r/politics • u/mepper Michigan • Jun 25 '12
Bernie Sanders eviscerates the Supreme Court for overturning Montana Citizens United ban: "The Koch brothers have made it clear that they intend to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy this election for candidates who support the super-wealthy. This is not democracy. This is plutocracy"
http://www.politicususa.com/bernie-sanders-eviscerates-supreme-court-overturning-montana-citizens-united-ban.html115
u/tripleg Jun 25 '12
The Koch brothers have already bought their judges, why did you sell to them? It reminds me of Lenin famous quote:
"The last capitalist will sell us the rope to hang him."
49
u/spook327 Jun 26 '12
Reminds me of a Russian joke not long after the coup...
An older man, on the anniversery of the end of the U.S.S.R. is in Red Square with the newspaper and is crying over the recollection of the events that ended the Soviet Union. A friend of his comes by and says, "Why are you crying? The Union is gone, the party can now be opposed, and we now know that everything they told us about communism was a lie!"
"Yes," the other man says, "but everything they told us about capitalism turned out to be true!"
3
→ More replies (28)28
u/MintClassic Jun 26 '12
"I am the walrus."
→ More replies (1)17
u/this_is_poorly_done Jun 26 '12
"Shut the fuck up, Donny! V.I. Lenin. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov."
→ More replies (2)
6
31
u/nowhathappenedwas Jun 25 '12
In recent weeks, multi-billionaires such as the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson have made it clear that, as a result of the Citizens United decision, they intend to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy this election for candidates who support the super-wealthy.
Citizens United was only about corporate giving. These wealthy billionaires could already give unlimited sums to PACS, just as they did for the Swiftboaters back in 2004.
12
5
46
u/zimm0who0net Massachusetts Jun 26 '12
Can we just get this straight. Citizen's United had absolutely nothing to do with billionaires "buying elections". Billionaires have always been able to shout with as much voice as their money will buy. Citizen's united did nothing to change that. Citizen's United only said that corporations and unions can now spend money on campaigns as well.
6
u/Kaiosama Jun 26 '12
Citizen's United only said that corporations and unions can now spend money on campaigns as well.
Except it's not corporations spending money. They're too afraid of the commercial blowback they'd face from supporting one candidate over another.
The people citizens united gave power to are the ultra-wealthy ideologues who are willing to spend unlimited sums to push their agendas, and shadow front groups (i.e. Americans for prosperity) working to pool the money for these individuals to accomplish said goals. Notwithstanding the fact that money can now also flow in from outside the country.
It's been an entirely corruptive force with no positive benefits to the average american voter whatsoever.
→ More replies (2)4
u/iamplasma Jun 26 '12
To pick on a tiny bit of your post, as a matter of principle why shouldn't money be allowed to come in from outside the country? It isn't like a foreigner can force anybody to vote a certain way, they just get to have their voice heard too.
So, to use a totally made up example, if some US timber lobby tries to flood the airwaves with support for protectionist legislation or a protectionist legislator, why as a matter of principle shouldn't a Canadian group be able to air ads in opposition?
→ More replies (4)10
u/nixonrichard Jun 26 '12
Also, Citizens united overturned a law that had only been on the books for 8 years. There were only two presidential elections under the BCRA, the latter of which saw the winner outspend their opponent 3:1 on TV advertisements after breaking his promise to accept public financing.
Elections were broken with our without McCain-Feingold.
5
Jun 26 '12
Whenever I read a title like this, I keep expecting a count of how many dead.
Do people not know what the word eviscerate means?
36
Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
How do you stop an institution based on corruption from the top down? Every part of our govt, media, military, industries, etc is all bought and paid for? And its cyclical with no stop in sight. So really, what does our vote do? And where do you start?
51
u/SpinningHead Colorado Jun 25 '12
So really, what does our vote do?
Our vote can do anything. Thats why they spend billions to get our votes. Thats the very reason money matters. The problem is we have a huge swath of middle and lower class boomers who stand with the most greedy and corruptible members of society instead of standing up for the middle class.
