|
03 Apr 14 - 03:20 AM (#3614744) Subject: BS: McCutcheon -v- SEC: weep America From: Richard Bridge So, the USA is now officially a plutocracy. God help you. |
|
03 Apr 14 - 04:09 AM (#3614752) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- SEC: weep America From: Joe Offer Of course, I wondered what the thread title meant, and how folksinger John McCutcheon had gone wrong.... Still can't quite figure it out. One wishes those English people would speak English. -Joe Offer- |
|
03 Apr 14 - 09:00 AM (#3614866) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- SEC: weep America From: Greg F. Here ya go, Joe: http://www.blogforiowa.com/tag/sec-v-mccutcheon/ |
|
03 Apr 14 - 09:02 AM (#3614867) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- SEC: weep America From: Richard Bridge One had hoped those colonials kept at least ONE eye on the important principles of their constitution. |
|
03 Apr 14 - 12:46 PM (#3614967) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- SEC: weep America From: GUEST,sciencegeek too depressing for words... there are online petitions going around in protest. money is NOT speech corporations are NOT people OR eligible to vote... so why do they get to spend money across the nation to sway elections? you can't sell drink near a polling area, but you can pay for TV ads that are pure PB we fought a revolution based on no taxation without representation... we may be getting closer to an internal revolt against this trend towards coporate feudalism. |
|
03 Apr 14 - 02:55 PM (#3614999) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- SEC (FEC??): weep America From: Joe Offer Oh....the federal agency involved is the FEC (Federal Elections Commission), not the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission). I added a clarifying acronym to the thread title. Here's a summary of the case: MCCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Docket No. 12-536 Appellant Shaun McCutcheon, et al. Appellee Federal Election Commission Location: United States District Court for the District of Columbia Facts of the Case In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which established two sets of limits to campaign contributions. The base limit placed restrictions on how much money a contributor—defined broadly as individuals, partnerships, and other organizations—may give to specified categories of recipients. The aggregate limit restricted how much money an individual may donate in a two-year election cycle. The limits were periodically recalibrated to factor in inflation. Shaun McCutcheon is an Alabama resident who is eligible to vote. In the 2011-2012 election cycle, he donated to the Republican National Committee, other Republican committees, as well as individual candidates. He wished to donate more in amounts that would be permissible under the base limit but would violate the aggregate limit. McCutcheon and the other plaintiffs sued the Federal Election Commission, arguing that the aggregate limit violated the First Amendment by failing to serve a "cognizable government interest" and being prohibitively low. The district court held that the aggregate limit served government interests by preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption and was set at a reasonable limit. Question Is the two-year aggregate campaign contribution limit constitutional under the First Amendment? Source: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_536 Let this be a lesson to you who start threads with inscrutable titles and initial messages that consist only of a link or a pithy phrase or a litany of acronyms. If people don't know what you're talking about, it may make them look stupid - but it's far more likely to end up making YOU look stupid. Be polite - explain what it is you want to talk about. -Joe- |
|
03 Apr 14 - 05:29 PM (#3615063) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- SEC (FEC??): weep America From: GUEST The net result of this ruling is that in spite of the limitations set, this has been effectively overturned by SCOTUS to disallow a reasonable limit to take place. Big money is still in politics and what is referred to as "limits" is risible. SCOTUS is wrong here and allows people like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson to determine who should run for public office, not the people who would be able to determine that in a true democracy. Watch the campaign contributions soar. |
|
04 Apr 14 - 09:49 AM (#3615257) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- SEC (FEC??): weep America From: Richard Bridge Dear Joe One had hoped those colonials kept at least ONE eye on the important principles of their constitution. |
|
04 Apr 14 - 04:22 PM (#3615384) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- SEC (FEC??): weep America From: Q (Frank Staplin) A little more explication-- In a 5/4 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down aggregate limits to federal campaign contributions. Justice Roberts said aggregate limits do little, if anything, to reduce corruption. The "free marketplace of political ideas will not be suffocated by the few with access to elected representatives." (Sentence edited). Forbes Magazine. We shall see. |
|
04 Apr 14 - 04:45 PM (#3615388) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- SEC (FEC??): weep America From: Greg F. Justice Roberts said aggregate limits do little, if anything, to reduce corruption. That's not explication, Q, its obfuscation. And where is Justice Roberts' evidence for his idiotic statement? Or your evidence, for that matter? |
|
04 Apr 14 - 09:07 PM (#3615481) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- SEC (FEC??): weep America From: Joe Offer McCutcheon vs. FEC, Citizens United, and a number of other Supreme Court decisions have destroyed a valiant attempt to take Big Money out of U.S. elections. For the most part, the side that has the most money, wins. To my mind, it doesn't seem fair. But I guess the Supreme Court has a different understanding of fairness nowadays. I wish Obama would get one, just one Supreme Court appointment. I suppose the Republicans would block whomever he should nominate, though. -Joe- |
|
04 Apr 14 - 10:12 PM (#3615483) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- SEC (FEC??): weep America From: Bill D It is all slight-of-hard with language. McCutcheon based his suit on his right to "free speech", asserting that 'supporting ANY candidates' is his right as an American seeking to have his voice heard... and God knows, you can't get heard easily without spending a few bucks! Therefore, anyone should be able to give ANY candidate money. Predictably, the conservative 5 on the court said, "Ah-ha! WE can rule in favor of free speech!... (but, shhhh... don't anyone make the point that we are just twisting the logic of definitions, as we did in Citizens United to make 'buying an election' sound like 'defending freedom'." NOTHING will help save getting a constitutional amendment passed... and the Repubs have already Gerrymandered most states to be sure they will have enough of a majority to avoid any amendment of that type. It's a vicious circle3 I'd go start a revolution, but THEY already have most of the weapons.... Maybe rising sea levels will distract them.............................. |
