The rescinding of Citizens United has been desperately needed since it was decided favorably on 21 January 2010 by the SCOTUS. Mega-Donors have lavished their dough on the Representatives and Senators in our Congress, to no avail except obstruction. All that money from the mega-donors could have been used to replenish our treasury and pay for the necessities of life required by the poorest among us. Not bloody likely that that Mega-Donors' windfall of a decision will be renounced anytime soon by the Supreme Court. Campaign finance is a horror of our times, and reminds one of all the money the Bourbons spent in the early 1800s building their treasured palaces and happy Elysian Fields for the royal elite which eventually parted with their heads to Mere Guillotine after 1789. The American Empire, built on slave labour from Africa for centuries and now powerful with mega-donor monies is in the same place Rome was before it fell, the Egyptian Pharaonic empires were before the sands of time obliterated their mummies' tombs. Big Money power madness in politics is indeed "rigging the system" and will continue to do so till the orts of statuary of Ozymandias reappear on our planet: "Look upon my works, Ye Mighty, and despair!". Despair is in the air on our hinge of history these days.
8
In a different election--a more 'legitimate' one--this issue would not have been allowed to pass in silence. And away from the klieg lights and cameras, it hasn't. After all, it IS a part of the Democratic platform (and Bernie's agenda). Kudos to the NYT for bringing it up. Alongside doing something to repair the mechanics of our broken electoral system (partisan gerrymandering), doing something about the amount of dark money will be Job#1 if we're to avoid having to go through something like this again!
1
JFK issued an executive order in 1962 to allow Federal Employees to unionize. Since that time unions have been the biggest and most influential political donors.
CItizens United helped to level the playing field, as the unions remain at the top of the donor class. Progressives believe the donations has swung to the right, it has not. Progressive billionaires and the unions remain firmly in command.
Mrs. Clinton is misspoken in that she believes a SC decision will be overturned, any SC decision. It's just rhetoric.
The root cause of the donations is term limits, an issue both the Democrats and Republicans refuse to address. As Obama has demonstrated, our elected officials spent way too much of our time, campaigning.
CItizens United helped to level the playing field, as the unions remain at the top of the donor class. Progressives believe the donations has swung to the right, it has not. Progressive billionaires and the unions remain firmly in command.
Mrs. Clinton is misspoken in that she believes a SC decision will be overturned, any SC decision. It's just rhetoric.
The root cause of the donations is term limits, an issue both the Democrats and Republicans refuse to address. As Obama has demonstrated, our elected officials spent way too much of our time, campaigning.
3
One of the major premises of Kennedy's cynical pretzel logic majority opinion in Citizens United was that the identity of the donors' money washing through the floodgates of campaign cash opened by the decision, would be known lest they try to influence the donee of their largesse.
Kennedy is a smart man and certainly knew at the time he penned Citizens that there was no such disclosure requirement for the largest type of political Super PAC, 501(c)4, and there would be none forthcoming given the proclivities for opaqueness of GOP Dark Lords such as the Kochs and their obedient mandarins in the Congress and SCOTUS.
There is no hope for Congressional action to remedy the effects of this obscene decision unless the Dems win both houses of Congress. Citizens can be easily overruled by SCOTUS however when Clinton appoints an honest jurist to the bench. The majority opinion overruling Citizens has already been written. See, Citizens United (Stephens, J. dissenting).
Kennedy is a smart man and certainly knew at the time he penned Citizens that there was no such disclosure requirement for the largest type of political Super PAC, 501(c)4, and there would be none forthcoming given the proclivities for opaqueness of GOP Dark Lords such as the Kochs and their obedient mandarins in the Congress and SCOTUS.
There is no hope for Congressional action to remedy the effects of this obscene decision unless the Dems win both houses of Congress. Citizens can be easily overruled by SCOTUS however when Clinton appoints an honest jurist to the bench. The majority opinion overruling Citizens has already been written. See, Citizens United (Stephens, J. dissenting).
2
I don't want to take away the value of The Times' complaint that the "two presidential candidates" haven't addressed the ruinous effects of big money in politics, but I'm going to, right now. You can see the same arguments in "Getting Big Money Out of Politics and Restoring Democracy," which was part of the man's campaign for the Democratic nomination during the period when The Times assiduously avoided covering his campaign. I hope your editorial has a good effect, but the newspaper should recognize it did a disservice to the nominating process it now wants to rescue.
11
In any discussion of campaign financing, it should NEVER be forgotten WHY such sums are necessary.
We can wail and moan all we want about the amounts raised, but hardly a peep is heard about what its needed for: Multi-billion dollar media corporations allowed to charge market--profit making--rates off a basic function of our democracy. Its almost as bad as allowing politicians to pick their own voters (ie gerrymandering). Another big driver of campaign costs is our inexplicable 365/24/7 campaign season, which also has the corresponding problem of diminishing our government's ability to govern once elected.
One is a gigantic, public subsidy to already-wealthy media corporations; the other is throwing boulders into the machinery of government just when we need government most.
We, the public, need to regain control of American democracy and its electoral system. Nowhere is it written in stone that it has to be this way!
We can wail and moan all we want about the amounts raised, but hardly a peep is heard about what its needed for: Multi-billion dollar media corporations allowed to charge market--profit making--rates off a basic function of our democracy. Its almost as bad as allowing politicians to pick their own voters (ie gerrymandering). Another big driver of campaign costs is our inexplicable 365/24/7 campaign season, which also has the corresponding problem of diminishing our government's ability to govern once elected.
One is a gigantic, public subsidy to already-wealthy media corporations; the other is throwing boulders into the machinery of government just when we need government most.
We, the public, need to regain control of American democracy and its electoral system. Nowhere is it written in stone that it has to be this way!
10
American's almost got the Hillary and JEB! show, but that was Trumped, by a man with a better, "Q," which is a measure of how well a celebrity does in the ratings. Yes, I am a media insider and my industry is has become integrated monopoly that is failing viewers, movie goers and voters alike. Call it corruption if you must, but many see it as a shift in sovereignty. If we refuse to break-up industrial monopolies and business cartels, then we will have ceded our voice and our children's future to some guys' idea of raw and unfettered greed.
15
At issue is political inequality and its impact on the underpinnings of democracy.
Outside money sways presidential and congressional races, yes. It also affects city, municipal and state races. Races, say, where an 11th hour oppo ad blitz could influence the outcome.
Below is a link to an article that examines the rising influence of outside money at the local level (e.g., HB2 in North Carolina). The article addresses this influence as a civil rights issue. It also looks at innovative steps taken by cities (including New York) to counteract imbalance in leadership.
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2016/06/the-damaging-influence-of-outsid...
I agree that debate moderators have not addressed this in a meaningful way. But robust reporting and weighting of this issue is needed, as well.
Outside money sways presidential and congressional races, yes. It also affects city, municipal and state races. Races, say, where an 11th hour oppo ad blitz could influence the outcome.
Below is a link to an article that examines the rising influence of outside money at the local level (e.g., HB2 in North Carolina). The article addresses this influence as a civil rights issue. It also looks at innovative steps taken by cities (including New York) to counteract imbalance in leadership.
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2016/06/the-damaging-influence-of-outsid...
I agree that debate moderators have not addressed this in a meaningful way. But robust reporting and weighting of this issue is needed, as well.
1
You can't get rich in politics unless you are a crook. - Harry Truman
How much did you say the Clinton's were worth?
How much did you say the Clinton's were worth?
14
Mega donors to Bill and Hillary (speaking fees and "donations") which gave them access to political corridors sounds like mega-influence. Political donations for a campaign at least one can argue is free speech, to some degree.
Let's ask hard questions about what influence all these dollars have bought.
Let's ask hard questions about what influence all these dollars have bought.
8
The Esitorial staff of The New York Times must believe in the tooth fairy if they also believe HRC will somehow eliminate mega funding from political campaigns. HRC more than any other politician has been "bought" by mega donors; just read the few snippets of her speeches to Wall Street which she has tried to keep from the public. Now, if Bernie had been dealt a fair deal during the primaries, we might have been able to hope for some change.
11
Look, Hillary has been very clear about pursuing campaign finance reform during her first weeks in office. What is the purpose of this article other than dipping into false equivalence as filler? What every news outlet, what every political and governmental leader should be focused on now and for the next three weeks is categorically disputing the outlier republican "rigged election" gambit. It should be bipartisan and unequivocal.
4
The best government that money can buy!
1
In Wisconsin, over seventy communities have voiced their support for a Constitutional Amendment overturning Citizens United, it's antecedents, and its progeny. The Amendment declares that money is not speech, and so political contributions and expenditures can be regulated, and that Consitutional rights attach only to natural persons, and not to corporations. More will be voting on November 8th, and next April.
Despite the overwhelming support for the Amendment, even in Republican-majority communities in the Fox Valley, Republican State legislators refuse to permit an advisory statewide referendum on the issue.
Russ Feingold apparently believes we can overturn Citizens United without a Constitutional Amendment. Difficult to see how, AND overturning Citizens United does nothing to limit the contributions by individuals like Sheldon Adelson.
For more on the efforts in Wisconsin, Google on Wisconsin United To Amend.
Despite the overwhelming support for the Amendment, even in Republican-majority communities in the Fox Valley, Republican State legislators refuse to permit an advisory statewide referendum on the issue.
Russ Feingold apparently believes we can overturn Citizens United without a Constitutional Amendment. Difficult to see how, AND overturning Citizens United does nothing to limit the contributions by individuals like Sheldon Adelson.
For more on the efforts in Wisconsin, Google on Wisconsin United To Amend.
5
This editorial is on point, and the Times should be addressing it more often and more emphatically. Instead, there are too many distractions throughout the media, in the debates, and in columns such as Amy Chozick's in today's Times.
1
The problem with repealing Citizens United is that the presidential election has become so important, people are willing to spend billions of dollars on it. Repealing Citizens United will not take that money out of politics, it will only redirect it somewhere else.
For example, under Citizens United PACs can make electioneering communications within 30 days of an election. Now we have messages on TV paid for by some PAC with mystery money. "This message paid for by citizens for a greater America" or whatever.
Without Citizens United, "news organizations" are still allowed to speak freely, so it is likely that powerful companies and organizations would simply start some sort of "news organization" to promote their favored candidate. We have already started to see this occur this election with the Balkanization of election coverage through places like Breitbart. This undermines the very truth of public dialogue and makes it much harder for citizens to know what facts to trust.
I for one prefer to have companies speaking through PACs which I know to be suspect as do most Americans because the alternative could be far worse. It's not like people are going to stop using their money to try to get their preferred candidate elected.
For example, under Citizens United PACs can make electioneering communications within 30 days of an election. Now we have messages on TV paid for by some PAC with mystery money. "This message paid for by citizens for a greater America" or whatever.
Without Citizens United, "news organizations" are still allowed to speak freely, so it is likely that powerful companies and organizations would simply start some sort of "news organization" to promote their favored candidate. We have already started to see this occur this election with the Balkanization of election coverage through places like Breitbart. This undermines the very truth of public dialogue and makes it much harder for citizens to know what facts to trust.
I for one prefer to have companies speaking through PACs which I know to be suspect as do most Americans because the alternative could be far worse. It's not like people are going to stop using their money to try to get their preferred candidate elected.
The fall of the Roman Empire began when money decided who would be the Emperor.
Let us beware that a similar fate does not come to us.
It is just preposterous that BILLIONS are spent, mostly to try to discredit opponents.
Is our country more and more for sale to private interests.?
Is it acceptable that lobbyists have more power than the people?
Let us beware that a similar fate does not come to us.
It is just preposterous that BILLIONS are spent, mostly to try to discredit opponents.
Is our country more and more for sale to private interests.?
Is it acceptable that lobbyists have more power than the people?
3
"Mr. Trump speaks exuberantly of buying political influence as a businessman, and he promises to put his insider knowledge to work in overturning the “rigged” system, yet he offers no plan to rein in fat-cat donors."
Well, he's railed against and bitten the hand of every Mega-Donor who might have contributed to his campaign, so that's a good start.
Well, he's railed against and bitten the hand of every Mega-Donor who might have contributed to his campaign, so that's a good start.
1
Hillary has continued to be trashed by Bernie supporters because of her relations to big money and to some extent this is justified. But she is the only candidate supporting the right efforts to overturn Citizen United including democratic seats in the Senate essential for a new Court majority that will represent liberal causes. Bernie Supporters who continue this anti progressive course will only have themselves to blame if their anti Hillary stance results in Republicans continuing their dominance of the Congress.
2
Big money and campaigns are going to be an ongoing problem. Ms. Clinton has shown zero tangible interest on the subject as she hangs out at weekend getaways with her rich gated community contributors. Regular people kept as far away as possible. The Clinton Foundation is a perfect example how the Clintons will not walk away from the millions of dollars people want to throw at them in order to buy influence from them. And Donald Trump is a shameless celebrity crook.
5
It isn't just elections that get obscene amounts of money. In California voters now face the prospect of herniated discs from carrying a 200 page voter information guide from the mailbox to the house. We are asked to vote on 17 propositions some of which have big out of state money them.
In voting I look to see who is sponsoring these orphans of the legislative process. This years effort to raise the tobacco tax is heavily funded by the tobacco lobby. The argument against is that the tax impacts poor people the most. Sorry....if your broke don't smoke.
Campaign finance is an issue that goes down to the grassroots level (no pun about prop 64 intended). Reform has to include issues at the city level. How many developers are contributing to a small town candidate. How many Wally Marts are pushing into small towns and driving out small businesses. Knowledge about funding at all levels as well as about policy should be part of a voters decision in an election
In voting I look to see who is sponsoring these orphans of the legislative process. This years effort to raise the tobacco tax is heavily funded by the tobacco lobby. The argument against is that the tax impacts poor people the most. Sorry....if your broke don't smoke.
Campaign finance is an issue that goes down to the grassroots level (no pun about prop 64 intended). Reform has to include issues at the city level. How many developers are contributing to a small town candidate. How many Wally Marts are pushing into small towns and driving out small businesses. Knowledge about funding at all levels as well as about policy should be part of a voters decision in an election
1
Lost in the tidal wave of political sensationalism and entertainment are the important issues that will have to be faced head-on no matter who wins. At the top of the list is the legalized system of corruption that has evolved in this country and the widespread efforts at denying the vote. As the Princeton study from 2014 clearly demonstrated, the individual vote has been drowned by the influence of money. I sometimes believe that the influence peddlers could not be happier with the Trump sideshow.
1
The cliche, "money talks," is what citizens are dealing with. As much as educators and other media-literacy experts do their best to teach children how to separate fact from opinions; how to read between the lines of the over-whelming amount of slanted, emotional-driven, insulting "stick-it-in-your face" political ads; how the most important right we have is the right to vote; all of these worthy objectives pale in comparison to the sickening state of "big buck," political campaigns. Think of what 6 billion could buy in the way of eliminating the harmful effects of poverty. It's time for a change!
2
It is really amusing that NOW the NYT is interested in campaign finance reform. When Bernie Sanders was talking about it, the NYT did everything they could to ignore him. Do you really believe the Clintons and the D Party will do something substantial about it? It is laughable.
20
It has always been the case in our country that special interests, powerful citizens and now PAC's run this country. Politicians always make choices to please their donors.
The only news is which person plays the role of the shill.
Best use of our energy is to realize that ordinary citizens don't count in our culture. All politicians are Tweedle Dee here and---across the aisle--- is Tweedle Dum. Twins.
The only news is which person plays the role of the shill.
Best use of our energy is to realize that ordinary citizens don't count in our culture. All politicians are Tweedle Dee here and---across the aisle--- is Tweedle Dum. Twins.
4
American's were media savvy enough to reject the initial offering of a $10 billion dollar campaign pitting Secretary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Sanders and Trump rose quickly and JEB! couldn't answer a simple question without proving that his brother George was the brighter son. Now, it's $6 billion insult and Trump survived. Let's remember that he has billion dollar long term contracts with members of that media cartel and that Democrats have promised tech companies the moon. It's ruined our national dialog and lowered our dialectic to a school yard fist fight that represents none of the issues that voters truly care about most. When it comes to content less than 10 people in big media can say, "yes."
Can we say, "cartel?"
Can we say, "cartel?"
5
It really is mind-blowing to read a NYT editorial wondering about the reasons why "the public's concern has stirred virtually nothing in the way of straight-talk debate between the two presidential candidates about how they would rein in the abuses of big money." And that "[d]ebate moderators have let the issue slip away."
We live in an oligarchy where democracy is an illusion, a farce, and where the corporate media serves as a mind-numbing propaganda apparatus at the service of the oligarchs.
Instead of feigning disbelief at the fact that yes, "there is gambling in casablanca," journalists should be really drilling into the operations of the oligarchy.
We live in an oligarchy where democracy is an illusion, a farce, and where the corporate media serves as a mind-numbing propaganda apparatus at the service of the oligarchs.
Instead of feigning disbelief at the fact that yes, "there is gambling in casablanca," journalists should be really drilling into the operations of the oligarchy.
15
Contrary to popular belief, the biggest donors support Democratic candidates. In the 2014 election, for example, reported figures show the #1 donor gave nearly as much as the rest of the Top 10 combined. If you add #3, they total far more than #2 plus #4 through #10 combined.
It doesn't seem to be much different this time: Clinton is outspending Trump by a very wide margin, and she has a lot more left to spend.
The argument is always the same: "You can't take a slingshot to a knife fight."
But that argument only goes so far, and obviously depends on which side starts the fight. (Both sides do, of course.)
It doesn't seem to be much different this time: Clinton is outspending Trump by a very wide margin, and she has a lot more left to spend.
The argument is always the same: "You can't take a slingshot to a knife fight."
But that argument only goes so far, and obviously depends on which side starts the fight. (Both sides do, of course.)
4
Republican money sees Trump as a bad bet, MyThreeCents. It has almost entirely gone over to defending seats in the Congress and Senate.
1
Mrs. Clinton has promised to pursue her campaign finance agenda from her first weeks in office. She would do well to focus on building support for it now. Beyond her strong proposals, she should be working to elect the congressional candidates she needs to enact true reform, no easy task in a Congress deeply beholden to mega-donor
Couldn't agree more. Such an vigorous action on Hillary's part would go a long way toward easing the undertow of distrust that a large number of folks, whose votes are sorely needed, have about her.
I receive at least 20 requests a day for donations from Hillary's team. A number of them are couched in terrorists language."Tom, we are going to be stomped if we do not raise more money" or words to that effect. These freak out requests make me wonder what the Billionaires are doing... whats happening to all these billions? Somebody is getting rich from the election business. I suspect that it is the 1%ers who own the media outlets, including the NYT.
Couldn't agree more. Such an vigorous action on Hillary's part would go a long way toward easing the undertow of distrust that a large number of folks, whose votes are sorely needed, have about her.
I receive at least 20 requests a day for donations from Hillary's team. A number of them are couched in terrorists language."Tom, we are going to be stomped if we do not raise more money" or words to that effect. These freak out requests make me wonder what the Billionaires are doing... whats happening to all these billions? Somebody is getting rich from the election business. I suspect that it is the 1%ers who own the media outlets, including the NYT.
2
Hey Jeb!, Trump, and all you other unAmerican unpatriotic losers including Kochs, Addellson, Snowden, Assange, US Chamber, 1%ers, Israel, India, Russia and Putin; so how does that Corporations United work out for ya?! You and the deplorable Republican'ts threw all that money laundering and RICO at Republican'ts and you STILL loose! Jail 'em ALL! Corporations United is UnConstitutional and must be removed immediately.
Teddy Roosevelt "It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced."
Tell all you know to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the deplorables and corporations and Republican'ts so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong.
Teddy Roosevelt "It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced."
Tell all you know to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the deplorables and corporations and Republican'ts so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong.
Of course no mention of the fact that charitable foundations like the Clintion Foundation can and have been used to employ political operatives and thus serve as a huge reservoir of funds for career pols like Clinton to maintain her political machine. Times obsession with citizens united and only citizenz united is nothing more than a partisian effort to benefit Dems and hurt Republicans.
2
So the Times estimates that all of the federal campaigns in the entire US -- presidential and congressional races, primaries and general election, Democrats and Republicans and fringe candidates -- all of that will cost a little over $7 billion.
That is too much? Compared to what? Our federal budget this year will be $4 trillion -- so all the campaigns last year and this year will cost about 1/550th of the 2016 budget.
Compared with our GDP? That will come in around $18 trillion. So our elections this electoral cycle will cost 1/3000th of our GDP.
What surprise me is how little money we spend on the process by which we elect our leaders, not how much.
If doubling or quadrupling our spending on federal elections would contribute to a better informed citizenry, then I think we are horribly shortchanging our democracy.
That is too much? Compared to what? Our federal budget this year will be $4 trillion -- so all the campaigns last year and this year will cost about 1/550th of the 2016 budget.
Compared with our GDP? That will come in around $18 trillion. So our elections this electoral cycle will cost 1/3000th of our GDP.
What surprise me is how little money we spend on the process by which we elect our leaders, not how much.
If doubling or quadrupling our spending on federal elections would contribute to a better informed citizenry, then I think we are horribly shortchanging our democracy.
1
The money generates propaganda, not information or an informed public. Compared to what? How about other real democracies which don't have multi billion circuses for elections.
1
"Unfortunately, the public’s concern has stirred virtually nothing in the way of a straight-talk debate between the two presidential candidates about how they would rein in the abuses of big money."
The fact that Presidents are powerless to change Citizens United should have mention here. Had we a responsible congress the law would have been shot down long ago.
