2016 Postmortem

Buzz cook

(2,912 posts)

96. Really?

Sat May 14, 2016, 12:27 PM

May 2016

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/supreme-court-retains-ban-on-foreign-campaign-donations/?_r=0

In a terse four words, the Supreme Court on Monday issued an order upholding prohibitions against foreigners making contributions to influence American elections.

The decision clamped shut an opening that some thought the court had created two years ago in its Citizens United decision, when it relaxed campaign-finance limits on corporations and labor unions. On Monday the Supreme Court, upholding a lower court’s decision in Bluman, et al., v. Federal Election Commission, refused to extend its reasoning in Citizens United to cover foreigners living temporarily here.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

111 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

DNC Chair Wants to Exclude Independents From Democratic Primaries [View all] Gregorian May 2016 OP

West Virginia showed why that's a good idea Renew Deal May 2016 #1

Great CBS poll. Optimism May 2016 #18

What percentage of eligable voters voted in the WA caucus? riversedge May 2016 #77

5.8% Andy823 May 2016 #108

Thanks. And I agree with all you said. (such low counts is not the will of the Wash state people) riversedge May 2016 #109

What did you expect? WV is full of Trump supporters and DINO's. Renew Deal May 2016 #86

Back in 2008 Hillary beat the crap out of the black guy in WV, that should tell doc03 May 2016 #89

The SHILLS For The Oligarchy Are Just There For The MONEY! CorporatistNation May 2016 #110

Primaries should be closed, but party declaration should be right up to the casting of a vote. TheBlackAdder May 2016 #19

That would still allow the GOP to screw with our primaries Demsrule86 May 2016 #71

OK, back to reality. You're not going to get an en masse group of people to go through that motion. TheBlackAdder May 2016 #81

I'm OK with that, but it's a state issue. Renew Deal May 2016 #87

Wow, a response withing one minute. You win the prize today. Your refresh button finger must rhett o rick May 2016 #35

A one line OP doesn't take long to read Renew Deal May 2016 #88

Did the admins give you guys a special app to get the first response slot? nm rhett o rick May 2016 #92

but you must continually hit the refresh button to get a response within one minute. rhett o rick May 2016 #111

Except that the majority of those were DEMOCRATS nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #40

He was going for the first post and that means a short, unsubstantial post. rhett o rick May 2016 #49

I know but this one is so easy to bat down nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #51

I think it so strange that they fight so hard to get the first response then blow it with some rhett o rick May 2016 #53

A graduate student could do a thesis on this, I swear nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #55

Absolutely. nm rhett o rick May 2016 #59

Maybe they get a bonus for being first? TimPlo May 2016 #83

CBS says 34% were independents. 10% identified as republicans. Renew Deal May 2016 #90

Yup Secretary of State site nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #91

That person was hollering that it was 15% of Hillary voters that said they'd support Trump just a Number23 May 2016 #107

That's one more reason why Bernie needs to run as an independent Time for change May 2016 #85

I agree with her. n/t livetohike May 2016 #2

Really, was there ever a doubt? Don't you always agree with her and Clinton? rhett o rick May 2016 #39

Usually. I don't like some of the things DWS has done. The primary livetohike May 2016 #50

I registered as a Democrat 50 years ago. I did strayed during the Vietnam War. I couldn't support rhett o rick May 2016 #58

Charisma.... CompanyFirstSergeant May 2016 #3

Makes sense. Republicans as well. nt Bleacher Creature May 2016 #4

I agree with her completely KingFlorez May 2016 #5

Have you ever not agreed with her? or Clinton? It's easy to always agree with rhett o rick May 2016 #43

"authoritarian leader" KingFlorez May 2016 #47

No shit. hack89 May 2016 #6

This, and we won't have those Republicans... scscholar May 2016 #12

The excuse of the day. rhett o rick May 2016 #44

So you support Republicans interfering with Democratic primaries? LonePirate May 2016 #64

So you support the wealthy 1% at the expense of the 50,000,000 living in poverty? rhett o rick May 2016 #78

What does that have to do with asking what's the difference between excluding Indies and Repubs? LonePirate May 2016 #82

Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wendylaroux May 2016 #7

The list of people Hillary & DWS do not want to vote in this jwirr May 2016 #8

you are all perfectly free to vote for anyone you want in the general election nt msongs May 2016 #13

