• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

SCOTUS: Campaign Aggregate Limit Law Falls

Mike

Well-known member
Individual candidate donation limits still stand, but overall "Aggregate" limits have been struck down as Unconstitutional.

In other words, I can now donate the limit to as many candidates as I want to individually.

The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to donate campaign contributions, but does not say how many I can contribute to.

George Soros is smiling.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Individual candidate donation limits still stand, but overall "Aggregate" limits have been struck down as Unconstitutional.

In other words, I can now donate the limit to as many candidates as I want to individually.

The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to donate campaign contributions, but does not say how many I can contribute to.

George Soros is smiling.

Or was it meant for Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers :???: Looks like all the more liberal Justices voted against it... Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan all dissented...

Means if you have enough money you can try and stack the Senate- or the House...
More of the best government BIG money can buy....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
loomixguy said:
Hey, Methuselah.... wasn't there just a report that the really big money is with your libtard pals???

So from your response I take it you think its plumb fine to allow all the very wealthy to buy up all the politicians (Senators and Reps- Presidential Candidates) from both parties and by having them all in their pockets becoming the puppetmasters of government... Who do you think those polititicians will then represent? It darn sure won't be Joe Blow average working schmuck...
Some would call that an oligarchy...

Personally I would like to see national elections have each candidate limited to the same amount (so many $ per person in their District) and the candidates running on the issues not on who can raise the most money and make the most/fanciest ad videos...
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
You have spewed for YEARS about the Repubs being the party of the wealthy grey haired men. You've blathered on and on and on about the Koch brothers...buying elections...yada yada yada.

I do not recall ONE TIME that you had anything bad to say about your Dear Leader's handler George Soros, a billionaire libtard who wants to destroy America from within.

And, wasn't there a recent report about the really big money being with the libtards? You were silent on that. Maybe you were too busy with your "ventures" that you missed that one.

You have a history of complaining and being jealous of anybody you suspect is more successful or has more money than you....unless they are libs...then your head is so far up their rear end that if they made a sharp right turn, your neck would snap.

Astute you are not. Your kind of thinking and politics is what has gotten us where we are now...in deep excrement....but don't let that stop you from "getting yours" with all the government freebies.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
loomixguy said:
You have spewed for YEARS about the Repubs being the party of the wealthy grey haired men. You've blathered on and on and on about the Koch brothers...buying elections...yada yada yada.

I do not recall ONE TIME that you had anything bad to say about your Dear Leader's handler George Soros, a billionaire libtard who wants to destroy America from within.

And, wasn't there a recent report about the really big money being with the libtards? You were silent on that. Maybe you were too busy with your "ventures" that you missed that one.

You have a history of complaining and being jealous of anybody you suspect is more successful or has more money than you....unless they are libs...then your head is so far up their rear end that if they made a sharp right turn, your neck would snap.

Astute you are not. Your kind of thinking and politics is what has gotten us where we are now...in deep excrement....but don't let that stop you from "getting yours" with all the government freebies.

Soros, Adelson. Buffett, the Kochs-- if you want Big money/Big Business folks being given more puppet strings to pull on their politicians, that's fine and dandy... That's exactly what this ruling allows... For me, I'd rather see it go the other way and have the working man and small businessman have more say....




Andy Borowitz

Supreme Court Defends Wealthy's Right to Own Government
 

Mike

Well-known member
More of the best government BIG money can buy....
2008 Presidential Campaign Total Funds Raised:

John McCain - $368 MILLION

Buckwheat - $745 MILLION

Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.

In 2008, Wall Street’s largesse accounted for 20 percent of Obama’s total take, according to Reuters. …
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
More of the best government BIG money can buy....
2008 Presidential Campaign Total Funds Raised:

John McCain - $368 MILLION

Buckwheat - $745 MILLION

Yep- that's what I've been talking about... You shouldn't be able to buy elections... The candidates campaigns should be be given equal public funding and not be allowed to spend any more... Keep a rich man from buying a candidate or a rich candidate from buying his own place in office...

A reasonable limit ($250 Million ?) would also limit the length of the campaigns and we wouldn't have campaigns that start over 5 minutes after the last election ends.....
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
loomixguy said:
You have spewed for YEARS about the Repubs being the party of the wealthy grey haired men. You've blathered on and on and on about the Koch brothers...buying elections...yada yada yada.

I do not recall ONE TIME that you had anything bad to say about your Dear Leader's handler George Soros, a billionaire libtard who wants to destroy America from within.

And, wasn't there a recent report about the really big money being with the libtards? You were silent on that. Maybe you were too busy with your "ventures" that you missed that one.

You have a history of complaining and being jealous of anybody you suspect is more successful or has more money than you....unless they are libs...then your head is so far up their rear end that if they made a sharp right turn, your neck would snap.

Astute you are not. Your kind of thinking and politics is what has gotten us where we are now...in deep excrement....but don't let that stop you from "getting yours" with all the government freebies.

Soros, Adelson. Buffett, the Kochs-- if you want Big money/Big Business folks being given more puppet strings to pull on their politicians, that's fine and dandy... That's exactly what this ruling allows... For me, I'd rather see it go the other way and have the working man and small businessman have more say....




Andy Borowitz

Supreme Court Defends Wealthy's Right to Own Government

the Washington Free Beacon reports, we have a Democrat-supporting fat cat who is what they like to accuse the Koch Brothers of being:


A major Democratic donor pleaded guilty on Monday to funneling millions of dollars in illegal campaign donations to federal and local politicians, including an unnamed 2008 presidential candidate believed to be Hillary Clinton.

