Why is that terrible?
It seems to me that a person should have every right to support a candidate that supports the things you like. As long as nothing illegal is going on, I don't see any reason to limit anyone's free speech.
And that's fine, but they shouldn't be able to buy legislation.
This is extremely dangerous to a democratic system and it will destroy it.
It will turn America into a plutocracy.
No one is buying legislation. They're supporting candidates however they choose.
And four justices upheld that act.
No offense but do you even have any idea what's being discussed here?
The SCOTUS system is very very very broken and needs more checks and balances. When the highest court in the nation, for which there is no appeal, is pretty much dictated by 9 people that almost always vote along ideological lines and not objective word of law that is a problem and not justice. The fact that most can predict the outcome will be 4-4 with the 1 "middle" person dictating the rulings points to how broken and unjust the SCOTUS system is. Just stack the court with libs/cons (common presidential tactic) and have whatever agenda you want approved of, letter of the law be damned.
Rant aside, I support the ruling.
Terrible...
The reason we HAD limits was so that candidates would not be beholden to individuals.
EG. Sheldon Adelson is a casino mogul. He is strongly against online gambling because it cuts into his profit margins. He's only going to fund candidates who oppose online gambling. Now watch, GOP candidates will move to oppose online gambling.
Similar things are going to happen with the Democrats.
It's funny, the so called "originalists" are among the most activist judges in American history.
You think flooding the political system with unlimited amounts of money has no effect on legislative outcomes?
Individuals are as capable of corrupting the system as PACS and corporations. The differentiation between the two is arbitrary, meaningless at least, because the end result is identical.
We got Obamacare didn't we? :lamo
No one is buying legislation. They're supporting candidates however they choose.
Money is not speech, regardless of what the justices say about it. The limit on political contributions should be zero, the numbers of political ads should be zero, and any candidate should speak for themselves.
Yep.
Handing over every American on a silver platter to the HMO's because they paid for it.
Now what you got?
And when those people who make more money have greater input because of their money, it becomes more their government than ours.
So an ad for Ford by Ford is not Ford speaking about it's product?
Have you looked at tax distribution in this country?
Politicians don't win elections by raising the most money. They win elections by getting the most votes
Have you looked at tax distribution in this country?
Politicians don't win elections by raising the most money. They win elections by getting the most votes and right now the biggest asset Democrats have are the low information voters who can be whipped up into a frenzy by the idea that the wealthy are buying the government and not paying their fair share. The wealthy have always had more money to donate than you and that hasn't stopped Democrats from pushing more and more onto the backs of fewer and fewer. The Founding Fathers warned of tyranny of the majority and that's exactly where we find ourselves today.
Did the limits ever change anything? NO.
Because the ad costs money doesn't mean that the money is the speech.
Really? So without money you can run an ad?
As long as they are forced to disclose, i dont have a problem.
At least we'll know who our politicians belong to.
Without money you can speak. You can say whatever is on your mind.
Have you looked at tax distribution in this country?
Politicians don't win elections by raising the most money. They win elections by getting the most votes and right now the biggest asset Democrats have are the low information voters who can be whipped up into a frenzy by the idea that the wealthy are buying the government and not paying their fair share. The wealthy have always had more money to donate than you and that hasn't stopped Democrats from pushing more and more onto the backs of fewer and fewer. The Founding Fathers warned of tyranny of the majority and that's exactly where we find ourselves today.
Without money you can speak. You can say whatever is on your mind.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?