Elections 4 $ale

I’m trying not to be too upset about SCOTUS’ ruling lifting the cap on individual campaign contributions. I mean, think about it: if money alone could decide an election, we’d have President Gingrich and Vice President Adelson today.

Trust me, I’m not thinking this is a good thing by any means. But let’s be real, the rich are not our betters, nor are they necessarily any smarter than anyone else. I just trotted over to OpenSecrets.org and got a look at Lee and Kelly Beaman’s latest campaign contributions. Here I found they both donated generously to Liz Cheney’s aborted senate campaign — not exactly a smart investment, since any idiot knew she wasn’t going to go the distance — as well as the notorious Palin grift vehicle known as SarahPAC. Now that we know they can just keep on giving, maybe these folks will all be bankrupt before too long. Fools and their money, after all.

The place this is really going to hurt, I think, is on things like ballot initiatives and local elections. Because even though this ruling only applied to federal elections, I have to wonder if states aren’t going to do away with their own restrictions now. Seems like a few have already tried.

But you know, here’s the thing: Congress could pass a law. They could say that corporations aren’t people and money isn’t speech and all of that other stuff. They could pass a law saying all federal elections have to be publicly financed. They won’t, but they could, if we elect the right people. So elections do matter.

Also, you know who the big beneficiary of this is, right? The corporate media. All of those campaign contributions run straight into their coffers, most of them at least. That explains a helluva lot, don’t it?

Gotta think the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves right now, though. If money is speech, the poor are voiceless. Is that your vision of America? Shameful.

About these ads

16 Comments

Filed under campaign finance, Media, Supreme Court

16 responses to “Elections 4 $ale

  1. Eykis

    I am constantly astounded at the ignorance of voters who pay no attention to the “news”. They do not realize what is happening with the fleecing of Americans rights. Vote, Vote, Vote – each and every election you are qualified to vote in – go with the Democrats – they at least try to get some work done.

  2. There should be a limit to campaign contributions. It’s mind blowing how different my $100 contribution is to Adelson’s $100 M. It’s so wrong, so, so wrong. Don’t the Republicans feel no shame anymore ?

  3. Joseph Stans

    The founding fathers aere not rolling over in theri grave.
    they are laughing their asses off. Asa country we were never that bright and our education certainly has not been spectacular over the last couple of hundred years. but mostly we have forgotten our history. we have forgotten aristocrats and kind of lives we lived under aristocrats. I am ready to move to Canada, papers and all.

    • deep

      Gotta think the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves right now, though. If money is speech, the poor are voiceless. Is that your vision of America? Shameful.

      Yeah… considering only property owners could vote back in 1789, I’m not sure the founding fathers cared very much about poor people either.

  4. Randy

    The aristocrats ignore history at their own peril. Committing thought crimes right now. No fee.

  5. Shredder

    The other problem is that this will drive the media even further to the right, since the corporate media is the main recipient of all that spending. Quite the disincentive to report on the corruption of politics by money.

  6. Mary Wilson

    OK, people, here’s the deal. No matter how much dirty money these insane fools throw at our elections, the truth is this. The millionaires, INCLUDING a large number of our CONGRESS, can NOT buy up every positive vote for change. This is where we need to stop talking about them and get out and work on ending VOTER suppression. Here in Tennessee we have some GREAT Democrats running in local and State, AND National elections. WE have the power to get some of these TEAs and gun nut jobs out of office…including quite a few strong, independent, super-intelligent WOMEN candidates running to WIN against slugs like Stacey Campfield and Dr. DesJarlais. Let me know and I will send you a LIST you CAN support!

  7. Jim in Memphis

    If the Supreme Court has ruled that this spending is protected under the 1st Amendment would it be Constitutional for Congress to pass a law restricting this spending? Isn’t that what the Court just ruled against?

    • They’ll need to look over the argument that says money = speech and write a law accordingly. I mean, at one point in time the Constitution said black people were only 3/5ths of a person and only property owners had voting rights. We changed that.

      Just because the Supreme Court makes a ruling doesn’t mean it’s written in stone. In Buck v Bell SCOTUS ruled that the state had the right to forcibly sterilize those if felt were “genetically inferior.” That was back in 1924. Pretty sure that shit’s illegal nowadays.

      Much to Teanuts’ dismay, the Constitution is not, in fact, cemented in time but is indeed an evolving document to meet our changing needs and changing times.

      I mean, God. Two words: Dred Scott.

    • You’ve been pretty clear that you don’t support any political party, Mr. Taker; why do you even give a shit about campaign spending limits? All you have to do is sit back and do nothing, while other idiots spend their money to guarantee that your sociopathic paradise will come into being.

      • Jim in Memphis

        I don’t really care one way or the other on the campaign spending. My question was on the authority of Congress to simply pass a law that would undo this Supreme Court ruling. Please note that a Constitutional Amendment would be entirely different since it would actually change the constitution and then require a new interpretation of the laws.

        But lets take a look at another example. Lets say Congress passes a law that outlaws abortion. Now we all know that the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal, so would abortion then become illegal until another court overturned the new law? If the courts overturned the new law and Congress just goes ahead and passes another law outlawing abortion would it revert back to illegal until a court ruled on it again? How often would Congress be allowed to outlaw something that the Supreme Court has ruled is legal?

      • They would probably have to pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

  8. “I don’t really care one way or the other on the campaign spending.”

    Color me skeptical. People who don’t care about shit don’t talk about it.

    “They would probably have to pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion.”

    They know that such a thing is probably very nearly an Impossibility. That’s why they keep trying to overturn Roe v Wade; except when they’re busy creating jobs.

    • They’ve stopped trying to overturn Roe v Wade. Instead they’re trying to dismantle it piece by piece: death by a thousand cuts.

      I never understood the argument for destroying Planned Parenthood. Abortion is just a tiny piece of what they do, a bigger piece of what they do is preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place which, you know, keeps abortion from even being a necessity. And the people who work there: doctors, nurses, receptionists, nurse practitioners … aren’t those jobs?