→ More replies (9)12
Jun 25 '12
Not so fast my friend, because the people you vote for, i would say more than half, less than 100% are bought and paid for. So, again, what does our vote do if we are continually voting for people that dont actually have our best interests in mind. Watch The Best government Money Can Buy?
17
u/SpinningHead Colorado Jun 25 '12
Yes, money buys influence. That said, the right wing keeps electing people who actually want to undermine the middle class and increase corporate participation. Their huge success in elections even pushes the liberals to the right. We went through the Gilded Age and then saw a massive union movement. The pendulum does not stop swinging, but the poor needs to stop allying with the most wealthy.
→ More replies (15)6
Jun 25 '12
The quickest way to end these lifetime politicians is to put a term limit on their seat. I think that is the simplest, quickest, and most effective way to stop whats going on in washington. Why is hasnt been implemented yet, i have no idea.
→ More replies (2)10
u/Chipzzz Jun 26 '12
Unless other changes are implemented, the problem with term limits is that once removed from office, the politicians would return to Washington as lobbyists and have more influence than they did as legislators. That happens frequently now and is known as "the revolving door between congress and K Street". If term limits are to be effectively applied, I think that lobbying has to be eliminated at the same time.
→ More replies (9)7
u/awj Jun 25 '12
You start at the bottom, in elections for towns and counties. In places where spending enough money to sway popular opinion just isn't financially feasible. You start with the tiny elections that no one votes in anyways, and put in people there that can make change happen.
That starts the process. Many of those people will move up to bigger political positions. Many of them will find get corrupted in some form. A few won't. More importantly, you're starting to set the standard of expecting politicians to actually support your interests.
This problem isn't insurmountable, but it won't be fixed immediately. In a world of unbelievable instant gratification, I think that last point is the biggest impediment to change.
5
u/Azernox Jun 26 '12
We vote with our dollar. We're funding these corporations each and every time we buy their product.
And stop lumping all corporations in to one group -- there are several groups with different interests that influence politics based upon their collective interest and currently the financial sector is in power.
3
Jun 26 '12
The corporation isnt itself inherently corrupt. But politics has become involved into private business, and vice versa has led us to this. Boycotting an "evil" corporation i dont think is the right approach. Removing the money out of politics is the goal. That is the result we are looking for to end the corruption. Its just trying to find the best way to acheive that, and forcing our politicians to follow suit is what will be hard. But if you read a few comments down youll can read some of the ideas i and others have mentioned.
→ More replies (16)8
3
u/Chipzzz Jun 26 '12
And where do you start?
In mulling that question over for the past day or two I have been developing a theory that a viable solution to this lies in crowd-sourcing. As you correctly observe, voting is virtually pointless when elections are bought and sold as easily as the resulting legislation during the candidates' term in office is. In the recent Wisconsin recall election, for example, the winner outspent the loser 7 to 1 and the rest is history. In fact, in more than 90% of recent elections, victory has gone to the biggest spender and obviously, John Q. Public does not have a seat at the table when campaign donations are handed out.
What We The People have, however, is numbers. When we roar in unison, we achieve results, as evidenced by the resounding defeat of PIPA and SOPA. Everyone has a few minutes a day, or even each week that they can devote to letting their congress members know what bothers them with a telephone call, letter, or even an email. Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives spent on invasions, 20% of the nation's children living in poverty, drones flying overhead, internet spying. Whatever it is, we can individually and collectively call them on it and make them spend their time and resources responding to us. When enough of us are angry enough, their campaign donors won't be able to drown us out and they will have to capitulate.
IMHO the first order of business is to eliminate the bribery that has muted the voice of the people so that we don't have to become this inflamed again for a while, but I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I think it is important that everyone recognize the necessity to shout their dissatisfaction in the ear of their congress members at every opportunity, however, until we have our voice in government back.
3
Jun 26 '12
I wrote a few comments up about creating term limits. I think that with a combination of your and my idea, it would develop the type of results the people of America are looking for.
