Re: Abortion, redux
posted at 10/8/2013 4:15 PM EDT
In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
Cash money isnt speech. The freedom to associate with others , and contribute your own property, including cash, and your time, to a political cause is free speech.
The second sentence contradicts the first. The court said that money = speech.
Citizen United paves the way for doing away with pretty much any and every limitation on political donations. Buy your candidate openly and proudly, the American Way!
It's perverse that you seem to cheer this on. You do realize there are rich Ds out there. Do you want them purchasing elections?
The only thing they can hang their hat on s that Citizens United was predicated on the assumption that there was no appearance of corruption in the whole political donations arena.
Did you know a single wealthy liberal contributor helped make Eugene McCarthy's shoe string campaign a household name in 1968? Otherwise he would not have had a prayer against an incumbent President...and it resulted in LBJ not running for a second term.
Under today's campaign finance reform, or deform, such underdogs have no shot..they have to hire a dozen lawyers to figure out all the paperwork.
So in the interest of preventing the rich from having too much influence, campaign finance reform gave huge advantages to wealthy plutocrats like Jon Corzine, the Kennedys, Nancy Pelosi , Mitt Romney, who could spend to run for office...
Government regulated and funded campaigns means the Government purchases the election results...for the Government.
"Taking money out of politics", means another Government bailout, of politicians.