|
05 Apr 14 - 09:01 AM (#3615558) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- SEC (FEC??): weep America From: Stringsinger There can be a new type of revolution, and the only kind that works, political defiance based on non-violent resistance. Don't support these politicians who are morally and ethically corrupt and that goes for SCOTUS too. Impeach the Roberts Court. |
|
05 Apr 14 - 02:15 PM (#3615714) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- SEC (FEC??): weep America From: Q (Frank Staplin) Assumption that big money wins. Assumption that the electorate is stupid. Are these true representations? Or are people smarter than those assumptions, and place their ideas above those pushed in the media? |
|
05 Apr 14 - 05:39 PM (#3615802) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- SEC (FEC??): weep America From: Greg F. Assumption that big money wins. Assumption that the electorate is stupid. Are these true representations? Yes. The first one, for sure, as has been conclusively proven. The second, not universally true, but mostly so. vide the Tea Party, et al. |
|
06 Apr 14 - 05:59 AM (#3615945) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- SEC (FEC??): weep America From: Richard Bridge The ability to buy influence is itself a distortion of the democratic process. Extensive advertising and propaganda skews how people vote. The whole concept of democracy depends on an informed electorate, not one that has been lied to. In the same way the entire basis of capitalist theory is "the informed consumer". What a laugh. |
|
06 Apr 14 - 11:41 AM (#3616097) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- SEC (FEC??): weep America From: Richard Bridge It would seem then that the US has a greater constitutional problem than it would admit. |
|
06 Apr 14 - 11:53 AM (#3616102) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- SEC (FEC??): weep America From: Greg F. What, the Land Of The Free? The Best Country On Earth? USA! USA! Surely you jest. |
|
06 Apr 14 - 02:42 PM (#3616161) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- FEC: weep America From: Q (Frank Staplin) Much bad reporting. The Court struck down the limits for individual donors; now they can donate up to the legal maximum. 2013-2014 $123,000 the legal maximum. A separate $48,000 cap for congressional candidates. This brings donors into line with labor unions and corporations. The 5-4 ruling does not undermine limits on individual contributions for president or congressional candidates, which is $2600 an election. The BIG change is removal of all limits on advocacy and on money put into party coffers. Attack adds have never been federally regulated, so no change here. All donations are open to disclosure. I hope the above is accurate- it is my reading from several sources, but I have not read the ruling itself. |
|
06 Apr 14 - 02:57 PM (#3616166) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- FEC: weep America From: Greg F. I hope the above is accurate- it is my reading from several sources, but I have not read the ruling itself. Hope all you want, Q - try reading the the ruling and then get back to us, after you have actually considered the consequences. Bottom line, however you care to spin it, mitigate it, or excuse it, is big money is corrupting the political process, e.g. the Koch Bros spent more than what the top 10 U.S. unions combined did last time around. So, for you, Money = Speech, right? |
|
06 Apr 14 - 04:33 PM (#3616200) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- FEC: weep America From: Bill D "The first one, for sure, as has been conclusively proven." No..not conclusively for all situations. In 2012. Sheldon Adelson wasted millions..first for Newt Gingritch, then...too late, on Mitt Romney. Money buys attention and *sometimes* clever advertising, which often skews results. It also buys many politician who then introduce legislation to skew the whole process even more. Money is not sure-fire, but it makes way too much difference. It **should** be almost totally removed from the election process and a MUCH smaller amount allotted by the govt. to each candidate. (yes, I know what 'fat chance' means.) |
|
06 Apr 14 - 04:50 PM (#3616220) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- FEC: weep America From: Greg F. Nothing is "shure fire" Bill, but massive amounts of money are the next best thing. These recent Supreme Court rulings are a travesty. |
|
06 Apr 14 - 05:03 PM (#3616228) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- FEC: weep America From: Bill D Travesty both in the obvious intent of that sad majority and in the gratuitous distortion of language & sense. |
|
06 Apr 14 - 08:05 PM (#3616281) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- FEC: weep America From: Q (Frank Staplin) If you really want to know what the Supreme Court decision was, read it here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf No? I didn't think so. |
|
06 Apr 14 - 08:06 PM (#3616283) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- FEC: weep America From: Padre I presume that those writing here to complain about the evil effects of large money donations to political campaigns will hold George Soros and Michael Bloomberg to the same standard as the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson? |
|
07 Apr 14 - 03:46 PM (#3616544) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- FEC: weep America From: Greg F. So how do YOU interpret and/or describe the decision, and its inevitable effect, oh great Q? Try to make it simple enough for us lesser beings to understand. And Padre, you bet. If we can get rid of Citizens United and this latest travesty it will apply to them as well. Just out of curiosity, you might want to tote up Adelson's & The Koch boys' donations vs. those of Bloomberg & Soros. |
|
07 Apr 14 - 04:05 PM (#3616551) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- FEC: weep America From: Richard Bridge That'd be because you don't think, Q, except to further right-wing propaganda. |
|
07 Apr 14 - 07:54 PM (#3616614) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- FEC: weep America From: GUEST,Stim Most of the money from both sides goes into television, which is the single most regrettable thing about this all. |
|
07 Apr 14 - 10:51 PM (#3616647) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- FEC: weep America From: Richard Bridge http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/06/mccutcheon-conservative-supreme-court-next-occupy |
|
08 Apr 14 - 01:26 PM (#3616761) Subject: RE: BS: McCutcheon -v- FEC: weep America From: Q (Frank Staplin) Socialism died in infancy some time ago. It is unacceptable in human culture. |