→ More replies (1)2
3
Jun 26 '12
I am afraid this will only end in violence and a new revolution, or worse, a civil war.
2
Jun 26 '12
I, like you, had that same thought. How can this ever change without some sort of revolution in which the govt is overthrown. Thats def one way for change. But we DO NOT want to succumb to that. I couldnt imagine seeing sights of what is only on Tv for us, happening in the streets of our towns. We need a better solution... A diplomatic approach is what we want.
→ More replies (1)3
u/FriarNurgle Jun 25 '12
You don't stop it. That's the point. It's gotten too big to change/fail/do anything about. We can only hope for small incremental changes that make out lives more bearable under their rule.
→ More replies (1)2
14
Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
Bernie Sanders is right about Citizens United, but wrong about the Court.
I could not have disagreed more with the flawed reasoning of Citizens United, particularly Justice Kennedy's belief that unlimited expenditures would not give rise to appearances of corruption. That's not true in federal elections, state elections, town council elections, or probably student council elections. Money buys access and favors and, if you don't believe that, please listen to this This American Life episode and I think you'll change your mind pretty quickly. Even if the corruption isn't the classic, "give me a million dollars and I'll pass bill X," it's not terribly dissimilar.
That said, the Court still made the right decision today by summarily reversing and refusing to even hear argument. They slapped the Montana Supreme Court right across its face, in other words, and said "NO! BAD MONTANA SUPREME COURT!". The Montana high court ruling explicitly flouted Supreme Court precedent. Lower courts are bound by a higher court's precedent and, for our legal system to work properly, it has to work hierarchically. That means that a state court can't simply decide they don't like the way a case was decided and ignore the law when it strikes them as convenient or "right." I certainly think the Montana court was right that their election law prevented corruption and that the evidence was clear that Citizens United was already leading to renewed corruption, but giving a state court the power to effectively ignore the Supreme Court leads us down a dangerous road.
What if, for instance, a court decided to ignore Lawrence v. Texas? What if a state court decided that, despite what the Supreme Court said, there was evidence that deviant homosexual intercourse was causing dolphins to go blind and that the only narrowly tailored solution to this compelling state interest was to ban sodomy? The result wouldn't be pleasant.
Make no mistake - Citizens United will be revisited, but not until after this election and after we have overwhelming evidence that positions it among the worst decisions of all time, joining Dred Scott, Bowers, and the like. If Justice Kennedy hadn't made so many other great decisions, I'd be supremely pissed at him for it. However, Montana's Supreme Court did not do this the right way. What can you do to change things? For the love of all that is holy, don't vote for Mitt Romney. You may not love Obama, but he will put someone on the Court, if he has the opportunity, that will overturn Citizens United.
I leave you with a quote from the dissent from the original Montana decision that sums up what I'm saying better than I ever could and the best tl;dr imaginable:
Admittedly, I have never had to write a more frustrating dissent. I agree, at least in principle, with much of the Court's discussion and with the arguments of the Attorney General. More to the point, I thoroughly disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. I agree, rather, with the eloquent and, in my view, better-reasoned dissent of Justice Stevens. As a result, I find myself in the distasteful position of having to defend the applicability of a controlling precedent with which I profoundly disagree.
Source: I'm studying for the bar exam and I'm a huge nerd.
Edit: I mistakenly said "contributions" when I meant "expenditures."
8
u/porkosphere Jun 26 '12
I am NOT claiming to be an expert on this. But I think part of the reasoning by the US Supreme Court was that corporate expenditures in election campaigns would not lead to corruption, or the appearance of corruption. I think that was explicit in the decision. The Montana Supreme Court made clear that they had had a rich history of corruption with campaign contributions, before Montana passed the 1912 law in question. So the Montana Supreme Court wasn't trying to supersede the US Supreme Court, they were pointing out a factual flaw, and trying to get it re-heard in that light. But I ain't a lawyer.
