General Discussion

FlyByNight

(1,756 posts)

10. Are they this ignorant to the effect of money?

Wed Apr 2, 2014, 01:07 PM

Apr 2014

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?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

52 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A sickening passage from Roberts� opinion: [View all] kpete Apr 2014 OP

any regulation must target quid pro quo "or its appearance" (!) unblock Apr 2014 #1

I think you're onto something here... ewagner Apr 2014 #25

+1 uponit7771 Apr 2014 #28

bribery G_j Apr 2014 #2

I've got a reading of the "appearance of a quid pro quo" Jack Rabbit Apr 2014 #30

exactly, crooked judges G_j Apr 2014 #35

same as it ever was, only more so... alterfurz Apr 2014 #3

how i read it: barbtries Apr 2014 #4

Donating money in exchange for legislation is quid pro quo, whereas grahamhgreen Apr 2014 #9

We have now gone back in time.. to the aristocratic rule Ichingcarpenter Apr 2014 #5

Plutocracy OLDMDDEM Apr 2014 #8

It makes fighting back difficult when they own the entire media. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #37

The internet is our only true lifeline Ichingcarpenter Apr 2014 #41

Remember the debates betwee Bush and Kerry mindwalker_i Apr 2014 #6

This part of the opinion is what seems to me to be so unbelievable PRETZEL Apr 2014 #7

Are they this ignorant to the effect of money? FlyByNight Apr 2014 #10

Corrupt, not ignorant FiveGoodMen Apr 2014 #12

+1 an entire shit load! Enthusiast Apr 2014 #38

+1000. Yep. They know what they are doing. But they are corrupt and don't give a shit. GoneFishin Apr 2014 #46

"only property owners should have the vote" Voice for Peace Apr 2014 #17

Worse yet, money is given to an opposing candidate to punish an incumbent for supporting JDPriestly Apr 2014 #26

he's full of shit warrior1 Apr 2014 #11

Bush the Elder uttered those same 3 words back in the late 80's benld74 Apr 2014 #13

Corporations Do Not Have Rights as thought they were a person NightWatcher Apr 2014 #14

it's about manners, and gentlemen's agreements, winks and nods. Voice for Peace Apr 2014 #15

I may be too pure of mind to understand this... AAO Apr 2014 #16

"only the just prevail in the end" FiveGoodMen Apr 2014 #18

There are limitations on all other forms of speech Fortinbras Armstrong Apr 2014 #19

Yes. This decision needs to be challenged under the 5th and 14th Amendments, equal protection JDPriestly Apr 2014 #31

I agree, but challenged how, in what forum? n/t markpkessinger Apr 2014 #33

The courts! JDPriestly Apr 2014 #45

Sure, but that process would merely wind up back in the Supreme Court's lap . . . markpkessinger Apr 2014 #47

+1! Beyond outrageous! Enthusiast Apr 2014 #39

MONEY IS NOT SPEECH! aquart Apr 2014 #32

No, I can understand saying that money is a form of speech Fortinbras Armstrong Apr 2014 #36

I believe your understanding is flawed. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #42

In this case, money is buying speech Fortinbras Armstrong Apr 2014 #48

What an absurd notion. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #49

I think it is you who do not understand Fortinbras Armstrong Apr 2014 #50

I understand you perfectly. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #51

Oh? What is my "agenda"? Fortinbras Armstrong Apr 2014 #52

+1 an entire shit load! Enthusiast Apr 2014 #40

What did he think Christie was doing visting Adelson? JoePhilly Apr 2014 #20

So why is Don Siegelman still in prison? JDPriestly Apr 2014 #21

Because Republican politicians are universally corrupt Jack Rabbit Apr 2014 #22

Yes. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #43

EXACTLY!!! pnwmom Apr 2014 #24

+1 uponit7771 Apr 2014 #29

So it's OK to buy candidates whole, but not to buy their support for just one piece of legislation. tclambert Apr 2014 #23

And what we have now is not quid pro quo? Ed Suspicious Apr 2014 #27

It is precisely quid pro quo. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #44

He should have just called it what it is. Pay for play. octoberlib Apr 2014 #34