It is up to the press to inform voters how our government process functions. Guess it finds investigating these donors not worth its time. How hypocritical can the Editorial Board get? This from a paper that spews an endless stream of garbage like todays piece on Clinton by Choznik.
The fact that Presidents are powerless to change Citizens United should have mention here. Had we a responsible congress the law would have been shot down long ago.
It is up to the press to inform voters how our government process functions. Guess it finds investigating these donors not worth its time. How hypocritical can the Editorial Board get? This from a paper that spews an endless stream of garbage like todays piece on Clinton by Choznik.
1
Citizens United may never be overturned. There will always be a finger on the scale behind the "counter" to make sure of that. Unfortunately the finger on the scale is a Democrat Party finger. The only hope will be the Supreme Court nominees. Lets hope the litmus test for how they would vote on this is applied out in the open, in front of the "counter".
2
The Supreme Courts decision does NOT have to be reversed, nor do we need a constitutional amendment.
What we need s a different approach.
1. Limit the amount that a candidate can SPEND in any election cycle. Limit the amount that a candidate can have in his campaign account(s) at any given point in time.
2. Limit the amount that a sitting elected official and/or potential candidate can have in his political accounts at any given point in time.
3. Require that ALL donations for political purposes, no matter what the source, be publicly disclosed with absolutely no exception. Reports would be mandated on a monthly basis.
4 Eliminate the 501.c.4 exemptions or require that 501.c.4 organization be subject to the Freedom of Information Act with full, un-redacted release required within 30-days of the request. Criminal penalties would apply to those failing to comply. (This, with limited modification, should be applied to the Executive Branch and all independent federal agencies.)
5. Limit the aggregate amount that any donor can give to any candidate in any office in an election cycle. Candidates must fully disclose all donations within a month of reciept.
If one wants to take money out of the political system of our country, one needs to limit the amount of money that can directly or indirectly benefit a candidate.
What we need s a different approach.
1. Limit the amount that a candidate can SPEND in any election cycle. Limit the amount that a candidate can have in his campaign account(s) at any given point in time.
2. Limit the amount that a sitting elected official and/or potential candidate can have in his political accounts at any given point in time.
3. Require that ALL donations for political purposes, no matter what the source, be publicly disclosed with absolutely no exception. Reports would be mandated on a monthly basis.
4 Eliminate the 501.c.4 exemptions or require that 501.c.4 organization be subject to the Freedom of Information Act with full, un-redacted release required within 30-days of the request. Criminal penalties would apply to those failing to comply. (This, with limited modification, should be applied to the Executive Branch and all independent federal agencies.)
5. Limit the aggregate amount that any donor can give to any candidate in any office in an election cycle. Candidates must fully disclose all donations within a month of reciept.
If one wants to take money out of the political system of our country, one needs to limit the amount of money that can directly or indirectly benefit a candidate.
1
In my opinion, and the GOP primary season seems to confirm it, money in politics is not the problem many think it is. There seemed to be a positive correlation between how much money a candidate spent and how soon he dropped out of the race. Unless someone is offering cash to the voters directly, he is not 'buying' an election.
What I think is a much worse problem in the anonymity of donations. What should be done is to legislate that the names of any person donating to a candidate must be disclosed within 10 days of the donation. Any group making a donation to a candidate must disclose their entire membership list within the same 10 days; and any group donating to another group who then donates to a candidate must do the same. Any corporation or union which donates must disclose not only their membership, but the name of the specific person who authorized the donation.
I don't mind so much that my candidate may be bought, I just want to know who is doing the buying. A name like Americans for Better Government or Citizens United tells me nothing, I want to know exactly who is giving the candidates their money.
What I think is a much worse problem in the anonymity of donations. What should be done is to legislate that the names of any person donating to a candidate must be disclosed within 10 days of the donation. Any group making a donation to a candidate must disclose their entire membership list within the same 10 days; and any group donating to another group who then donates to a candidate must do the same. Any corporation or union which donates must disclose not only their membership, but the name of the specific person who authorized the donation.
I don't mind so much that my candidate may be bought, I just want to know who is doing the buying. A name like Americans for Better Government or Citizens United tells me nothing, I want to know exactly who is giving the candidates their money.
1
Money talks. . .
I mean, money is speech !!
I mean, money is speech !!
5
In our 2-party system this problem has proven to be intractable. It strikes me that a threat to the 2-party system would be the best way to attack this problem that everyone seems to agree is in fact a problem at some level. Howard Dean wrote and op-ed a few days ago on rank-choice voting. Maybe this is the best way to shake up the system. Make it safe to vote for the third party candidate and maybe, just maybe we can change the direction of this country.
2
You best wait til after the election to talk to Hillary Clinton about mega-donors. I almost choked on my morning roll when I read your editorial. In today's Times on page 20 please read "Clinton Builds A $150 Million War Chest....."
5
It will be foolhardy to raise hopes on Clinton's rhetoric
on campaign finance reforms. She won't do it because
she has benefited and after the presidency she will
be making speeches which include big donors of
wall street and silicon valley companies. Obama had
an excellent chance to make reform by accepting
John McCain's proposal to accept public money for
their presidential contest. He refused and perpetuated
the system of big money influence.
on campaign finance reforms. She won't do it because
she has benefited and after the presidency she will
be making speeches which include big donors of
wall street and silicon valley companies. Obama had
an excellent chance to make reform by accepting
John McCain's proposal to accept public money for
their presidential contest. He refused and perpetuated
the system of big money influence.
2
1. If the Dems win the White House and the GOP fractures...more and more money will be thrown their way...and it will be harder for them to turn those dollars away with campaign finance reform.
2. Reform of the current system of lobbying wherein a revolving door exists between a career in Congress and a more lucrative stint as a lobbyist.
3. It would be helpful if all the loopholes in the tax code could be linked to the Senators and Congressmen who submitted them...and that this information could be obtained through a Freedom of Information Request.
2. Reform of the current system of lobbying wherein a revolving door exists between a career in Congress and a more lucrative stint as a lobbyist.
3. It would be helpful if all the loopholes in the tax code could be linked to the Senators and Congressmen who submitted them...and that this information could be obtained through a Freedom of Information Request.
2
Ok, so let's make it so that any and all politicians can accept and collect any amount of money they want. Except it all has to be given to them anonymously...
--John 10/16/16 - 12 noon
--John 10/16/16 - 12 noon
1
we can fire the entire 435 on 11-8 if we so choose.
2
Re: "...the public’s concern has stirred virtually nothing in the way of a straight-talk debate..."
The "public" doesn't matter. The "public" doesn't have money.
The "public" doesn't matter. The "public" doesn't have money.
1
Thank you for elevating the discussion around THE most important topic of this election. Assuring the overturn of Citizen's United should be a paramount goal for all those concerned with big money interest in our politics, and you don't have to be a Bernie Sanders supporter to be concerned. The astonishing slush funds supplied to campaigns via Super PACs allow for irresponsible advertising and dangerous "soundbiting" of the issues by both sides, thereby contributing to a "dumbing down" of the electorate. People who are critical of alleged pay-to-play politics between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department might want to direct their outrage to this much larger-scale and insidious pay-for-influence problem.
2
Those who composed this editorial know full well that a President can propose legislation but it is the Congress that has to pass the laws. The onus for the lack of anti-Citizens United legislation (or reasonable gun control measures for that matter) rests with the Congress. And the Congress has been dominated by Republicans in gerrymandered districts who have no reason to change the law and not by Democrats, who as the minority, haven't got the votes. So, Editors, complaints we get enough of. Next time I recommend that you provide a road map for passing such legislation because without that this is just jaw-flapping. Perhaps recommending a change of party for individual House members every two years or four years might focus their attention on public dismay. But don't hold yer breath on that!
4
" Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam,[have] already given more than $52 million in disclosed contributions to GOP super PACs in the last two months, including $20 million a piece to the groups backing Republican House and Senate candidates."
"Priorities USA Action, which is run by top Clinton aides, raised $132 million through the end of August, including $21.7 million that month. "
Thanks Washington Post (October 16, 2016)
"Priorities USA Action, which is run by top Clinton aides, raised $132 million through the end of August, including $21.7 million that month. "
Thanks Washington Post (October 16, 2016)
Publicly financed elections of no more than 6 weeks.
Mandatory voting by paper ballot via mail.
Independent commissions that draw electoral districts.
Section 5 of the Voting rights act restored and strengthened.
Problem(s) solved and democracy restored to the people. Simple.
( If America really wanted to do it right, they would get rid of the electoral college and adopt a true parliamentary system with multiple parties )
Mandatory voting by paper ballot via mail.
Independent commissions that draw electoral districts.
Section 5 of the Voting rights act restored and strengthened.
Problem(s) solved and democracy restored to the people. Simple.
( If America really wanted to do it right, they would get rid of the electoral college and adopt a true parliamentary system with multiple parties )
2
To the Editors,
Just why should I believe Ms. Clinton's promise to "update the public financing system" when, according to an article in this same paper, she said that she has "both a public and private position" which, to me, seems "political speak" for lying?
Sure, Trump is a MUCH bigger liar but her insistence that she has to accept money from uber wealthy "Super PACs" because the other guy is doing it rings quite hollow and just highlights the flimsy excuses politicians use to, well, collect tons of money.
Apparently, these two are the best and brightest the two major parties have to offer and the money system supporting the two will not be dismantled anytime soon by either candidate as it is just too lucrative.
Instead of useless articles about overturning "Citizens United" how about raising the issue of "term limits" for our entire batch of politicians which might help stem the oppressive tide of bought and paid for legislators?
Ooops..I forgot, the very politicians who benefit from this entrenched system are the ones who'd have to vote for their own demise;not going to happen.
Just why should I believe Ms. Clinton's promise to "update the public financing system" when, according to an article in this same paper, she said that she has "both a public and private position" which, to me, seems "political speak" for lying?
Sure, Trump is a MUCH bigger liar but her insistence that she has to accept money from uber wealthy "Super PACs" because the other guy is doing it rings quite hollow and just highlights the flimsy excuses politicians use to, well, collect tons of money.
Apparently, these two are the best and brightest the two major parties have to offer and the money system supporting the two will not be dismantled anytime soon by either candidate as it is just too lucrative.
Instead of useless articles about overturning "Citizens United" how about raising the issue of "term limits" for our entire batch of politicians which might help stem the oppressive tide of bought and paid for legislators?
Ooops..I forgot, the very politicians who benefit from this entrenched system are the ones who'd have to vote for their own demise;not going to happen.
3
Corporations are not "persons" for First Amendment purposes and money is not speech.
1
We, the people, will not be able to stop the dark money from corrupting the presidency. We, the people, will not be able to stop the elitist media from collusion with the parties. We, the people, will not be able to prevent the too big to fail banks from ruling our lives for generations and many generations to come. Our election system is rigged and our fate has been sealed to a globalist vision of open boarders and secret pacts with the special interests of Wall Street and the EU. The workers, students, retirees, veterans, unemployed, under-employed, people of faith, people of color, mothers and fathers, MUST pass quietly into the nightmare of America!
2
How typically disingenuous of the Editorial Board.
Clinton is the one reaping the rewards of the big money donors. She is the one who is backed by a legion of billionaires. Clinton's first stop after the DNC was Omaha where she smoozed with Buffett at a $150,000 a plate luncheon. That's the same Buffett who shafted the People out of $2.5Billion in taxes by playing the IRC loopholes with his Berkshire money machine. That's the same Berkshire that has $75Billion in cash laying around.
From Omaha, Clinton made the rounds of Hollywood, Silicone Valley, the Hamptons, Martha's Vineyard, Wall Street and anywhere the 1% waiting to write those checks to buy our country.
Clinton is not going to do anything to kill the golden goose. But, she, like the New York Times, will lie to the gullible base to further her agenda. And, the base will continue to blindly pretend to believe her.
Clinton is the one reaping the rewards of the big money donors. She is the one who is backed by a legion of billionaires. Clinton's first stop after the DNC was Omaha where she smoozed with Buffett at a $150,000 a plate luncheon. That's the same Buffett who shafted the People out of $2.5Billion in taxes by playing the IRC loopholes with his Berkshire money machine. That's the same Berkshire that has $75Billion in cash laying around.
From Omaha, Clinton made the rounds of Hollywood, Silicone Valley, the Hamptons, Martha's Vineyard, Wall Street and anywhere the 1% waiting to write those checks to buy our country.
Clinton is not going to do anything to kill the golden goose. But, she, like the New York Times, will lie to the gullible base to further her agenda. And, the base will continue to blindly pretend to believe her.
4
What does the NYTimes care? Journalists have been arrested in North Dakota simply for committing the crime of journalism. What is the matter with you?
The NYTimes obviously does not employ journalists anymore or this would be the headline.
The NYTimes obviously does not employ journalists anymore or this would be the headline.
1
By publishing her short list of US Supreme Court Justice nominees now, Hillary Clinton can reinforce her credibility as a strong supporter of getting big money out of the election process and other liberal causes. Donald Trump did it to prove his conservative creds. Trust but verify!
1
Would Hillary Clinton actually push to reform a system from which she has so greatly benefited?
My public position is "I would like to think so." My private position is "If you believe that, Donald Trump has a casino in Atlantic City he'd like to sell you."
Thank you NYT for kneecapping the only candidate who was sincere about this issue and saddling us with a choice of a candidate who says one thing to us
"Ordinary Americans" and quite the opposite to her wealthy benefactors and another who got rich in part by buying politicians by tube truckload.
My public position is "I would like to think so." My private position is "If you believe that, Donald Trump has a casino in Atlantic City he'd like to sell you."
Thank you NYT for kneecapping the only candidate who was sincere about this issue and saddling us with a choice of a candidate who says one thing to us
"Ordinary Americans" and quite the opposite to her wealthy benefactors and another who got rich in part by buying politicians by tube truckload.
4
I miss Bernie so much.
12
Is it any wonder the mainstream media works as hard as it does to maintain an even horse-race? Only a close race will produce the kind of spending that makes for the once-every-four-years windfall all that campaign cash produces. Thus, Trump's ridiculousness is taken seriously, and Hillary's seriousness is belittled -- whatever it takes to keep the money flowing. As long as this is the case, as long as the corporate media own and operate the conversation -- does anyone thing for a moment that they're going to let this change??
I credit the Times for focusing on Mrs. Clinton's promises of what she will do within weeks after inauguration. It is long past relevant and timely for those many remaining rationalists amongst the general voting population to simply ignore Mr. T. and focus on what Mrs. C. will do not if, but when, she becomes President. That cognitive shift notwithstanding, I am not entirely convinced that Mrs. Clinton is sincere about campaign finance reform in light of the obvious profit she and her husband have enjoyed from their political celebrity over the years since leaving the White House.
Nevertheless, I applaud The Times' effort to focus the spotlight on this pressing social, political and moral issue. More clearly needs to be done and it must be done immediately after the noise and nonsense from the 2016 race subsides.
Nevertheless, I applaud The Times' effort to focus the spotlight on this pressing social, political and moral issue. More clearly needs to be done and it must be done immediately after the noise and nonsense from the 2016 race subsides.
2
It is not commonly known that more than 50% of campaign expenditures go directly into the pockets of local market TV stations--in most cases their conglomerate owners. The US is just about the only "developed" nation in the world that permits, condones, paid-for political advertising on television. The Federal Communications Act requires that, to hold the limited number of over-the-air licenses, broadcasters must serve in the "public interest, convenience and necessity." Instead political discourse--if political TV commercials can be called "discourse"-- must be paid for when, in my view and the view of much of the rest of the world, they should be part of the commitment broadcast licensees must make to the public. When there are discussions about curbing paid TV political commercials, broadcasters scream abridgement of free speech. One word--oxymoron. How can it be free speech if candidates must pay for it? Want to help reduce the killing effects of big spending in national campaigns. Getting rid of Citizens United is a good start. But, to cut in half the ever-rising cost of national campaigns ($7B projected in 2016), we need to eliminate paid political commercials on TV. Incidentally, broadcasters have a phrase for it--"The Quadrennial Effect"--to explain the fact that every four years station revenues skyrocket!
Yes, Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign must have super PAC money right now to avoid being outspent by Republicans. That's the game right now and anyone with an ounce of sense knows it. Senator Sanders might have relied on small donations but he also benefited from outsiders paying for social media, printing and other kinds of BIG contributions from supporters.
Much of the money democrats are raising is going to down-ticket races for Senate, U.S. House and State/county/city and judicial races. BIG democracy-destroying money masters are spending BILLIONS of $$$ to try to influence those seats - nearly $1 BILLION alone for the Koch brothers.
WE must elect a socially conscious democrat/independent Senate and U.S. House to help President Rodham-Clinton achieve her goals because she WILL keep her promises if she has a cooperative Congress. It's up to US - we voters.
Much of the money democrats are raising is going to down-ticket races for Senate, U.S. House and State/county/city and judicial races. BIG democracy-destroying money masters are spending BILLIONS of $$$ to try to influence those seats - nearly $1 BILLION alone for the Koch brothers.
WE must elect a socially conscious democrat/independent Senate and U.S. House to help President Rodham-Clinton achieve her goals because she WILL keep her promises if she has a cooperative Congress. It's up to US - we voters.
21
Is this a joke? I'm voting for Jill Stein!
4
Except, nigela, for the money that the local organizations are required to kick back to the Clinton machine.
3
What a farce to watch the media make a horse race out of who can raise the most money for political ads.
1
Just to point out how wacky and clueless some Trump enablers are, read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/business/energy-environment/magnates-t...
This guy's fortune rests on recycling the precious metals from catalytic converters, a business that exists only because government funded the research and applied regulation to both the car industry and the petroleum industry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/business/energy-environment/magnates-t...
This guy's fortune rests on recycling the precious metals from catalytic converters, a business that exists only because government funded the research and applied regulation to both the car industry and the petroleum industry.
The NYT has helped, hopefully, to dispatch the most vile and unqualified presidential candidate from a mainstream political party ever to run for the office. This was the foremost and important thrust of the NYT editorial content up to this point. With Clinton at an 80+ percent chance of winning, the NYT can now repoint its editorial cannon at the elephant still standing in the room, finance reform.
3
The biggest mistake we can make as Americans, second to failing to toss Trump back into his dumpster on November 8 like a discarded Halloween pumpkin, is to settle back into complacency on the question of election-buying. This is the real voter fraud - unlimited anonymous money flowing from billionaire corporations and individuals to their owned candidates.
7
trump to his dumpster, H(R)C to her basket...alas, alas...truly a lack.
it could be said that we got trump because the repub-establishment was complacent and, so, deaf to the rising grumble of voices too long unheard and we got H(R)C because of DNC dishonesty (if bernie has the wall street speeches debbie's best shot doesn't do bernie in).
it could be said that we got trump because the repub-establishment was complacent and, so, deaf to the rising grumble of voices too long unheard and we got H(R)C because of DNC dishonesty (if bernie has the wall street speeches debbie's best shot doesn't do bernie in).
1
Of course neither party is going to tackle the Mega-Donors issue. It's the main pillar of the two-party system.
11
"Debate moderators have let the issue slip away."
Surprise! After all, where do all those billions wind up? In the hands of the companies these moderators work for, in the form of advertising dollars and yuge viewer audiences which inflate advertising rates across the board..
And what would become of the five minute cycle of "Breaking News" that serves as filler between Viagra, Humira, and campaign ads?
Too much (media profit) rides on this election to allow anyone to stop the flow of cash from mega-donors to media company shareholders and execs. Which is why the ratings war has gone to X-Rated reality TV this election season.
Surprise! After all, where do all those billions wind up? In the hands of the companies these moderators work for, in the form of advertising dollars and yuge viewer audiences which inflate advertising rates across the board..
And what would become of the five minute cycle of "Breaking News" that serves as filler between Viagra, Humira, and campaign ads?
Too much (media profit) rides on this election to allow anyone to stop the flow of cash from mega-donors to media company shareholders and execs. Which is why the ratings war has gone to X-Rated reality TV this election season.
11
A vote for the Dem/ Rep Party is a vote FOR money in politics. I'll be voting to keep money OUT of politics....Independents and 3rd Party choices only. Which of course are the only votes that matter.
My decision to make: Donald Trump or Jill Stein. .
But guess what? CELEBRATE Election day Americans. It's the day we get to pretend that the country is ours.
My decision to make: Donald Trump or Jill Stein. .
But guess what? CELEBRATE Election day Americans. It's the day we get to pretend that the country is ours.
10
Did you even read the article?
Mrs. Clinton began her campaign with an array of serious proposals, from overturning Citizens United to overhauling the impotent Federal Election Commission.
To help level the spending field, Mrs. Clinton proposes to update the public financing system for presidential, Senate and congressional campaigns along the lines of the New York City model, which supplies matching funds to qualified candidates. Another Clinton idea is to force disclosure of donors to the proliferating nonprofit groups that exploit an Internal Revenue Service loophole by claiming to be promoting “social welfare” rather than political campaigns. Mrs. Clinton also proposes to eliminate the type of super PACs, with their unlimited contributions and spending, that pretend to be independent but are custom tailored for individual candidates. Her reforms already exist as proposals in Congress but need a decisive push toward enactment.
Mrs. Clinton began her campaign with an array of serious proposals, from overturning Citizens United to overhauling the impotent Federal Election Commission.
To help level the spending field, Mrs. Clinton proposes to update the public financing system for presidential, Senate and congressional campaigns along the lines of the New York City model, which supplies matching funds to qualified candidates. Another Clinton idea is to force disclosure of donors to the proliferating nonprofit groups that exploit an Internal Revenue Service loophole by claiming to be promoting “social welfare” rather than political campaigns. Mrs. Clinton also proposes to eliminate the type of super PACs, with their unlimited contributions and spending, that pretend to be independent but are custom tailored for individual candidates. Her reforms already exist as proposals in Congress but need a decisive push toward enactment.
