the congress and the supreme court are all too corrupt.
24
Disclosure won't sole all problems — but it would make our representative system of government more equitable and democratic. Plutocratic rule runs against the core values of our republic because it makes government more accountable to a minority of special interests at the expense of the majority of Americans. The antiseptic of accountability is needed to shed light upon the wholesale buying and selling of political favors that flourish in the secrecy of darkness. The common working individual should have no fewer and no greater powers over his or her government than the wealthy and powerful. A government must be by the people and for the people.
14
Can't blame the Republican elect for doing their jobs; which in this case is the bidding of their rich donors.
12
Sounds like a license to launder money.
Or better yet, cheap politicians for sale. China or even Iran can buy up some politicians cheap - Who's to know? Or drug lords looking to keep the war on drugs going by keeping it illegal and criminal (thus more profitable), instead of the major health issue it is, can pay for their own "law makers."
Anyone else with lots of money to hide? Do I have a Super PAC for you! Why pay taxes when it is a cheaper to buy a politician? Indeed, they will be happy to forward the tax revenues taken from the little people on to your account in the Cayman Islands in the form of welfare, subsidy or some other tax giveaway to the rich.
I just hope that the millions (billions?) that disappears into the black hole gets misappropriated somehow - to greedy middlemen (or to a few Robin Hoods) who just walk away with the money. See if the darkness prevents the donors from finding out what really happened to their ... ill gotten gains.
Or better yet, cheap politicians for sale. China or even Iran can buy up some politicians cheap - Who's to know? Or drug lords looking to keep the war on drugs going by keeping it illegal and criminal (thus more profitable), instead of the major health issue it is, can pay for their own "law makers."
Anyone else with lots of money to hide? Do I have a Super PAC for you! Why pay taxes when it is a cheaper to buy a politician? Indeed, they will be happy to forward the tax revenues taken from the little people on to your account in the Cayman Islands in the form of welfare, subsidy or some other tax giveaway to the rich.
I just hope that the millions (billions?) that disappears into the black hole gets misappropriated somehow - to greedy middlemen (or to a few Robin Hoods) who just walk away with the money. See if the darkness prevents the donors from finding out what really happened to their ... ill gotten gains.
69
Mr. President, the ball is in your court. Can it be any simpler?
Thank you NYT editorial board.
Thank you NYT editorial board.
95
He is nothing but a puppet just like the rest of the presidents they only are doing the bidding of the wealthy bankers and the elite.
6
I don't agree. The ball is in the hands of the American citizen. Unfortunately, most of them are not educated enough to know the difference and don't realize that voting could actually change their lives, or they are so brainwashed that the wealthy are actually concerned about their welfare. It's quite sad really. I am in mourning for our once great nation.
22
Earthmom - how? I call my senators offices, I call my congressman's office. I send email. It does NO good - I don't have enough to buy my way in.
5
Dear Editorial Board,
"Is there any ray of light in this moneyed darkness?"
Sure there is. Just let the money flow from whatever source. No matter how many laws are enacted to limit said flow, money, like water, will always find a way. One of the reason's for the passage of the 17th Amendment was the fear that corporations were buying Senate seats through bribing state legislatures. in the late 19th century. Let's forget that those same industrialists were probably buying the Presidency as well.
But has the idea that the people could select far better people into the Senate than the legislatures panned out? Doesn't money for federal elections still influence the system, but from more sources?
Enough of the grandstanding. Money is speech. The real problem is there is too much power in our nation's capital. Take away that power and influence and the money will go elsewhere, likely to the states. A smaller federal government might actually get you the results you desire.
"Is there any ray of light in this moneyed darkness?"
Sure there is. Just let the money flow from whatever source. No matter how many laws are enacted to limit said flow, money, like water, will always find a way. One of the reason's for the passage of the 17th Amendment was the fear that corporations were buying Senate seats through bribing state legislatures. in the late 19th century. Let's forget that those same industrialists were probably buying the Presidency as well.