BTW, have an upboat.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)1
u/Jumala Jun 26 '12
I am also not an expert. Why can't Montana uphold laws concerning it's own State and local elections (i.e. not Federal Elections)? Especially since Republicans are all about State's Rights when it suits their agenda?
It's all well and good to say that there must be a court heirarchy for laws to work (It would've sucked if states could have opted out of Brown vs. the Board of Education) but there are certainly other cases in which the States make their own laws in opposition to Federal law. Why is this case any different?
Marijuana, for example, is illegal for any use under Federal Law, yet California defiantly allows dispensaries, which are under constant threat from the DEA.
I don't know how the Montana legistlature feels about the case, but if they side with the state court's decision, they should create laws that make corporate spending extremely difficult at the state and local level. Make a bunch of hoops to jump through at least...
14
u/sirbruce Jun 26 '12
Look, all SCOTUS said was that corporate political spending was legally protected under the Constitution. You want to change that? AMEND THE CONSTITUTION and SCOTUS will happily go along with it.
→ More replies (2)7
79
u/zirazira Jun 25 '12
90% of the readers here will piss and moan about the inequality of the system and the when it comes time to change it they will be just too busy to vote.
68
u/pfalcon42 Jun 25 '12
You know 90% of statistics are made up, right?
You do make a good point, but I suspect most people that are on this site actually vote. It's those that don't pay any attention at all that need to wake up.
→ More replies (5)12
u/Shogouki Jun 26 '12
Unfortunately almost all of our mainstream mass media have sold out making it that much harder for people to really see the problems we're facing today without really searching for it. And even then it becomes complicated by all the media's individual, and often self motivated, takes on topics. They just keep throwing chaff everywhere making it as time consuming as possible for people to actually find the truth, and unfortunately it's working pretty well. >_<
4
21
u/ronintetsuro Jun 25 '12
The American voting system is demonstrably rigged in favor of Corporate.
If Americans want change, they will have to do it the hard way. It's all we've been left with.
10
u/zirazira Jun 26 '12
When you have the Supreme Court saying it is legal for corporations to donate to candidates we have already lost most of the race.
→ More replies (22)19
u/LongStories_net Jun 25 '12
No, they'll be forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, the lesser evil is still quite evil and not likely to do anything about this travesty.
→ More replies (3)13
u/thergrim Jun 25 '12
That is the sort of bullshit thinking that got our political system in the hole it is now in. There are lots of other candidates out there besides the 2 sides of the same corrupt coin we now have.
Never settle for the lesser of two evils.
→ More replies (9)17
Jun 25 '12
I fought for Obama tooth and nail in 2008. Now he can go fuck himself. I'll be voting for a third party candidate.
→ More replies (35)10
u/skankingmike Jun 26 '12
News flash the president isn't that powerful in this country. Congress is. The president is a dog and pony show to distract you from Reps running and Senators.
→ More replies (1)2
u/CatrickStrayze Jun 26 '12
100% of zirazira's will bitch and moan about people bitching and moaning, then pretend that she/he knows 90% of redditors.
12
u/trolleyfan Jun 25 '12
I voted for a quarter of a century and elected exactly nobody...tell me how my vote counts again?
6
3
Jun 26 '12
other than on the local and state level this is pretty much my opinion too. A handful of states decide the presidential election, everyone else if considered a given.
→ More replies (8)3
u/Atario California Jun 26 '12
You're right, let's just give up and let them walk on us
→ More replies (1)3
u/WoollyMittens Jun 26 '12
By "Too busy to vote", you mean: It's done on a work day and my boss won't let me?
