Google +LinkedInPinterestYouTubeInstagramTwitterFacebook

Is the loosening of limits on campaign contributions a victory for the First Amendment?

 

View more polls

 

USAVet

April 10, 2014 - 3:34pm

This is what happens when the Supreme Court is rigged with Republican majority, the Party making sure the rich control the government. So now the Koch Brothers, the Heritage Foundation and the Dick Cheney criminal committee headed by Karl Rove can pay off the Republican Congress to block any job creating Bills and reduce VA pensions and benefits and social security. This is how Russia found itself being run by wealthy oligarchists not only pedalling influence, and now they just pay off goverment officals. The US wealthy companies, like Haliburton, can do the same thing, except now it is legal.

Real Vet

April 11, 2014 - 10:50am

USAVet, Seriously, you aren't aware of the ownership of the current leadership? I know a lot of veterans, and not a single one would agree with you. You are most likely not a vet at all but a troll who pretends to be just to stir it up. No veteran I know is dumb enough to believe that BS.

Bohannnon

April 14, 2014 - 12:53pm

I agree to a point. The wealth do control a lot of what congress does. Look at Harry Reed for example; how rich he is now and how much out of touch he is with the people with the dumb things that comes out of his head. He just one hear is another; Charlie Rangel, and you can say that to both sides. Our leaders need to listen to us instead of lining their own pockets with our sweat and blood. I just want them to do what is right work together and quit sitting on bills that come to the table.

Citizen1

April 11, 2014 - 4:35pm

If it was rigged with a Republican majority as you think, how in the hell did Obamacare get approved?

Anonymous 2

April 16, 2014 - 9:43pm

Einstein, Obamacare was passed when the House and Senate were each majority Democrat. Why is it that some people will go to any extreme to discredit the Black man in the White house, even if it means spewing lies and showing ignorance? Well, I guess my answer is in my question.

Anonymous

April 12, 2014 - 11:37am

Right on! Thanks to you mindless right wingers who've allowed this. You've been hoodwinked by the rich- they wrap themselves in Jesus & the American Flag but are neither religious nor patriotic. Keep listening to the lies on Faux news, owned by a billionaire Australian who manipulates you so he can make money.

Real Vet

April 13, 2014 - 9:40am

Anonymous,
Read what you just wrote. No one in their right mind would believe that drivel. Big Money put BO in office and has kept him there. His campaign contributions far exceeded those of his competitors, AND he has repaid the favors. Look at the state of the country.
You should do your homework before you shoot off your mouth, then go troll some site with other mindless non-vets.

VN VET

April 10, 2014 - 4:11pm

It is all about the money. It is interesting to listen to Liberals talk about the "rich" people who control everything. Suggest you re-look at the contribution list a little closer you just may find names like George Soros and other liberal "fat cats". Some real "plump" ones like Pelosie and Reid, worth over 25 million each, occupy the governing bench.
What I do like about it is now we can really see all who give to the political campaigns from either party. We all knew that there were a multitude of ways that the money was funneled in in the past. No it isn't fair, but then it never was, isn't suppose to be, and will not be.

WWII Vet

April 10, 2014 - 5:09pm

I agree with what you say, except I don't follow your reasoning in saying it isn't supposed to be fair. What we need is openness and limits.

mike D

April 10, 2014 - 6:41pm

Who says it's going to be transparent? I hope your right but there are no gurantees! IMHO

USNretired

April 10, 2014 - 4:22pm

Seems like the current administration has done quite well with his ongoing campaign fund raising at the tax payers expense. Crooks are crooks no matter the party affiliation. You are right about a bought oligarchy such as we currently have bypassing congress with his pen and phone, you haven't seen any thing yet until his true agenda is revealed.

Jim Sharp

April 10, 2014 - 4:59pm

I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's position that money is free speech. So, some people are born with more free speech than others? How can this be? I do think that efforts to limit money in politics are doomed to fail. Money is like water. It will find a way. I would support an requirement that all contributions be identified regarding the source. We should have total transparency.

Harry D. Kline

April 12, 2014 - 10:15am

You are just as your name implies, very sharp. Of course what you say is merely good common sense! A commodity we seem to be very short on these days!

Bohannon

April 14, 2014 - 1:05pm

It seems we need to replace both sides and put new blood in place. Then tell them if they don't do right remember the person they replaced come reelection time. Why is it a person goes to congress making maybe 250 to 500 thousand and becomes a millionaire within a year. Then they get better health care then us Vets.

Anonymous 2

April 16, 2014 - 9:47pm

I agree with Mr. Sharp and Mr. Kline.

RonFrumAmaireeka

April 10, 2014 - 6:05pm

The current supreme court is the best supreme court that money can buy. That not with standing, corporations are still not people and we have been sold down the river by this court. This is the end of any scrap of democracy that we might have had left. Keep your powder dry, there are hard times ahead!

Bohannon

April 14, 2014 - 1:08pm

It sounds like your saying "remember the French Revolution".

13E20

April 10, 2014 - 6:16pm

Golly, USAVet, for a moment you almost had me convinced that the only rich people who would be buying the government were republicans. Then I happened to recall a few other names on the list of the uber-wealthy who seem to have their checkbooks open - Soros, Bloomberg, Buffett, Clinton, Kennedy, etc, etc. The government should NOT be for sale to any group of elite extremists regardless of their orientation. When 1% of the population can control the government we will ALL be their minions. That's not the kind of life I want for my grandchildren. Of the PEOPLE, By the PEOPLE, and For the PEOPLE - anything else is unacceptable!

