Money IS Speech, Its Official!

I know I say this often, but when you have to pretend to be stupid in order to convince yourself that you have a point, you really should just give up.

But no, seriously. You really don't care if private interest buys off our politicians?

It'll be annoying for sure, but it's happening already anyway. It'll just happen on a grander scale, that's all.

I'm so outraged I can barely type right now.

Not to be a bother, but that really wasn't the case presented to them. By the logic of the law, if a contribution to one candidate of $5,200 or less is not corrupting, there should be no fear that a donor giving a couple of dozen candidates that amount will be corrupting.

The case didn't challenge if 5200 per candidate was corrupting (although I would), it stipulated that, if giving under the established "corruption" amount was acceptable, then why should one be limited in how much they give in total.

Nausi, I pointed something out where limitless "free speech" as your kind puts it, can be harmful.


It's not like the last time we had a republican president, he drove us into a pointless war or anything, right?

You'd be wrong.

Answer me this, who determines who's on the Supreme Court? So far as I know, it's a combo between the president nominating them and the Senate voting on them.

What happens when the rich & wealthy donate so much to candidates and receive a ton of power and influence because of it? Well obviously they will look to get more power and influence, and that's exactly what spending money gets you.

The rich and wealthy can afford to basically buy our President through his campaign and then buy our senators through theirs. This results in the ability for them to essentially pick and choose our Supreme Court, when they want to push an agenda such as getting more money in politics via claiming it's 'free speech' or saying that corporations as people who's there to stop them?

When the people benefiting from a ruling saying this is free speech are the same people who's influencing the people on the Supreme Court it's ludicrous not to think they would vote in their favor whether it's right or not. The Supreme Court's ruling on this is about as laughably bias as someone going to a trial and getting to pick and pay their jury, I wonder if the jury would be fair and right or if they would let the person off even if it were the wrong thing to do...

I'm pretty sure this is how politics works. And it is nothing new.

Maybe I should write a letter that will show em !

Actually I'm going to hold up a sign. That is how you make a difference.

democrats are only freaking out about this because they are scared shitless of the backlash from business owners and individuals for the dirty *** tactics that were used to ram obamacare down our throats. democrats aren't going to be able to keep up with the fund raising so they are scared as ***, if the shoe was on the other foot liberals would be cheering this.


my money i should be able to give however much of it i want to whoever i want

As far as I'm concerned political donations should be outlawed entirely.

Edit: also restructure to eliminate political parties and give all candidates equal time, regardless of how much $ they have.

You're aware that business-owners were already under a mandate to provide health insurance in many cases, right? And that the mandate doesn't really change matters in that respect but, instead, provides (forces, if your knee-jerking needs a more charged word) access to healthcare for those whose employers were not obliged to do so? And that's not even mentioning how many small business were never obliged to provide insurance and not only did so but opted for better plans than larger corporations subject to mandates did.

Oh, golly, there I go using reason and facts.

As for the rest, any lover of freedom should be troubled by this. Thankfully, that doesn't include 96% of all politicians nor anyone registered as a member of a major political party nor kranks, kooks, and trolls on the internet.

Democratic fundraising is on par with Republicans. If you want to treat it like a contest, Obama raised slightly more than Romney but it was insignificantly higher. Where are you even getting your info or is it just wishful thinking?

Anyone actually concerned about maintaining even a semblance of election integrity shouldn't be cheering on this decision.

And it's exactly why it needs to change rather than simply defending and supporting it as fools constantly do.

I'm not democrat nor republican, both are bought and paid for by the same kind of people in the end.

So if they can't raise money through donations, how are they to get funding in your perfect world?

The state/federal government runs equal campaigns, there's no reason for them to need to travel anymore, it can all be televised. This is the 21st century, it's about damn time we act like it.

The way we currently do elections is out right stupid.

So candidates get their funding from the communal federal/state pot?

Therefore in order to give a dollar to candidate X (through taxation) I must also give a dollar to candidate Y? Sounds like a pretty shitty system to me.

It eliminates donations, and makes people run on their merit instead of their funds, not shitty at all. Then again, you're a corporatist/fascist, so I figure you wouldn't like it.

So how does one sucessfully advocate for a particular political or public policy? Is that allowed?

Of course, people still have free speech.

So how do they do it?

By voting?

by peaceful assembly, by posting online, blogs, etc.

Actually, although the words "free speech" are plastered all over this case its really about expensive speech.

I have been saying for decades:


About public financing of campaigning, how about letting 30 second politician's adds be counted in the station's PSA allotment?

By word of mouth, rather than cash of bank account.

The bolded is probably the best post in this entire thread. Overall, it seems like wastefulness for such a short period. If we're going to complain about our government's spending, maybe candidates should lead by example when it comes to pragmatism and austerity.

It's funny how *** that don't have the money to be able to have themselves heard in a world where cash is king are advocating this concept.

Even with the current cap of 123k, only 490 people donated that amount in the national campaigns. Some became Ambassador's. Others were rewarded with regulations for their industry being addressed.

Chief Justice Robert's upholds the constitutionality of ACA 2yrs ago. At the end of the day it forces every American citizen to have a subscription with a health care provider in some capacity or another. It's good for someone's business.

Now two years later, his ruling is "Money is free speech" and even used an analogy of how hate groups can have free speech to validate his decision. End of the day only the most affluent will truly have their opinions heard.

Sheldon Adelson in Nevada was just courted by every Republican state governor in the country. Don't you find it interesting that a person based in Nevada is going to have his interest represented in states he doesn't reside in, let alone does business in?

Sure some of you won't care; not until it affects you. Then you'll be the crazy person whose complaints about plutocracies and oligarchies can't be heard because you don't have the $ for the political machine to listen.

Peaceful assemblies cost money, blogs cost money to run as well, where does the money come from?


Hey I know a guy who shares my opinion, can I enable him to speak for me?

I'm sorry everyone:

Sure, as long you're not paying him to share your opinion.

I'd be willing to sell out my opinions for money. Sign me up.