General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsScrivener7
(51,014 posts)for the elections of most of the worst of our legislators. A shameful, shameful decision.
Caliman73
(11,744 posts)While Citizens United definitely opened the floodgates to campaign contributions via dark money and direct contribution. Buckley v Valeo enshrined the concept of money as speech. While Buckley said that limits on contributions were constitutional it also said that limits on spending were unconstitutional which basically said that MONEY is SPEECH and limiting how much a campaign can spend is limiting speech.
If you can't limit how much a candidate can spend because money is speech, why would you be able to limit how much entities can spend to allow that candidate to "speak".
I_UndergroundPanther
(12,480 posts)For passing that shit legislation.
Scrivener7
(51,014 posts)I_UndergroundPanther
(12,480 posts)I remember it being discussed than.. maybe Im thinking of citizens united or that ridiculous neighborhood patrol that tipps program crap.
Scrivener7
(51,014 posts)It gets all of us.
Dr. Strange
(25,924 posts)The CU decision originated with Michael Moore's documentary on Bush.
betsuni
(25,621 posts)Politicians have to do everything someone says for a few thousand dollars just because the donor is a billionaire? What happens when 13 billionaires want different things? I wonder how they decide which donation makes one beholden the most.
I remember last election a campaign returned a $470 donation to a woman because her husband is a billionaire. She said it was ridiculous and I agree. Don't understand the whole idea of campaign contributions automatically corrupting people or why billionaires money has special powers that other money doesn't.
Celerity
(43,517 posts)Fred Wertheimer
January 20, 2020
Jan. 21 marks the 10th anniversary of the disastrous Citizens United decision, the most consequential and destructive campaign finance decision by the Supreme Court in nearly half a century. The legacy of Citizens United has been even more damaging than almost anyone understood when the ruling came down.
The decision helped return the most dangerous and corrupting money to our elections. It provided the wealthiest Americans with a predominant role in campaign financing by giving birth to super PACs permitted to collect multimillion-dollar checks. It allowed hundreds of millions of dollars in large, secret contributions to be spent to influence federal elections through the use of undisclosed dark money given to nonprofits.
In short, the destructive impact of Citizens United on our political system has made the Watergate campaign finance scandals, the worst of the last century, look like childs play.
The history of money in American politics is a cyclical story of scandal and reform. Scandals occur. Reforms are enacted. They work for some period of time. When they are not enforced or updated to address changed circumstances, they eventually break down. New scandals occur. New reforms follow. And the cycle repeats.
snip
brooklynite
(94,729 posts)Billionaires contributing to Manchin and Sinema has nothing to do with Citizen's United, which allows unlimited contributions to INDEPENDENT PACS. However much contributors have in wealth, they are limited to the same $5400 direct contributions as everyone else. And since neither is up this year, they won't be able to contribute any additional amounts to their campaigns before the 2024 elections.