1
I have sent a few hundred dollars of my hard earned money to Mrs. Clinton. I consider it money well spent, just as many other American women do.
3
You are being deceived by the media! Wake up and vote for change!
3
IF Trump is elected, Citizens United will continue turning the US into a dictatorship as people lose hope in the government and look for Mr. Fixit who promises to fix it once for all.
No doubt the anti-big-donor people would like somebody to show up with a pitchfork and a noose or two. Or maybe shotguns and paddy wagons. It's all the same in the end. What could possibly go wrong?
However the real problem is the 40+ years of attempts to "fix" campaign finance, which have only succeeded in emasculating the major parties and inviting direct contributions to candidates rather than indirect funding through the parties. Combine that with the liberals wanting more and more direct government from DC in all matters, and the reaction of people fearing for their lives, fortunes and sacred coffers is entirely predictable.
So enjoy the view guys. You created it!
However the real problem is the 40+ years of attempts to "fix" campaign finance, which have only succeeded in emasculating the major parties and inviting direct contributions to candidates rather than indirect funding through the parties. Combine that with the liberals wanting more and more direct government from DC in all matters, and the reaction of people fearing for their lives, fortunes and sacred coffers is entirely predictable.
So enjoy the view guys. You created it!
1
Campaign funding is just another in a long line of issues about which the public professes to care, but about which it does nothing. There is no public call for an overturn of Citizen's United, no matter what the Bloomberg phone survey says. Millions of people don't even know what Citizens United is. Millions of people don't even care about the country enough to drag themselves out to vote. If people cared about that kind of thing, they wouldn't be swarming the Trump rallies, because he certainly won't do anything to change funding laws. That may have been an issue for educated and informed Sanders supporters, but it's not even on the radar of Trump supporters. They're too busy hating everyone and calling for Clinton to be jailed. They still believe their man is self-funding his campaign. There's no populist call to change campaign funding laws. Get real.
3
It's becoming so bad that ordinary citizens contributing small dollar amounts to their preferred candidate hardly even matter anymore. All the money collected by a candidate by appealing to voters can be outdone by a few megadonors who swoop in and take over the messaging in a campaign, spending even more than the candidates themselves. It's even worse when it's done by outside "independent expenditure" groups who are not even coordinating with the candidate.
This is quite clear in my local state Senate race, where 2 independent groups are waging an ad war, one group per side, and spending more than the candidates themselves.
How is this democratic? This is why we need to reverse Citizens United, and reform campaign finance.
This is quite clear in my local state Senate race, where 2 independent groups are waging an ad war, one group per side, and spending more than the candidates themselves.
How is this democratic? This is why we need to reverse Citizens United, and reform campaign finance.
17
Hillary Clinton can build a higher level of public support out of the gate if her first act is to press a serious campaign finance reform agenda. The team in charge of creating legislation and constitutional proposals should be bipartisan and led by Bernie Sanders. Republicans are just as sick and tired of spending 3 to 4 days a week dialing for dollars as any democrat. America's out of control campaigning system is no longer only a problem of influence. Non-stop fundraising is also absorbing the last drop of any remaining productivity left in the US legislature. The impact that our broken campaign finance system is having on democracy itself, has been grossly underestimated by everyone.
10
"Mr. Trump speaks exuberantly of buying political influence as a businessman, and he promises to put his insider knowledge to work in overturning the “rigged” system,"
http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2015/12/10/fact-check-did-trump-say-98-rep...
"The meme purports to be a quote from Trump in People magazine in 1998 saying, “If I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific.”"
These supporters actually believe he will fix this "rigged" system that has helped him pay no taxes and spend millions of taxpayer dollars to enrich himself. Trump does not just treat women as pleasurable objects. He treats men as profitable objects as well. Trump is smarter than those that support him so he will not go against his own benefits unlike his "dumb" supporters.
http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2015/12/10/fact-check-did-trump-say-98-rep...
"The meme purports to be a quote from Trump in People magazine in 1998 saying, “If I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific.”"
These supporters actually believe he will fix this "rigged" system that has helped him pay no taxes and spend millions of taxpayer dollars to enrich himself. Trump does not just treat women as pleasurable objects. He treats men as profitable objects as well. Trump is smarter than those that support him so he will not go against his own benefits unlike his "dumb" supporters.
9
Now we have that weasel Pence claiming that the media that gave Trump all that free publicity is biased against him
Pence's head-shaking body language is a telltale that Pence knows he's lying in out faces.
Pence's head-shaking body language is a telltale that Pence knows he's lying in out faces.
Which is the GOP legacy...they've been acting against the better interests of the very demographics they've been pandering to for decades and decades. Usually over issues that have no real impact on the voters lives. Abortion, anti-gay rhetoric, "family values" and their alleged holier then thou adherence to xtianity. (the messages and rules of which they abjectly fail in adhering to)
Yet have been getting those voters to put them back in office over and over. Always buying into their promises to save them, to bail them out, and make good jobs for them. And yet have pushed back against most employee protections, eviscerated Unions, and resisting any and all means to truly help out the lower and middle classes. Because to actually help would be going their tenet that Americans need to pull harder on their already frayed boot-straps.
Republicans see themselves as messiahs, sent by god to save the Republic from all manner of Liberal beasties. And the voters who accept that view seek to be saved, desire a messiah to save them and put things right. So Trump is merely another in long line of faux-messiahs. With magical (small) hands to conjure good paying jobs from the ethers, and stop the losses of the mostly white male crowds.
Republicans, their conservative, outspoken xtian base seek to be saved. They actually buy-into the notions that ONE man can do all, cure-all, and save the nation from all the outside entities threatening it. And thru faith, they will elect that messiah.
Yet have been getting those voters to put them back in office over and over. Always buying into their promises to save them, to bail them out, and make good jobs for them. And yet have pushed back against most employee protections, eviscerated Unions, and resisting any and all means to truly help out the lower and middle classes. Because to actually help would be going their tenet that Americans need to pull harder on their already frayed boot-straps.
Republicans see themselves as messiahs, sent by god to save the Republic from all manner of Liberal beasties. And the voters who accept that view seek to be saved, desire a messiah to save them and put things right. So Trump is merely another in long line of faux-messiahs. With magical (small) hands to conjure good paying jobs from the ethers, and stop the losses of the mostly white male crowds.
Republicans, their conservative, outspoken xtian base seek to be saved. They actually buy-into the notions that ONE man can do all, cure-all, and save the nation from all the outside entities threatening it. And thru faith, they will elect that messiah.
The DISCLOSE Act failed in Congress. As with Donald's loss carryover, it's not the candidates but the law that is the problem.
There are some good arguments against mandating public funding, but that is a good place to start. For the nonce, every dime given to any politician should be fully and immediately disclosed.
There are some good arguments against mandating public funding, but that is a good place to start. For the nonce, every dime given to any politician should be fully and immediately disclosed.
8
If the League of Women Voters were still coordinating debates, we'd be hearing about it and from a lot more people. This was all calculated when the parties took over the debates. It is another rigged system. Collusion between media and parties is to blame.
22
@Mary - Thank You for an excellent comment. Give the debates back to the League of Women Voters!!
2
Would Obama have won the 2008 primaries if his opponent was someone other than Hillary ? She brags 30 years of experience, that voters see as baggage and bad history.
Yesterday, you carried an article on how big donors are threatening RNC against Trump.
For many Berners, there can't be a greater affirmation and validation of Trump.
Read this insightful article that another commenter posted :
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/13/liberal-media-bias-working...
Or, you can live in ignorance and smugness in the NYT echo chamber.
Yesterday, you carried an article on how big donors are threatening RNC against Trump.
For many Berners, there can't be a greater affirmation and validation of Trump.
Read this insightful article that another commenter posted :
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/13/liberal-media-bias-working...
Or, you can live in ignorance and smugness in the NYT echo chamber.
8
Thanks for posting the link.
Fortunately more and more Americans seek the truth, in foreign media, realizing that American mainstream media has an agenda designed by our masters, to present distortions as reality, in their never-ending drive to manage perception.
The internet opened the floodgates, and no western government dares close them, not yet ...
Fortunately more and more Americans seek the truth, in foreign media, realizing that American mainstream media has an agenda designed by our masters, to present distortions as reality, in their never-ending drive to manage perception.
The internet opened the floodgates, and no western government dares close them, not yet ...
3
I seem to recall somebody who talked about this a lot. I can't remember his name. He was a kind of old and had wild hair. People always said he was a one note candidate, but he seemed like an honest guy to me. I think he was running for some type of government office. Something high up there. I just don't remember though, you know? It's hard to keep track of this stuff.
16
Are you referring to Albert Einstein?
Dear honorable Bernie Sanders; Americans lost a once in a lifetime opportunity, when they allowed our corporate owned government media, to sideline him.
5
Yes indeed corporations are people and they can virtually buy and sell the fundamentally flawed elections process, that is no more then a farce. Precisely, why 47% of the people in this country do not participate in the election's process and careless.
2
Which came first, chicken or egg? There are way more eligible voters than billionaires or corporations. Opting out of the democratic process leaves the void billionaires fill.
1
Donald Trump asked Russia to release Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs.
Putin seems to have come through for the Donald.
Putin seems to have come through for the Donald.
1
At the presidential level money seeming had no effect as Trump destroyed himself. No amount of money could save him.
1
Research at the London School of Economics and elsewhere suggests that the Citizens United decision really hasn't changed things as much as people suppose. Big money in politics has been on the rise for decades. There was a bump up with the decision, but less than many feared.
Nevertheless, the impact of wealthy donors is real, especially on the public perception that American politics, after gains from the 1930s through the 1960s, has been suffering since the 1970s. And even if Citizens United has not had the much-claimed effect, money and wealth have, as reported in research by Larry Bartels, Benjamin Page, and a growing number of social scientists. Politicians are more responsive to wealthy constituents, perhaps because they are increasingly members of the 0.1% (as both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are).
Hillary Clinton has proved far more adept at doing whatever it is that encourages Wall Street to donate. Elizabeth Warren has called on Obama to fire SEC chief Mary Jo White for coddling money-grubbers on Wall Street. Obama has done less than nothing to reign in Wall Street. Clinton or Trump would do less than Obama. Members of Congress like Chuck Schumer are still worse.
Politicians refuse to bite the hands that feed them.
Nevertheless, the impact of wealthy donors is real, especially on the public perception that American politics, after gains from the 1930s through the 1960s, has been suffering since the 1970s. And even if Citizens United has not had the much-claimed effect, money and wealth have, as reported in research by Larry Bartels, Benjamin Page, and a growing number of social scientists. Politicians are more responsive to wealthy constituents, perhaps because they are increasingly members of the 0.1% (as both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are).
Hillary Clinton has proved far more adept at doing whatever it is that encourages Wall Street to donate. Elizabeth Warren has called on Obama to fire SEC chief Mary Jo White for coddling money-grubbers on Wall Street. Obama has done less than nothing to reign in Wall Street. Clinton or Trump would do less than Obama. Members of Congress like Chuck Schumer are still worse.
Politicians refuse to bite the hands that feed them.
19
NYT, if you were serious about campaign finance reform, you should have supported a candidate with a moral compass: Bernie Sanders
32
One indirect step would help reduce the power of money in politics.
That is to take the money away from those super-rich people who did not earn it themselves. In other words, increase the tax on inheritance, at least back up to where it was a few years ago before Boy George Bush and others tinkered with it.
Hillary says she will do that. Her proposal is buried in the third layer of her website and I was not aware of it until a Chinese immigrant friend pointed it out. Another friend, a senior software executive, expressed doubt that Clinton would actually try to do anything serious about it.
Almost all of the richest Americans inherited their money. Six of the top ten inherited it all, and two others inherited billions. Let's see some discussion of inherited wealth in the NYTimes, including NUMBERS, maybe from Krugman. Jefferson outlawed extreme inheritance in Virginia because of the political effect on power. We do not need another hereditary ruling class. At some point, the discussion of pitchforks will no longer be humorous.
Watch Comedy Party Platform on YouTube (2 min 9 sec). Thanks. [email protected]
That is to take the money away from those super-rich people who did not earn it themselves. In other words, increase the tax on inheritance, at least back up to where it was a few years ago before Boy George Bush and others tinkered with it.
Hillary says she will do that. Her proposal is buried in the third layer of her website and I was not aware of it until a Chinese immigrant friend pointed it out. Another friend, a senior software executive, expressed doubt that Clinton would actually try to do anything serious about it.
Almost all of the richest Americans inherited their money. Six of the top ten inherited it all, and two others inherited billions. Let's see some discussion of inherited wealth in the NYTimes, including NUMBERS, maybe from Krugman. Jefferson outlawed extreme inheritance in Virginia because of the political effect on power. We do not need another hereditary ruling class. At some point, the discussion of pitchforks will no longer be humorous.
Watch Comedy Party Platform on YouTube (2 min 9 sec). Thanks. [email protected]
2
One of the unintended consequences of Citizens United was a Republican primary season with 17 candidates.
Nearly every one has their very own billionaire supporter. Therefore, few dropped out for lack of money. By splitting the vote as badly as they did, they made it possible for a totally unqualified candidate, Donald Trump, to hijack the Republican Party. It will now suffer the consequences. Hopedully, the United States will not suffer the consequence of having this complete buffoon elected POTUS.
Had there been only a handful of candidates, Trump's reality tv fame would not have been such an overwhelming advantage.
The Republican Party is dead. The Cult of Trump has taken its place. Those on the right need to figure out what they are going to do about their delusional Cult of Trump adherents. They might also go searching for their principles, which clearly have been left under one of the seats in the Clown Bus on which the 17 candidates rode into town. Better catch it before it goes over the cliff on November 8th.
Nearly every one has their very own billionaire supporter. Therefore, few dropped out for lack of money. By splitting the vote as badly as they did, they made it possible for a totally unqualified candidate, Donald Trump, to hijack the Republican Party. It will now suffer the consequences. Hopedully, the United States will not suffer the consequence of having this complete buffoon elected POTUS.
Had there been only a handful of candidates, Trump's reality tv fame would not have been such an overwhelming advantage.
The Republican Party is dead. The Cult of Trump has taken its place. Those on the right need to figure out what they are going to do about their delusional Cult of Trump adherents. They might also go searching for their principles, which clearly have been left under one of the seats in the Clown Bus on which the 17 candidates rode into town. Better catch it before it goes over the cliff on November 8th.
8
Here is a rhetorical question. Is The Times serious in praising Hillary Clinton for her views on campaign finance reform. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have each raised more campaign money from the wealthy than any other two candidates in all of American history. Does The Times expect Clinton to dismantle the money machine that got her elected President and as soon as she is elected will begin gearing up for her re-election campaign in 2020. Oops another rhetorical question.
5
“independent expenditures do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption.” - Justice Kennedy. How utterly, utterly, naive for a chief justice of the Supreme Court.
This isn't the other issue....it is the only issue. Clinton is outspending Trump 10 to 1 and she is still raising millions every week from mega donors. Trump never had a chance in the general election even he was an acceptable candidate. Let's not pretend mega donors are sending millions to Clinton to support her cause. They send it to support their cause. Having Clinton take a look at campaign finance reform is a fox in the henhouse situation.
12
" Fox in the henhouse": Hillary in the year 2013 alone received $3,202,013 in speech 'fees' from the following Wall St. entities:
Morgan Stanley $225,000
Deutsche Bank $225,000
Fidelity Investments $225,000
Apollo Management Holdings $225,000
Itau BBA USA Securities $225,000
Sanford Bernstein and Co. $225,000
Goldman Sachs $225,000
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts $225,000
UBS Wealth Management $225,000
Goldman Sachs (2nd time) $225,000
Goldman Sachs (3rd time) $225,000
Golden Tree Asset Mgmt $275,000
Bank of America $225,000
CME Group $225,000
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/documents/13/HRC_2013_Speeches_-_Tax_Retu...
That's just one year of speech 'fee' income "Tabulating campaign contributions for her entire senate political career shows that four of the top five of her contributors are Wall Street banks (Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley)." source CNN Money
Does ANYONE believe that the Banksters will NOT be repaid by HRC`s policies. Worse , her co-owner (AIPAC) will cause her to lead the USA into another war for Israel, this time with Iran. When asked why she took millions from Wall Street, Hillary replied "because that's what they offered."
"Wall Street CEOs--the same ones who wrecked the economy & destroyed millions of jobs--still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors & acting like we should thank them. Does anyone here have a problem with that?" --Elizabeth Warren
Morgan Stanley $225,000
Deutsche Bank $225,000
Fidelity Investments $225,000
Apollo Management Holdings $225,000
Itau BBA USA Securities $225,000
Sanford Bernstein and Co. $225,000
Goldman Sachs $225,000
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts $225,000
UBS Wealth Management $225,000
Goldman Sachs (2nd time) $225,000
Goldman Sachs (3rd time) $225,000
Golden Tree Asset Mgmt $275,000
Bank of America $225,000
CME Group $225,000
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/documents/13/HRC_2013_Speeches_-_Tax_Retu...
That's just one year of speech 'fee' income "Tabulating campaign contributions for her entire senate political career shows that four of the top five of her contributors are Wall Street banks (Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley)." source CNN Money
Does ANYONE believe that the Banksters will NOT be repaid by HRC`s policies. Worse , her co-owner (AIPAC) will cause her to lead the USA into another war for Israel, this time with Iran. When asked why she took millions from Wall Street, Hillary replied "because that's what they offered."
"Wall Street CEOs--the same ones who wrecked the economy & destroyed millions of jobs--still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors & acting like we should thank them. Does anyone here have a problem with that?" --Elizabeth Warren
5
With Bernie, with Elizabeth, maybe. With Trump or Clinton, not a chance.
10
Where would HRC be without her wealthy backers? She appears to thrive not only on their money but also on their company. What does she tell them, what does she promise them, to wheedle all those hundreds of millions out of them?
What an abysmal choice we're given.
What an abysmal choice we're given.
21
" What does she tell them, what does she promise them, to wheedle all those hundreds of millions out of them? "
Well , according the WikiLeaks emails she speaks out of both sides of her mouth (the public side & the private side). Not surprising when she is co-owned by the Banksters & worse AIPAC. eg Hillary Clinton speaks at AIPAC conference - YouTubehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtfxZT_lqv8
1/ “She sounds like Netanyahu”: Hillary Clinton goes extra hawkish in ...
www.salon.com/...
2/ Hillary Clinton: AIPAC's Panderer-in-Chief | The National Interest
nationalinterest.org/feature/hillary-clinton-aipacs-panderer-chief-15622
Well , according the WikiLeaks emails she speaks out of both sides of her mouth (the public side & the private side). Not surprising when she is co-owned by the Banksters & worse AIPAC. eg Hillary Clinton speaks at AIPAC conference - YouTubehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtfxZT_lqv8
1/ “She sounds like Netanyahu”: Hillary Clinton goes extra hawkish in ...
www.salon.com/...
2/ Hillary Clinton: AIPAC's Panderer-in-Chief | The National Interest
nationalinterest.org/feature/hillary-clinton-aipacs-panderer-chief-15622
4
Whenever a right-winger leads with "...but George Soros..." remind them that of the top 20 donors, Soros is #20, that 13 of the 19 ahead of him are conservative, 6 are liberal, and the 85% of ALL 20's donations went to Republicans.
That's why Citizens' United and the gutting of the VRA are two of the most destructive decisions ever given by the Scalia SCOTUS. Of course, THE most destructive decision was Bush v Gore.
That's why Citizens' United and the gutting of the VRA are two of the most destructive decisions ever given by the Scalia SCOTUS. Of course, THE most destructive decision was Bush v Gore.
1
The thing is editors, the American people realize that Citizens United was a freedom of speech issue, one y'all are obviously on the other side of. We kind of like our freedoms.
2
The Trump supporters believe that he is the antidote to the status quo. Yet he would appoint a conservative justice who would undoubtedly uphold Citizens United, which more than anything else guarantees same interests of the few always trump those of the many. A more liberal Supreme Court is their best chance for change. I suppose a frustrated electorate can struggle to realize what its own best interests are.
1
The greatest threat to our Democracy is money in politics. A greater threat than ISIS, Russia, China and North Korea combined.
5
The money isn't the problem, it's the political clout it buys. I've said it before and I'll say it again: we need term limits so that the position of career politician is eliminated. Yes, this will take a constitutional amendment, but it can be done. As it now stands, the day after election the job of every person in congress becomes getting re-elected (after all, this will be their ultimate career position unless they can move up). And this is where the money gets its initial foothold and its leverage. Service to the Nation needs to become a service again - more duty than reward.
7
Both Mr. Donald John Trump and Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton are corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare royalty beholden to and beloved by their fellow caste members. They use their money to pay lobbyists to influence our elected officials with campaign donations to prostitute themselves to their malevolent personal special interests. Our jobs are sent overseas along with their money.
But alas in our divided limited powered democratic republic, the American people who elected the current ruling political class, cannot blame their plight on either a divinely selected ruler nor an armed natural tyrant. The campaign madness is the enduring endemic delusional hypocrisy of the America people who deny their agency and accountability for their reality.
It is not the Congress nor the mega-donors to whom we should direct our righteous wrath and gaze. Look in the mirror and see the culprit. Open your ears, heart and mind to the sound and fury of the fooled or the foolish American legion.