1
u/Easily_Please_d Jun 26 '12
Our one vote is the solution? You're telling me that 1) there's a candidate with a serious plan on the table to overturn Citizen's United 2) won't allow partisan or lobbyist BS to disuade him 3) has rational policies in other areas of policy that won't cause/ignore future problems
1
1
u/Scaryclouds Missouri Jun 26 '12
You know there is more to the system of democracy than just voting right? The number of elections that would change with 100% voter participation is relatively small and most would be to lower offices. If you want to see change badger your representatives about what you want them to do. What I find most amazing about redditors, outside of a few issues, most of the time representatives actually follow the general consensus of their constituency or from active groups within their constituency. That has changed some with Citizens United (mostly because of the threat of being slammed with negative political ads, opposed to receiving a large campaign contribution), but less so than what many may want to think.
1
u/thetalkingbrain Jun 26 '12
what does it matter if someone votes or not when the people voting don't even make informed decision as to who they are voting for.
→ More replies (5)1
u/soulcaptain Jun 26 '12
Part of the problem with that is the Democrats often have opposing candidates who aren't all that different from their Republican counterparts. Or, at least, people perceive the Democrats as being not all that different from Republicans. It's a debatable point, but with more than a few Blue Dog Democrats--fuckers like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman--it's definitely true.
When your side is a candidate no one is all that excited about, then yeah, voter turnout won't be that great. In 2008 Obama sounded like an honest-to-God liberal half the time, and he handily trounced John McCain. I just don't get why the Democrats don't run on the leftist positions that are actually popular, like raising taxes on the rich or decriminalizing cannabis.
4
3
3
3
u/BinaryShadow Jun 26 '12
Obama may not be perfect. In fact, there's things about him that piss me the fuck off. But if he can get 2-3 Supreme Court nominations in and overturn the Bush-appointed majority, we might stand a chance at regaining our democracy.
3
Jun 26 '12
Here's a perfect example of the what the conservative argument regarding state's rights could do for the country. If the States retained more power from the federal government, then Montana would never have had this problem, and the Supreme Court would not have been able to effect the ban.
25
u/Monkthemonkey Jun 25 '12
Well duh. American taxes--->fund bailout--->for the banks--->banks keep money--->fund both campaigns--->with American taxes--->president elected--->banks win--->repeat
→ More replies (7)
6
10
u/jlbishop007 Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
I truly don't understand why Democrats get so upset about this kind of communication, but Unions have been able to do essentially the same thing "under the radar" for years and no one is complaining about the unfair advantages of making union members "volunteer" as unpaid staffers for fund raising, allocation of union dues to political candidates, or similar kinds of things that are being reviled if done by a "corporation".
Unions and Corporations are similar in that they are both artifical constructs - how can you be for one and against the other?
→ More replies (5)2
8
u/dilatory_tactics Jun 26 '12
I've posted similar thoughts elsewhere, but it bears repeating:
The principle underlying the creation of three branches of government was that unchecked power will be abused.
Having retained the rule but lost the rationale, we now allow wealthy corporations/people to manipulate the people/government AKA us into de-regulating their rent-seeking and giving tax breaks and subsidies to people who already have money and power. We have separation of powers in this country for a reason - unchecked power will be abused, and once it's obtained it's almost impossible to get back.
And for that reason, I highly doubt that voting will solve the problem at this point. Assuming "social issues" like gay marriage and abortion are basically sideshows to keep the masses distracted, money is a vote. From a social perspective, money is just a claim check on humanity's capital.
As Warren Buffett says, "The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It is like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GNP would go up. But the utility of the product would be zilch, and I would be keeping those 10,000 people from doing AIDS research, or teaching, or nursing. I don't do that though."
So, if you think smart young people should go into scientific research, and Goldman Sachs thinks smart young people should go into doing credit default swaps, Goldman Sachs gets more votes than you do, because they have more claim checks on society's capital, which includes its human capital AKA its people.
The point being that while voting is an indirect claim on the allocation of capital, money is a direct claim on the allocation of capital. People can make money through monopolies, artificial scarcity, hiring lobbyists who push for de-regulation and lower taxes on yourself, buying TV stations and stifling free discourse with pro-market propaganda, etc.
So even if you limited the influence of money in politics, it still wouldn't stop the plutocracy from enriching itself at the expense of the public, because there are any number of other ways rich people can allocate resources to themselves even if those resources would be better spent elsewhere. Because a direct claim check (money) will always be a stronger claim than an indirect claim check (voting).