Bohannon

April 14, 2014 - 1:09pm

Amen brother. You hit the nail on the head.

Greg Thomas, USAF, Retired

April 10, 2014 - 6:40pm

I believe that only those eligible to vote should be able to contribute to campaigns - not unions or companies or lobbies. And there should be a limit to how much a voter can contribute; one person, one vote, one contribution - whether to a candidate or issue. No more power brokers.

JustSaying

April 10, 2014 - 6:47pm

First, the Supreme Court is correct in that anyone should be able to contribute whatever amount they want to whoever they want.

Second, several commentators are also correct in that it enables fat cats (both of the Republicrat and Demoplican variety) to dominate government.

Both of the major parties are really one and the same. Carroll Quigley made that clear in "Tragedy & Hope". As he says, it only enables us to "throw the bums out" at every election without altering the course pursued by those in power.

We should have listened when George Washington warned of the perils of parties.

Richard Hofacker

April 11, 2014 - 1:09am

I wish we could provide honest candidates who would have a chance to be on the ballot, but the parties, not the public, control the ballot. If you're not on the first two lines (i.e., Republican and Democrat) you're lost. If you're on the lowest line, you're dead. The party bosses run the primaries so the idea of "throw the bums out" is dead in the water in the primaries where the party candidates are anointed. All the money for TV and radio and posters and fliers and what-have-you will go to the candidates who can be "influenced" by the wealthy backers. This new ruling by the Supreme Court is a hypocritical confirmation of the rotten state of today's political scene.

PUFL Member

April 10, 2014 - 7:31pm

Democrats just want to return to where only unions (and George Soros) were able to make unlimited donations. Unfortunately, most voters only know the sound bites spouted in paid ads and not the actual FACTS about candidates or issues. So Money Talks. If there was a media that actually REPORTED everything, not just what fit their ideology, and a populous that put America ahead of party it wouldn't matter.
That said, as long as we have rampant voter fraud, we will not have a truly functional Democratic Republic.

IMO

April 10, 2014 - 8:32pm

Welcome to "The United Corporations of America", where corporations are people too. Thank you, "right wing" SCOTUS.
To those desiring term limits, never happen, "fox guarding the hen house, perhaps?"

Former Patriot

April 10, 2014 - 8:57pm

I heard that the love of money is the root of all evil. I believe it is true and nothing can be done about it. Too many greedy people in this country and we are too far gone down the drain. Does anyone remember the Roman Empire?

Mark Alspaugh, USN Vet

April 11, 2014 - 10:32am

The corruption of politics by money is just one manifestation of what is going wrong in our country. By a margin of more than 2:1, the vast majority of the American People believe our federal government is headed in the wrong direction. Unsustainable debt combined with crushing regulations, bureaucratic corruption, unending scandals, and an ever larger and more powerful federal government are seen as a recipe for disaster. There is no shortage of those, caught up with feelings of helplessness, frustration, and profound disappointment with government, who believe that time may be running out.

But there is a way for We the People to right the ship of state, restore constitutional government, and reestablish the sovereignty of the states that the big government crowd and sanctimonious naysayers don’t want you to know. It is found in the gift the Founders gave us in Article V of the Constitution; the perfect answer for the out-of-control Washington we have today.

Article V of the Constitution provides that when two-thirds of the states call for it, a convention of states shall be convened for the purpose of proposing amendments. Upon ratification in the established, normal manner by three-fourths of the states, such amendments shall become part of the Constitution. Think balanced budget, term limits, regulation limits, fairer taxation, campaign financing, meaningful oversight, transparency and real governmental accountability, among others, as possible.

The Founders have us the Bill of Rights. Its time we gave our posterity the Bill of Renewal.

Do your homework. Find out about Article V and its Convention of States. Make up your own mind. Maybe the Convention of States is the last best hope of saving our country.

Peter D

April 11, 2014 - 12:28pm

I don't think that its an issue of MPs not being able to defend base residents. Military members fight overseas to defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment and should be allowed to freely purchase, maintain and even carry personal weapons on base to and from the range or other approved shooting locations provided they abide by current DoD wide policy (and NOT difficult to follow rules established by the whim of the local command) and they are registered. Banning guns WILL NOT STOP and NEVER HAS STOPPED people from illegally bringing a weapon to any facility, military base, public school, mall, or even the US Capitol and killing people. Crazy people and criminals WON'T OBEY ANY LAW you make... that's why they are criminals.

The only people a Base Gun Ban would hurt would be the majority of the law abiding residents. And turning a base into a 'sanctuary of peace and safety" for residents is as naive as town councils who post "Drug Free School Zones" and think that by doing so the drug problem goes away.

Bohannon

April 14, 2014 - 1:22pm

You forgot one thing. That's what the government wants to do. And, that is take away our guns and rights. And, if you disagree take you away and brain wash you into thinking their way is right. Or, overload you with legal fees which you can not afford but they can because your paying your tax's which is their legal fees. Now tell me that doesn't stink.

GLKing

April 11, 2014 - 1:34pm

I think Political and PAC Contributions should be LIMITED for Corporations and Businesses. The American PEOPLE should be the ones who influence Congress, NOT Big Business, Unions and PAC's. The Constitution says "WE THE PEOPLE of THESE UNITED STATES".

Bohannon

April 14, 2014 - 1:26pm

What really doesn't sound right is when does a company or union become a taxpayer. Most of them are tax exempt from paying. Now an individual pays tax's and should be able to contribute to whom they wish as much as they wish. It's their money.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Tell us what you think