But alas in our divided limited powered democratic republic, the American people who elected the current ruling political class, cannot blame their plight on either a divinely selected ruler nor an armed natural tyrant. The campaign madness is the enduring endemic delusional hypocrisy of the America people who deny their agency and accountability for their reality.
It is not the Congress nor the mega-donors to whom we should direct our righteous wrath and gaze. Look in the mirror and see the culprit. Open your ears, heart and mind to the sound and fury of the fooled or the foolish American legion.
4
Yes. There is no question that the corrupting influence of money in politics should be the single most important concern of this election, because *none* of the defining (perhaps even existential) challenges of the 21st century (not climate change, not income inequality, not a foreign policy which keeps the US mired in perpetual war, not, not, not...) can be addressed in a meaningful and significant until the corporate donor class loses their ability to call the shots by proxy.
I know this; voters know this; and clearly, the New York Times editorial board knows this. That is why I may never be able to fully forgive this paper for repeatedly smearing the only candidate who was *actually* serious about taking on corporate interests in order to help elect the candidate who, according Politico, has built the biggest big money machine of all time.
I know this; voters know this; and clearly, the New York Times editorial board knows this. That is why I may never be able to fully forgive this paper for repeatedly smearing the only candidate who was *actually* serious about taking on corporate interests in order to help elect the candidate who, according Politico, has built the biggest big money machine of all time.
5
"As a candidate, President Obama also vowed to fight for big-money political reform, but he did not deliver."
Or...OR...maybe what happened is that the Democrats introduced legislation and it was filibustered by Republicans in the Senate and died quietly. It was called S.3268, and it was killed in a party line vote. Like SO MUCH ELSE in this administration, including critical climate legislation.
So, I suppose it is accurate to say that Obama "did not deliver" or that he "failed" (a favorite newsie word) but it would be so much more accurate to put the blame where it belongs.
The same applies to the mess in the FEC and harrassment of the IRS for pushing back against the trick of "social welfare organizations" whose primary purpose is political, which enables the Right to keep its donors secret and much of its movement tax-free.
Or...OR...maybe what happened is that the Democrats introduced legislation and it was filibustered by Republicans in the Senate and died quietly. It was called S.3268, and it was killed in a party line vote. Like SO MUCH ELSE in this administration, including critical climate legislation.
So, I suppose it is accurate to say that Obama "did not deliver" or that he "failed" (a favorite newsie word) but it would be so much more accurate to put the blame where it belongs.
The same applies to the mess in the FEC and harrassment of the IRS for pushing back against the trick of "social welfare organizations" whose primary purpose is political, which enables the Right to keep its donors secret and much of its movement tax-free.
2
Whenever Obama wanted to move his agenda along, he simply issued another Executive Order. If he wanted to do something about big money political reform, he would have dummied up some executive excuse.
Actually, the answer to this question, at least as far as the different ways each candidate would approach the subject of the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions, is almost too obvious to need to be asked.
Hillary Clinton would make appointments to the Supreme Court who would join in opinions to overturn these decisions, Donald Trump would name appointees who would uphold these decisions.
Hillary Clinton would make appointments to the Supreme Court who would join in opinions to overturn these decisions, Donald Trump would name appointees who would uphold these decisions.
Hillary Clinton is the living breathing personification of big money in politics; not only in campaign finance but also in personal enrichment from influence peddling. While I do believe every nickel the Clinton's have amassed was legal it is also perfectly corrupt and corrupting.
14
For the life of me, I do not understand why campaign financing isn't priority one for anyone in your country, including present candidates, purporting to love democracy. I cannot imagine an influence more fundamentally corrupting to your democracy-enshrining constitution than mega-money from rich individuals or special-interest groups. And furthermore, this REAL existential threat to democracy has NOTHING to do with what so many who pride themselves as unflinching defenders of your constitution believe: that the right to bear arms must remain unrestricted without exception.
5
Big Money plays the same role in Canadian politics as it does in the US. Canadian money is just not as big as US money.
Where is the outrage from the media? Both parties are awash in money and our current worthless Congress is no better as they bow down and grovel to corporate greed and power. In this debacle called an election, we are witness to an unbelievable spectacle of how money makes a mockery of our democracy. How did we end up with this disaster.....money and a worthless and lazy media that prefers to give us silly stories of he said she said.
6
Clinton's "I'll fix it after I've exploited it" approach is just another example of her phoniness. She'll do, or say, anything to win. She has no qualms about taking money from the Saudis, Goldman Sachs and your little old grandmother. At least we know the TPP will be passed (with a few tweaks, to cover her flip-flop) and the Keystone Pipeline will be approved (with a minor route change) as payback for all the money the energy companies have larded on her. She has no soul, just a dark pit of coveting power and money. God help us when she's elected.
9
But you can count on Hillary increasing her net worth. eg. Hillary`s current net worth is $31.3 million per her Public Financial Disclosure Reports. Bill`s net worth is $80 million. Not too shabby for a "public servant". Imagine HRC`s net worth after she leaves the WH in a few yrs. Bernie on the other hand is not a millionaire.
5
The NYTimes bears some of the responsibility for this egregious oversight.
Where are the stories?
Who are the donors?
Who has received and how much?
One editorial is not a job well done.
Where are the stories?
Who are the donors?
Who has received and how much?
One editorial is not a job well done.
75
Hillary should openly tell the American people who has donated to her campaign and the Clinton foundation. That would be a refreshing reversal for her which may help her candidacy. For example she was instrumental in opening a Hugh data center in upstate NY for Tata. Tata is an Indian company that brings in workers to fill jobs. Tata did give the foundation money but the data center was opened in her home state. http://m.timesofindia.com/world/us/Hillary-Clinton-stands-up-for-Tatas-o...
It was opened near Buffalo in 2004 and hired 10 workers. In a ten-year period FY2005-2014, Tata imported 27,193 H-1B guest workers and likely more than 10,000 L-1 workers.
"Of course, I know they outsource. But they have also brought jobs and they intend to be a source of new jobs in the state." Hillary told Lou Dobbs.
She added, "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favour of putting up fences." The NYTIMES has detailed this http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/memo1.pdf
It was opened near Buffalo in 2004 and hired 10 workers. In a ten-year period FY2005-2014, Tata imported 27,193 H-1B guest workers and likely more than 10,000 L-1 workers.
"Of course, I know they outsource. But they have also brought jobs and they intend to be a source of new jobs in the state." Hillary told Lou Dobbs.
She added, "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favour of putting up fences." The NYTIMES has detailed this http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/memo1.pdf
4
The editorial notes the influence of "Republican oligarchs." There are Democratic oligarchs, as well.
The pernicious role of both in our elections needs to be curtailed, without excuses.
The pernicious role of both in our elections needs to be curtailed, without excuses.
34
Somehow, whenever Republicans bring up the subject of liberal mega-donors the only name that comes up is George Soros. Is that because that there are fewer of them? Are their contributions, in any way, comparable to those of the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson?
Show me the money.
Show me the money.
1
When SCOTUS ruled on Citizens United, they asserted that it is inappropriate to deny individuals the right to be involved in the political process because they are organized as corporations. They also pointed out that it was within Congress's power to require that the non-profit social welfare organizations reveal their donors.
My suggestion is that Congress pass a law that non-profits are required to report the identities of their donors, but not until after the election in question, and only organizations whose candidates and issues won in the election. People and businesses that supported losing propositions and candidates do not have their identities revealed.
So after the election, we know who the person in office is indebted to, and we can connect the dots when they rule in favor of their supporters.
The outrage of liberals with respect to CU is amusing. ACORN was organized as a social welfare organization. Moveon.org is a social welfare organization and Planned Parenthood has a subsidiary that is a social welfare organization that exists solely to advocate for Democrat candidates and to lobby the government for funds. They have been political operatives long before CU and liberals have no objection to them. But let a bunch of people put together a movie unflattering to Hillary, and she gets the FEC to shut them down.
Why is it not important to know who Soros is giving money to and what personal profit he intends to garner once his candidates are in office?
My suggestion is that Congress pass a law that non-profits are required to report the identities of their donors, but not until after the election in question, and only organizations whose candidates and issues won in the election. People and businesses that supported losing propositions and candidates do not have their identities revealed.
So after the election, we know who the person in office is indebted to, and we can connect the dots when they rule in favor of their supporters.
The outrage of liberals with respect to CU is amusing. ACORN was organized as a social welfare organization. Moveon.org is a social welfare organization and Planned Parenthood has a subsidiary that is a social welfare organization that exists solely to advocate for Democrat candidates and to lobby the government for funds. They have been political operatives long before CU and liberals have no objection to them. But let a bunch of people put together a movie unflattering to Hillary, and she gets the FEC to shut them down.
Why is it not important to know who Soros is giving money to and what personal profit he intends to garner once his candidates are in office?
1
Citizens United needs to be overturned. The press ignores it because their revenues would be significantly reduced if it was overturnec. Further, woo be a politician who supports it for they would lose billions of dollars in advertising.
Citizens themselves do not tackle the problem because as the late Justice Scalia has summarized the task to amend the constitution is daunting.. ... http://lstrn.us/R6K4M2
If CU Is not changed it has the power to bring down America. Someone needs to do someting. It is so important that if their was one individual who had the ability and will to overturn it we all should vote for that person. ... http://lstrn.us/10DGJIW
Citizens themselves do not tackle the problem because as the late Justice Scalia has summarized the task to amend the constitution is daunting.. ... http://lstrn.us/R6K4M2
If CU Is not changed it has the power to bring down America. Someone needs to do someting. It is so important that if their was one individual who had the ability and will to overturn it we all should vote for that person. ... http://lstrn.us/10DGJIW
1
This would be a most worthy cause for Bernie Sanders
1
It is, in the process of bringing down America, and will succeed regardless whether it's Hillary or Trump in the White House.
Neither, regardless their promises, will dare upset their corporate masters, by overturning Citizens United.
With Citizens United, the 01%ters have successfully disenfranchised the masses.
Bernie was the last opportunity for "Government of the people, By the People, and For the People", and we all saw the astonishing unity of purpose, by the elites, including the DNC conspiracy, and the mainstream media, to silence him, some accomplished in secret, until exposed by Wikeleaks.
Game over folks, face it, or do something about it.
Neither, regardless their promises, will dare upset their corporate masters, by overturning Citizens United.
With Citizens United, the 01%ters have successfully disenfranchised the masses.
Bernie was the last opportunity for "Government of the people, By the People, and For the People", and we all saw the astonishing unity of purpose, by the elites, including the DNC conspiracy, and the mainstream media, to silence him, some accomplished in secret, until exposed by Wikeleaks.
Game over folks, face it, or do something about it.
2
Our democratic republic needs a new framework to deal with modern finance and communications. And this means a constitutional amendment underpinning a suite of legislation, impossible in the current political environment. Job #1, therefore, is to change the political environment. And that will take a deep recognition by ALL citizens that "We the People" must act together on this one issue to maintain our cherished democratic processes. Deep dive here (26 minutes):
https://youtu.be/1k5Mio8FXd4
https://youtu.be/1k5Mio8FXd4
1
" ... no easy task in a Congress deeply beholden to mega-donors".
Congress, our corporate owned government, our corporate corrupted Supreme Court, and the corporate owned mainstream media mouthpiece of all of it, has not only made us the laughing stock of the world, it has instilled fear that if authoritianism can succeed in the U. S., then all is lost.
All one need do, is look at this Presidential election year.
Neither candidate has taken a hard fast position on any issue that can level the playing field, and reduce inequality.
Take Trump out of the running, and look closely at Hillarys' promises -
A minimum wage of $12 per hour, not $15, not tied to annual cost of living increases, real increases, not the government manipulated number.
Single payer medical coverage, by modifying the onerous Obama plan, and still controlled by Big Insurance and Big Pharm.
No reinstatement of Glass Steagall, leaving Big Banking in full control of economic policy, leaving the people fully exposed to Wells Fargo type , and other corruption, supported by a culpable Federal Reserve, itself made up, for the most part, of sitting executives of 12 banks.
Essentially 0% interest rates, guaranteeing free taxpayer money to banking, little of which is disbursed to stimulate the economy, instead hoarded by banking.
This is how it will be, conflated within the "incrementalism", promised by the corporate Hillary, consequently the rise of anything that may cause change, good or bad.
Congress, our corporate owned government, our corporate corrupted Supreme Court, and the corporate owned mainstream media mouthpiece of all of it, has not only made us the laughing stock of the world, it has instilled fear that if authoritianism can succeed in the U. S., then all is lost.
All one need do, is look at this Presidential election year.
Neither candidate has taken a hard fast position on any issue that can level the playing field, and reduce inequality.
Take Trump out of the running, and look closely at Hillarys' promises -
A minimum wage of $12 per hour, not $15, not tied to annual cost of living increases, real increases, not the government manipulated number.
Single payer medical coverage, by modifying the onerous Obama plan, and still controlled by Big Insurance and Big Pharm.
No reinstatement of Glass Steagall, leaving Big Banking in full control of economic policy, leaving the people fully exposed to Wells Fargo type , and other corruption, supported by a culpable Federal Reserve, itself made up, for the most part, of sitting executives of 12 banks.
Essentially 0% interest rates, guaranteeing free taxpayer money to banking, little of which is disbursed to stimulate the economy, instead hoarded by banking.
This is how it will be, conflated within the "incrementalism", promised by the corporate Hillary, consequently the rise of anything that may cause change, good or bad.
7
"Unfortunately, the public’s concern has stirred virtually nothing in the way of a straight-talk debate between the two presidential candidates about how they would rein in the abuses of big money."
it's not as if bernie, and even trump, haven't tried, maybe the flaw lies within, with the media as an ilk, (one in a basket of "special interests" that view "the general Welfare" as the enemy) showing a preference (add column inches and airtime) for the locker room over the newsroom..."going high" seems to mean stopping at trump's middle parts.
even now with bits of H(R)C's "wall street speeches" out, bits that, if bernie had them might have, changed the outcome of the nomination process despite its subversion by the DNC in its advocacy for H(R)C...even now the times (and the ilk) are still unmotivated by what it acknowleges to be "overwhelming public agreement" about citizens united, maintaining a "who us?" sidestep of any responsibilty (shades of H(R)C herself!) for the lack of debate on the corrupting influence of "big money" on the political process.
what debate there is, essentially limited to trump's braggin' vs slick willie's doin' would stop forthwith absent coverage in print news, including the fulminations of aptly named op-ed "contributors," and tv blather.
but then, such a debate would expose H(R)C's vulnerability to all big money things and we might learn, say, that her privileged access thereto would not end with an overturn of citizens united.
it's not as if bernie, and even trump, haven't tried, maybe the flaw lies within, with the media as an ilk, (one in a basket of "special interests" that view "the general Welfare" as the enemy) showing a preference (add column inches and airtime) for the locker room over the newsroom..."going high" seems to mean stopping at trump's middle parts.
even now with bits of H(R)C's "wall street speeches" out, bits that, if bernie had them might have, changed the outcome of the nomination process despite its subversion by the DNC in its advocacy for H(R)C...even now the times (and the ilk) are still unmotivated by what it acknowleges to be "overwhelming public agreement" about citizens united, maintaining a "who us?" sidestep of any responsibilty (shades of H(R)C herself!) for the lack of debate on the corrupting influence of "big money" on the political process.
what debate there is, essentially limited to trump's braggin' vs slick willie's doin' would stop forthwith absent coverage in print news, including the fulminations of aptly named op-ed "contributors," and tv blather.
but then, such a debate would expose H(R)C's vulnerability to all big money things and we might learn, say, that her privileged access thereto would not end with an overturn of citizens united.
4
I would like to know if the Clintons and Mr Trump have signed up for and are collecting Social Security. If they are worried about the system as they claim to be what ethics would allow them to collect Social Security? Perhaps this is a question that needs to be addressed.
1
It is America and anyone can donate whatever they please. The corporations also donate as well as the unions. This is legal so we will all reap what we sow.
"... a temporary necessity to avoid being outspent by Republicans..."a temporary necessity she was happy to use against Bernie, which makes it hard to believe she'll deliver on this issue.
While mad Donald was collecting from small donors during his hysteric tours, Hillary was fund-raisng amongst the rich. This is an aspect of her that keeps many Democrats uneasy
While mad Donald was collecting from small donors during his hysteric tours, Hillary was fund-raisng amongst the rich. This is an aspect of her that keeps many Democrats uneasy
3
I just read that Peter Thiel is donating 1.25 million to the Trump campaign.
This proves you can be a billionaire and still be profoundly naive.
He may have just as well handed the money over to Pence, who legalizes discrimination against gays, which is only a start.
Perhaps when Trump crashes this November, both Trump and Thiel can seek psychotherapy together.
This proves you can be a billionaire and still be profoundly naive.
He may have just as well handed the money over to Pence, who legalizes discrimination against gays, which is only a start.
Perhaps when Trump crashes this November, both Trump and Thiel can seek psychotherapy together.
1
It goes to character...if Hillary wasn't as bought-and-paid for, dare I say corrupted by corporate money and influence, as witnessed by her record supporting policies harming working class people she might prove attractive...but her record combined with her flip-flopping is evidence that her heart is just not in the right place. This is to say nothing of HRC's Wall Street speeches only exposed now thanks to Wikileaks...
As to Trump, his character is non-existent...witness both his inflated ego and brand/company valuation. Imho, he's all braggadocio and bluster!
HiLIARy actively participated in rigging election fraud during the Dem primaries effectively stealing the nomination.
HiLIARy's emails show collusion with the Clinton Foundation in direct violation of federal law.
HiLIARy refuses to release transcripts of $250K(+)-paid speeches made to her Wall Street masters.
HiLIARy refuses to come clean with the American people regarding her health and possible Parkinson's disease.
Suffice it to say that having watched and been a victim of HiLIARy's & Slick Willie's treachery over the years I will never vote for HiLIARy!
#BringBackBernie
As to Trump, his character is non-existent...witness both his inflated ego and brand/company valuation. Imho, he's all braggadocio and bluster!
HiLIARy actively participated in rigging election fraud during the Dem primaries effectively stealing the nomination.
HiLIARy's emails show collusion with the Clinton Foundation in direct violation of federal law.
HiLIARy refuses to release transcripts of $250K(+)-paid speeches made to her Wall Street masters.
HiLIARy refuses to come clean with the American people regarding her health and possible Parkinson's disease.
Suffice it to say that having watched and been a victim of HiLIARy's & Slick Willie's treachery over the years I will never vote for HiLIARy!
#BringBackBernie
15
Once again, the Times overlooks its recent role in creating this situation. There was a candidate who spoke of this daily, who attracted larger crowds than any other candidate. His name was Bernie Sanders. The New York Times actively avoided covering Bernie Sanders.
The word "hypocrisy" does come to mind.
The word "hypocrisy" does come to mind.
28
This is the wrong time for candiates to talk about this issue -- comon sense. The financial campaign war at this time is in full sling and neither candidate is going to risk the "cut-off", and they shouldn't: only a fool and his/her money would be soon separated!
1
Bad timing but needs addressing. It would be a good cause for Bernie
1
The Trump "problem" has caused virtually every important political, social and ethical consideration in the nation to take a back seat when it comes to reasonable, well-considered and constructive discussion. How can one discuss global warming, the gap between rich and poor, religious interference in individual rights and other problems facing this nation when time is wasted over the inane childish behavior of the "Donald"?. He should be sent to bed without his supper.
2
BIG money is on bth sides, thus neutralizing any advantage
Meddling is worse than trying to be Goldilocks and get it not too much and not too little
Oh and start with 'foundations' and other indirect support,and see what madness there is in an attempt to control
Meddling is worse than trying to be Goldilocks and get it not too much and not too little
Oh and start with 'foundations' and other indirect support,and see what madness there is in an attempt to control
2
The biggest "mega-donor" this election cycle is the media.
The media gave Trump billions in free air time to build him up and are giving billions more to tear him down.
Media corporations are for-profit corporations. As Les Moonves of CBS said, "Donald Trump is terrible for the country, but he is great for our bottom line. Keep it up Donald!"
Any future campaign reform needs to reign in media corporations along with all other corporations. There is no reason to give them a monopoly on political speech--and profits.
The media gave Trump billions in free air time to build him up and are giving billions more to tear him down.
Media corporations are for-profit corporations. As Les Moonves of CBS said, "Donald Trump is terrible for the country, but he is great for our bottom line. Keep it up Donald!"
Any future campaign reform needs to reign in media corporations along with all other corporations. There is no reason to give them a monopoly on political speech--and profits.
1
Whatever interest a donating corporate entity may have, that interest is also shared by segments of the population. So, if some change is made to public policy as a result of the corporate donation, the corporation benefits and so does the population segment in favor of that particular policy change.
Corporate money will go to both sides of an issue, which guarantees, that policy change, if any, will be a compromise, just as if citizens had been calling on both sides of the policy issue.
Anyone who watches congress will be able in a majority cases, to forecast how members will vote an issue. All that will be necessary for the forecast, is the party affiliation of the member, the state of the member and some information on the district, in the case of House members.
When citizens run for office, they campaign on various issues. Is there any evidence to support the claims that someone who runs on low taxes, votes for higher taxes, someone who runs for strong military votes to weaken the military, someone who runs on clean environment votes against clean air?
The bottom line seems to be that money contributions are in sync with the political ideologies of the recipients, and therefore, even without those contributions, the same policy outcome would be expected.
Corporate money will go to both sides of an issue, which guarantees, that policy change, if any, will be a compromise, just as if citizens had been calling on both sides of the policy issue.
Anyone who watches congress will be able in a majority cases, to forecast how members will vote an issue. All that will be necessary for the forecast, is the party affiliation of the member, the state of the member and some information on the district, in the case of House members.
