Republican National Committee Decides to Finish Destroying Democracy

[UNC70]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/11/402358/republican-national-committee-files-brief-seeking-to-allow-corporate-funding-of-campaigns/?mobile=nc

"One of the few remaining limits on corporations’ power to buy and sell American elections is that corporations are not allowed to give money directly to federal candidates. Citizens United frees them to spend billions of dollars running ads or otherwise trying to change the result of an election to suit their interests, but corporations cutting checks directly to candidates or to political committees such as the Republican National Committee is one of the few things the Supreme Court’s conservatives have not yet imposed upon the country.
 
If the RNC gets its way, however, that will soon change. In a brief filed yesterday in the Fourth Circuit, the RNC argues that the federal ban on corporate donations is unconstitutional in large part because it applies across the board to all corporations"...
"If the court accepts the RNC’s argument, it will effectively destroy any limits on the amount of money wealthy individuals or corporation can give to candidates. In most states, all that is necessary to form a new corporation is to file the right paperwork in the appropriate government office. Moreover, nothing prevents one corporation from owning another corporation. For this reason, a Wall Street tycoon who wanted to give as much as a billion dollars to fund a campaign could do so simply by creating a series of shell corporations that exist for the sole purpose of evading the ban on massive dollar donations to candidates."

In 2008 all money spent on Presidential campaigns was around $5 billion.  For example, Citibank's 2011 profit was $60 billion.  If this change is made, no problem at all for Citibank to buy themself a President.

[1911A]

Oh please; just shut up already.  You're such a tool.  Do you ever even think outside the Leftist box?  You're of the ilk that's ruining this country.

[Pi]

I think General Electric owns the current president.  The oil companies owned the one before that.  Oh wait, that's right, only the Republican presidents are owned by private companies.  Riiiiiiight.  And which president raised the most money for a presidential campaign in history?  Was that a Republican too?  Guess we'll just sweep that one under the rug.  Maybe the problem is that the whole system needs reform, and the blame rests on both sides of the aisle.

[Axiomatic]

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

[jkjs]

And this coming from a member of the Democratic party who if you aren't aware uses "super-delegates" (i.e. not bound to ANY vote) to choose their nominee.  Yep, that's being committed to Democracy.

[UNC70]

Oh please; just shut up already.  You're such a tool.  Do you ever even think outside the Leftist box?  You're of the ilk that's ruining this country.

Funny, coming from you.

[beinginferior]

Nothing says reputable source like thinkprogress.org.

Stupid is as stupid does, eh UNC70?

[John Florida]

  Note to self: Don't allow any member of the family to attend UNC after seeing what I'm seeing here.

[1911A]

Oh please; just shut up already.  You're such a tool.  Do you ever even think outside the Leftist box?  You're of the ilk that's ruining this country.

Funny, coming from you.

Look, did it ever occur to you that the problem is not the money, the amount of money, or from whom the money comes, rather it is that Congressional members, the president, the cabinet secretaries and the bureaucratic heads are selling what doesn't belong to them, what they are not authorized to sell?  Favors, subsidies, tax-code exemptions and exceptions, anti-competitive legislation?

I doubt it.  You seem to be quite happy with your type of statist legislation being passed, bought by pushers of your ideology.

The answer is not to infringe on any individuals' or organizations' First Amendment rights, it's to bring the hammer down on any elected official of either/both parties who promise to violate the Constitution in return for campaign donations, and it would be quite clear who does that if the reporting requirements applied from dollar one.

[ChefMenteur]

Look, did it ever occur to you that the problem is not the money, the amount of money, or from whom the money comes, rather it is that Congressional members, the president, the cabinet secretaries and the bureaucratic heads are selling what doesn't belong to them, what they are not authorized to sell?  Favors, subsidies, tax-code exemptions and exceptions, anti-competitive legislation?

I doubt it.  You seem to be quite happy with your type of statist legislation being passed, bought by pushers of your ideology.

