KK
Konspiracy Korner - Feel the Bern pt. 2

Posted by

jemanji
2/5/16
40

.

The Think Tank with 50-ish op-ed pieces on Sanders' appeal.  Time for a fresh thread.  Many of those comments are 500+ words, and tight at that, coming from subject matter experts (including four people who have worked significantly on campaigns, a lawyer, and a dozen people smarter than they are).  ... ;- )

Dr. D used to fret about how long Konspiracy Korner could run its course before trolls ruined it for everybody.  But the exchanges are actually getting even better:  more cool-minded, richer, more diverse.

Okay then.  I think I got a good feel for Bernie Sanders' appeal to college kids:  We All Wanna Change the World.  (But if you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone any-howwwwww...)  Maybe the "raw nerve" Sanders (and Trump) are touching is not income redistribution, but real disgust with Washington D.C and the way it stands on the pitcher's mound and "laughs into its glove" the voters.  I can buy that, and on a macro level.

.

Q1.  However, I didn't get my first question answered.  :- )  What is your response to Bill O'Reilly's charge that Sanders' campaign is a "phony deal"? and that the NYT crowd stands to blame for this?  If it's a "phony deal" in ANY sense, I don't understand who gains by it.  Please put on your "impartial observer" hat and just explain this to me.

.

Q2.  Also, it was proposed that the DNC and RNC have little power at this point.  This kind of makes sense.  Whoever the power brokers are, Trump and Sanders have pushed past them based on support from American voters.  Power to the People, babe.  

But!  When Rubio says "they told me to wait my turn," I honestly don't get who "they" are if we're not talking about the RNC.  My understanding was that Hillary stepped back, 8 years ago, with the understanding it was "her turn" this cycle.  

WHO was this understanding with?  When the Clintons or Bushes cut a deal to assign pole positions in this or that cycle, who shakes hands and signs off?  I had imagined that the chair of the DNC has the lead in jelling a consensus among the power brokers, acting in that sense as a de facto sports commissioner.  (Of course he who controls the money doesn't control EVERYthing in American politics, but it's a lot easier to work with him than without him.)  

In any case, if it's not the chairs of the RNC and DNC who liaison these back-room understandings, bringing money to bear on their Petted Favorites, I'd be interested to know how it works.

.

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES

LR, Padna, Moe Dawg, Diderot and others had a neat cut-and-thrust on special interest money.  Dr. D does NOT think that we threaten the fabric of free speech by putting some reasonable checks-and-balances on the Robber Barons when they get out of hand.  Neither did Thomas Jefferson or John Quincy Adams, I don' think.

We agree, at the far left and right ends of the spectrum, that

(1) There is such a thing as abuse of power, and that it is appropriate for our society to deal with it when we pass the tipping point.

(2) Microsoft has a right to participate in our process just like you and I do.

But:

.

Q3.  Can you tell me, in like 25 words, exactly how you would reform campaign finance?

.

Here's an example of the problem that Diderot brought up.  Donald Trump, on Friday, claimed that the U.S. could cut $300 billion per year from its budget, simply by --- > buying drugs from Big Pharma more efficiently, through bulk purchases etc.  But Pfizer's* lobbyists line the pockets of Congressmen to prevent this from occurring.  

Moe, Padna, other amigos who believe that Sanders and Trump are mischaracterizing the problems, is that specific example feasible?  Would so many U.S. congressmen really play party to this kind of "scam?"  It's easy for us all to yell bloody murder against Big Phrama; it's harder to deal with a real-world example, because a Senator would certainly have an intelligent reply to this accusation.

LR & amigos, supposing it were true.  Exactly how do you prevent this?  It's tough to legislate morality, ain't it.  Whatever rules are put in place, people can find a way to circumvent the spirit of the law. 

.

