General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA sickening passage from Roberts’ opinion:
How is this different from a “quid pro quo” arrangement, which Roberts claims is still forbidden?
In a series of cases over the past 40 years, we have spelled out how to draw the constitutional line between the permissible goal of avoiding corruption in the political process and the impermissible desire simply to limit political speech. We have said that government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford. They embody a central feature of democracy—that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns.
Any regulation must instead target what we have called “quid pro quo” corruption or its appearance.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/04/02/highlights-from-the-supreme-courts-campaign-finance-ruling/
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/04/02/slouching-toward-plutocracy/#comments
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
unblock
(56,193 posts)so, it's ok to have all the apparent ingredients of a quid pro quo (i give you campaign contributions, you give me "access" and "gratitude" and push through a loophole for me) but that's not enough to constitute the appearance of a quid pro quo?
ewagner
(18,967 posts)What the Roberts Court is not taking into consideration is that the present and future receipt of money is in direct conflict with the confidence the public must have that the elected official can in fact make an independent judgment in office if the ability to raise money to maintain that office is jeopardized . In a sense the conflict of interest has already occurred when the first dollars are accepted. There need not be the higher standard applied of “quid pro quo” but instead, a lower bar of corruption needs to be put in place, e.g. impropriety or the appearance of impropriety. The impropriety is that the elected official puts his continued tenure in office above the ability to objectively serve the interests of the public. Hence, there is a conflict of personal interest (his own re-election) with the interest of the public to have fair, objective representation.
"a central feature of democracy"
we see how you think...
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)If a corporation (or even a real person) gives a candidate for Congress a shitload of money and, once elected, that candidates scores 100% on the industry's PAC's political scorecard, that is te appearance of a quid pro quo.
The Court's majority has held here and in Citizens United that large amounts of money does not necessarily influence a politician. I do not believe the five justices who wrote these decisions are that naive. I think they are that crooked.
Large campaign contributions, like the ones were going to see in the coming election, should be assumed to be bribes and intended that way. If anything, the campaign finance reform that this court habitually strikes down were always way too lax. The decisions of the Court's majority -- each of whom was appointed by a crooked president named Bush -- are little more than a sale announcement for the people's government to the highest bidder.
G_j
(40,568 posts)appointed by a crooked president.
A rose by any other name...
alterfurz
(2,681 posts)"The people who own the country ought to run it." -- John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. [They do. --Noam Chomsky]
R.A.T.S. = RobertsAlitoThomasScalia
barbtries
(31,306 posts)quid pro quo is entirely acceptable as long as it's called something else. corruption is fine, just fine. money talks, democracy dies, and that's just okay.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)arguing ones position and having the other person adopt that position is not.
Basic.
The corruption extends to the supremes.
Definition
1) In general
Latin for "something for something." An exchange of acts or things of approximately equal value.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quid_pro_quo
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Prior to the great democratic revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, Europe was dominated by an entrenched economic and political aristocracy that enjoyed special privileges and immunities—enshrined in law—that set it apart from the rest of society.
What has emerged today in the United States and the other capitalist countries is a new, financial aristocracy, consisting of multimillionaires and billionaires who make their wealth through financial speculation and manipulation, diverting untold resources from the development of the productive forces, infrastructure and the well-being of the population into their own bank accounts and stock portfolios.
Now they own the media and the election process which will guarantee their rule.
OLDMDDEM
(3,180 posts)This country is out of control. We have a majority of "Supremes" that have overtaken our country and turned it into a gambling casino. So now we can throw unlimited amounts of money into campaigns and buy our congressmen. How is this democratic? There is nothing about this ruling that shows signs of being anything other than a takeover by the elite, meaning the people with money. Since we now know that corporations are people, how much will they throw in? What about Sheldon Adelsen and his ilk? How is this fair to the average voter? I am sorry for my grandchildren and how much this will change their lives for the worse. We are already dumbing down our society for the benefit of the elite few. Now here we are with unlimited funds that will flood the airways before election time. This, hopefully, will sicken the public enough that they will simply turn the channel. But I guess that is a wish for me. Will they? I hope I never see a campaign where everyone running is bought. That hope is weak because the Supremes just ensured it will happen. It makes me want to join a GOTV campaign to show that money can't buy all votes.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)When they abolished the Fairness Doctrine they knew exactly what they were doing. Now they can keep a huge portion of the voting public completely misinformed and uninformed.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)be it with twitter, youtube, blogs etc.
That's why Turkey made them illegal
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)About the supreme court, Bush kept saying there shouldn't be a "litmus test." When Kerry said that a justice should write opinions that don't show a political, Bush shouted gleefully that that was a litmus test. But here's how I see it: when a justice writes an opinion, it should be based on existing laws and former cases that have set precedent. It should reflect a logical set of steps that support a conclusion that don't show a political leaning. In other words, that's their job. So in effect, Bush was arguing that knowing their job was a litmus test.
But Bush didn't want objective judges that followed law and existing precedent; he wanted judges who followed right-wing, corporate goals. Not just for the supreme court but for other courts.
And here we are.