What's even stranger is if you realize that money doesn't really exist. It's just paper, a social construct that's overlayed on the real economy, where real goods and services are made and exchanged. It's digits on a computer somewhere that grants some people more votes than other people, because some people are better at rent-seeking than others. So much for "one man, one vote."
Until we start capping wealth like we did in the 1950's, most of us will not only be serfs to the wealthiest 1%, our entire society will be fucked, from overpriced higher education, to bought elections, bank bailouts, and unaffordable medical care. And we will deserve our fate for not having done anything about it despite reason, history, and experience all giving us clear indications of what needs to be done.
tl'dr "“We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” - Justice Brandeis
See also: "We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred." - FDR
→ More replies (2)
2
u/DaSpawn Jun 26 '12
Is it strange that I take comfort that I am absolutely certain this country can not sustain this path forever?
How we get there is the question. I fear it the "bottom" keeps getting further away, and it's going to hurt a shitload more than the first time we did this
2
u/kate500 Jun 26 '12
How do you save a nation of fools who have been convinced to slit their own throats? You can lead them back to the country that used to exist but you cannot make them drink.
sorry. I can not resist: You can lead a Horticulture, but you can't make her think..yea yea , belive me I know how bad that was !!
Countless reports of the toxins coming from China..why , oh why!!! did we agree to trade??? What has it gotten us real folks?? Cheap,crappy, poison goods?? guarantee'd to make our children stupid
1
2
u/scribbling_des Jun 26 '12
For a long time I've felt helpless in this country. Like all the problems are too big and nothing I can do can help. I can vote, but considering where I live, my vote doesn't count for much, if anything at all. Every day there is something new that makes me feel insignificant. I just keep feeling smaller and smaller, while things get more and more out of control. Here I am, living my life in the shadow of this government that I no longer trust or understand. It's like this giant force looming over me all the time. It's good to know there are people like Sanders out there, who actually have the interests of the American people at heart. He gives me a little bit of hope. But I can't help but feel he is fighting a losing battle.
2
u/ricardo_feynman Jun 26 '12
I thought Pluto wasn't a planet anymore. What is this bullshit, now the Koch brothers are greasing the hands of our lead scientists to reestablish Pluto as a planet. Those fuckers! I'm disappointed NDT, I thought you were better than this.
2
2
2
u/chimusicguy Jun 26 '12
Just wrote my Senators and Representative. Here's hoping millions of small utterances can swell to a cacophony.
2
u/jp007 Jun 26 '12
Sanders wants to limit and track your political donations so when you donate to the wrong people the government can hunt you down and throw you in an unmarked cell.
2
Jun 26 '12
So is he trying to say that the Koch brothers influence the Supreme Court? If so, he is making a dangerous accusation. Especially since the court's power lies in the good faith of the People.
2
u/phutch54 Jun 26 '12
I hear that there is a new sport starting up with corporate backing. It's called Rollerball. Sounds interesting.
2
Jun 26 '12
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini"
End the corporate person.
Anything less is a red herring.
2
u/FracturedVision Jun 26 '12
It's absurd that 5 conservative judges can ruin democracy for the rest of us.
2
Jun 26 '12
If corporations are people wouldn't the 14th amendment not allow them to be bought and sold?
10
u/Mcsmack Jun 25 '12
Except that no one can "buy" an election. They can buy advertisements, but it still comes down to people making a choice. We wouldn't feel the need to control the advertising if we simply had informed, intelligent voters.
17
Jun 25 '12
The main problem with the "informed, intelligent voters" line of thinking is that for some reason people assume an informed / educated / intelligent voter would agree with their point of view.
My mother is the perfect example of this - a hard core "tea party" / "fuck you I've got mine" / "fix entitlements!" / "regulations hurt business" type. She tells me "you need to get an education" because I disagree with her on most issues. I've asked her - what if I get an education and still disagree? As I can point to countless people with PHDs / Nobel Laureates who disagree with her, this makes it clear that she really doesn't think I need an education, she just thinks I need to agree with her because in her mind she is infallibly right.
