well this aint good

evince

Truthmatters
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...ens-united-but-worse.html?mbid=nl_Daily (296)


Current federal law allows individual donors to give up to two thousand six hundred dollars to any one candidate during a single election. In addition, they can give only an aggregate hundred and twenty-three thousand dollars to candidates, political action committees, and parties over a two-year period. Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama Republican, wants to give more money to the candidates he supports, so he has sued to invalidate the rules limiting the over-all amounts he can give. (Indeed, the patriotically minded McCutcheon wanted to give “$1,776” to enough candidates to exceed the current limits on direct contributions.) The Supreme Court will hear his case in the fall, and he has a good chance of winning
 
how fucked up would our elections be if the wealthy could pile money where ever they wanted to?
 
how fucked up would our elections be if the wealthy could pile money where ever they wanted to?

Didn't work for Adelson did it?

Didn't work for Jon Corzine did it?

Money doesn't always win an election. It helps, make no mistake.

I say lift all of the caps. Let freedom ring.

The issue isn't money in politics it is that politics are in everything. The politicians incentivize people to donate money because the politicians stick their noses in everything.

You like the system just the way it is yet you bitch about it. Ironic isn't it?
 
let money rule more like

It does now and you didn't complain when Obama raised gobs of it. You probably donated from your 1% perch.

You don't complain about union money in elections.

This is why nobody takes you seriously. You are party over principle all the time
 
If they removed the individual limit the Koch brothers would buy all the elections.

LMAO... and Soros, Gates, Buffett, Hollywood liberals etc... lets not forget them. Or the multiple mini-series/movies coming out about Hillary right before the 2016 election.

Lets ignore the massive amounts of money the unions pump into the elections as well.
 
If they removed the individual limit the Koch brothers would buy all the elections.

Any number of rich people still pump money into elections they just do it through groups or organizations not attached to candidates. In a perfect world money wouldn't play a factor but in reality it does and to me disclosures is the most important part.
 
Would not be surprised if the SC forced the removal of limits. That would suck. Money doesn't always win (i.e. Brown/Whitman) but it often does.

SF - I remember from data in the last election that out of the top 10 pacs, only 2 or 3 were unions, and they were down toward the bottom of the top 10 list. Unions do represent a lot of individuals, unlike the Koch brothers.
 
LMAO... and Soros, Gates, Buffett, Hollywood liberals etc... lets not forget them. Or the multiple mini-series/movies coming out about Hillary right before the 2016 election.

Lets ignore the massive amounts of money the unions pump into the elections as well.
I agree, lets limit ALL individuals, person or corporation or union to the legal limit. Lets amend the constitution so no one person or organization can donate more NOR bundle. I read SOMEWHERE that last election cycle the lion share of the political donations nation wide were from less than 200 people. That's plutocracy my friend, and it exists right now.
 
the right wants this country run by the wealthy.

Its why the Grover quote doesn't bother them.

they want democracy dead and the wealthy owning the control
 
I agree, lets limit ALL individuals, person or corporation or union to the legal limit. Lets amend the constitution so no one person or organization can donate more NOR bundle. I read SOMEWHERE that last election cycle the lion share of the political donations nation wide were from less than 200 people. That's plutocracy my friend, and it exists right now.

So very much on board with that.
 
Back
Top