EDITOR'S CHOICE

It's like choosing who goes on Mariners Mt. Rushmore.  But Dr. D will honor his fave post from the first thread. :- )  Doesn't imply that I agree or disagree with it.  Just a round of applause for a well-stated, interesting take.

Seattle Outsider

THIS [in reference to Grizzly's frustration with lobbyists' influence].

It's all about the money. I get the feeling on both sides of the aisle that the "common people" (or "we the people" on the right) are tired of big powers control our country (whether corporate on the left or government on the right). A few controlling the policy of the nation to benefit themselves.

Free trade deals are seen as cheap goods and services from large corporate owners, taking away jobs from the average American. Piles of profits following loopholes made by Congress out of American coffers and into the pockets of the powerful, with politicians that play along on both sides.

There is a growing opinion in this country that the deck is not stacked fairly (both right and left point out different instances of this) - so it is not about what level of poverty you have relative to the rich and powerful. It is about a perceived notion that the common folk are not as important or valuable.

Commit theft as a rich man? Slap on the wrist and a fine. Commit theft as a poor man? Welcome to jail. Want into the best schools? It helps if your dad went there and also sent you to the best preschool money can buy (or it helps it you are a minority in the opinion of the right). Executive of a large company? Enjoy numerous tax benefits, earn a giant bonus by moving and automating the jobs on the bottom of the period or through deceiving marketing/sales. Average worker? See your job shipped overseas, ask for a raise and be called ungrateful, lose you job and land on welfare and be called a parasite.

This is not a statement of facts, it is a statement of perception. So what we're seeing in American politics right now is the anti-establishment candidates swelling in popularity on both sides. Whoever has been in charge ain't doing it right (both sides), so elect someone who hasn't been in charge. Hence, Bernie on the left, Trump/Cruz/et al in the right.

.

Following on just a bit:  Hillary's e-mail scandal has been the dominant story in the news for some weeks now.  Coming up at just such a political moment (hmmmm.....) it is an extremely visible example of what Seattle Outsider is talking about.  You and I would be instantly fired for putting secret military documents on our home computers, and when caught we would be very fearful of prison.  But Hillary (who I sort of like on a personal level) seems to be genuinely surprised that she's even getting as much push-back as she's had.  Cruz, Rubio, and Trump continue to take it as a given that she'll still be the Democratic nominee.

We all have a sense of this double standard on both sides of the aisle.  But it takes a few easy-to-understand situations like this to indeed mobilize voters.  

SPEAKING IN GENERAL TERMS again:  the American people put up with a whale of a lot.  Mosques that are suspect, Corporations that exploit people, Double standards on how France talks to us vs. how we can talk to them.  But!  Some people then get to thinking that the American people have NO point at which they will react.  Many people, Americans and foreigners, don't realize that when you crash your planes into the Twin Towers, we're done putting up with you.

Enjoy,

Jeff

Blog: 
KK
Tags: 
Bernie Sanders

Comments

1
lr's picture

lr

Q1. Yes, there's truth behind the notion that the DNC has tried to make it easier for Hilary to become the nominee. Google "Debbie Wasserman Shultz and the DNC under fire for debate schedule" for some context. 538 and politifact both investigated the rather appreviated and curiously timed debate schedule and both concluded the reasons DNC chair Wasserman-Schultz gave weren't grounded in reality.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/jan/20/debbie-wasserma...

Regarding O'Reilly's take, being that his credibility is completely shot in my book considering his, shall we say, dubious history I don't know exactly what angle he's coming from. (Sorry, had to take a shot at Billo, couldn't help myself.)

.................

Q2. There are probably 5-10 people from the last thread that would offer more useful information than I would give, so I'll wait for the experts to arrive.

Q3. The most often cited piece of CFR is overturning Citizen's United. It ruled that corporations and unions are to be treated as individual people, and thus are completely financially unrestrained to contribute to the election process. It's an amazing ruling, considering that 80% of America, with broad support from the left, right and independents disagreed with the ruling. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR201002...