When citizens run for office, they campaign on various issues. Is there any evidence to support the claims that someone who runs on low taxes, votes for higher taxes, someone who runs for strong military votes to weaken the military, someone who runs on clean environment votes against clean air?
The bottom line seems to be that money contributions are in sync with the political ideologies of the recipients, and therefore, even without those contributions, the same policy outcome would be expected.
Corporate boards are evidently loathe to pay out dividends to shareholders and let the shareholders decide for themselves how to donate it politically.
it's not straight talk to tip toe around how the money comes without first putting a limit on all election spending however financed. spending $7-8 billion to stage this national nightmare is unconscionable. it is nothing but a cottage industry for private jets, entourages, pollsters, advisers, spinmeisters, nasty television ads. it is also a great tax shelter to let these "foundations" channel money into anything other than helping humanity, providing candidates with ralph lauren and brioni wardrobes however direct or indirect. calling it "social welfare" makes a mockery of social needs. so let the candidates come to the people on a budget. no donors in bed with them: donors up to set limits into a national bipartisan fund to be divided equally. same for congress: nobody beholden, nobody owned.
1
We "should be working to elect the congressional candidates she needs to enact" legislation that clamps down on money in politics. Yes, because Republican leadership has signaled and demonstrated that it would rather we keep going In the opposite direction. Democrats running to maintain or gain legislative seats are at an enormous financial disadvantage right now; why no mention of this yet? So many so-called news reporters and opinion afore obsessing over Donald's perversions and the Republican Party's other histrionics when the more the press continues to follow the trail of crumbs to the White House, the less likely it will be that Hillary is able to advance or move anything at all in Ckngress.
To make informed decisions and participate in the deliberative process, —to not feel so helpless, voters need much more detail and contextual information about the history and processes of congressional research and of appropriations, how legislative committees and subcommittees work and why, need information about bill development and rule making and how agencies work and what they really do and who's helping them do it and how we could be helping.
Much more than we need to hear another word about any dude's sexual deviance, or Trump's all- round deviance, we as a national populous need to know who these other people are and what they've been up and what the problem is down there, because there's definitely a problem down there, and this ain't no dictatorship. Not yet.
.
To make informed decisions and participate in the deliberative process, —to not feel so helpless, voters need much more detail and contextual information about the history and processes of congressional research and of appropriations, how legislative committees and subcommittees work and why, need information about bill development and rule making and how agencies work and what they really do and who's helping them do it and how we could be helping.
Much more than we need to hear another word about any dude's sexual deviance, or Trump's all- round deviance, we as a national populous need to know who these other people are and what they've been up and what the problem is down there, because there's definitely a problem down there, and this ain't no dictatorship. Not yet.
.
The wealthy would rather we all fight over guns, religion, Mr. Trump's peccadillos and Mrs. Clinton's email/email server. Instead of income inequality, Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid, immigration etc. You know fight over anything other thing than what really matters.
The DNC promoted and backed the super-delegate system as a means of stacking the cards against Sanders and other candidates. This runs counter to the sacred one person, one vote system, assuring that the fix is in. Yet knowing this, The New York Times editorial board backed Clinton anyway, with her large number of super delegates. It is dishonest to tackle the mega- donor issue while ignoring super-delegates. We need to rid our elections of both.
6
Political campaign funding is often at the core of discussions on democracy. The first reaction is of course "why spend all that money? Imagine how many schools, roads, hospitals, shelters you could buy and maintain for these horrendous amounts of dollars?" Indeed! Why not allocate public funds in equal amounts to each candidate, putting a ceiling on what can be spent? They tried it in several countries in Europe, in Japan too. It is not really working, but it is less disgusting than the waste we're seeing today. As for buying candidates and therefore "lobbying" properly, I have no comment, since it is a current practice. Or is it? Where does loyalty to one's constituency begins to smell like influence peddling? A system of accountability in campaign funding would help focus on programs more than on private interests, or would free candidates to stand for what they believe?
Our country is all about $'s nothing less and nothing more. Wealth, its protection, and its accrual overrules all that used to be rational in our democracy. Must the citizens of this nation accept that rational, and go down with a whimper. For the ordinary citizen the bright lights on our horizons seem to be growing dimmer, while amazing progress in science, technology and medicine move farther out of reach for hard working citizens who do the grunt work required to make it all happen. It is not easy to accept the necessity of becoming a total cynic about our national prospects. It just should not be necessary in the once great nation. Our nation spent the greatest part of the twentieth century in the noble mission of increasing civil rights for all citizens just to throw it all away by ignoring the fact that economic justice is just as important and as much of a necessity as civil rights for all humans..
2
Crooked Hillary wouldn't be where she is without crooked mega donors.
Where is the discussion about the content of the wikileaks stuff? Hillary has been proven to be a pompous elitist marxist liar.
Where is the discussion about the content of the wikileaks stuff? Hillary has been proven to be a pompous elitist marxist liar.
6
Nothing to worry about. It's just all that money trickling down the way it's supposed to. You know, job creation.
2
"These are noteworthy proposals that voters should embrace. But they demand dedicated follow-through from Mrs. Clinton..."
Well, let's not all hold our breath.
Hillary Clinton is winning the fundraising battle over Trump among health care and pharmaceutical companies at a higher than 10 to 1 rate. She has similar numbers with the electronics and entertainment industries, the high tech sector, construction companies and lawyers. She's also winning big with traditionally Republican donor groups such as Wall Street, manufacturing, the defense industry, and Trump's own industry, real estate.
The big donors and the capitalist class know very well who their candidate is, and in this case it isn't the Republican. Why should anyone expect Hillary Clinton do to anything good on this issue once she becomes President?
If the New York Times Editorial Board cared so much about this issue, you could have supported a different primary candidate. Or at least you could have written about the issue more, before it was frankly too late. But now it is too late to start holding Clinton accountable for this sort of thing, when you've spent over a year publishing whatever short-term narrative suits the Clinton campaign.
Well, let's not all hold our breath.
Hillary Clinton is winning the fundraising battle over Trump among health care and pharmaceutical companies at a higher than 10 to 1 rate. She has similar numbers with the electronics and entertainment industries, the high tech sector, construction companies and lawyers. She's also winning big with traditionally Republican donor groups such as Wall Street, manufacturing, the defense industry, and Trump's own industry, real estate.
The big donors and the capitalist class know very well who their candidate is, and in this case it isn't the Republican. Why should anyone expect Hillary Clinton do to anything good on this issue once she becomes President?
If the New York Times Editorial Board cared so much about this issue, you could have supported a different primary candidate. Or at least you could have written about the issue more, before it was frankly too late. But now it is too late to start holding Clinton accountable for this sort of thing, when you've spent over a year publishing whatever short-term narrative suits the Clinton campaign.
16
Wikileaks has pulled back the collusion between HRC and the NYT! It is now up to us!
3
Citizens United is the counterargument to the phrase "strict constructionist" or the concept that "legislating from the bench" is something only liberals do. Roberts will be in all the history books - he has made his legacy - for this decision alone. It will not be complimentary.
We are not at the point where we can attempt to reverse Citizens United because we do not have a unified idea of reform. We have the radical right, clamoring for free market capitalism akin to the Robber Baron era, and we have the left only beginning to form a unified response of social accountability. Meanwhile, entrenched interests - lawmakers, donors and the outlets that receive the revenue - become more and more dependent on the status quo, making it harder to reverse.
But the left is simply disorganized. And without a unified movement at the state level as well as the national level, we won't see change. There is no equivalent of Americans for Prosperity or ALEC on the left to push for reform, and keep the issue alive between elections. Ironically, big money, even if it is from small donors, is likely to be necessary.
We want to get rid of the undue influence of big money? Well cynicism tells me that is unlikely to happen. But if it should, it will be driven by an organized party, not a single elected President. Where is the organization pushing Clinton, pushing Congress? Does anyone else hear crickets?
We are not at the point where we can attempt to reverse Citizens United because we do not have a unified idea of reform. We have the radical right, clamoring for free market capitalism akin to the Robber Baron era, and we have the left only beginning to form a unified response of social accountability. Meanwhile, entrenched interests - lawmakers, donors and the outlets that receive the revenue - become more and more dependent on the status quo, making it harder to reverse.
But the left is simply disorganized. And without a unified movement at the state level as well as the national level, we won't see change. There is no equivalent of Americans for Prosperity or ALEC on the left to push for reform, and keep the issue alive between elections. Ironically, big money, even if it is from small donors, is likely to be necessary.
We want to get rid of the undue influence of big money? Well cynicism tells me that is unlikely to happen. But if it should, it will be driven by an organized party, not a single elected President. Where is the organization pushing Clinton, pushing Congress? Does anyone else hear crickets?
1
You the Editorial Board are as two-sided and complicit on this issue as the candidates. Who supported Hillary over Bernie in the primary? It's a doubled-edged sword that needs a stand like the one Bernie gave us. What was the average donation?? You know, 27 dollars! On this issue, and several others (single payer, climate change to name two), Bernie did this country a great service by putting them front and center. It behooves Hillary to make sure she addresses this issue ASAP, and the first step is to admit she's been complicit herself.
13
You are too kind to say HRC is complicit. She is the whole mother lode!
3
SO WHAT? The mega donors have bought what exactly? In Trump's case, they've bought the latest poll that 11% polled think that Trump will be the next president. Wow! That's what I call getting good value for your megamillions in donations. Why not just take the money and burn it?
The government of the U.S.A. is now controlled by BIG MONEY at all levels. The control has followed the strategy laid out in the Lewis F. Powell memo.
See http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/
We the people need to restore government to the people.
See http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/
We the people need to restore government to the people.
3
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy is historic.
While she was Secretary of State, The Clinton Foundation received enormous donations from Big Money around the world in exchange for political favors.
Bill Clinton was paid outrageous speaking fees which were payoffs for political influence.
This unethical Clinton behavior exemplifies the erosion of American values.
While she was Secretary of State, The Clinton Foundation received enormous donations from Big Money around the world in exchange for political favors.
Bill Clinton was paid outrageous speaking fees which were payoffs for political influence.
This unethical Clinton behavior exemplifies the erosion of American values.
9
"This unethical Clinton behavior exemplifies the erosion of American values."
Yes jck but it is very profitable even for a "public servant" like Hillary . eg. Hillary`s net worth is $31.3 million per her Public Financial Disclosure Reports. Bill`s net worth is $80 million. Not a bad haul for a public servant & much more to come. Heck , even Hillary`s daughter got a $500,000/yr gig with NBC to do a few 2 minute spots on the NBC evening news.
Bernie on the other hand is not a multimillionaire after 35+ yrs in public service & of course he funded his campaign via small $ contributions & shunned the Banksters.
Yes jck but it is very profitable even for a "public servant" like Hillary . eg. Hillary`s net worth is $31.3 million per her Public Financial Disclosure Reports. Bill`s net worth is $80 million. Not a bad haul for a public servant & much more to come. Heck , even Hillary`s daughter got a $500,000/yr gig with NBC to do a few 2 minute spots on the NBC evening news.
Bernie on the other hand is not a multimillionaire after 35+ yrs in public service & of course he funded his campaign via small $ contributions & shunned the Banksters.
5
Federal election campaigns need to be funded from the public treasury. Equal funding to all qualified candidates, including minority parties. And no contributions above the public funding. You get what you get, make the most of it. Budgetary discipline, after all, is a virtue.
Until and unless we eliminate the financial stranglehold on elected office which the two major parties have created, we will continue to have The Best Congress Money Can Buy.
The presidency is substantially less important than Congress, on balance, despite its visibility.
Until and unless we eliminate the financial stranglehold on elected office which the two major parties have created, we will continue to have The Best Congress Money Can Buy.
The presidency is substantially less important than Congress, on balance, despite its visibility.
5
A thoughtful report on the ravages of Citizens United, but it doesn’t go far enough. With that single ill-conceived decision, a majority of Republican partisans on the Supreme Court destroyed America’s democracy, and the consequences have just begun.
The major media have failed to comprehend that a few extremely rich individuals now control of the United States, and they will do anything to maintain and strengthen their power.
For a hint to what lies ahead, consider the dysfunction of the United States Congress over recent years. Neither major party has made a serious attempt to oppose a National Rifle Association promoting mayhem in the streets or the major oil companies promoting fossil fuel consumption that will eventually destroy life on the planet.
The major media have failed to comprehend that a few extremely rich individuals now control of the United States, and they will do anything to maintain and strengthen their power.
For a hint to what lies ahead, consider the dysfunction of the United States Congress over recent years. Neither major party has made a serious attempt to oppose a National Rifle Association promoting mayhem in the streets or the major oil companies promoting fossil fuel consumption that will eventually destroy life on the planet.
6
The Supremes have become a political body. Citizens United was a win for the right wingers on the Court. Turns out it backfired since the Dems are raising more money than the intended recipients. Be careful what you wish for......
12
The strengths of our system are also its weaknesses: We are accorded the freedom to pursue our individual and "group" interests through whatever "peaceful" means we choose within frameworks of rules that rely upon general concepts of ethics and morality to inform our choices.
Elections were not intended to be auctioned off to a few who are in positions to hire specialists who in turn use their apparent lack of education in and understanding of humanities to find and then abuse our system of government.
Anonymity grounded in humility is one thing, but anonymity grounded in greed and regard for self is another. Shamefully, the only helpful "antidote" is a demand from all of us, united, for transparency.
Elections were not intended to be auctioned off to a few who are in positions to hire specialists who in turn use their apparent lack of education in and understanding of humanities to find and then abuse our system of government.
Anonymity grounded in humility is one thing, but anonymity grounded in greed and regard for self is another. Shamefully, the only helpful "antidote" is a demand from all of us, united, for transparency.
19
"Elections were not intended to be auctioned off to a few"....
That's probably a true statement, but like the constitution, it's fell out of favor.
That's probably a true statement, but like the constitution, it's fell out of favor.
I agree with the Editorial Board, and most feel that the spending on political campaigns is outrageous, leading to access to power for the very wealthy.
And even if one thinks that his or her political party will benefit from relations with their respective wealthy donors. it's not transparent just what effect these donors have on governmental policy. When a well-funded candidate gives a speech, it's not clear what's behind it.
It's like the rôle that the wonderful Melvyn Douglas had in that snarky movie "Being There". Is that really how this relationship works with a wealthy contributor? The satire in the movie is that the hilarious Peter Sellars plays a nobody who has influence on an extremely wealthy contributor. It's not far off. These contributors aren't published and we don't know what influences them.
I suppose that, like the making of sausage, we can just look at the results. If it's better health care, more fiscally responsible government, then we like it but really don't want to know how the legislation was made.
In an era of wide-spread information on the internet and cable news outlets, most of the information about the candidates should be found there, not in candidates' advertisements. It should actually be cheap to run for office, with funding for travel required, but no where near the billion dollars of which campaigns speak.
But money is power, an aspect of wealth that the wealthy do not want to see curtailed.
And even if one thinks that his or her political party will benefit from relations with their respective wealthy donors. it's not transparent just what effect these donors have on governmental policy. When a well-funded candidate gives a speech, it's not clear what's behind it.
It's like the rôle that the wonderful Melvyn Douglas had in that snarky movie "Being There". Is that really how this relationship works with a wealthy contributor? The satire in the movie is that the hilarious Peter Sellars plays a nobody who has influence on an extremely wealthy contributor. It's not far off. These contributors aren't published and we don't know what influences them.
I suppose that, like the making of sausage, we can just look at the results. If it's better health care, more fiscally responsible government, then we like it but really don't want to know how the legislation was made.
In an era of wide-spread information on the internet and cable news outlets, most of the information about the candidates should be found there, not in candidates' advertisements. It should actually be cheap to run for office, with funding for travel required, but no where near the billion dollars of which campaigns speak.
But money is power, an aspect of wealth that the wealthy do not want to see curtailed.
3
You expect some kind of reasoned debate on anything when one of the candidates is incapable of talking about anything but himself and has no interest in facts or reason?
1
The reason that this issue gets so little attention is its very cause--mega-donors. Hot-button, vote-swaying issues from trans-sexual restrooms, Clinton's Emails, and Bengazi, which have little societal consequences or reality, are what mega-donor mega-bucks pay for, what make the front pages. Meanwhile, big issues such as tax reform get swept under the carpet, which is exactly where mega-donors want them to be. With 78% of the voters wanting to undo Citizens United, there is real opportunity to undo it. Let's see if the new President and shaken Congress really want to serve the people. Otherwise, it's time for a constitutional amendment.
2
The idea of packing the Supreme Court to overturn a decision that a candidate does not agree with is odious - and dangerous. That this paper gives legitimacy to the idea in the case of Citizens United could open the door to the same logic in Roe, or any other case. The solution is Constitutionally clear - a Constitutional Amendment. At the heart of so many of our political logjams is a problem the Founders did not anticipate - the lack of political will to Amend and an overreliance on the Court to politically interpret to suit the mood of the day, and reliance on Executive regulation in place of law or rulings to implement questionable policy, relying on judicial deference for legality. We are going to pay a price in the corruption of our institutions for this back door evolution of America's basic structure.
2
"Her campaign insists its super PAC reliance is a temporary necessity to avoid being outspent by Republicans. " There's a word for an individual who espouses that excuse - hypocrite.
15
Jon
There is a word for a candidate who does not try to match or exceed the funds available to their opponent:
LOSER.
There is a word for a candidate who does not try to match or exceed the funds available to their opponent:
LOSER.
If Hillary Clinton wins the White House, which appears inevitable, and the Congress flips, will we hear a peep from this editorial board at the newspaper of record?
That will be the true test of your authenticity.
That will be the true test of your authenticity.
10
Rich people always run the government. Any government anywhere. Obviously the rich are more interested in good government because they have more to lose.
Try as you may but money will always influence politics and government. I think that is in the Bible. If it is not then we need to add it.
Be thankful that the rich are interested in stable government. The poor would never be able to run a government. They never have and never will. Must have something to do with the cream rising to the top or the survival of the fittest.
Try as you may but money will always influence politics and government. I think that is in the Bible. If it is not then we need to add it.
Be thankful that the rich are interested in stable government. The poor would never be able to run a government. They never have and never will. Must have something to do with the cream rising to the top or the survival of the fittest.
1
Of course, the Republicans in the Senate don't want to vote for Merrick Garland-they don't want their precious Citizens United decision reversed. It was a horrible and unforgivable mistake by the justices in the majority opinion.
9
Excuse me, but your (partisan) slip is showing. I know many readers of the NY Times delight in blaming every problem, debacle and wrinkle in government upon the Republicans but seriously, if you are a bit intellectually honest you really have to admit the Democrats are just as happy to accept all the cash that came in a tsunami after the Citizens United decision. Oh, many cry large alligator tears criticizing the 'Republican' Supreme Court, but are just as happy to accept big money campaign contributions (read bribes) as any Republican.
3
Isn't this odd. The Editorial Board has tumbled to the idea that our democracy is becoming an oligarchy.
Odder still the Editorial Board believes that Hillary Clinton began her campaign with an array of serious proposals for reining in the influence of big money on government. Hilary Clinton began her campaign by soliciting wealthy donors and, with the help of the Editorial Board and the Times, defeated the only small donor candidate in this election. During the primaries I wondered whether and when the Times would begin to cover Bernie Sanders and his campaign.
It's good to see that the Editorial Board is beginning to take up the issue of mega donors and rigged government, even at this late date.
Odder still the Editorial Board believes that Hillary Clinton began her campaign with an array of serious proposals for reining in the influence of big money on government. Hilary Clinton began her campaign by soliciting wealthy donors and, with the help of the Editorial Board and the Times, defeated the only small donor candidate in this election. During the primaries I wondered whether and when the Times would begin to cover Bernie Sanders and his campaign.
It's good to see that the Editorial Board is beginning to take up the issue of mega donors and rigged government, even at this late date.
69
Right you are. Clinton is the candidate for the big money, status quo interest. Ironically, Trump raises more money from small donors than Hillary. You'd never know that from reading The NY Times.
5
The 78% on Americans who see Citizens United for what it is may approximate the Clinon-Trump split come election day. Certainly no Trump supporter would vote to clean up the system.
3
@mikemcc - interesting comment, no trump supporter would vote to clean up the system. However every vote for Clinton is an endorsement of big money and influence peddling in politics.
4
Yet it is HRC who is absolutely and totally taking advantage of the tons of soft money that is sloshing around out there. As someone else pointed out, if these restrictions were in place during the primary Bernie would have beat the pants suit off of Hillary!
5
As a Bernie supporter I am not amused! I'm voting third party now!
3
NYT " Unfortunately, the public’s concern has stirred virtually nothing in the way of a straight-talk debate between the two presidential candidates about how they would rein in the abuses of big money. "
I always appreciated the NYT Editorial Board's refined sense of political humor. This weekend piece is one of them.
The 'big money' is THE main instrument for preserving the democratic process in this (special) election cycle. It closes down the path to the presidency for an unfit/unqualified Donald Trump.
Think about this. If big money were with Trump. Would Hillary Clinton have any chance to be elected?
I always appreciated the NYT Editorial Board's refined sense of political humor. This weekend piece is one of them.
The 'big money' is THE main instrument for preserving the democratic process in this (special) election cycle. It closes down the path to the presidency for an unfit/unqualified Donald Trump.
Think about this. If big money were with Trump. Would Hillary Clinton have any chance to be elected?
5
I never could understand how 501c3 groups could do ANY political activities. We generally hear that they get away with it because they only need to spend a majority of their funds on social welfare. But the IRS website says
"To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare. "
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/social-welfa...
"To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare. "
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/social-welfa...