But has the idea that the people could select far better people into the Senate than the legislatures panned out? Doesn't money for federal elections still influence the system, but from more sources?
Enough of the grandstanding. Money is speech. The real problem is there is too much power in our nation's capital. Take away that power and influence and the money will go elsewhere, likely to the states. A smaller federal government might actually get you the results you desire.
The smaller federal government you imagine would get us 50 fiefdoms unable to agree on anything. Go back and study the period we were governed by the Articles of Confederation and you see states that saw themselves as Sovereign Nations and couldn`t even agree to fund the Army.
38
I don't follow the logic. How would moving the corruption to the state level get results that anybody but those doing the corrupting desire?
13
hm1342, power and money do not flow far downhill. Power taken from Washington would be snapped up by wealthier entities than states -- our huge multinational corporations. They don't answer to voters or serve the public good, and the central government would no longer have the power and support to restrain them. Each state would become a wholly owned subsidiary in a feudal system.
Corporate oligarchy is definitely not the result I desire.
Corporate oligarchy is definitely not the result I desire.
17
I had never really considered the possibility of how much damage the supreme court could do until 2000 and the election by judges, however it seems that this group of judicial pirates are not done.
This issue should easily be the one that loses many a Republican (if not others) votes, too.
This issue should easily be the one that loses many a Republican (if not others) votes, too.
15
The alternative viewpoint will be that "freedom of speech", particularly political speech, is just made stronger by these provisions. The Congress that benefits directly from the floods of dark money is the last place to look for reforms. We continue to reinforce the bedrock American principle that we have 'The Best Government Money Can Buy'. SCOTUS should just eliminate the pretension and declare the principle of one-dollar, one vote as that's our eventual destination anyway.
9
I think it is vitally important that the NY Times take the lead in bringing this corruption to light. Unfortunately, publishing this editorial on Christmas Day is not exactly the light of day.
153
The problem for the Times is that both Senators from NY are corrupt and voted for this.
3
The 1% continue to tighten the screws.
145
The people with the screw driver are the .00001%, which are far more dangerous.
5
Aided and abetted by the Republican Party.
2
Americans accepted the Citizens United decision like lambs and Americans are being led to slaughter like lambs.
356
Good. Very good. Corporations should rule, the people are not able. They should follow the Bush 9/11 advice: keep shopping.
3
Hey - I never accepted that one like a lamb.
4
Thank you. Neither did I.
12-26-15@1:54 a.m. e.s.t.
12-26-15@1:54 a.m. e.s.t.
3
This has been one of the greatest Christmases of my life. I spent it with neighbours friends and family in a country that voted to join the other western democracies as we begin year 17 of the twenty first century.
I am saddened for family and friends who are watching as their country goes back to the late 19th century when the East India Company owned and governed more than half the world and the British government was simply a puppet on a string.
I am saddened for family and friends who are watching as their country goes back to the late 19th century when the East India Company owned and governed more than half the world and the British government was simply a puppet on a string.
130
Sorry 18th century.
10
Unless people elect reform-minded politicians, such as Bernie Sanders, who shun super-PAC support, the status quo of the current political system, corrupted by millionairs and billionaires, will continue.
Sanders has proven that he can run a viable campaign based on small donations from grassroot donors. If he succeeds in winning the Democratic nomination, that'd be a powerful message of rebuke to the super-PACs.
If the super-PACs don't get much for the money they spent, even they are likely to rethink the wisdom of their evil ways. On the GOP side, it appears that some of the super-PACs have wasted their money by supporting the likes of Jeb Bush. Let's hope that trend continues.
Sanders has proven that he can run a viable campaign based on small donations from grassroot donors. If he succeeds in winning the Democratic nomination, that'd be a powerful message of rebuke to the super-PACs.
If the super-PACs don't get much for the money they spent, even they are likely to rethink the wisdom of their evil ways. On the GOP side, it appears that some of the super-PACs have wasted their money by supporting the likes of Jeb Bush. Let's hope that trend continues.
