We are #1

[whell]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

The problem is fixed elections, primarily due to gerrymandering and virtually unlimited corporate money due to "Citizens United", both of which are Republican wet dreams.

Well, looks like your DNC pals have adapted.

In the intervening years, Obama and his fellow Democrats embraced big-money politics. Democrats formed super-PACs to defend the presidency, gain seats in the House of Representatives, and preserve their majority in the Senate. Obama is the first president in history to utilize a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) group, which can accept unlimited sums from anonymous donors, to promote his policy agenda.

Too bad they couldn't figure out how to use the money they earned to their advantage in the last election cycle.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...itizens-united

[whell]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

The problem is fixed elections, primarily due to gerrymandering and virtually unlimited corporate money due to "Citizens United", both of which are Republican wet dreams.

Love this one too.

http://watchdog.org/129000/citizens-...ers-elections/

The loosening of federal rules for political spending has done more to help Democrats than Republicans, according to two recent analyses of campaign contributions.

Those facts run counter to a well-established national media narrative — one often repeated by liberal groups and Democratic lawmakers who bemoan the influence of corporate cash in politics after the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2010 opened the flood gates to unlimited political spending — that says Republicans and their big business allies have been able to unduly influence elections with unfettered spending.

Both sides play the game, but which has benefited the most from unfettered political spending?

When all the numbers were added up, it wasn’t even close in 2013.

An analysis by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit that tracks political spending, of groups and individuals who wrote checks of more than $10,000 to super PACs and other political committees found big labor outspent big business by a margin of more than 2-to-1 during 2013.

More:

That unions favor Democrats is hardly a surprise, and even though the majority of corporations gave to Republicans, the Sunlight Foundation analysis found the largest single corporate donor was the Mostyn Law Firm, which gave more than $1.1 million to liberal super PACs.

The two largest individual donors during 2013 — billionaire banker Tom Steyer ($11.1 million) and Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City ($8.7 million) — both gave mostly to Democrats, too.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

Well, looks like your DNC pals have adapted.

In the intervening years, Obama and his fellow Democrats embraced big-money politics. Democrats formed super-PACs to defend the presidency, gain seats in the House of Representatives, and preserve their majority in the Senate. Obama is the first president in history to utilize a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) group, which can accept unlimited sums from anonymous donors, to promote his policy agenda.

Too bad they couldn't figure out how to use the money they earned to their advantage in the last election cycle.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...itizens-united

So?

You expect the Dems to unilaterally disarm?

That would be like bringing water ballons to a gunfight.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

If not for Jebbie, Katherine Harris and the Supremes, Al Gore would have been president on 9/11.

Your point?

John

You don't have to have a point to have a point. In this case though, I'm not surprised by your question.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

So?

You expect the Dems to unilaterally disarm?

That would be like bringing water ballons to a gunfight.

So...It puts the lie to your statement above that it's a "Republican's wet dream", don't you think?

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

So...It puts the lie to your statement above that it's a "Republican's wet dream", don't you think?

Not in the least.

The Republicans are the ones that pushed for it and it was the Republicans on the Supreme Court that gave it life.

The Democrats have tried to overturn it and here's what happened.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/181590...t-stopped-them

Fifty-four senators, all Democrats and independents who caucus with the Democrats, voted Thursday for the amendment

But forty-two senators, all Republicans, voted no. As a result, Udall noted, the Republican minority was able to “filibuster this measure and instead choose to support a broken system that prioritizes corporations and billionaires over regular voters.”

[whell]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Not in the least.

The Republicans are the ones that pushed for it and it was the Republicans on the Supreme Court that gave it life.

The Democrats have tried to overturn it and here's what happened.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/181590...t-stopped-them

If you think that vote was about advancing efforts to overturn CU, you're a bigger tool than I thought.

The Pubbies stuck together and killed an effort to ammend the constituion, an ammendment which would have given Congress unprecendeted new powers to regulate speech. Period.

Use your head. Do you really think that members of Congress need a consitutional ammendment to save themselves from themselves?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

The Pubbies stuck together and killed an effort to ammend the constituion, an ammendment which would have given Congress unprecendeted new powers to regulate speech. Period.

Right....... speech

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

If you think that vote was about advancing efforts to overturn CU, you're a bigger tool than I thought.

The Pubbies stuck together and killed an effort to ammend the constituion, an ammendment which would have given Congress unprecendeted new powers to regulate speech. Period.

Use your head. Do you really think that members of Congress need a consitutional ammendment to save themselves from themselves?

What a lame assed excuse that is.

You don't actually expect anyone to buy that crap do you?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

What a lame assed excuse that is.

You don't actually expect anyone to buy that crap do you?

What else might the law regulate? “Do you think the Constitution required Congress to draw the line where it did, limiting this to broadcast and cable and so forth?” Alito said. Could the law limit a corporation from “providing the same thing in a book? Would the Constitution permit the restriction of all those as well?”

Yes, Stewart said: “Those could have been applied to additional media as well.”

The Justices leaned forward. It was one thing for the government to regulate television commercials. That had been done for years. But a book? Could the government regulate the content of a book?

“That’s pretty incredible,” Alito responded. “You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?”

“I’m not saying it could be banned,” Stewart replied, trying to recover. “I’m saying that Congress could prohibit the use of corporate treasury funds and could require a corporation to publish it using its—” But clearly Stewart was saying that Citizens United, or any company or nonprofit like it, could not publish a partisan book during a Presidential campaign.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...oney-unlimited