7
Sure, reversing Citizens United would help, but there are other campaigns to consider.
Bringing back some version of the Fairness Doctrine as well as the Equal Time rule would help.
As would this entire nation adopting Oregon's vote by mail method of helping citizens vote in safety and privacy, and without suppression. Imagine Florida without the long lines...
It probably is just too much to expect to ask the media, including the main internet media, to stop the emphasis on entertainment when it does news, and you know, actually have mature and reasoned conversations on the news. I have taken to watching some TV from the UK, just to see what that looks like.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
Bringing back some version of the Fairness Doctrine as well as the Equal Time rule would help.
As would this entire nation adopting Oregon's vote by mail method of helping citizens vote in safety and privacy, and without suppression. Imagine Florida without the long lines...
It probably is just too much to expect to ask the media, including the main internet media, to stop the emphasis on entertainment when it does news, and you know, actually have mature and reasoned conversations on the news. I have taken to watching some TV from the UK, just to see what that looks like.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
18
Now that Bernie Sanders is out of the race the editorial board sound like Bernie Sanders supporters.
97
Hear, hear.
3
Let's write him in!
4
One of the easiest things we could do to reduce the influence of money is to take a few common sense actions that limit spending indirectly.
Have a national Primary Day where everyone goes to the polls on the same day. Along with it, restrict the amount of time prior to the Primary that candidates can raise or spend money. The idea is to greatly compress the time.
Likewise, give the General Campiagn a short season instead of the endless campaigns we are going through.
Make donors names be listed for soft money ads. No more hiding behind names like Priorities USA. If Sheldon Adelson or The Kochs wants to flood the airwaves, make sure the voters know who is paying for it.
Have a national Primary Day where everyone goes to the polls on the same day. Along with it, restrict the amount of time prior to the Primary that candidates can raise or spend money. The idea is to greatly compress the time.
Likewise, give the General Campiagn a short season instead of the endless campaigns we are going through.
Make donors names be listed for soft money ads. No more hiding behind names like Priorities USA. If Sheldon Adelson or The Kochs wants to flood the airwaves, make sure the voters know who is paying for it.
78
All great suggestions. But how much of this would be permitted under the Citizens United ruling?
Agreed - but your liberal bias is showing. Likewise expose the same deep pocketed spending that is going on by special interest like teachers and other unions and one agenda item causes like environmentalist groups and special research areas like breast cancer.
1
If you saw the "60 Minutes" special on how the House of Rep works you will recall that each Rep is told that they must spend 30 hours per week on the phone "Dialing for Dollars". Both parties operate a phone bank office a short walk from the Capital Bldg (it is illegal to dial for dollars from their DC office). There was a tally board on each Rep showing results. The Rep was given a phone list & a bio on the potential funder so as to schmooze with him/her before the request for $.
This is democracy for sale as in a 2014 NYT`s article which quoted B.Baird a Dem. congressman: “The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money & you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that.” It also quoted J. Yarmuth, a congressman from Kentucky, on upholding the interests of the United States: “We all took an oath of office & AIPAC is asking us to ignore it.”
This is democracy for sale as in a 2014 NYT`s article which quoted B.Baird a Dem. congressman: “The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money & you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that.” It also quoted J. Yarmuth, a congressman from Kentucky, on upholding the interests of the United States: “We all took an oath of office & AIPAC is asking us to ignore it.”
2
I've always been curious. Where does the money go? Does it benefit the economy at all? Does any of it go to small businesses? Or does most of it go to media conglomerates?
2
The net result of more money in politics is more bad will. It is money spent to destroy value.
Can the NYTimes inform us now what is the current price of buying a senator? are Democrat senators more expensive than Republicans?
"Pay to play" has become such a norm, that even Bernie and Elizabeth Warren need to join to survive. This is ridiculous now, but it was so even before the Supreme Court ruling of citizens united has de facto legalized bribery (e.g. "legalized bribery'. We are on track for having 1% of the population have 99% of the capital, and we cal this democracy?
"Pay to play" has become such a norm, that even Bernie and Elizabeth Warren need to join to survive. This is ridiculous now, but it was so even before the Supreme Court ruling of citizens united has de facto legalized bribery (e.g. "legalized bribery'. We are on track for having 1% of the population have 99% of the capital, and we cal this democracy?
6
Asking politicians to reign in heavy contributions by wealthy donors as speeded along by Citizen's United is similar to asking the family cat to avoid catnip or Donald Trump to avoid sexual connotations about women in his life or yours....
5
Critics of the Citizens Union decision always focus on corporate money, not big Unions. The teachers unions spends millions of dollars crushing charter schools, dooming millions of minority children to an inferior education.
2
Get real. Unions have been neutered ever since Reagan crushed the air traffic controller's union.
No recommendation here.
It might be true that 78 percent of the public believe that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision should be overturned, but it will be hard to get that same amount of support from politicians, a lot of whom are influenced by rich donors and big companies in the form of financing for their campaigns, well-paid speeches and whatever other "creative" methods they come up with to make the flow of money seem somewhat legitimate.
1
A major aspect of the problem is the way the (Right Wing) Propaganda Organs portray this issue, when they talk about it at all. They are happy to blather on about Hillary and her connections, while staying vewy, vewy quiet about the individuals funding the whole Clown Car Posse.
So the "Republican Base" really believes their candidates for the state legislature and congress care about this issue. NOT, a local very good democratic state legislative candidate was defeated in 2014 by a do nothing(Republican) candidate "not-" supported by Twelve (12) district wide attack mailers for American For Prosperity (that's the Kochtopus folks) that hit the mailbox of every registered voter in the district in the last ten days of the campaign. He did not even have enough money for One (1) such mailer. We are watching our mailboxes this cycle, and wondering when the deluge will begin. Get out the Vote efforts will only take you so far in the face of relentless propaganda.
So the "Republican Base" really believes their candidates for the state legislature and congress care about this issue. NOT, a local very good democratic state legislative candidate was defeated in 2014 by a do nothing(Republican) candidate "not-" supported by Twelve (12) district wide attack mailers for American For Prosperity (that's the Kochtopus folks) that hit the mailbox of every registered voter in the district in the last ten days of the campaign. He did not even have enough money for One (1) such mailer. We are watching our mailboxes this cycle, and wondering when the deluge will begin. Get out the Vote efforts will only take you so far in the face of relentless propaganda.
3
HRC thrives on wealthy donors. And her message to them is clearly stated, as we learn from the just released GoldmanSachs transcripts: 'Let's not turn back the clock or point fingers.' IOW, fear not, with HRC you get no criminal investigations, no indictments. With HRC in office, you guys are off the hook. Thank you for your generous, and anonymous, donations to our campaign's SuperPacs.
24
The topic hasn't been brought up because journalists and the media don't do their jobs anymore.
12
Debate moderators have not let campaign finance 'slip'. It wasn't some sort of mistake or oversight. In all of the debates, going back to 2015, the topic was avoided and ignored whenever possible. Why? Because the companies running the debates (and they are companies, which people seem to forget....not public-interest organisations) do not want people talking, even casually, about ending the gravy train of campaign advertising. Notice that even in the primaries campaign finance was only mentioned if candidates themselves brought it up.
There was only one candidate who was even remotely credible on campaign finance, and this paper did everything they possibly could to bury him. It did this while simultaneously running editorials like this one which agreed with all of his policies but refused to even mention that candidate's name. After all, we mustn't let policy get in the way of our political loyalties.
I genuinely believe that Bernie Sanders was our last and only hope. What other politician openly refuses to take donations from big money interests? How many other politicians refuse to play the Super PAC game?
Anyone who thinks the 3 (and probably now more like 4) billion dollars the Clintons have raised over their political lifetime has had, and will have, no influence on them is out of their mind.
There was only one candidate who was even remotely credible on campaign finance, and this paper did everything they possibly could to bury him. It did this while simultaneously running editorials like this one which agreed with all of his policies but refused to even mention that candidate's name. After all, we mustn't let policy get in the way of our political loyalties.
I genuinely believe that Bernie Sanders was our last and only hope. What other politician openly refuses to take donations from big money interests? How many other politicians refuse to play the Super PAC game?
Anyone who thinks the 3 (and probably now more like 4) billion dollars the Clintons have raised over their political lifetime has had, and will have, no influence on them is out of their mind.
46
The Democrats OWN the biggest donors, something like 17 out of the top 25 last time.
Now that foreign money can be laundered through the Clinton foundations even before it comes here, we may never know how much this campaign for Her Enlightened Wonderfulness ends up earning over the next four years.
But you have to love the knee-jerk wah-wahs who only screech about how wasally the rich wepublicans are.
Now that foreign money can be laundered through the Clinton foundations even before it comes here, we may never know how much this campaign for Her Enlightened Wonderfulness ends up earning over the next four years.
But you have to love the knee-jerk wah-wahs who only screech about how wasally the rich wepublicans are.
11
This is just another stupid arms race, like the one the predatory NRA stokes up between the people and the police.
It sure costs plenty of money to suppress what should circulate freely as viral common sense. I don't know how anyone can can miss the implications of your constant deflections: you accept no responsibility for any evil you do, and you do plenty.
It sure costs plenty of money to suppress what should circulate freely as viral common sense. I don't know how anyone can can miss the implications of your constant deflections: you accept no responsibility for any evil you do, and you do plenty.
The more money the US spends on politics, the lousier its politicians get.
Trump should be ringing alarm bells everywhere people want to have a future.
Trump should be ringing alarm bells everywhere people want to have a future.
6
Yes, campaign finance reform (per se) is a "real issue"; but is it as much of an issue today as it was 6 or 7 years go?
Certainly, the heavy spending by individuals and "Super PACS" is a matter of real concern; the amount of advertising (print, television, radio space/time)they generate is amazing.
However, what we saw in 2008, more in 2012 and even more clearly this past cycle is the power of social media, the internet in general, and small donors responding to (relatively) small chat sites and offerings, not "super-media".
Bernie Sanders and his followers mounted an impressive campaign based on the internet and small donors (the last average I heard was a $29 donation!).
While it may be comparatively simple (not easy, but simple!) to regulate the super donors, hidden resources, PACS, etc., we are left with an unregulated and non-responsible source of information, innuendo and ill-will. Note, not irresponsible, but non-responsible; there are no checks and balance (or, few that work) on what is promulgated, published and pandered to on the 'net.
More and more people are getting their "information" from sources that have no built-in "fact-checkers", that conform to their audiences expectations, and that do not present balanced views of policies, positions or possibilities.
I have no idea how this area becomes "regulated", or even if it should be regulated, but I do feel that it is the more difficult task ahead of campaign reformers.
Certainly, the heavy spending by individuals and "Super PACS" is a matter of real concern; the amount of advertising (print, television, radio space/time)they generate is amazing.
However, what we saw in 2008, more in 2012 and even more clearly this past cycle is the power of social media, the internet in general, and small donors responding to (relatively) small chat sites and offerings, not "super-media".
Bernie Sanders and his followers mounted an impressive campaign based on the internet and small donors (the last average I heard was a $29 donation!).
While it may be comparatively simple (not easy, but simple!) to regulate the super donors, hidden resources, PACS, etc., we are left with an unregulated and non-responsible source of information, innuendo and ill-will. Note, not irresponsible, but non-responsible; there are no checks and balance (or, few that work) on what is promulgated, published and pandered to on the 'net.
More and more people are getting their "information" from sources that have no built-in "fact-checkers", that conform to their audiences expectations, and that do not present balanced views of policies, positions or possibilities.
I have no idea how this area becomes "regulated", or even if it should be regulated, but I do feel that it is the more difficult task ahead of campaign reformers.
3
Don Trump promised to self finance his campaign.
Don Trump received many millions of dollars worth of free advertising by the Television industry in the last year.
Don Trump is a Billionaire.
Mere millionaires and average income people are giving a Billionaire their money.
Don Trump is playing the ultimate gamble with great odds of 50-50 that he will become President.
Don Trump is gambling with other people's money................
Don Trump is the Gambling Television man.
Don Trump's donors are gambling on Don Trump. The odds are great.
It's called buying a politician, not just paying for influence.
Those mega donors only have one vote. I do too.
Don Trump received many millions of dollars worth of free advertising by the Television industry in the last year.
Don Trump is a Billionaire.
Mere millionaires and average income people are giving a Billionaire their money.
Don Trump is playing the ultimate gamble with great odds of 50-50 that he will become President.
Don Trump is gambling with other people's money................
Don Trump is the Gambling Television man.
Don Trump's donors are gambling on Don Trump. The odds are great.
It's called buying a politician, not just paying for influence.
Those mega donors only have one vote. I do too.
Donald Trump, Donald Trump - Hillary alone has already outspent the entire Republican field and there were 18 of them!
3
No question that Hillary Clinton is working hard to raise funds for her campaign, taking legal contributions as she can.
There is also no question that the Trump campaign is doing the same thing, with lots of large donors to PACs and other allegedly independent groups who share offices.
It may be that Robert Mercer, billionaire and co-CEO of a hedge fund, is still the largest funder of the Trump campaign. It is true that two of Mercer's employees: Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon are the leaders of Trump's campaign.
At this point, it may well be that Trump is more dependent on a few billionaires than Hillary Clinton is. By the way, Trump did not finance his primary--he loaned the money to that campaign. He once promised to forgive the loans. Did he actually do so--or is Trump making money on this campaign, just as he made money on his bankruptcies?
There is also no question that the Trump campaign is doing the same thing, with lots of large donors to PACs and other allegedly independent groups who share offices.
It may be that Robert Mercer, billionaire and co-CEO of a hedge fund, is still the largest funder of the Trump campaign. It is true that two of Mercer's employees: Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon are the leaders of Trump's campaign.
At this point, it may well be that Trump is more dependent on a few billionaires than Hillary Clinton is. By the way, Trump did not finance his primary--he loaned the money to that campaign. He once promised to forgive the loans. Did he actually do so--or is Trump making money on this campaign, just as he made money on his bankruptcies?
3
Here we go again. The usual hobby horse of campaign finance reform that has enamored the NY Times and the left wing for decades.
America's business is business. And as long as there are billions of dollars in contracts that are out there at all levels of government - federal, state and local - you are going to have people wanting to influence it as best they can. Not just campaign donations, but also through massive, massive lobbying efforts.
And this goes not only for deep pocketed players, but large special interest groups - think teachers unions, environmental groups, industry consortiums, etc., etc.
As to the vaunted benefit of public financing of campaigns, the NY Times says nothing about how well that is working here in NYC. The reason being is that you have the same insider hacks running and in office pushing the same agendas as before and toadying to the same pet special interest as they were before. In other words, its done little to increase the quality of candidates or the responsiveness of elected officials to the public good.
Please spare us the good intentions of progressives spending millions of the publics' money and then trying to limit the free speech of private citizens to fritter away their own millions as they see fit on their chosen candidates and causes.
America's business is business. And as long as there are billions of dollars in contracts that are out there at all levels of government - federal, state and local - you are going to have people wanting to influence it as best they can. Not just campaign donations, but also through massive, massive lobbying efforts.
And this goes not only for deep pocketed players, but large special interest groups - think teachers unions, environmental groups, industry consortiums, etc., etc.
As to the vaunted benefit of public financing of campaigns, the NY Times says nothing about how well that is working here in NYC. The reason being is that you have the same insider hacks running and in office pushing the same agendas as before and toadying to the same pet special interest as they were before. In other words, its done little to increase the quality of candidates or the responsiveness of elected officials to the public good.
Please spare us the good intentions of progressives spending millions of the publics' money and then trying to limit the free speech of private citizens to fritter away their own millions as they see fit on their chosen candidates and causes.
5
I think the US should adopt the election system it forced on Germany after WW II, but it never will.
Money speaks, no doubt about it. Those that claim otherwise, while gaining political access and financial profit from it, may be called hypocrites for good reason. Citizen United must be torn down, as it represents an insult to a democracy that ought to depend on individual voters instead. And, as we all now, and likely feel, we are potentially corruptible if the price is right. So, lets stop pretending to be a pillar of decency and principled thought for mankind, and accept our frailty, our imperfection, and proceed with caution, as we do need proper supervision; there isn't a more honest man, or woman, who knows he/she is being watched. And that crime has consequences. Is Trump an out-lier here?
1
It's very simple. Money in politics is a consensus issue. There is nothing in the political realm that is so widely agreed upon. If it is anything less than Mrs. Clinton's very first, very hardest legislative push, it will be clear that she was as disingenuous about her intentions as most of us believe her to be.
But of course, at best we will get half-hearted attempts, followed by whining about Republican obstructionism, and more record-setting spending in 2018 and 2020 as the Democrats assure us that it's a necessity, not their preference.
But of course, at best we will get half-hearted attempts, followed by whining about Republican obstructionism, and more record-setting spending in 2018 and 2020 as the Democrats assure us that it's a necessity, not their preference.
13
Another LAME attempt to, "show balance", via straw-man/ false equivalencies by NYT...It is dishonest & grows very tiresome.
NYT says,
"President Obama also promised to FIGHT big money...but FAILED TO DELIVER"
First of all, "promise to fight" does NOT equal, "Deliver LEGISLATION".
The "Reform" you speak of requires a little thing called, "LEGISLATION", you remember legislation, right NYT?
It is what the LEGISLATIVE branch is supposed to do...pass laws.
Laws for the President to SIGN or VETO. Legislation requires the Republican majority in Congress to DO what they are elected to do, rather than kow-towing to the Republican "leadership" & their evil Overlords, the Koch Bro.s
commands... to simply do absolutely NOTHING! (besides fund-raise for the endless election-cycle)
This "minor" FACT is all too often "forgotten" &/or failed to be noted or pointed out by NYT & other "ratings chasers" in the MSM. Most especially when trying to prove impartiallity.
By searching for a MOTE...
To balance against the BEAM,
in the Republican's eye.
A Congress that actually does
something...
Other than, destroy our
Republic, by totally ignoring their Solemn Oath of Office & treasonously subverting the Legislative branch of Government,
by choosing their Party affiliation over their CITIZENSHIP & the good of the Republic.
I say, the Republican obstructionists are ALL commiting treason!
NYT says,
"President Obama also promised to FIGHT big money...but FAILED TO DELIVER"
First of all, "promise to fight" does NOT equal, "Deliver LEGISLATION".
The "Reform" you speak of requires a little thing called, "LEGISLATION", you remember legislation, right NYT?
It is what the LEGISLATIVE branch is supposed to do...pass laws.
Laws for the President to SIGN or VETO. Legislation requires the Republican majority in Congress to DO what they are elected to do, rather than kow-towing to the Republican "leadership" & their evil Overlords, the Koch Bro.s
commands... to simply do absolutely NOTHING! (besides fund-raise for the endless election-cycle)
This "minor" FACT is all too often "forgotten" &/or failed to be noted or pointed out by NYT & other "ratings chasers" in the MSM. Most especially when trying to prove impartiallity.
By searching for a MOTE...
To balance against the BEAM,
in the Republican's eye.
A Congress that actually does
something...
Other than, destroy our
Republic, by totally ignoring their Solemn Oath of Office & treasonously subverting the Legislative branch of Government,
by choosing their Party affiliation over their CITIZENSHIP & the good of the Republic.
I say, the Republican obstructionists are ALL commiting treason!
2
When standing for Parliament one may spend up to 60 cents per voter in the district maxing out at $60,000.00. No union nor company may contribute, personal donations are held to$1100.00 annually with matching funding available from Elections Canada, CBC broadcast air time is also donated and the last time out 2 Conservatives were jailed for infractions. To contest all 306 seats a party spends about $18 million and need no matching funds in tat they are well financed but it's not how much you have, it's how much you can spend. That may be the root of universal healthcare and affordable education.
6
"That may be the root of universal healthcare and affordable education."
Only in the USA are lobbies able to write bills & pass them to Congress for enacting. No other democracies have lobbies in bed with the elected representatives that they funded to run in the primaries & in the election. eg.
1/ A 2014 NYT`s article quoted B.Baird a Dem. congressman: “The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money & you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that.” It also quoted J. Yarmuth, a congressman from Kentucky, on upholding the interests of the United States: “We all took an oath of office & AIPAC is asking us to ignore it.”
2/ Alan Dershowitz wrote “We (the Israel Lobby) became part of what is perhaps the most effective lobbying & fund-raising effort in the history of democracy. “ AIPAC has twice been rated as the most feared lobby in DC by the staffs of members of Congress.
The US must change its election campaign funding laws so that a foreign lobby (AIPAC) can no longer game the system and thereby control Congress against the interests of the nation. eg invading Iraq.
Only in the USA are lobbies able to write bills & pass them to Congress for enacting. No other democracies have lobbies in bed with the elected representatives that they funded to run in the primaries & in the election. eg.
1/ A 2014 NYT`s article quoted B.Baird a Dem. congressman: “The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money & you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that.” It also quoted J. Yarmuth, a congressman from Kentucky, on upholding the interests of the United States: “We all took an oath of office & AIPAC is asking us to ignore it.”
2/ Alan Dershowitz wrote “We (the Israel Lobby) became part of what is perhaps the most effective lobbying & fund-raising effort in the history of democracy. “ AIPAC has twice been rated as the most feared lobby in DC by the staffs of members of Congress.
The US must change its election campaign funding laws so that a foreign lobby (AIPAC) can no longer game the system and thereby control Congress against the interests of the nation. eg invading Iraq.
1
What would the dollar total for all campaign contributions be if we subtracted the money donated to Bernie's campaign and to the quixotic Libertarian and Green Party candidates? It's still billions more than it should be. If you can't cast a vote, you can't donate. If you donate more than $5,000 in total for any and all candidates running for any office, you must declare all donations beyond that amount publicly, in print, in the newspaper of record for your voting residence, at your own expense. That, in so many words, should be the law of the land.