I'm sure others will jump in with more in-depth opinions, so I won't clutter the starting gate.

2

Thanks for the sparkling post.

Followup question though.  How are Americans supposed to oppose a Supreme Court ruling?  :- )  Other than to elect a President who will appoint Justices who are aligned with our values?  

Which brings us back to where we started...

......

Random thought on the Supreme Court.  It seems that in my lifetime, Republican Presidents have several times appointed Justices who turned out to be left of where they were expected, such as Souter.  Don't remember this happening on the other side of the aisle, though.  I wonder why.  Or maybe I just notice that side of it more.

3

1) Bernie = phony deal.  No way.  Doesn't make sense on any level.  Why would the left work to damage their eventual nominee, and give the GOP ammunition in the process?  To me it makes as much sense as the GOP establishment privately propping up Trump for some mysterious end result.

2) RNC/DNC as power brokers.  I apologize because I can't remember who it was from the previous thread that said this, but these people have been run over by Sanders and Trump.  They don't know what hit them...and don't know how to make the pain stop.

3) Campaign finance.  Don't change the existing rules--yet.  Change the tax laws that allow billionaires to control the majority of the political dialogue--with tax breaks funding it.

4

Though one difference is, nobody has even suggested that the establishment is secretly pushing Trump though they would like us to believe otherwise.

Ya, I wasn't looking for anybody to buy in to O'Reilly's credibility or not (though I find him authentic).  Just asking whether Democrats see any resonance to that suggestion.  Was asking about the idea, not the reporter.  So, you think O'Reilly is out to lunch on that one.  Thanks for saying amigo.

5

It's entirely possible for Bernie to win a grass roots campaign and become the nominee. But it is a total grassroots campaign and thus a real long shot and built on a shaky foundation, playing in venues that the veterans know and are experienced in. But as a grassroots campaign that is close and accessible to the average citizen, it is tremendous for the political health of our country. There is entirely too much cynicism among people regarding politics. But when you get involved, and you make a difference, it's a net positive for the country. But I think it is better and more healthy if the groundswell is issue motivated rather than surrounded by a charismatic leader. Give me a Goldwater and McGovern over an Obama - the latter which had a pretty undefined set of principles (hope and change vs. liberty and limited government or peace in Vietnam).

If Bernie legitimately wins the delegates needed, then the system, although it stands against him, cannot deny him. It's like McGovern in 1972, or Goldwater in 1964. 

But the Democratic Party nominating process is rigged in an undemocratic way against Bernie, because there is a sizable number of "superdelegates" who do not have to win their vote through a grassroots primary vote or caucus, who are not accountable to the people who sent them to the convention, but to the party machine, and are merely given a vote at the convention due to their stature. These professionals watch out for one another, cut deals and quid pro quo, and will observe the pecking order, until and unless the pecking order falls apart through the sheer will of the grassroots and it becomes necessary for them to acquiesce, and fall in line.

I believe Obama, as titular head of the Democratic Party, is the one who wields the power here, and wields such power that no one of stature challenged Clinton this year. It was her turn to be rewarded for being a good soldier. And, well, let's face it, there isn't a strong bench to say "no". Obama is doing his part to fulfill his end of the bargain to get Hillary's full support in 2008: She didn't take her fight to the convention, like Kennedy did against Carter in 1980, poisoning that convention. But it's all dealing behind the scenes, and understood with a wink and a nod. When it's someone's turn, everyone knows it. But that doesn't mean you have no choice but to step aside. It's just going to be made very hard for you if it is not your turn.

Rubio has said multiple times that party bigshots have told him "it's not your turn." It was Jeb's turn, and that is proven by the war chest he acquired. But when Rubio shows it doesn't matter that it's not his turn, that he's the right horse to back due to winning primaries (should he do so) the money and endorsements will flow. In the end, everyone gets in line to back the winner. You are rewarded, however, if you do so non-grudgingly. You gotta be a team player.