District of Columbia businessman Jeffrey Thompson, who federal prosecutors say financed a “shadow campaign” for D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray in 2010, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws.

Thompson claimed some of the candidates, including Gray, were aware of the illegal fundraising.

According to prosecutors, Gray decided to invent a phony name for Thompson, “Uncle Earl,” to protect his identity. It evidently didn’t work. Gray’s people deny that he had any knowledge of Thompson’s illegal activities… which would make his use of the pseudonym more than a little odd, wouldn’t it? Is Gray really going to make the case that he didn’t notice almost half a million dollars pouring into his campaign? Is Hillary Clinton going to try the same “Vote For Me – I’m Oblivious!” strategy in 2016?

And Dinesh D'Souza was charged and released on a $500,000 bond for donating $20,000 to a Senator that lost. Just what do you think this Democrat THAT KNOWINGLY ILLEGALLY CHEATED by giving MILLIONS to including HILLARY, should be facing when for $20,000 D'Souza is facing 3 years.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
April 2, 2014

Supreme Court Defends Wealthy’s Right to Own Government

Posted by Andy Borowitz


WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—By a five-to-four decision, the United States Supreme Court today defended the right of the wealthiest Americans to own the United States government.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts summarized the rationale behind the Court’s decision: “In recent years, this Court has done its level best to remove any barriers preventing the wealthiest in our nation from owning our government outright. And while the few barriers that remained were flimsy at best, it was high time that they be shredded as well.”

Citing the United States Constitution, Justice Roberts wrote, “Our founding fathers created the most magnificent democracy in human history. Now, thanks to this decision, the dream of owning that democracy is a reality.”


Justice Antonin Scalia also weighed in, telling reporters at the Court, “After all the pro-gay decisions we’ve been making around here lately, it was nice to finally have a win for the good guys.”
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Posting a comment by your hero wanna be comment does not make it true oldtimer :wink: :wink: :wink:

old any truths today or just more lies.

How is those cattle ventures doing keeping you so busy you cant tell the truth??? Or proving statements made by you in the past????? :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Union donations still okay, OT? "Corporations are not individuals", nope, and neither are unions, if that is the case.

And the Koch brothers also donate to Democrats. They are libertarians, so they donate to candidates who they feel are less intrusive and "big government"

the reason their donations go to mostly Republicans, is because Republicans on the whole are less intrusive. If you want less freedom/liberty, you vote Democrat.
 

Mike

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Union donations still okay, OT? "Corporations are not individuals", nope, and neither are unions, if that is the case.

And the Koch brothers also donate to Democrats. They are libertarians, so they donate to candidates who they feel are less intrusive and "big government"

the reason their donations go to mostly Republicans, is because Republicans on the whole are less intrusive. If you want less freedom/liberty, you vote Democrat.

Personally, I shouldn't be hampered, PERIOD!!!, in how much money I can donate to a candidate of my choice. Or how many candidates I can donate to.

That's part of my "Freedom Of Speech"!

Funny how the Liberals are the one's screaming "Freedom" from the rooftops but don't care one iota about stifling others freedom.

SCOTUS got this one just right.......................
 

Steve

Well-known member
Political Spending by Unions Far Exceeds Direct Donations

Organized labor spends about four times as much on politics and lobbying as generally thought, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, a finding that shines a light on an aspect of labor's political activity that has often been overlooked.

Previous estimates have focused on labor unions' filings with federal election officials, which chronicle contributions made directly to federal candidates and union spending in support of candidates for Congress and the White House.

The new figures come from a little-known set of annual reports to the Labor Department in which local unions, their national parents and labor federations have been required to detail their spending on politics and lobbying since 2005.

This kind of spending, which is on the rise, has enabled the largest unions to maintain and in some cases increase their clout in Washington and state capitals, even though unionized workers make up a declining share of the workforce.

These kinds of spending, which unions report to the Federal Election Commission and to Congress, totaled $1.1 billion from 2005 through 2011, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The unions' reports to the Labor Department capture an additional $3.3 billion that unions spent over the same period on political activity.

Corporations and their employees also tend to spread their donations fairly evenly between the two major parties, unlike unions, which overwhelmingly assist Democrats. In 2008, Democrats received 55% of the $2 billion contributed by corporate PACs and company employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Labor unions were responsible for $75 million in political donations, with 92% going to Democrats.
 

Steve

Well-known member
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Heavy Hitters: Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014

This list includes the organizations that have historically qualified as "heavy hitters" — groups that lobby and spend big, with large sums sent to candidates, parties and leadership PACs. Individuals and organizations have been able to make extremely large donations to outside spending groups in the last few years.

a bit unsettling when you consider the Unions only have to report 1.1 billion while spending an additional 3.3 billion that is accounted for in most election reports.

you have to get to number 17 before you get a single GOP "heavy hitter"

from there it gradually goes to an even split..

and the list turns from heavy democratic to heavy GOP donators around # 75..

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
 

Steve

Well-known member
Look who's benefiting from Citizens United: Unions wrote more big checks than corporations in 2013

When it comes to writing big checks to favored candidates and causes, unions last year seemed to be taking greater advantage of the landmark Citizens United decision than corporations.

A Sunlight analysis of groups and individuals who wrote checks of $10,000 or more to super PACs and other political committees that report to the FEC revealed big labor bested big business in 2013 by better than 2-to-1.

Our study was focused on determining who is writing the kind of checks that would not have been legal prior to the controversial 2010 Supreme Court decision that opened the way for unions and companies to give money directly from their treasuries in unlimited amounts —

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/02/06/look-whos-benefiting-from-citizens-united-unions-wrote-more-big-checks-than-corporations-in-2013/
 
Top