Fantasy Renew Deal May 2016 #15

DWS lurves her some Republicans! BuelahWitch May 2016 #25

If she "lurves her some Republican" she'd be for Open Primaries lunamagica May 2016 #34

No, because they wouldn't vote for her chosen candidate BuelahWitch May 2016 #79

Should Canadians or Buzz cook May 2016 #9

Why not Glamrock May 2016 #27

Really? Buzz cook May 2016 #96

They're not paying for them. Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #75

I'm paying for lots of things that I don't use. Buzz cook May 2016 #94

How, specifically, does everyone benefit from paying for private elections? Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #95

How do you not? nt Buzz cook May 2016 #97

As expected... Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #98

My names not Felicia Buzz cook May 2016 #99

Hopefully. onehandle May 2016 #10

Facts too much for you? -none May 2016 #23

Their minds are made up. They agree with everything Hillary. It's Authoritarian Adulation. nm rhett o rick May 2016 #45

That has been obvious for some time. -none May 2016 #48

so if I wait 74 years to suddenly become a democrat because that's where the $$ is I have to run msongs May 2016 #11

Yeah. It's clear if a lot of people don't like this, time to move to new party. Joob May 2016 #14

That's a good idea Renew Deal May 2016 #16

I rarely give a simple +1 but... randome May 2016 #21

There will only be one candidate! yallerdawg May 2016 #33

She is on the record as favoring limiting access of grassroots Democrats from the process Attorney in Texas May 2016 #17

Link? Renew Deal May 2016 #20

�DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don�t have to run 'against grassroots activists'� Attorney in Texas May 2016 #100

Independents are not grassroots Democrats. LiberalFighter May 2016 #28

Many of the independents used to be until the Democratic party moved too far to the Right. -none May 2016 #52

Independents aren't Real American's bahrbearian May 2016 #22

No, independents aren't Democrats lunamagica May 2016 #31

Just curious but why should all taxpayers katsy May 2016 #24

Nothing prevents Independents or Third Parties LiberalFighter May 2016 #32

Flippant answer. katsy May 2016 #61

Seems someone else is being flippant about their response. LiberalFighter May 2016 #84

No, nothing prevents that. Nothing prevents you having to pay for your primary either. Autumn May 2016 #76

Two things should come from this: Maedhros May 2016 #41

This message was self-deleted by its author Maedhros May 2016 #26

Good! lunamagica May 2016 #29

Good. OhZone May 2016 #30

This is a very illustrative incident. Maedhros May 2016 #36

How is she going to do that? longship May 2016 #37

She said she was speaking personally and not for the DNC. (NT) Eric J in MN May 2016 #54

My question stands, no matter who she speaks for. longship May 2016 #56

Hopefully, she was just giving her opinion and Eric J in MN May 2016 #57

MI CANNOT have a closed primary. longship May 2016 #62

If the majority of independents were supporting Clinton Il_Coniglietto May 2016 #38

That's a great idea for both parties.... Txbluedog May 2016 #42

Great idea if you want who you can vote for chosen by the party leaders... -none May 2016 #60

The system is rigged...keeping up the charade of choice is almost over. Lodestar May 2016 #46

good obamanut2012 May 2016 #63

DEMOCRATIC nominee selected by DEMOCRATS . . . simple DrDan May 2016 #65

Who gets to vote in the Green Party nomination process? brooklynite May 2016 #66

Oh, the irony. "Democratic" Party indeed. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #67

Doesn't everyone have the right to vote for a primary candidate? TheProgressive May 2016 #68

How can the party leaders get the person they want, if everyone gets a vote? -none May 2016 #69

Nonsense Demsrule86 May 2016 #72

I agree Demsrule86 May 2016 #70

It is Democratic for Democrats be able to pick thier candidate Sheepshank May 2016 #73

It's the only way she can get her venal, dishonest, incompetent candidate nominated. Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #74

if Hillary was winning independents then she would want them Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #80

fine. then don't ever expect a THING from us dana_b May 2016 #93

Good idea, this is DNC Primary, it is not Independent Primary, I promise not to vote Thinkingabout May 2016 #101

I thought she said it was a big tent party. rateyes May 2016 #102

She should be excluded from the Democratic Party milestogo May 2016 #103

Winning is everything felix_numinous May 2016 #104

Sounds right to me. What's the problem. Let them join or form a party of their own. nt Jitter65 May 2016 #105

Excellent incentive for a 3rd party! Barack_America May 2016 #106