3
Bernie Sanders showed that you don't need " mega-donors." But, we do need to move beyond overturning Citizens United to total public financing of all political campaigns including free TV time on the "publicly owned" airwaves. A free democracy should not be for sale, but that is the sad state of affairs leading to neglect of the public for the private interests.
14
I believe that if elected POTUS, Hillary Clinton, as a pragmatic, strong, and capable leader will do at least one of the following:
1. Work towards overturning Citizens United
2. Not sign the TPP and negotiate favorable trade agreements for Americans
3. Enact proper checks on Wall Street
4. Cut back on military intervention in the Middle East
5. Increase the minimum wage to meet living expenses
6. Raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans such as the Mega-Donors
7. Enforce and reform current immigration laws
8. Protect American jobs
9. Change Obamacare into a single-payer healthcare system
10. Make America Great Again
1. Work towards overturning Citizens United
2. Not sign the TPP and negotiate favorable trade agreements for Americans
3. Enact proper checks on Wall Street
4. Cut back on military intervention in the Middle East
5. Increase the minimum wage to meet living expenses
6. Raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans such as the Mega-Donors
7. Enforce and reform current immigration laws
8. Protect American jobs
9. Change Obamacare into a single-payer healthcare system
10. Make America Great Again
2
11. Sign a $30 million book deal.
1
We all know a major fix to money in politics would be to undo Citizens United, have campaigning only legal in even number years, have only public funding for elections. But unfortunately the people who decide the laws are the benefactors of all of this money and they will never, ever change until we have term limits for congress.
1
Something is very wrong when weeks before the election candidates are STILL going to fund raisers.
Overturn Citizens United, shorten dramatically the endless primary season, and provide equal public funds to each candidate.
Or the "madness" will only get worse.
Overturn Citizens United, shorten dramatically the endless primary season, and provide equal public funds to each candidate.
Or the "madness" will only get worse.
3
"It’s estimated that the $6.3 billion record set for election spending by presidential and congressional candidates in 2012 will be surpassed by at least a billion dollars this year, driven by affluent mega-donors whose insider heft with politicians grows with each seven-figure check they write."
Don't worry- After Hillary is elected by her mega-donor friends, she'll enact solid reforms to bring fairness and legitimacy to our Presidential Elections! She is amazing!
Don't worry- After Hillary is elected by her mega-donor friends, she'll enact solid reforms to bring fairness and legitimacy to our Presidential Elections! She is amazing!
5
Timely piece. "Her campaign insists its super PAC reliance is a temporary necessity to avoid being outspent by Republicans. But voters urging reform have reason for skepticism..." because the congressional foxes guard this proverbial hen house. For the same reason(s) that we won't see Congress do anything to advance the overdue notion of term limits. We need Mark Twain now more than ever.
5
I despair when I hear of the obscene sums being dumped down rat holes in our perpetual presidential campaigns. Fund raising has become a competitive sport and the money is largely wasted on high-paid media consultants and their ilk. Political media ads try for outrageousness to get free replay on news shows. The whole process is sordid.
Think of the good that money could do. Health care, education, child welfare, the arts. Instead we are tortured by years of absurd blather and invective, purchased by casino moguls.
Repeal of Citizen's United cannot come too soon.
Think of the good that money could do. Health care, education, child welfare, the arts. Instead we are tortured by years of absurd blather and invective, purchased by casino moguls.
Repeal of Citizen's United cannot come too soon.
6
Perpetual campaigns with the media moguls diving into the bank vault like Scrooge are like a runaway train headed for the end of the line.
A problem with any campaign finance reform is that the rules will always be written by people who are already in office. Incumbents win 70-80% of the time. Public financing programs always require that new entrants meet some threshold which is very difficult if they do not have name recognition, are wealthy themselves, or have big money donors hiding in the wings.
Effective campaign reform that included public financing would need the provision that incumbents get either zero public dollars or, better yet, one dollar for every four dollars non-incumbents get.
Effective campaign reform that included public financing would need the provision that incumbents get either zero public dollars or, better yet, one dollar for every four dollars non-incumbents get.
1
The Supreme Court initiated the problem with big money donors and only they can fix it. The next nomination for the Supreme Court will settle the issue for some time to come.
2
If I tiptoe and squint, I can almost see the rationale behind the Citizens United ruling. I can align it with the First Amendment, so long as it doesn't reach the level of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater.
What I can't see is how funding anything other than a flood of campaign advertising can count as protected speech. Big donors put money into campaigns and political action committees to fund professional staffs, research, polling, and myriad other expenses. For their money, these donors expect access, influence, and favorable legislation. This all goes well beyond the right to free speech.
I don't expect the Supreme Court to undo Citizens United, but a considerable narrowing is in order so that there's a distinction between free speech and the outright purchase of elected officials.
What I can't see is how funding anything other than a flood of campaign advertising can count as protected speech. Big donors put money into campaigns and political action committees to fund professional staffs, research, polling, and myriad other expenses. For their money, these donors expect access, influence, and favorable legislation. This all goes well beyond the right to free speech.
I don't expect the Supreme Court to undo Citizens United, but a considerable narrowing is in order so that there's a distinction between free speech and the outright purchase of elected officials.
1
One can hope that the Court's original faith that the flood of dissimulation would be so disgusting that people would simply come to ignore it all comes to fruition.
Anyone who actually imagines "dedicated follow-through from Mrs Clinton" on any actions beyond lip service to get her elected that do not benefit her Wall Street and Big Pharma donors, has not been paying attention to her history, to the revelations we are seeing this week through Wikileaks, to who she really is.
Just got back from a rally in Seattle for Pramila Jayapal for congress with an appearance by Bernie Sanders. Any mention by either of them to Clinton drew mostly boos. We get it. Any true reform to the obscene amount of money in our political system will come by supporting progressive candidates like Jayapal. They will never come from Hillary Clinton except in your dreams.
Just got back from a rally in Seattle for Pramila Jayapal for congress with an appearance by Bernie Sanders. Any mention by either of them to Clinton drew mostly boos. We get it. Any true reform to the obscene amount of money in our political system will come by supporting progressive candidates like Jayapal. They will never come from Hillary Clinton except in your dreams.
6
If you hacked all the e-mail of all the political operatives in the US, you would find the same things to whine about.
It is refreshing that the NYT Editorial board, by using the term "Republican oligarchs" so clearly acknowledges its existence. Why is this not more explored-so much more threatening to the Country than the latest Donald eruption....does anyone really not see that the country is run by a small group of wealthy people with their own interest primarily in mind? Electing Trump or Clinton will not really change this, although Trump is more demonstrably motivated to serve the wealthy business class and Clinton is at least making an effort to represent a wider socio-economic range of people.
Of course Clinton's acceptance of the so called 'dark money' needs to be mentioned. But only a fool would go to battle without the same resources as one's opponents.
And of course the requisite dig at Obama for 'not delivering' on campaign finance reform...like so many other progressive un-deliverables.....as if a willing bi-partisan Congress had presented the opportunity to accomplish these things.
Of course Clinton's acceptance of the so called 'dark money' needs to be mentioned. But only a fool would go to battle without the same resources as one's opponents.
And of course the requisite dig at Obama for 'not delivering' on campaign finance reform...like so many other progressive un-deliverables.....as if a willing bi-partisan Congress had presented the opportunity to accomplish these things.
3
"Of course Clinton's acceptance of the so called 'dark money' needs to be mentioned. But only a fool would go to battle without the same resources as one's opponents. "
I is now obvious to many voters that the wrong person "won" the Debbie Wasserman Shultz primary. Bernie was the only trustworthy candidate & declared he would not take dark money of lobbyist money while Hillary gleefully swims in the cesspool of Wall St & AIPAC money , her 2 co-owners.
I is now obvious to many voters that the wrong person "won" the Debbie Wasserman Shultz primary. Bernie was the only trustworthy candidate & declared he would not take dark money of lobbyist money while Hillary gleefully swims in the cesspool of Wall St & AIPAC money , her 2 co-owners.
3
Wealthy people giving money to a Billionaire, Trump?
The whole campaign is one big gambling game.
Who gives their money to a Billionaire? Think about it. It must be to buy influence.
The whole campaign is one big gambling game.
Who gives their money to a Billionaire? Think about it. It must be to buy influence.
2
As you indicate, why would George Soros donate or funnel money directly or indirectly to Hillary Clinton campaign?
Is there a different answer then to buy influence?
If there should be any type of campaign reform, not only should there be reform to the financing of elections, but the process and lengths of campaigns.
The financing of all elections should first be set up that donations are donated to a general campaign fund that is under the management of a reputable accounting firm under the scrutiny of an independent, democratic and republican watch dog groups. This will process will have a 2 fold benefit; first providing candidates equal access and equal finances, and second eliminating the appearance or actual buying of influence,
In addition, there would not be any need to set a ceiling threshold on the dollar amount of donations with the elimination of influence buying.
There are many practical ways elections can be reformed, however it is the acceptance of candidates and power brokers that will fight this tooth and nail.
Is there a different answer then to buy influence?
If there should be any type of campaign reform, not only should there be reform to the financing of elections, but the process and lengths of campaigns.
The financing of all elections should first be set up that donations are donated to a general campaign fund that is under the management of a reputable accounting firm under the scrutiny of an independent, democratic and republican watch dog groups. This will process will have a 2 fold benefit; first providing candidates equal access and equal finances, and second eliminating the appearance or actual buying of influence,
In addition, there would not be any need to set a ceiling threshold on the dollar amount of donations with the elimination of influence buying.
There are many practical ways elections can be reformed, however it is the acceptance of candidates and power brokers that will fight this tooth and nail.
As a result of all of the Wikileaks leaks, it's time that the Editorial Board of the New York Times endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for President of the United States.
25
It is going to take the Supreme Court to take elections off the market, so to speak. Our own legislators are in office with the assistance of outside money (to say nothing of their influences while in office), and are not just about to bite the hands that feed them.
2
The Citizens United decision exposed the Robert's Court as it then existed as hand maidens for the filthy rich, giving us subsequently pyrimethamine at $750 a pill among other such obscenities in a reality heavily influenced by an obeisent, muted, venal Congress.
1
It is as simple as this: He or she with the most money wins.
The dark money of anonymous mega donors is the scary part.
Especially when they are from foreign countries.
Think Saudi Arabia, or China, or Russia.....
The dark money of anonymous mega donors is the scary part.
Especially when they are from foreign countries.
Think Saudi Arabia, or China, or Russia.....
3
"Especially when they are (darl money) from foreign countries."
A 2014 NYT`s article quoted B.Baird a Dem. congressman: “The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money & you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that.” It also quoted J. Yarmuth, a congressman from Kentucky, on upholding the interests of the United States: “We all took an oath of office & AIPAC is asking us to ignore it.”
AIPAC has twice been rated as the most feared lobby in DC by the staffs of members of Congress.
The US must change its election campaign funding laws so that foreign lobby (AIPAC) can no longer game the system and thereby control Congress against the interests of the nation.
A 2014 NYT`s article quoted B.Baird a Dem. congressman: “The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money & you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that.” It also quoted J. Yarmuth, a congressman from Kentucky, on upholding the interests of the United States: “We all took an oath of office & AIPAC is asking us to ignore it.”
AIPAC has twice been rated as the most feared lobby in DC by the staffs of members of Congress.
The US must change its election campaign funding laws so that foreign lobby (AIPAC) can no longer game the system and thereby control Congress against the interests of the nation.
From the ashes of the Sanders revolution will come the campaign finance reform heros. They will ride in on small donor donations and angry for change voters. Greedy money hoarders beware, your political dominance days are numbered.
4
"We can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can`t have both."
--Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Great wealth breeds not only social injustice, but oligarchy as well.
--Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Great wealth breeds not only social injustice, but oligarchy as well.
12
"...he public’s concern has stirred virtually nothing in the way of a straight-talk debate between the two presidential candidates about how they would rein in the abuses of big money."
Who is supposed to rein in? Hillary Clinton who is the candidate who refused to run a campaign like Bernie Sanders with money from the public, the candidate has been raising the biggest bucks?
And what evidence does NYT have about Adelson funding Trump? All reports indicate he is giving to Republican Super PACs but not to Trump.
Who is supposed to rein in? Hillary Clinton who is the candidate who refused to run a campaign like Bernie Sanders with money from the public, the candidate has been raising the biggest bucks?
And what evidence does NYT have about Adelson funding Trump? All reports indicate he is giving to Republican Super PACs but not to Trump.
1
I hope that Hillary has the honor to take on the big money campaign that anointed her in 2008 as the next Democratic nominee. How come us Millenials have two Baby-Boomers to choose from btw?
Corporate Personhood has decreased my belief in humanity. I think Citizens United is the worst thing to happen to America since Vietnam. I feel I have no power, so I gave $250 to the Bernie Sanders campaign because he managed to create a huge organization all on small donations. I d9nt feel like giving money to Hillary is going to do much, she can just go make $3 million by spending the evening with some rich Democrat. I hope that after she is elected she doesn't decide to put her money where her mouth is (that is such a good sentence).
Down with corporate personhood!
Corporate Personhood has decreased my belief in humanity. I think Citizens United is the worst thing to happen to America since Vietnam. I feel I have no power, so I gave $250 to the Bernie Sanders campaign because he managed to create a huge organization all on small donations. I d9nt feel like giving money to Hillary is going to do much, she can just go make $3 million by spending the evening with some rich Democrat. I hope that after she is elected she doesn't decide to put her money where her mouth is (that is such a good sentence).
Down with corporate personhood!
1
I'm not quite sure I understand your ageist comment about Baby Boomers. Bernie Sanders was a popular candidate older than Baby Boomers, and Millennials supported him overwhelmingly. Perhaps it's best to check ageism at the door.
1
The US has the largest inequality in the western world. Every trend chart of income and especially wealth by distribution shows that the upper brackets have continued to grow while the others have grown slightly, or stagnated, or decreased. This isn’t just a US problem, it is global, and when one looks carefully inequality better explains some of the social disruptions that we are seeing than other causes. People can better tolerate one other when everyone is doing ok or well, but obviously that is not the case when the welfare of large segments of the population start stagnating and decreasing.
There are a number of reasons why inequality continues to grow, and one is the ability to influence government for the benefit of the upper brackets. There seems to be confusion between the ability of a millionaire or billionaire to express oneself or that of a corporate board vs. the typical citizen in this country, and the idea of one vote for one citizen. The corruption comes in the form of the representative form of government that we have, as citizens have no control over their representatives once they vote them into office and have no way to offset the influence of money of the special interests.
I don’t expect this to change, I expect it to get worse, and we will continue to see continued disruption of our cities, states, country and the world that we live in. Any changes will be dramatic, and probably not very pretty.
There are a number of reasons why inequality continues to grow, and one is the ability to influence government for the benefit of the upper brackets. There seems to be confusion between the ability of a millionaire or billionaire to express oneself or that of a corporate board vs. the typical citizen in this country, and the idea of one vote for one citizen. The corruption comes in the form of the representative form of government that we have, as citizens have no control over their representatives once they vote them into office and have no way to offset the influence of money of the special interests.
I don’t expect this to change, I expect it to get worse, and we will continue to see continued disruption of our cities, states, country and the world that we live in. Any changes will be dramatic, and probably not very pretty.
5
"as citizens have no control over their representatives once they vote them into office and have no way to offset the influence of money of the special interests. "
Exactly. Only the lobbies matter. eg. A 2014 NYT`s article quoted B.Baird a Dem. congressman: “The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money & you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that.” It also quoted J. Yarmuth, a congressman from Kentucky, on upholding the interests of the United States: “We all took an oath of office & AIPAC is asking us to ignore it.”
Exactly. Only the lobbies matter. eg. A 2014 NYT`s article quoted B.Baird a Dem. congressman: “The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money & you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that.” It also quoted J. Yarmuth, a congressman from Kentucky, on upholding the interests of the United States: “We all took an oath of office & AIPAC is asking us to ignore it.”
1
"To help level the spending field, Mrs. Clinton proposes to update the public financing system for presidential, Senate and congressional campaigns along the lines of the New York City model, which supplies matching funds to qualified candidates."
In 2011, the Supreme Court struck down just such a scheme that Arizona had used for several years. Per the Washington Post: "The court rejected Arizona’s system of providing additional funding to publicly funded candidates when they face big-spending opponents or opposition groups. The system has been used in every statewide and legislative election since voters approved it in 1998, after a rash of political scandals in the Arizona capitol."
Two questions: (1) How can New York City still use a system that the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in Arizona?, and (2) How is a similar system Mrs. Clinton proposes not unconstitutional per the Supreme Court's Arizona decision?
B
In 2011, the Supreme Court struck down just such a scheme that Arizona had used for several years. Per the Washington Post: "The court rejected Arizona’s system of providing additional funding to publicly funded candidates when they face big-spending opponents or opposition groups. The system has been used in every statewide and legislative election since voters approved it in 1998, after a rash of political scandals in the Arizona capitol."
Two questions: (1) How can New York City still use a system that the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in Arizona?, and (2) How is a similar system Mrs. Clinton proposes not unconstitutional per the Supreme Court's Arizona decision?
B
1
The Constitution reserves to the people right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The Supreme Court has said that money is speech, so it follows that donors can contribute money to legislators to get redress the grievances they perceive, and therefore laws against bribery are unconstitutional.
2
"The lure of outsized donations is corrupting the political process...Debate moderators have let the issue slip away."
While we are insisting, very rightly, on viewing Trumps tax returns, how about a financial release from every major media organization detailing their advertising revenue paid by political organizations? Until proved otherwise I will assume that the media makes out like bandits. Why would they blow the whistle on such a cash cow?
And the media has engaged in an orgy of free news coverage for Trump (estimated around $2 billions worth) right from the beginning of his bizarre campaign. Increased viewership gives leverage for increased advertising rates, or do I have this all wrong?
While we are insisting, very rightly, on viewing Trumps tax returns, how about a financial release from every major media organization detailing their advertising revenue paid by political organizations? Until proved otherwise I will assume that the media makes out like bandits. Why would they blow the whistle on such a cash cow?
And the media has engaged in an orgy of free news coverage for Trump (estimated around $2 billions worth) right from the beginning of his bizarre campaign. Increased viewership gives leverage for increased advertising rates, or do I have this all wrong?
2
Of course election time money madness is an issue of great significance. But neither the Supreme Court nor Congress will ever address it effectively unless it is addressed as one of the symptoms of how our society lives with money. The sick way in which this surfaces at election time could perhaps be regarded as the canary in our coalmine. But even if all forms of buying political influence were radically eliminated, we would not thereby have begun to address our destructive addiction to money. A NYT editorial will also not do what is needed. But if, for example, the Times in its entire editorial policy would become known for its deeply rooted and lasting commitment to resisting our greed in all of its forms, well that might give us some hope.
Discussion of ending Citizens United during HRC/Drumpf debates is totally absent... Drumpf has rightly cited HRC's being beholden to countless Wall Street donors... Wikileaks confirms HRC is untrustworthy...
6
In a society that worships money, it is impossible to cut off the influence of lucre from politics. Money can buy everything in life and the only question is whether the price is right. The only way -- and wholly unrealistic -- would be to limit by law the sums that candidates can expend on their elections. It would be interesting to see the election results of such financially restrictive campaigns.
There would certainly be much less hot air let out by the candidates for office.
There would certainly be much less hot air let out by the candidates for office.
Decrying mega-donors while taking donations from mega-donors, as Mrs. Clinton has done, is disingenuous. Sort of like Trump saying he's the man to fix the trade issues as he makes his wares abroad and uses imported steel in his buildings.
The only one who had any credibility on the campaign finance issue was Bernie Sanders. Was. Sadly.
The only one who had any credibility on the campaign finance issue was Bernie Sanders. Was. Sadly.
18
You bought him. You are stuck with him. No returns and no refunds.
11
Citizens United is a faux issue. What difference does it really matter how much Trump or Clinton spend. Does anyone not know who they are? Presidential elections are almost never decided by spending. Indeed getting of big donors means that only the Trumps of the world can ever run for office. Better to worry about disclosure and the spending on state and local elections.
We have a system in place that can quickly bring an end to much of the corruption that taints our political process: public funding. It appears political candidates will continue to opt out of it, however, unless they are forced by new legislation to opt in.
1
As any time in analyzing Hillary, it is important to examine her actions vs. her words.
In which case we must conclude that there is about a snow flakes chance in Hades that Hillary will do anything but point to her web site, cash the check, and smile.
On the other hand her opponent is one of the only ones ever that has self funded a majority of his campaign.
In which case we must conclude that there is about a snow flakes chance in Hades that Hillary will do anything but point to her web site, cash the check, and smile.
On the other hand her opponent is one of the only ones ever that has self funded a majority of his campaign.
6
Trump has said he is financing his own campaign. What he is doing is getting loans from himself to do what financing he has done. When it is all over he will repay these loans with other people's money. He probably won't stiff these loans.
You say the two candidates have not debated the issue of big money. A "grave omission". Then go on to say the moderators let it get away. Then go on to say HRC broached the subject at the debate to reverse Citizens United by changing the mix of SCOTUS.
Well if she can do that hurray for the good ole US of A! That would be a victory for ALL our citizens.
Well if she can do that hurray for the good ole US of A! That would be a victory for ALL our citizens.
1
If I was an economist, I would tell the politiciens to be careful about election finance. After all, you do not want to kill the golden egg which is the engine of the American economy every two years.