167
Bernie can't succeed on his own despite his incredible grass roots campaign. I hope the President will sign an executive order on this serious out -of-control of voters rights to transparency. If not ,we can sit back and watch out country sold to the highest bidder and be renamed with a coporate logo.
25
Millions are but a pittance to those who have billions.
1
As a former Republican, I am dismayed that in recent years a Republican Congress has enacted legislation that the majority of Americans don't want and blocked legislation that the majority do want.
There is only one solution; and until the majority acts on it, we will continue to sink: VOTE.
There is only one solution; and until the majority acts on it, we will continue to sink: VOTE.
70
Voting is pointless.
1
Tullymd
You mean that on the ONE day when you get to express your opinion and it counts, you stay home?
If so, do not bother to complain to the rest of us, when you blew your big opportunity.
You mean that on the ONE day when you get to express your opinion and it counts, you stay home?
If so, do not bother to complain to the rest of us, when you blew your big opportunity.
10
With respects, not voting perpetuates the problem.
12-26-15@2 a.m. e.s.t.
12-26-15@2 a.m. e.s.t.
7
"Injustice At It's Worse; "Republicans At Their Best"
..."True patriotism; "Hates Injustice; "In It's Own Land; "More...."Than Anywhere Else."---Clarence Darrow
..."True patriotism; "Hates Injustice; "In It's Own Land; "More...."Than Anywhere Else."---Clarence Darrow
1
166 of 188 Democrats voted for this bill. Do you scorn them, as well??
2
Re: "166 of 188 Democrats voted for this bill. Do you scorn them, as well??"
One question mark is sufficient, thank you very much. Let's not pretend that this was the only thing in the bill. This little bit was merely the poison pill that the Democrats had to swallow, a compromise.
One question mark is sufficient, thank you very much. Let's not pretend that this was the only thing in the bill. This little bit was merely the poison pill that the Democrats had to swallow, a compromise.
14
Louise: the way compromise works is that each side gives in on some things they don't want in order to get some things they do want. This editorial addresses something the Republicans included on their want list and Democrats accepted on their don't want list. Don't blame Democrats for the Republican's desired agenda... and don't credit Republicans for the Democratic's goals, like keeping the government functioning.
12
The plans for keeping the Republicans in power require hiding the sources of 'dark money', voter suppression wherever feasible and making the process of voting difficult for those who tend to be on the 'wrong' side. But those plans seems to be ineffective in the directing Presidential Primary process. Alas.
3
The primaries are just theater, Shakespeare couldn`t have done a better job. First a comedy then the drama and finally the tragedy, what a Trilogy.
9
Merry Christmas to all celebrating it on the Gregorian Calendar!
Political corruption, bribery, nepotism, and one hand washing the other are as thriving as ever.
Whereto are you going, United States of America? -- "Quo vaditis Civitates Foederatae Americae?"
Political corruption, bribery, nepotism, and one hand washing the other are as thriving as ever.
Whereto are you going, United States of America? -- "Quo vaditis Civitates Foederatae Americae?"
8
I wonder, in all this "dark money" is it possible to know for sure that large sums of money aren't coming from foreign states? Or terrorist organizations? Or criminals laundering money?
229
In a word NO!
7
In another word YIKES!!
12-26-15@1:57 a.m. e.s.t.
12-26-15@1:57 a.m. e.s.t.
1
In light of their actions, of the last decade in particular, most people would consider Wall Street a criminal organization and I believe more than one bank has been slapped on the wrist for money laundering. As far as to who's the terrorist I would say a country that bombs a region into oblivion causing millions to flee their homes on trumped up intelligence and the wishes of special interest groups fits that role rather nicely.
8
Just when I thought I could not get more DISGUSTED!
23
The editors write:
"For two years, President Obama has dithered and withheld the one blow he could easily strike for greater political transparency: the signing of an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their campaign spending."