The answer is not to infringe on any individuals' or organizations' First Amendment rights, it's to bring the hammer down on any elected official of either/both parties who promise to violate the Constitution in return for campaign donations, and it would be quite clear who does that if the reporting requirements applied from dollar one.

I'm interested in this take, but are you limiting the hammer only to those elected officials who take money to violate the Constitution? What if they take money to pass bad laws that are, nonetheless, Constitutional?

[1911A]

Look, did it ever occur to you that the problem is not the money, the amount of money, or from whom the money comes, rather it is that Congressional members, the president, the cabinet secretaries and the bureaucratic heads are selling what doesn't belong to them, what they are not authorized to sell?  Favors, subsidies, tax-code exemptions and exceptions, anti-competitive legislation?

I doubt it.  You seem to be quite happy with your type of statist legislation being passed, bought by pushers of your ideology.

The answer is not to infringe on any individuals' or organizations' First Amendment rights, it's to bring the hammer down on any elected official of either/both parties who promise to violate the Constitution in return for campaign donations, and it would be quite clear who does that if the reporting requirements applied from dollar one.

I'm interested in this take, but are you limiting the hammer only to those elected officials who take money to violate the Constitution? What if they take money to pass bad laws that are, nonetheless, Constitutional?

What has been passed in the last, oh, I don't know, decades, that hasn't been bad law AND unConstitutional?

And I'm not giving the judges at any and all levels a pass either.

[UNC70]

Oh please; just shut up already.  You're such a tool.  Do you ever even think outside the Leftist box?  You're of the ilk that's ruining this country.

Funny, coming from you.

Look, did it ever occur to you that the problem is not the money, the amount of money, or from whom the money comes, rather it is that Congressional members, the president, the cabinet secretaries and the bureaucratic heads are selling what doesn't belong to them, what they are not authorized to sell?  Favors, subsidies, tax-code exemptions and exceptions, anti-competitive legislation?

I doubt it.  You seem to be quite happy with your type of statist legislation being passed, bought by pushers of your ideology.

The answer is not to infringe on any individuals' or organizations' First Amendment rights, it's to bring the hammer down on any elected official of either/both parties who promise to violate the Constitution in return for campaign donations, and it would be quite clear who does that if the reporting requirements applied from dollar one.

The problem is the source of the money and the fact that it can now be anonymous.  When a few millionaires/billionaires/unions/foreigners can privately tell a congressman or senator that if you don't vote our way on a bill then we are going to blanket your district with negative campaigning (doesn't matter whether it is true or not), then we really don't have government by the people.  We now need a constitutional amendment to allow only public financing in our elections.  Don't you agree that anonymous donors are not good for democracy?

[1911A]

Oh please; just shut up already.  You're such a tool.  Do you ever even think outside the Leftist box?  You're of the ilk that's ruining this country.

Funny, coming from you.

Look, did it ever occur to you that the problem is not the money, the amount of money, or from whom the money comes, rather it is that Congressional members, the president, the cabinet secretaries and the bureaucratic heads are selling what doesn't belong to them, what they are not authorized to sell?  Favors, subsidies, tax-code exemptions and exceptions, anti-competitive legislation?

I doubt it.  You seem to be quite happy with your type of statist legislation being passed, bought by pushers of your ideology.

The answer is not to infringe on any individuals' or organizations' First Amendment rights, it's to bring the hammer down on any elected official of either/both parties who promise to violate the Constitution in return for campaign donations, and it would be quite clear who does that if the reporting requirements applied from dollar one.

The problem is the source of the money and the fact that it can now be anonymous.  When a few millionaires/billionaires/unions/foreigners can privately tell a congressman or senator that if you don't vote our way on a bill then we are going to blanket your district with negative campaigning (doesn't matter whether it is true or not), then we really don't have government by the people.  We now need a constitutional amendment to allow only public financing in our elections.  Don't you agree that anonymous donors are not good for democracy?