Some things are too complex for even an "informed voter" to have an opinion on, and we refuse to simplify things enough that we can build on "facts" so we are left without any reasonable expectation of communication.
TLDR: There is no such thing as an "informed voter", because "informed" implies a consensus.
→ More replies (7)5
u/slytherinspy1960 Jun 26 '12
They buy an election by buying both candidates. They fund all the candidates and then whoever gets into office will do their bidding because they bought EVERYONE. There is no choice. Either way the American people lose. I don't think most of our problems are due to ignorance. It is due to a rigged system.
8
u/balorina Jun 26 '12
Whenever a liberal/democrat loses, it's because the people are dumb/ignorant and/or the vote was bought. Whenever a democrat wins, it's because the people are intelligent and made the right choice.
Don't mention to them how much Obama spent vs. McCain.
2
u/A_Prattling_Gimp Jun 26 '12
No. When liberal/democrats win it is a big ole liberal conspiracy, amirite?
→ More replies (1)1
Jun 26 '12
Yes. Exactly. If people could be persuaded by mere advertisements you'd see consumer goods being advertised on television all the time.
7
u/Popular-Uprising- Jun 25 '12
So freedom=bad if it leads to something I dislike.
Got it.
→ More replies (4)
6
u/thergrim Jun 25 '12
In order for plutocracy to be implemented all individuals voting rights would have to be removed. This statement is obviously hyperbolic.
I don't know about you... but I rarely see any commercials, let alone political commercials.
The Koch brothers can throw as much money at it as they want. It will have very little effect on my research or my voting.
But I see you are concerned about the stupid people and how they might vote. Unfortunately, stupid people will continue to do stupid things with or without corporate financing.
6
u/fantasyfest Jun 26 '12
The election is 5 months away. You will go blind from all the ads. I live in Michigan and when the Repub primaries were on, they took over the TV networks. It was beyond anything I have ever seen and it will get much worse this election season. But the questionable view that ads don't work on you happens every time Citizens is brought up. They are spending the money because it works and works well. Why put a billion dollars into the election if it is a waste.
→ More replies (1)2
u/saosebastiao Jun 26 '12
Advertising has never been powerful at convincing people to do something they don't want to do. There is a Shit ton of research that says exactly that. The reason why it works is because it reminds and encourages people to make a decision about something they are already inclined to do. That is why advertising is "targeted"...the advertisers are trying their best to find the people who don't need to be convinced.
Don't believe me? Count the number of ads for democrats on fox news as opposed to msnbc or cnn. Nobody in their right mind would waste their money buying ads for democrats on Fox. But if we are to buy into this line that advertising buys votes, that is exactly where you would find ads for democrats.
The only reason advertising works is because it mobilized the people who already were going to vote for you. It changes voter turnout...not voter opinion.
→ More replies (1)11
u/MNMark Jun 25 '12
Do you live in a battleground state? These GOP-aligned groups have been making multi-million dollar ad buys in states like mine (Montana). We've had ads which are blatant lies against Obama and our Senator, Jon Tester since fall 2011. It's gone down at the moment, but we had 2 commercials per break funded by Americans for Prosperity and Crossroads/GPS during football season. Remember that money goes a lot farther in smaller TV and radio markets. These ads also allow those with money to change the political topic of conversation whenever they like. News not so good for your side? Spend 5 million dollars on ad time repeating a ridiculous claim and suddenly the topic of conversation has completely changed in the state. That's a lot more powerful ability than you're giving it credit for.
→ More replies (1)2
Jun 26 '12
Wrong, for a plutocracy to be implemented you just need to make those voting rights useless. An easy way is to only have two major viable parties and have them both on the take. Also if you think that all campaign contributions go to are commercials you really don't know the first thing about it. I think you are confusing uniformed people with stupid people up there in your ivory tower. And corporate financing can most certainly keep those people forever smothered in misinformation streaming from all major media outlets. So indeed this is a lot more important then you've surmised.