Then in the very next sentence they inform us:
"This would not solve the overall problem ..."
Then in the very next sentence, they conclude:
"Mr. Obama should sign the order now."
It's reasoning like this that helps me to conclude that I am better off maintaining my subscriptions to Commentary, the Wall Street Journal,
The Economist and Mad Magazine.
"For two years, President Obama has dithered and withheld the one blow he could easily strike for greater political transparency: the signing of an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their campaign spending."
Then in the very next sentence they inform us:
"This would not solve the overall problem ..."
Then in the very next sentence, they conclude:
"Mr. Obama should sign the order now."
It's reasoning like this that helps me to conclude that I am better off maintaining my subscriptions to Commentary, the Wall Street Journal,
The Economist and Mad Magazine.
9
I guess to advocate actions that would solve the overall big money in elections problem is too daring, too defiant of the powers that be. So the Times skirts around the problem instead of defining it and pushing for obvious solutions.
But still , for Obama to sign orders for greater transparency is a step, and sends a message. We the people are so powerless, it seems that's all we can expect. But, what is the downside for Obama to do this? Come on, editorial board, what’s the reason Obama holds back on this?
But still , for Obama to sign orders for greater transparency is a step, and sends a message. We the people are so powerless, it seems that's all we can expect. But, what is the downside for Obama to do this? Come on, editorial board, what’s the reason Obama holds back on this?
6
Best congress money can buy!
42
And the Democrat's silence means...there really isn't a difference between the two parties, only politicians stuffing their pockets. And they don't even care anymore if everyone knows it. Since the majority of us, thanks to them, struggle like we never have before. And they don't even care if we know it, don't even care that the end of it all is state-sponsored Kleptocracy. Government by thievery. And they don't even care anymore if we know it.
25
This article is about a specific measure introduced by Republicans. If you have specific examples of similar measures introduced by Democrats, it would be far more productive to mention them than to offer a bland, "The Democrats to it too". The Democrats at least have one candidate that doesn't take super-PAC money. I don't see anything similar from the other side.
Lastly, being disgusted and walking off means you accept responsibility for things remaining as they are. You don't like it? Vote.
Lastly, being disgusted and walking off means you accept responsibility for things remaining as they are. You don't like it? Vote.
20
Why not just auction our government on the steps of the Capitol?
Saves time, cuts out the middle men.
Saves time, cuts out the middle men.
104
Heck, we could probably get quite a bit for our constitutuion as we are not using it anyway...
4
We could then require representatives to wear the logo of whoever bought them. We might even get better government as it would be clear who is working for who.
7
It is hard to fathom the thinking of the 5 SCOTUS judges who ruled on Citizens United. Were they were completely blind to the real world consequences of their decision? Or were they in fact supremely cynical and politically very savvy and just covering their tracks with the smokescreen of "Congress can mandate transparency?" How could they not know that once Congress was bought and paid for, no such thing would ever happen? It just becomes more and more obvious that that decision was the single worst since Dred Scott, and may well be the downfall of any meaningful democracy in this country. This is the gift that keeps on taking. Stay tuned. It will only get worse and worse.
532
SCOTUS DID KNOW, Peter.
It has been clear from the getgo.
Its clarity becomes clearer.
It has been clear from the getgo.
Its clarity becomes clearer.
9
Even our illustrious Supreme Court can be victims of illusions. They tailor decisions per how they want the power structure to be. This is not related to IQ, but to fervent belief systems. The justices who ruled in Dred Scott thought they were upholding the moral law of white superiority, when they said blacks could not be citizens. Very centrist in 1850.
In Citizens United, the judges fool themselves that limiting big money goes against the 1st amendment, so they’re on the side of American Freedoms. The right wing feels the corporate rich are overbalanced by the majority of citizens without laws protecting big money donors. Strange but true. This is centrist in the Republican Party now, and they dominate.
The Dems can’t disentangle themselves from the stranglehold of big money. The media doesn't report on the states and public interest groups aiming to reverse Citizens United.