Smells like oligarchy to me. We only have to look as far as what was done to Senator Sanders by institutions like the New York Times.
5
The Lord willing, Hillary will win and the Democrats will regain a Senate majority. She'll then nominate a reasonable person to the Supreme Court...and they will then dismantle this and so many other decisions that have driven the left, the center, and even some of the right crazy for years. Suffering for the far right is long overdue.
1
I agree that the Clinton proposals make sense. However, the POTUS has limited power in domestic affairs--the veto pen and the bully pulpit. Elizabeth Warren has shown how a senator can help to clean out the stables using the power of a Senator--Stumpf is gone. But unfortunately the mess needs a lot more attention. Let's hope for more senators to join Warren in her crusade. And let's hope more Democrats realize that the way to reform is by pushing back, not by wishing for the impossible. Push. Push Back.
1
So we are to trust that the women who goes that in hand to every Wall Street firm and accepts money from everyone and anyone will do a 180 degree turn once she is in office and ban it all. Hillary has made herself extremely wealthy from her "public service". Hillary will continue to do exactly what is good for her and nobody else.
3
The first part of this battle is a thorough educational campaign. Nothing will be accomplished unless both the right and the left understand the devastation this poses to our democracy. We need for example to bring back civics courses in schools. But the fight is much larger than getting children involved in democracy. We must find the political will to energize the entire country before the political establishment will be part of the change.
1
According to the FEC over $5 million dollars has been spent so far on our NY 19 congressional race by Super PACs and two billionaires(at half a million dollars each) in the effort to defeat the Democratic insurgent Zephyr Teachout. Nearly 80% of that has been in negative media ads against her. Unless stringent campaign finance reform is made to occur in the next two years, the literal sale of public office will decimate what remains of public trust in our democracy and elected officials. Easy to see why big money would pony up against the author of "Corruption in America" whose donations average $19 each.
3
When the mega-donors own the networks and almost all the new media how can it be otherwise that (lke the NYT) the media is virtually in the 'hate Trump"terratory and there is no space for sensible discussion of issues. The thing that sticks our in the anti Trump windstorm is that virtually all the hateful charges made by either party are as applicable to themselves as to their opponents. Kennedy, Clinton, M, L. King, and lots of others have succumbed to the lures of sex besides Trump. So let's get off the high horse and quit acting to noble as we condemn the assorted sinners. Who is louder in the front wave of self-righteous shouters than Hillary and her followers when they should be discussing issues?
3
The simplest means of reducing money's influence on politics is to reduce the cost of politics. Most of the big money is paid to broadcast television stations which license public airwaves. A 90% tax on sales of air space for political ads (i.e., a publicly granted resource) would: 1) reduce the broadcasting industry's incentive to gin up political controversy and 2) provide the revenue for public finance of campaigns.
The hypocrisy of the Editorial Board knows few bounds. After ignoring Bernie's warning of Hillary's big money ties, NOW the Editorial Board is concerned?
She is the MOST corrupt politician with international as well as domestic donors, all expecting something for their money.
At least Donald Trump isn't beholden.
The Editorial Board spouts nonsense and few believe (even those that support her) that Hillary will be anything but beholden to these donors and interests to the detriment of the American citizens and small business.
I'm certainly not willing to give her a chance.
She is the MOST corrupt politician with international as well as domestic donors, all expecting something for their money.
At least Donald Trump isn't beholden.
The Editorial Board spouts nonsense and few believe (even those that support her) that Hillary will be anything but beholden to these donors and interests to the detriment of the American citizens and small business.
I'm certainly not willing to give her a chance.
6
Let us not forget that President Obama was the first candidate to eschew public financing because it was more constraining than raising lots of money without limit.
But what if the NYT got its wish and instead of super PACs, the Kochs et al decided to buy the NYT and turn it into the paper equivalent of Fox News? If corporations that own newspapers are effectively exempt from spending limits, we can expect super PACs to become "news" organizations or movie studios. Or will Michael Moore be subject to limits on what he can do that is political (which is everything he does.)
Remember that Citizens United was about a group that made a movie critical of Hilary Clinton. How does that differ from what Michael Moore does?
But what if the NYT got its wish and instead of super PACs, the Kochs et al decided to buy the NYT and turn it into the paper equivalent of Fox News? If corporations that own newspapers are effectively exempt from spending limits, we can expect super PACs to become "news" organizations or movie studios. Or will Michael Moore be subject to limits on what he can do that is political (which is everything he does.)
Remember that Citizens United was about a group that made a movie critical of Hilary Clinton. How does that differ from what Michael Moore does?
3
The twin issues of campaign financing and congressional redistricting are apparently much thornier to actually "solve" than most of us would believe. At a minimum, a change would require current politicians to concede some present advantage for the promise of an improved future. We desperately need to try new rules, but I am not hopeful.
Sheldon and Donald. Wow. Now there is a pair of gilded lilies the likes of which gives one the shivers.
\
After America becomes great again following the upcoming Republican campaign flameout, the only pace these guys will be welcomed will be in the only remaining vestiges of their megalopolis. As hair colorists in the spa and salon at Trump's School for Beauticians.
\
After America becomes great again following the upcoming Republican campaign flameout, the only pace these guys will be welcomed will be in the only remaining vestiges of their megalopolis. As hair colorists in the spa and salon at Trump's School for Beauticians.
2
It borders on comical to suggest that Hillary Clinton would rein in mega donors. The Times reported that she spent almost all of August raising money from the super rich. She has been the preferred Democratic candidate of the big money from the beginning of the campaign. There was a Democratic candidate who raised the overwhelming majority of his funds from small donors, but the Times had a corporate policy of attacking him in every article and opinion piece. After cheer leading for Hillary Clinton from day one, it seems, at the very least, disingenuous to now note the corrupting role of super donors in US politics. There will perhaps be a time when the power of the ruling class is rolled back, but it surely won't be during a Clinton presidency.
34
Politicians who want to rein in the influence of big money in politics are faced with a dilemma that renders them open to the charge of hypocrisy: campaign against Citizens United while accepting money from big donors. Contradictory as it may appear, they have no way out. They can depend on the small donations of their supporters while refusing to accept big money, as Sanders did. The trouble is that our small donations are not sufficient to wage the two year costly battle to get elected. And if you don't get elected, no amount of good intentions will bring about the desired goal. The alternative is to campaign against the very system that allows you to campaign. The solution is to dismantle the preposterous idea that money is free speech. What it is is power and in a democracy no one should have more power than anyone else.
Meanwhile, politicians are being corrupted while lamenting their need to do so in order to survive. It's a loss loss situation for everyone.
Meanwhile, politicians are being corrupted while lamenting their need to do so in order to survive. It's a loss loss situation for everyone.
60
Nonsense comment. The President does not make laws, the Congress does. The votes to fix the problem have to be in the Congress not the White House. As the Tea Party nuts showed us most recently if you want to get something done you need congress.
@mkn Where, I pray, do you find in my comment that it is said the a President makes laws. Candidates run on a variety of proposals which, if they can, are presented to Congress for implementation through laws.
The straight-talk debate on the issue of campaign finance or the negative fall out of the Supreme Court's Citizen's United ruling could be possible only when any one of the presidential candidates had at least shown the courage to set some standard by turning away from the donors, and fight the election on the strength of popular connect, convictions, and small contributions by the supporters. In the absence of this all, the whole reform talk about the funding of elections just sounds hollow.
40
Hollow you say?
No, a joke. Mostly a joke by the Clinton Money Machine, whose good fortune it is to be running against Trump.
Maybe after her re-election she ca close the barn door a bit.
But until then the Clintons will do everything possible to tell everyone to "show me the money"!
No, a joke. Mostly a joke by the Clinton Money Machine, whose good fortune it is to be running against Trump.
Maybe after her re-election she ca close the barn door a bit.
But until then the Clintons will do everything possible to tell everyone to "show me the money"!
1
Somebody successfully did this in the primary election: Bernie Sanders. Unfortunately, the ruling elites in the Democratic Party sabotaged his candidacy and now the Wikileaks email dump has shown that the current candidate, Hillary Clinton, has solicited and received tens of millions of dollars from Wall Street donors.
9
We need to know who gets what from where. The old saying, “Follow the money” has never been more apropos. Once again - no good deeds going unpunished - the burden falls upon the press - the Times and its leading colleagues in the newspaper trade - to dig harder and deeper to document the corruption, expose the pols who are first and foremost corporate tools, not public servants, and present the evidence to the people.
Bought and sold politicians will never, ever bring us campaign finance reform. An informed populace will demand it and vote those lawmakers out of office.
Our only hope is a free press. That, thankfully, we still have.
Bought and sold politicians will never, ever bring us campaign finance reform. An informed populace will demand it and vote those lawmakers out of office.
Our only hope is a free press. That, thankfully, we still have.
89
A free press sounds good except when we have six companies owning more than 90% of the media that is very problematic. These media conglomerates are a result of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, signed by Bill Clinton.
170
"These media conglomerates are a result of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, signed by Bill Clinton.z
Exactly. And now they are paying back by supporting his wife by any and all means.
Exactly. And now they are paying back by supporting his wife by any and all means.
5
There are now thousands of media outlets thanks to the internet. The barrier to entry for digital news organizations is very low. That's where the future lies.
"[V]oters urging reform have reason for skepticism about whether they will get the reform they’re hoping for. As a candidate, President Obama also vowed to fight for big-money political reform, but he did not deliver."
Exactly. Wikileaks' release of the Podesta emails has shown that Hillary Clinton believes in having a PUBLIC POSITION AND A PRIVATE POSITION when speaking to wealthy donors. So just like Obama, if Clinton Is elected president she will advance the agenda of her big money contributors, including those who have given to the Clinton Foundation (a pay to play scheme).
More than half of the Foundation money comes from foreign donors. Saudi Arabia has given the Foundation between $10 and $25 million, and gave Hillary Clinton jewelry worth half a million dollars. Qatar gave Bill Clinton a birthday present: a $1 million donation to the Foundation. And in one of the newly released emails from Clinton to Podesta, Clinton acknowledged in August 2014 that Saudi Arabia and Qatar "are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region."
NYT, you are failing to do your job by not reporting on what has been revealed in the emails. And you helped to sabotage Bernie Sanders' campaign . The emails reveal that two of your reporters, Patrick Healy and Maggie Haberman, allowed the Clinton campaign to edit their articles. Very disappointing and troublesome.
Exactly. Wikileaks' release of the Podesta emails has shown that Hillary Clinton believes in having a PUBLIC POSITION AND A PRIVATE POSITION when speaking to wealthy donors. So just like Obama, if Clinton Is elected president she will advance the agenda of her big money contributors, including those who have given to the Clinton Foundation (a pay to play scheme).
More than half of the Foundation money comes from foreign donors. Saudi Arabia has given the Foundation between $10 and $25 million, and gave Hillary Clinton jewelry worth half a million dollars. Qatar gave Bill Clinton a birthday present: a $1 million donation to the Foundation. And in one of the newly released emails from Clinton to Podesta, Clinton acknowledged in August 2014 that Saudi Arabia and Qatar "are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region."
NYT, you are failing to do your job by not reporting on what has been revealed in the emails. And you helped to sabotage Bernie Sanders' campaign . The emails reveal that two of your reporters, Patrick Healy and Maggie Haberman, allowed the Clinton campaign to edit their articles. Very disappointing and troublesome.
152
This "public" and "private" political stance has been the modus operandi of all successful politicians since man began organizing countries. Joe Klein of Time Magazine put it best, in his excellent piece, "why the Russian hacks of Hillary Clinton's campaign should reassure us all."
Klein says in essence that this "gotcha" moment everybody is leaping on simply reveals how things work in a democracy. Her example of the "sausage making" politics in Lincoln, was just that: can you imagine if Lyndon Johnson communicated via emails, and they were hacked during passage of all those programs in the Great Society?
According to Klein, Clinton's emails have no "big reveal" she was making deals to favor big banks, she was merely explaining the tradeoffs politicians make with industries all the time. Other emails reveal the inner workings and discussions of a campaign--for Bernie purists, how do you suppose his staff was talking, something we'll never know because his email privacy was respected.
The concept of "purity in politics" is relatively new. Show me any politician whose public stance was upheld during tradeoffs with opponents to pass legislation. The only reason Clinton is jumped on is that hers are the only emails ever hacked and released to the public.
Klein says in essence that this "gotcha" moment everybody is leaping on simply reveals how things work in a democracy. Her example of the "sausage making" politics in Lincoln, was just that: can you imagine if Lyndon Johnson communicated via emails, and they were hacked during passage of all those programs in the Great Society?
According to Klein, Clinton's emails have no "big reveal" she was making deals to favor big banks, she was merely explaining the tradeoffs politicians make with industries all the time. Other emails reveal the inner workings and discussions of a campaign--for Bernie purists, how do you suppose his staff was talking, something we'll never know because his email privacy was respected.
The concept of "purity in politics" is relatively new. Show me any politician whose public stance was upheld during tradeoffs with opponents to pass legislation. The only reason Clinton is jumped on is that hers are the only emails ever hacked and released to the public.
33
What utter tripe. One presents one's positions on issues in the terms most likely to be understood by the audience. This varies from audience to audience.
1
Hillary Clinton every doing anything against those who have moved the Clinton family from rags to riches, is simply delusional.
4
Some suggest that as much as 80% of REPUBLICANS would like to see less influence of big money on politics. I was against the Citizens United decision, although I understood its reasoning. This is the problem with depending on the courts to usurp the proper role of legislatures: you often get what you wish for.
But, we should point out that Trump has been cut off from big money basically since he secured the Republican nomination, while Sec. Clinton has tapped Democratic money from the beginning of her campaign. It seems that the real object of this editorial is the money that House and Senate candidates get from large donors who seek to make up for the outsized advantages Democratic opponents still enjoy from union support and an MSM that remains overwhelmingly liberal. It should be remembered that unions enjoy the same ability to fund campaigns or denounce candidates as wealthy conservatives do, and take every opportunity to do so.
Where would Hillary Clinton be without those donors, particularly in the financial services sector? Possibly defeated by Bernie Sanders, who mounted a far more effective small-donation engine. And, of course, Trump has been largely self-funded, which always was permitted.
The time to rail against Citizens United is if and when Sec. Clinton is elected, because if that happens then the likelihood is high that a very different decision about freedom of political expression will come out of the U.S. Supreme Court in late 2017.
But, we should point out that Trump has been cut off from big money basically since he secured the Republican nomination, while Sec. Clinton has tapped Democratic money from the beginning of her campaign. It seems that the real object of this editorial is the money that House and Senate candidates get from large donors who seek to make up for the outsized advantages Democratic opponents still enjoy from union support and an MSM that remains overwhelmingly liberal. It should be remembered that unions enjoy the same ability to fund campaigns or denounce candidates as wealthy conservatives do, and take every opportunity to do so.
Where would Hillary Clinton be without those donors, particularly in the financial services sector? Possibly defeated by Bernie Sanders, who mounted a far more effective small-donation engine. And, of course, Trump has been largely self-funded, which always was permitted.
The time to rail against Citizens United is if and when Sec. Clinton is elected, because if that happens then the likelihood is high that a very different decision about freedom of political expression will come out of the U.S. Supreme Court in late 2017.
27
Clinton will be elected. Anyone favoring Trump is wishing for the Armageddeon. The religious right may be happy with that until they find there is no heaven or hell.
"Donald Trump continues to insist that he relies on his personal wealth, not influence-craving donors, to finance his campaign. That may have been true in the primary elections, but Sheldon Adelson and other Republican oligarchs are heavily backing him in the homestretch drive."
As with all statements of fact in what are inherently forensic writings, I would have preferred that the editors elaborate on this statement and provide citations to sources. While some will argue that space does not permit, I have seen others do this very economically with links. That criticism having been made, I must ask whether you are implicitly accusing the editors responsible for this passage of outright dishonesty?
As for any negative consequences in this election campaign of Mrs. Clinton's reliance upon big-ticket donors, her party is now reaping what it sowed by stacking the deck against Senator Sanders' campaign. Should Citizens United be overturned for the safety of our republic? So it seems to me. Can a second President Clinton be counted upon to make this a truly principal objective of her administration? That seems to me much more doubtful.
As with all statements of fact in what are inherently forensic writings, I would have preferred that the editors elaborate on this statement and provide citations to sources. While some will argue that space does not permit, I have seen others do this very economically with links. That criticism having been made, I must ask whether you are implicitly accusing the editors responsible for this passage of outright dishonesty?
As for any negative consequences in this election campaign of Mrs. Clinton's reliance upon big-ticket donors, her party is now reaping what it sowed by stacking the deck against Senator Sanders' campaign. Should Citizens United be overturned for the safety of our republic? So it seems to me. Can a second President Clinton be counted upon to make this a truly principal objective of her administration? That seems to me much more doubtful.
1
This is the problem of appointing naifs devoid of real world experience to the Supreme Court.
1
"Debate moderators have let the issue slip away."
Indeed they have. I've read that "getting rid of money in politics" pretty much universally makes it to the top 5 of voter wish lists.
And yet, after two presidential candidate debates, it's been broached once and not followed up on. Actually, had the Board not even mentioned this factoid, I'd assumed it hadn't been asked at all.
While I'm familiar with Clinton's main proposals, I wasn't aware of all her down in the weeds ideas for reforming campaign finance reform listed in this editorial. And yes, while it's understandable how much voters remain skeptical about her intentions to follow through on this--given the breadth of her war chest and the documented fact that this campaign has been the costliest ever--I believe voters will hold her feet to the fire. Given her unpopularity, if elected she will be on an extremely tight leash.
We know the GOP will do nothing about this, as their lifeblood is big-spending donors, documented as always outspending Democrats. The main reason why the GOP continues to be unenthusiastically OK with a President Trump is their obsession with the Supreme Court--one that presumably will protect Citizens United, and thus their own re-election coffers.
Maybe Chris Wallace will raise the issue again on Wednesday. I'd be interested in having him perhaps ask Mr. Trump why voters should trust him the best one to "fix" the "rigged" system of quid pro quo he claims to have exploited so well.
Indeed they have. I've read that "getting rid of money in politics" pretty much universally makes it to the top 5 of voter wish lists.
And yet, after two presidential candidate debates, it's been broached once and not followed up on. Actually, had the Board not even mentioned this factoid, I'd assumed it hadn't been asked at all.
While I'm familiar with Clinton's main proposals, I wasn't aware of all her down in the weeds ideas for reforming campaign finance reform listed in this editorial. And yes, while it's understandable how much voters remain skeptical about her intentions to follow through on this--given the breadth of her war chest and the documented fact that this campaign has been the costliest ever--I believe voters will hold her feet to the fire. Given her unpopularity, if elected she will be on an extremely tight leash.
We know the GOP will do nothing about this, as their lifeblood is big-spending donors, documented as always outspending Democrats. The main reason why the GOP continues to be unenthusiastically OK with a President Trump is their obsession with the Supreme Court--one that presumably will protect Citizens United, and thus their own re-election coffers.
Maybe Chris Wallace will raise the issue again on Wednesday. I'd be interested in having him perhaps ask Mr. Trump why voters should trust him the best one to "fix" the "rigged" system of quid pro quo he claims to have exploited so well.
133
"While I'm familiar with Clinton's main proposals, I wasn't aware of all her down in the weeds ideas for reforming campaign finance reform listed in this editorial. And yes, while it's understandable how much voters remain skeptical about her intentions to follow through on this--given the breadth of her war chest and the documented fact that this campaign has been the costliest ever--I believe voters will hold her feet to the fire. Given her unpopularity, if elected she will be on an extremely tight leash."
Prior to the 2000 election, this would have seemed in line with common wisdom. As is clear at least from the Cheney/Bush administrations, it has become dangerous to assume that an administration put in office even by contested election results will behave with becoming humility.
To the best of my recollection, the administrations of the previous President Clinton were willing to jettison campaign initiatives they considered (after the fact of election) to be minor in favor of concentrating on a few which, in the opinion of that administration (after the fact of election), voters were really concerned about. While some may not agree, it seems to me fair to characterize the current Clinton presidential candidate as having been a minister without portfolio in those prior Clinton administrations.
Prior to the 2000 election, this would have seemed in line with common wisdom. As is clear at least from the Cheney/Bush administrations, it has become dangerous to assume that an administration put in office even by contested election results will behave with becoming humility.
To the best of my recollection, the administrations of the previous President Clinton were willing to jettison campaign initiatives they considered (after the fact of election) to be minor in favor of concentrating on a few which, in the opinion of that administration (after the fact of election), voters were really concerned about. While some may not agree, it seems to me fair to characterize the current Clinton presidential candidate as having been a minister without portfolio in those prior Clinton administrations.
1
I want to pay party dues to participate in the nomination of a consistent national slate of candidates.
"Given her unpopularity, if elected she will be on an extremely tight leash."
On a tight leash by whom? Citizens whose voice have been silenced by Hillary Clinton supporters aka donors?
On a tight leash by whom? Citizens whose voice have been silenced by Hillary Clinton supporters aka donors?
5
Who do you think you're kidding? There is only one mega-donor candidate now, and it is Hillary.
Bernie tried to raise that, and people like this Editorial Board would not hear it.
Now Trump does try to raise that, and people like this Editorial Board still refuse to hear it.
Bernie tried to raise that, and people like this Editorial Board would not hear it.
Now Trump does try to raise that, and people like this Editorial Board still refuse to hear it.
140
Who do you think you're kidding?
Mark: so we should vote for Trump?
Perhaps the message is being poisoned by association with the messenger. Mr. Romney has been eclipsed in demonstrated cynicism by Mr. Trump.