What I think is we are not a democracy, we are a Republic and what else I think I wrote in my previous post, to wit:

"The answer is not to infringe on any individuals' or organizations' First Amendment rights, it's to bring the hammer down on any elected official of either/both parties who promise to violate the Constitution in return for campaign donations, and it would be quite clear who does that if the reporting requirements applied from dollar one."

And I don't believe anyone should be required to fork over tax money for public financing.

All of this is moot; re-arranging the Titanic's deck chairs.

[Axiomatic]

Oh please; just shut up already.  You're such a tool.  Do you ever even think outside the Leftist box?  You're of the ilk that's ruining this country.

Funny, coming from you.

Look, did it ever occur to you that the problem is not the money, the amount of money, or from whom the money comes, rather it is that Congressional members, the president, the cabinet secretaries and the bureaucratic heads are selling what doesn't belong to them, what they are not authorized to sell?  Favors, subsidies, tax-code exemptions and exceptions, anti-competitive legislation?

I doubt it.  You seem to be quite happy with your type of statist legislation being passed, bought by pushers of your ideology.

The answer is not to infringe on any individuals' or organizations' First Amendment rights, it's to bring the hammer down on any elected official of either/both parties who promise to violate the Constitution in return for campaign donations, and it would be quite clear who does that if the reporting requirements applied from dollar one.

The problem is the source of the money and the fact that it can now be anonymous.  When a few millionaires/billionaires/unions/foreigners can privately tell a congressman or senator that if you don't vote our way on a bill then we are going to blanket your district with negative campaigning (doesn't matter whether it is true or not), then we really don't have government by the people.  We now need a constitutional amendment to allow only public financing in our elections.  Don't you agree that anonymous donors are not good for democracy?

So, are you now backing off of your fallacious claim that this was a RNC thing and that they are trying to "Finish Destroying Democracy" whatever the heck that is supposed to mean, or are you still clinging to that delusion?

[UNC70]

Oh please; just shut up already.  You're such a tool.  Do you ever even think outside the Leftist box?  You're of the ilk that's ruining this country.

Funny, coming from you.

Look, did it ever occur to you that the problem is not the money, the amount of money, or from whom the money comes, rather it is that Congressional members, the president, the cabinet secretaries and the bureaucratic heads are selling what doesn't belong to them, what they are not authorized to sell?  Favors, subsidies, tax-code exemptions and exceptions, anti-competitive legislation?

I doubt it.  You seem to be quite happy with your type of statist legislation being passed, bought by pushers of your ideology.

The answer is not to infringe on any individuals' or organizations' First Amendment rights, it's to bring the hammer down on any elected official of either/both parties who promise to violate the Constitution in return for campaign donations, and it would be quite clear who does that if the reporting requirements applied from dollar one.

The problem is the source of the money and the fact that it can now be anonymous.  When a few millionaires/billionaires/unions/foreigners can privately tell a congressman or senator that if you don't vote our way on a bill then we are going to blanket your district with negative campaigning (doesn't matter whether it is true or not), then we really don't have government by the people.  We now need a constitutional amendment to allow only public financing in our elections.  Don't you agree that anonymous donors are not good for democracy?

So, are you now backing off of your fallacious claim that this was a RNC thing and that they are trying to "Finish Destroying Democracy" whatever the heck that is supposed to mean, or are you still clinging to that delusion?

No, I am not backing down. When the Supreme Court allowed anonymous donors to Pacs that was a major blow to the campaign finance laws.  The RNC is now trying to extend that to donations given directly to the candidates as well.  I, too, wish that all politicians cared more for their constituents than their careers, but knowing this isn't the case, anything that makes it easier to bribe/threaten/manipulate politicians is not desirable.  THe effect of big money on politics is a threat to our Republic/ and to democracy.

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- Chatham County Online ----------------------------- => Chatham County Online => Chatham County Schools => Chatham County Food & Drink => Chatham County Music & Arts => Chatham Community Calendar => Free Classifieds & Help Wanted Ads => Noah's Ark - All Creatures Great & Small. => Neighbor to Neighbor => Gardening and Agriculture => Chatham County Real Estate => North Carolina => This, That and Everything Else