Hillary says she wants to reverse it, but this gets little discussion on the op ed page. This is very strange also.
In Citizens United, the judges fool themselves that limiting big money goes against the 1st amendment, so they’re on the side of American Freedoms. The right wing feels the corporate rich are overbalanced by the majority of citizens without laws protecting big money donors. Strange but true. This is centrist in the Republican Party now, and they dominate.
The Dems can’t disentangle themselves from the stranglehold of big money. The media doesn't report on the states and public interest groups aiming to reverse Citizens United.
Hillary says she wants to reverse it, but this gets little discussion on the op ed page. This is very strange also.
7
Good questions all. You might want to read on the multi-decade preparation for this carried out by the American Chamber of Commerce:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html
5
Signing an executive order would certainly be a good, long overdue start to restoring our democracy, but enacting a Constitutional Amendment against Citizens United and excessive corporate campaign contributions would put a dagger in the heart of dark money in politics. The only candidate truly talking about this of course is Bernie Sanders, who the media rarely talks about and who the oligarchy has decided is not worthy of their time.
We the people must decide once and for all that our democracy belongs to us the masses, not the .01 percent wheeler-dealers who have hijacked our system for their self-aggrandizement.
We the people must decide once and for all that our democracy belongs to us the masses, not the .01 percent wheeler-dealers who have hijacked our system for their self-aggrandizement.
65
Unfortunately, the noise, as usual, is mostly coming from the dark side:
http://www.politifact.com/iowa/statements/2015/dec/22/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-...
"The Democrats in the Senate last year introduced a constitutional amendment to repeal the free speech protections of the First Amendment."
— Ted Cruz on Saturday, December 5th, 2015 in a speech at the Rising Tide Summit in Cedar Rapids, Iowa
"The measure failed to clear a procedural hurdle in September 2014 and faced a long road to ratification even if it had advanced. As a constitutional amendment, it would’ve had to pass with two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and then win approval from three-fourths of state legislatures across the country."
http://www.politifact.com/iowa/statements/2015/dec/22/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-...
"The Democrats in the Senate last year introduced a constitutional amendment to repeal the free speech protections of the First Amendment."
— Ted Cruz on Saturday, December 5th, 2015 in a speech at the Rising Tide Summit in Cedar Rapids, Iowa
"The measure failed to clear a procedural hurdle in September 2014 and faced a long road to ratification even if it had advanced. As a constitutional amendment, it would’ve had to pass with two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and then win approval from three-fourths of state legislatures across the country."
5
We have the best govt money can buy it is no longer about morals or what is right it is all about the benjamins. We should be ashamed of ourselves for letting it get this way. America is going downhill fast and it does not seem to faze anyone in this country anymore it is like we are immune to it.
6
Of course.
When are we - and the NY Times - going to wake up to that fact that we are on the receiving end of a plan to re-make our country. It doesn't matter whether it began with the Reagan presidency or the Lewis manifesto - the Powers-that-Be (a word that has more meaning that ever before) are determined to TAKE OVER. To geld the middle class and ignore the working class. Get with it folks! The USA has been BOUGHT.
When are we - and the NY Times - going to wake up to that fact that we are on the receiving end of a plan to re-make our country. It doesn't matter whether it began with the Reagan presidency or the Lewis manifesto - the Powers-that-Be (a word that has more meaning that ever before) are determined to TAKE OVER. To geld the middle class and ignore the working class. Get with it folks! The USA has been BOUGHT.
384
I don't support citizens united, but there was and continues to be an issue where the press/media can support candidates as much as they want under the guise of 'news' and opinion pieces that are hand selected to encourage a certain view point. Like the media blackout on Bernie Sanders. This issue is very hard to deal with, but I think needs to be dealt with at the same time as citizens united if we are to have a true democracy/republic. I think we need to go to system similar to the UK with short publicly funded campaigns and also jungle primaries and/or instant run-off elections.
