General News Supreme Court Strikes Down Political Donor Limits

Well...

That's not really shocking. Of course it's 'free speech' to buy and sell our politicians ensuring that they neglect their duty to the people. How is that not free speech?

 

Both sides are extremely greedy and narcissistic, but the Republicans are the worse.

Everything they do is done in the name of freedom, even if it means taking freedom AWAY, which it usually does.

They pride themselves when the Democratic Party takes away freedom, when they really take away just as much, if not more so.

The only hope I had left for this country was in the Libertarian Party, and they're becoming more and more like the Tea Party everyday.

 

How 'bout we all just flock to the Green Party...

 

Thank you for sharing my views of the 'libertarian' party.

 

Another act of rape against American democracy...

 

I agree. That's a big reason why I don't assosiate myself with the Libertarian Party anymore.
They hate it when the govenment hands out millions of dollars to corporations, but they're totally OK with political parties getting millions. How's that any different?

The last straw for me was when they started opposing ENDA. Their stance on ENDA goes against the very meaning of the word libertarian. They sucker LGBTs into the party on their "live and let live" stance on marriage, when they're quite the opposite when it comes to discrimination.

I still admire the libertarian phillosophy (not the political party). I consider myself too liberal to be in the party anymore. I believe in government assistance (GASP!) if it's used to help people get back on their feet. I know a member of the Libertarian Party wouldn't be caught dead supporting something like that.

 

I have mixed feelings about this ruling. On the whole, I believe the entire system is corrupted by all of this money flowing through it. I would like to see things head in a radically different direction. However, after the Citizens United ruling and the changes it ushered in it caused too much money and power to flow toward outside groups via Super PAC's - too much dark money.

This ruling will almost certainly strengthen political parties and individual political campaigns. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and I predict it will be really bad news for the Tea Party. One of the reasons they've been able to run roughshod over the Republican Party was a result of Citizens United and the support they received via Super PACs. Now, some of that wealth and power is going to return to the Republican establishment who hate the Tea Party...

The downside - and the reason I oppose the move over all - is that ultimately money and power will become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. It will push our government more and more toward oligarchy. Some might argue that we're already close now, but these decisions will make it worse.

Short term, this decision may be good, but only because of what the Supreme Court did with Citizens United. It will likely weaken the Tea Party and create less gridlock in Washington. In the long term, it will be bad as it pushes us more and more toward oligarchy.

 

This is the worst thing that could have happened to the US.
This is what happens when people infiltrate the judiciary system.

 

Too much crazy.

 

American democracy has been dead for over a century. We've been living in a money powered oligarchy for a long time...

 

wow. just heard this on NPR. so stupid

 

Well. Another slip down the slope. Goodbye America, land of freedoms and elected representatives. Welcome to The United States of Koch, Congress sponsored by Halliburton, and the Presidency brought to you by Monsanto. We're no longer citizens, we're consumers and bye bye rights of the citizenry.

---------- Post added 2nd Apr 2014 at 06:00 PM ----------

^^^^this^^^^

 

Maybe if everyone could get the picture we could vote someone in who doesn't support the oligarchy, instead of squabbling over two sides of the same coin every four years?




No? We're keeping to the status quo? Ok then....

 

Key word being seem.

Democrats try to have it both ways. They like to use rhetoric to make it seem as if they're fighting for the "common man" against those old rich white men, yet quietly receive a ton of money from wealthy old white men/Super PACs as well.

Anyway, I disagree with this decision, but also kind of agree with Aldrick.

 

What exactly do you mean by this, though?

If you're suggesting that politicians are purchased by the wealthy so that they can pass legislation that will favor them at the expense of their constituents, that isn't exactly true. In fact, lots of wealthy people/corporations spend big on candidates and lobbyists, and get little "bang for their buck" in terms of legislation passed that they want. Congressional research shows that corporations and wealthy donors don't have nearly as large of an influence on politicians as some think, and politicians are more concerned with what their constituents want. Candidates and politicians are pretty good at tricking wealthy donors into giving them money for campaigns, and not actually "returning the favor" significantly.

Like I said, I disagree with the Court's decision, but at the same time likely not much will change.

 

Balls. Large ones.

 

Explain... I'm not too familiar with smaller parties... plus the Greens seem to be the most liberal of the major parties in America (the other majors being D, R, L, and the dreaded C).

 

I'm not sure how L, C and the Greens are major parties.