Who pulls the strings? Who is "Mr. Big? The man who calls the shots for Obama? Or the Donor uber Alles for the GOP? I have no idea, and I don't think anybody really does, and my suspicion is it is very fluid. I don't think there is a secret cabal. I have friends who think otherwise - who point to the George Soros or the Rochchilds - and who say it has already been decided. I say it's take out the tin hat time to that.

The NYT is an empty suit. But Bernie's problem he'll face is politicians unwilling to buck the unsaid rules: the politicians like Elizabeth Warren who have to count the cost if they come out in support against the anointed and thus lose their place in the pecking order, and thus punished by losing the chairmanship, the endorsement, the open seat, etc. etc. Parties are big unwieldy machines, but they still operate. And those who work the levers have long memories, for good and for bad.

I think Bill O'Reilly is on to something. But I also think he is a bit of a blowhard.

6

... the 'nominating process' had NO intention of actually letting him win.  But some media elements are pleased to lead us 'commoners' to believe the opposite.

Question resolves as:  who stands to gain from this?  Why would the publisher of the NYT push this agenda?  :- ) Nobody here knows?

.....

O'Reilly is sharp as a razor, always fascinating, and often unpredictable.  But as to the blowhard thing:  I get VERY tired, very quickly, of watching him shout down his guests.  And at the critical moments.

Ugh.

8
tjm's picture

tjm

. . . of anything. It is not controlled at all like it was prior to 1972 on the Democratic side and 1980 on the Republican side. There are no party bosses. If that's the kind of politics you want, move to Russia. US Presidential politics simply doesn't work that way anymore. It is indeed a process. You run in primaries and collect delegates. Or don't. Whoever gets the most wins. Who on earth thought O'Bama and McCain were going to be the nominees in 2008?

Quick, name the last two chairs of the RNC! Or dig up a list of who's actually on the DNC or RNC from your state and tell me if they seem like people you imagine might wield a lot of power. They're largely apparachiks. 

Yes, there are clumsy attempts to manipulate the process, like that of Schultz, but they invariably fail. When Rubio talks about "they" he's talking about two specific groups - the commentariat and the big funders. These two groups have outsized notions of their own wisdom and importance as gatekeepers. Then they are perpetually surprised when things turn out other than as they wish. The funders have control over who gets big money early, now mainly through Super PACS - a blight on the republic - but while money is extremely important it doesn't dictate outcomes. If it did, Clinton and Gingrich (with Adelson's bank account behind him) would have been running against each other in '08. Jeb Bush would be the frontrunner right now.

There is no big conspracy - if you hear hoofbeats, it's probably horses not zebras, right? 

9

I was covering City Hall in Chicago when Daley lost his delgation at the 72 convention.  You hit the nail on the head--it was like feeling the earth sway under your feet in an earthquake.

10
tjm's picture

tjm

I imagine Daley was a joy to cover in the weeks after! Not that he ever was.

That was indeed the dawning of a new age. Biggest non-violent coup in the history of the west. McGovern chaired the commission that rewrote the rules after `68 and nobody else read them but he and Gary Hart, who he hired to run his 72 campaign.

Side note to the side note: I was walking with McGovern down the hill from the Fairmont Hotel to Democratic convention at the Moscone Center in 1984. I was wearing a pair of shoes with plastic soles - hey, reporters didn't make much then! - I slipped and fell, taking out McGovern, who was then kinda old and getting frail, as I went down. I thought I'd killed the guy. But he popped up quick as could be. He was a tough guy, WWII bomber pilot. Probably would have been a terrible president but still a way more fascinating man than anyone thought he was. 

11

One more I'll share with you.

As something of a peace gesture, Daley organizes a softball game in Bridgeport that summer before the convention--Mayor's office against the alderman.  (However, Daley's toady, alderman and future mayor Michael Bilandic, for some reason gets to play with the Mayor.)