41
Very good points, Keith. i have fully awakened this primary season to the realization that not only is our economy rigged, but our press, including but not limited to the NYT, is severely restricted by corporate advertisers. How can there possibly be a free and unfettered discussion about the abuses of Wall Street, when so many WS behemoths own enormous amounts of ad space here? That's why Bernie Sanders has been relegated to near blackout status, even though he's the one on the Democratic side with the most energized grassroots operation in campaign history. Take note that poll data at the NYT is being skewed, spun and manipulated to favor Hillary Clinton, even while Bernie is gaining ground every day. Wall Street and Citizens United would have nothing to fear under a President Clinton, whereas a President Sanders would penalize the corrupt, always to the advantage of the powerless and the least among us. At this time in our history, Sanders really is our only hope for the revival of our disappearing democracy.
9
Keith....
Yes, the 3 month UK campaign and other nations’ public funding is hardly reported in our media. Why the news blackout? And we have the world’s longest campaign, which just intensifies the big money piling up. We need to discuss shortening it by a lot as a 1st step in reform.
One of the biggest roadblock is that the media, and the Times don’t discuss real campaign finance solutions--- must be outside the bounds of acceptability. It relates to almost every problem lamented by columnists and reporters, but they never trace it all back to big money, who wants what, and how much they pay for their investment in our lawmakers.
The Nation writer John Nichols wrote that 15 states and 600 cities have moved to reverse Citizens United. That sounds impressive. Where is any discussion of this on the NYT op ed pages? I happened to hear this on cspan in a discussion on inequality by the Nation Magazine..
If the media doesn’t publicize this, no wonder the public feels passive and resigned, that big money in politics is inevitable and we are powerless against it.
Yes, the 3 month UK campaign and other nations’ public funding is hardly reported in our media. Why the news blackout? And we have the world’s longest campaign, which just intensifies the big money piling up. We need to discuss shortening it by a lot as a 1st step in reform.
One of the biggest roadblock is that the media, and the Times don’t discuss real campaign finance solutions--- must be outside the bounds of acceptability. It relates to almost every problem lamented by columnists and reporters, but they never trace it all back to big money, who wants what, and how much they pay for their investment in our lawmakers.
The Nation writer John Nichols wrote that 15 states and 600 cities have moved to reverse Citizens United. That sounds impressive. Where is any discussion of this on the NYT op ed pages? I happened to hear this on cspan in a discussion on inequality by the Nation Magazine..
If the media doesn’t publicize this, no wonder the public feels passive and resigned, that big money in politics is inevitable and we are powerless against it.
6
When people get fed up with these kinds of corruption, they revolt, and make even more restrictive laws. That is what those who think they are getting away with it fail to remember.
This is how Marxism came about, and that is how all those regulation that conservatives don't like came to be passed. There will be n uprising, and heads will roll.
This is how Marxism came about, and that is how all those regulation that conservatives don't like came to be passed. There will be n uprising, and heads will roll.
94
Yes, but look who's got the guns!
6
Re: "Yes, but look who's got the guns!"
Guns are not necessary. There will be many tools when the will presents itself. It might start with a general strike, for example. Power still ultimately resides in the people.
Guns are not necessary. There will be many tools when the will presents itself. It might start with a general strike, for example. Power still ultimately resides in the people.
4
PRECISELY. I often ask myself how long these people think they can get away with what they have planned for us - that they have to know that the American people will figure out what they are trying to do and undo it...and the only answer I can come up with is they are just going to try to get away with it and make as much money as they can while they can...that is why when we "fix" this mess we have to take back that stolen wealth by ending massive inherited wealth and using it to reinvest in the US and all of it's people.
It's all been down, dirty and spent,
That's what SCOTUS called "transparent'?
Citizens United
Democracy blighted,
A system by Oligarchs bent!
That's what SCOTUS called "transparent'?
Citizens United
Democracy blighted,
A system by Oligarchs bent!
179
Merry Christmas. Cheating just got cheaper.
79