Without a "litmus test."
PRETZEL
(3,245 posts)"Constituents have the right to support candidates who share their views and concerns. Representatives are not to follow constituent orders, but can be expected to be cognizant of and responsive to those concerns. Such responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials" (from the OP link)
or in other words,
Money talks, bullshit walks.
Yeah, you don't tell me what to do, but if I want to keep getting your money, I will already know what to do.
FlyByNight
(1,756 posts)Or are they just so greedy and sociopathic that they simply don't give a shit anymore?
Money isn't contributed for "general gratitude" - whatever the fuck that means. It's done to get a candidate TO VOTE THE CONTRIBUTOR'S WAY. How is that not (the appearance of) corruption?
In what world do the fascist 5 live?
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)They know what they're doing.
They just shouldn't be doing it.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)They know exactly what they are doing.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)legislation that may be good for the general welfare, for the general public, but bad for the billionaire donor to the opposition.
That's what we face today. Money donated to intimidate. It isn't bribery. It is intimidation.
warrior1
(12,325 posts)
benld74
(10,285 posts)quid pro quo
NightWatcher
(39,376 posts)They do not have freedom of Speech, from Religion, Due Process, Speedy Trial, Excessive Bail.....
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)AAO
(3,300 posts)Or maybe I just heard of it now, and I'm virtually speechless. But only the just prevail in the end. But I have no idea when the end will come. 
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)And they lived happily ever after.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,477 posts)There are libel laws, calling for the violent overthrow of the government is illegal, and as Justice Holmes famously said, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic".
So why is political speech sacrosanct? Having contribution limits means that everyone has, at least theoretically, an equal voice.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)before the law.
If you look at the likelihood of an individual being charged and tried for fraud in an application for food stamps and the likelihood of a banker being charged and tried for fraud in a foreclosure case, you understand that the ability of the banker to donate to the politicians who may play a role in identifying who should be appointed as a federal prosecutor or judge in the state, you see how this plays out.
How could Holder or any attorney general prosecute the big Wall Street players who nearly crushed the world's economy with their greed and lies if doing so would mean that their families and colleagues could also crush the politicians who permitted the prosecutions to go forward?
In terms of getting legislation that might save our environment for the children and grandchildren of the Supreme Court justices who made this decision, this decision is devastating and may make the difference between life or death for them and other children living today or at least for their children.
AND THE EFFECT ON OTHER RESTRAINTS ON FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.
As someone pointed out above, US governments have traditionally had the ability to place time, place and manner constraints on free speech.
Congress could pass laws that place such constraints on all political donations.
This decision could be turned around to limit time, place and manner constraints on demonstrations. If money in campaigns cannot be limited by time, place and manner, then why should political demonstrations -- actual speech?
My ideas on this are not formed yet, but there is something here. If money as speech is to be absolutely free, then why not voices? Why not bodies? Why limit where demonstrations can take place or when or how?
Remember how Occupy was limited by time, place and manner laws and ordinances?
If your TV and newspapers and billboards are to be used for the unlimited speech and demonstrations of the very rich, why not use the city streets for unlimited demonstrations by the very poor?
Equal protection.
The decision is outrageous. Beyond outrageous.
markpkessinger
(8,909 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And in the legislatures of the states and in Congress.
Corporations are not persons and do not have the rights of persons. It's as simple as that.
markpkessinger
(8,909 posts). . . And if it is the Court as presently constituted, it is highly unlikely they will rule against corporate personhood.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
aquart
(69,014 posts)Do not ever accept that nonsense. It's an absurd premise, like corporations are people.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,477 posts)After all, paying for political advertisements is done with money, which is buying speech.
I am saying that there should be limitations on how much money one can contribute to a campaign -- including "soft" money. Actually, I wouldn't mind having limits on how much can be spent on a political campaign. I live in Illinois, and it is clear that multi-millionaire Bruce Rauner bought himself the Republican nomination for governor with $14 million spent during the primary campaign (more than all other candidates for all state offices, Democrat and Republican, combined). He is now trying to buy himself the election.
Ever heard of Unruh's Law, as stated by the late Jesse Unruh, former Speaker of the California House? "Money is the mother's milk of politics."
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Money is no form of free speech.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,477 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,477 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I know your agenda. That is all I have to say to you.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,477 posts)Be specific. While you are at it, give me the winning lottery numbers, since you apparently are clairvoyant.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)"We have said that government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford. They embody a central feature of democracy—that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns."
How can there be quid pro quo when a governor simply reappoints a person who was already appointed by a predecessor to the same position?
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts). . . and a good many are outright fascists.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)They might not recognize themselves as Fascists but that's what they are.
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)
tclambert
(11,191 posts)The minimum standard must then be two. As long as you buy two votes from your purchased politician, you have legal cover.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)I'm not an SC justice, but when Addelson donates 15 million to a candidate, he's buying support for an agenda.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)And they know it is.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)"that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns. " Yes, and those constituents are all corporations and millionaires. It's not so much the money itself, it's the source of the money. It should be coming from We the People so politicians will be responsive to our needs.