The co-leader of the rump group, liberal alderman Bill Singer, is playing third base against eh Mayor's team.  The crowd, undestandably, is huge, and entirely partisan to Daley.

In the middle of the game someone on Daley's team hits a foul pop down the third base line, and Singer ranges right over to the chain link fence to make the catch--but instead (since he was no one's idea of athletic) gets his finger caught, falls awkwardly grasping a now mishapen finger.  

OK, politics is politics, but now you've got a human being--from YOUR OWN party--writhing on the ground in obvious pain.

The cheers from the crowd were deafening.

12

Nah - it's not phony. Unlikely but not phony. The super delegates will decide the nomination and if it's 50/50, one presumes that they will back Hillary. If it's something like 60/40 for Bernie, would they still back Hillary, quite possibly split the party and lose the millenials entirely? I doubt it. There is a tipping point somewhere in there. I think of the super delegates as a "thumb on the scale" for Clinton, that's all. Bernie can't outpoint her or scratch out a close win but if he wins convincingly, they will fall in line. They really have no choice. 

13

With no exaggeration, I could read through a big college text on politics, and not gather the real insight that I do here in ten comments.

14

The dialogue is fantastic.  When I feel like almost everybody in the room is smarter than me, yet I still get to add a little something - I feel quite priviledged.  I would take a crowd like this over a common forum with trolls every day and twice on Sundays.  Any of you wanna come to Georgia and run for a seat?

15

I was not surprised by the Bern. I saw too many friends on Facebook promoting his memes for years. That was what surprised me, how so many people bought his message and promoted it so fervently and regularly. Average people, who were not involved in the party. I saw a powerful grassroots campaign in the making. Money in politics is overrated. It's there, but the grassroots act as a powerful counterweight, and social media have made it easier to counteract its  corrupting influence.

17

Is the chilling effect on grassroots networking that Obama wielded through Lous Lerner and the IRS. This kept little people from organizing because the power to tax is the power to destroy. No one likes to have the IRS poring through his affairs.

19
M's Watcher's picture

M's Watcher (not verified)

If corporations are people, too, then why are individuals limited in how much they can contribute to campaigns, but corporations and PACs can shout much louder?  Maybe Bernie's millions of small donors are the answer, especially if they are determined to vote.  The corporations and PACs don't have votes, and they won't be as effective if we turn down the volume.  They haven't helped Jeb so far.

20
tjm's picture

tjm

Reporters are friends of mine and you, sir, Bill O'Reilly are no reporter. He's a talk show host. If anybody's a phony, it's him not Bernie. 

Actually, I don't know O'Reilly in any real sense. I've been interviewed by him and he by me and I gotta say he's really just an entertainer. I think he has some base level political beliefs but he's more interested in stirring the pot. He's also a kind of bully but that's part of the act, too. Fox News is a money-making machine for Murdoch and that above all else is what motivates its behaviour. I think Roger Ailes is a genius for having figured this out. It's not the greatest thing for the country, but then neither is, oh, football.

21
Seattle Outsider's picture

Seattle Outsider (not verified)

....next time maybe I'll remember to proofread before posting! I guess the professor let me slide on content this time.

1. I'd be of the opinion that O'Rielly calling Bernie's campaign might be rooted in one of two things: him playing the media game gaining attention/followers/etc - or maybe its hard to believe America would ever vote for a "socalist" given the taint following this label around. His age/political demographic has view of the word "socialist" that is slathered in negative associations. The young people backing Bernie Sanders don't have the Cold War / Red Scare / Vietnam War / Chairman Mao / blackballing references in their experience. "Socialim" isn't a bad word in their dictionary - it just means universal healthcare, social equality, and pristine Scandinavian city streets.

Bill O'Reilly is creating his own narrative on this one.

2. 100% there is some form of party apparatus that builds up preferred candidates. The way this is done is through spending money and political capital and ground game practicalities in support of preferred candidates. Happens on both sides.

