Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Money spent on an election has no bearing on the outcome. If it did, Linda McMahon and Carly Fiorina would both have won the election. Or what about the guy in Virginia who spent Thirty some thousand and beat the House Majority leader? If you are liked you can spend a dollar and win. if no one likes you than spending Two Hundred and Fifty Million dollars won't save you.
I won't say it has no influence but indeed it does not have the influence many pretend it does.
How much and from whom? What are they saying and through whom? How are they going about this?
Well, we can't really tell for sure right now. Part of the problem with the way the law is currently written is that it allows anonymous donors to contribute to PAC's. We know it's happening, but the degree to which it's happening is nearly impossible to figure out unless we reform the law to create more transparency.
Here are a couple of articles that deal with the subject:
Well, we can't really tell for sure right now. Part of the problem with the way the law is currently written is that it allows anonymous donors to contribute to PAC's. We know it's happening, but the degree to which it's happening is nearly impossible to figure out unless we reform the law to create more transparency.
Here are a couple of articles that deal with the subject:
Despite what you are claiming and what the first article is claiming, this had NOTHING to do with Citizen United. (I couldn't get your second link to work).
I wish people would quit being so dishonest. The article is claiming that someone created sham companies to funnel money into the accounts of a candidate. That is still illegal. That has NOTHING to do with the Citizen United ruling. Every penny that a candidate takes in mist be accounted for and who it was from. If it was from a sham company set up to skirt rules that is fraud.
Montana Supreme Court Justice James Nelson’s dissent from the decision rejecting Citizens United:
Quote:
While, as a member of this Court, I am bound to follow Citizens United, I do not have to agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. And, to be absolutely clear, I do not agree with it. For starters, the notion that corporations are disadvantaged in the political realm is unbelievable. Indeed, it has astounded most Americans. The truth is that corporations wield inordinate power in Congress and in state legislatures. It is hard to tell where government ends and corporate America begins; the transition is seamless and overlapping. In my view, Citizens United has turned the First Amendment’s “open marketplace†of ideas into an auction house for Friedmanian corporatists.Freedom of speech is now synonymous with freedom to spend. Speech equals money; money equals democracy. This decidedly was not the view of the constitutional founders, who favored the preeminence of individual interests over those of big business. […]
Lastly, I am compelled to say something about corporate “personhood.†While I recognize that this doctrine is firmly entrenched in the law, I find the entire concept offensive. Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers—not constitutional rights, but legislatively-conferred powers—that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited-liability investment vehicles for business. Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.
Despite what you are claiming and what the first article is claiming, this had NOTHING to do with Citizen United. (I couldn't get your second link to work).
I wish people would quit being so dishonest. The article is claiming that someone created sham companies to funnel money into the accounts of a candidate. That is still illegal. That has NOTHING to do with the Citizen United ruling. Every penny that a candidate takes in mist be accounted for and who it was from. If it was from a sham company set up to skirt rules that is fraud.
Try again?
If the decision was so cut & dried, why did the Supreme Court have to clarify its meaning? Why wouldn't folks expect the Court's reasoning to extend to foreign campaign money?
Quote:
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.
If the decision was so cut & dried, why did the Supreme Court have to clarify its meaning? Why wouldn't folks expect the Court's reasoning to extend to foreign campaign money?
Quote:
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.
If the decision was so cut & dried, why did the Supreme Court have to clarify its meaning? Why wouldn't folks expect the Court's reasoning to extend to foreign campaign money?
Because it was no different than hundreds of other rulings.
Quote:
The 'law is a blunt instrument' would apply here, wouldn't you say?
What does your quote say?
The decision clamped shut an opening that some thought the court had created two years ago in its Citizens United decision
That some thought.....there is obviously a lot of people who do not understand the ruling but it's no wonder with all the spin that has been written about it.
But there you go. The courts were clear that the ruling had absolutely nothing to do with campaign contributions.
Because it was no different than hundreds of other rulings.
What does your quote say?
The decision clamped shut an opening that some thought the court had created two years ago in its Citizens United decision
That some thought.....there is obviously a lot of people who do not understand the ruling but it's no wonder with all the spin that has been written about it.
But there you go. The courts were clear that the ruling had absolutely nothing to do with campaign contributions.
Sheeesh! The article cited states "Citizens United decision, when it relaxed campaign-finance limits on corporations and labor unions."
Relaxing campaign-finance limits has absolutely nothing to do with campaign contributions?
I think it made sense for the SCOTUS to clarify its decision because foreign lobbying & election campaign funding is distinct from domestic.
Quote:
Federal election law forbids political candidates from knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving donations from foreign nationals or foreign entities under any circumstances. A candidate need not have direct knowledge that the source is foreign to be in violation of the law. It suffices for the candidate to be "aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national" and have "failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry."
In reality, the US influence system tends to use lobbyists, who in turn, use campaign contributions to obtain access & to influence beneficial policy for their clients.
Foreign interests have learned if they want to obtain influence, they can mimic the corporate purchase.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