Clearly Hillary was next in line after Obama (who circumvented in place in line with massive groundswell and saavy party politics and power backers to take advantage of that groundswell). On the Republican side - what I see is after a decade of right leaning media fomenting ultraconservatism and anti-establishmentism (while Democrats ran congress and the presidency), the party apparatus has found that they are no longer as easily able to "guide" the voters to their preferred candidates. Trump is the ultimate thumb in the eye of the elites - one of their own betraying them.

3. I wish I had an answer. But this issue speaks to the first topic - that the "elite" of our society are more important the the commoners and that their opinions should be heard louder and larger than everyone else's. I think this is the negative reaction to money in campaigns. While I think there is a general understanding of how money influences politics, I think that the reaction to money in campaigns is about fairness. Everyday people just want a fair deal at the minimum. There's no one in congress getting Joe around the corner a special tax incentive like Boeing is getting. Joe around the corner isn't getting the public taxpayer to pay for his new house like Local Sports Team Billionaire Owner gets the public to pay for his stadiums. This is the effect of lobbying in congress - certain small groups get special treatment at the expense of the everyman.

With big money spenders speaking through giant megaphones, there is perception that common folk aren't being heard. That's what the public financed campaign issue is about - everyone getting a "fair" shot at getting heard and getting their message out.

Now the definition of what's "fair" is what we're all arguing about. The eternal question of the definition of justice.

22

he rails about billionaires using money to corrupt politics ("rigging the game"). But his grassroots campaign took off thanks primarily to billionaire Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook, which allows him to network, organize and spread his gospel free of charge. Yeah, greedy billionaires rigging the game at the expense of the average American. Please sir, can I have another?

23
tjm's picture

tjm

Rick, does that mean if you use the telephone you can't favor progressive income taxes!!

25
lr's picture

lr

Spreading your message to people through a social networking site is the ethical equivalent to Charles and David Koch dumping $900 million onto the political process? I've got one. How dare Bernie take a car or truck or bus to get from campaign rally to campaign rally. Doesn't he know Ford and Chevy are billion dollar corporations? What a charlatan. 

Now, if Zuckerberg himself were to pour truckloads of money into the process or filter Facebook so that only certain candidates or messages make it throught, then you're starting to make sense. You're a long ways from that.

Some people just hate that Sanders is the ONE person running this cycle who is what he says he is because they disagree with his politics. You don't like his politics, that's one thing. Don't try and label the guy a "phony" though. Go on youtube and listen to the things he's talking about in the 70's and 80's and 90's. It's the same message.

26

Sanders is the Oakland A's to the Koch Brothers Dodgers. He's exploiting social media the way Beane exploits inefficiencies. Trump's doing the same thing. Koch or Soros can pay for websites and such. But Facebook gives everyone in the world a platform they can exploit.

But it takes work, and patience and skill to build a social media following. Bernie has been king of the politio/economic memes for about 5-6 years now, and so far as I know, it wasn't an AstroTurf operation created by billionaires. It was created using the tools billionaires built and handed to the world to use for pretty much free.

27
lr's picture

lr

that you haven't argued against yourself. Point blank question. Do you think it's hypocritical in some way that Sanders uses Facebook to reach people while denying any and all donations from corporations, banks, etc. Is his using a medium that is free to use and owned by a billionaire, Facebook, Twitter, the moral/ethical equivalency of taking donations from casino moguls, oil companies, investment banks, etc? Is one a phony to talk about and believe in the corrupting influence of corporate financed elections while owning a Honda Civic hybrid, smartphone, or HDTV?

28

that allows a guy with a Honda Civic hybrid, smartphone, and HDTV to run rings around them in financing a campaign. For free. He doesn't have to spend a dime on advertising. So..that makes who corrupt? Nobody is corrupt, and rich billionaires are not "rigging campaigns". They are forced to sit back and watch an old socialist use their infrastruct to fund his campaign. Free advertising that beats paid advertising, and even beats public financing without facebook. 

Bernie posts a meme and instantly the whole world gets it, and moves it along. How is that inferior to TV advertising, which expensive, and can't be passed along?

His argument is phony. In fact, it borders on demagogery.

29
lr's picture

lr

uses a free public medium to communicate his/her ideas, and it RESONATES with people on such a large scale, then that candidate has in effect spoken directly to the people. Democracy.

If 2 multibillionaire brothers create shadow foundation after shadow foundation to hide the money they're chanelling into races at all levels, state, district, federal, you name it, so as to get the candidates that would further their interests into offices all over the country, this is what we call "rigging elections". Does it always work? No. Does it influence the outcomes of elections? OF COURSE.

Are you arguing in effect that you believe Citizen's United is a good thing for the country?

30

Capitalists built the infrastructure that Sanders relies on. Capitalists made it possible for Bernie to speak directly to the people. This is better than what liberals have been calling for: public taxpayer funding for their campaigns. This is far better than an hour a week on PBS. That is what I am saying. Sanders should thank at least one billionaire in particular for making his campaign possible. 

31

i don't think there needs to be so much either or about it. Take the best of what there is, whether it be a capitalist or a socialist idea, or something else all together. Use it to help make life better for everyone. I see no conflict in Sanders condeming one aspect of capitalism, while using/promoting/etc another. 

32
lr's picture

lr

This thing might be starting to veer into capitalism v socialism. That's 500 more words from everybody who's been participating in these last few discussions. I'm not going there. All I jumped in to say was that Bernie or any candidate for that matter spreading their message on social media (which wasn't invented by billionaires, it was invented by college kids who became billionaires) is nowhere near on the same plane as corporations and fully formed billionaires directly funding specific campaigns. Not even in the same galaxy.

I think basically your argument is that because Bernie has socialist on his resume he can't use Facebook, cars, smartphones, TVs or he's a "phony"...as if they don't have those things in France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark...

33

He's a phony for saying the campaign system is rigged by billionaires. That is all I have said, and all I have defended. I have stayed away from economic systems discussion. It would be like me complaining that Doc restricts my free speech because he gets paid for hosting this site and I merely get to use it to promote my agenda.

34
lr's picture

lr

Do you support the SCOTUS ruling on Citizen's United?

35

Why should the press get to decide elections with unlimited electioneering cleverly disguised as objective?

38

I've always thought there should be a maximum donation that is within striking distance of any potential donor - like $1000. So whether you make a billion or $15,000 per year in income, that is the most you can give to a candidate.

Somebody smarter than me can probably explain why this wouldn't work, but for me this accomplishes a few things: (1) Stop throwing everybody's money away on the process (thus freeing up that money to be spent on.... something... anything!), (2) Neuter the unlimited power of Citizen's United, (3) Simplify/shorten the election dog and pony show since candidates will no longer have enormous funds to spend all across America, and (4) Strengthen debate as THE most significant factor in deciding candidates and, ultimately, the POTUS.

39

That can't happen, man. The Supreme Court has ruled. Spending money on politics is constitutionally protected speach. Corporations have constitutionally protected rights, including free speach. Read Citizens United, sometime. Roberts basically says that unregulated money isn't a bug in our political system, it's a feature and that it should have been this way all along. 

There are two ways to change it - by ammending the constitution or changing the composition of the court, pushing new law through congress and then convince the court oto overturn recent precedent. Neither of those is going to happen. 

40

...that's why I want to neuter it.

Hmmmm not sure why you think it won't/can't be changed. That is the point of the constitution as a living document, and there are quite a few judges approaching the retirement zone.

I'm just not sure why donating money equaling free speech trumps concerns of undue influence. You can have both. You can have the right to express yourself by making donations and also have reasonable limits.