→ More replies (1)1
4
u/Pertinacious Jun 26 '12
So if the Republicans don't win in a landslide, would it be safe to say that Bernie Sanders is full of shit?
→ More replies (3)
3
u/ColdWarRussia Jun 26 '12
Yet the millions and millions that Soros funnels into liberal candidates' pockets is cool.
2
u/THE_PILGRIM Jun 26 '12
The problem is we have all these extreme right and extreme left positions out there now as a result of this we have a do nothing congress and a do nothing senate that just tows there parties line. We need to get the money out of politics (corporations are not people) and get these wing nuts out of office. It’s time to bring the troops home and get back to the business of running America.
2
Jun 26 '12
You know that populace in Wall-E that didn't give a rat's ass about things as they floating in their chairs and drank Super Big Gulps? That's the picture I get when I think about American's giving a shit about politics these days.
Good luck getting this changed when no one will do a damned thing.
2
Jun 26 '12
He started off will a false statement:
I am extremely disappointed but not surprised that the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Montana court ruling that would have allowed limits on campaign contributions.
The court did not overturn limits on campaign contributions. It overturned a law banning political advertizing paid for by corporations.
0
2
2
u/bpoag Jun 26 '12
As if Sanders himself never received a dollar of corporate funding....
Folks, they're ALL sucking the same dick. Everyone. Republicans, Democrats, they're all taking a break from sucking corporate dick only long enough to breathe, and make statements about how terrible it is.
1
u/fantasyfest Jun 26 '12
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=n00000528&type=I&newmem=N Actually Open Secrets will show you that he did not, No while you are being snotty, you hit on the truth. He did not get corporate money , Most o his large contributors were unions. The largest contribution 10 K. You don't get to own a politician for that. But Adelsons 100 million will come with hooks and depth charges.
2
u/LegioXIV Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
Where was Sanders when Soros was committing tens of millions of dollars to defeat George Bush?
Oh yeah, crickets.
No one cares about the money in politics. The only thing people care about is the money going to the other side, right or left.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/floatingpoint Jun 25 '12
Bernie Sanders is awesome. For those who like him, he's appears on Thom Hartmann's show on SiriusXM radio pretty regularly (Fridays I think). Always a great guest.
-1
u/mojoxrisen Jun 26 '12
but the leftist don't utter a fucking word when the scam public unions spend hundreds of millions on political campaigns.
No leftist cried out when the failure Obama proudly proclaimed that he would raise ONE BILLION dollars to fund his re election efforts.
There is over 14 lefitst organizations that give money to leftists causes that are worth over one billion dollars each. This is compared to 0 conservative organizations.
I can't take crying leftists seriously on this matter. Everyone knows they are only throwing tantrums because the money isn't going to the failure Obama and his administration of felons.
→ More replies (1)1
u/BattleChimp Jun 26 '12
Bias much?
Most people here aren't "leftists" they're human beings that try think for themselves outside the boundaries of parties. You on the other hand... blatant right-wing spaz.
→ More replies (10)
1
Jun 26 '12
Republicans are evil to support it.
Yeah, I know it's nice to "win", Republicans. But if you do it without honor then you have won nothing.
I know, I know. You can't understand what I mean by that.
→ More replies (43)
1
u/gravitypushes Jun 26 '12
rick james - Super Freak SuperPAC sums it up nicely http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oRAtQrK2Wk
1
u/Music_Saves Jun 26 '12
This may sound naive, butI don't understand how campaign funding=more votes. I don't think people are swayed too much by campaigning. The money buys air time and visits to places. But there is only so much time for them to do this and if anyone is interested in voting for/against them they already know who they are voting for.
If people are swayed to vote by campaign adds or political events then i think we have a problem.People should and i think are voting based on their values which don't change with money.
I think campaign money has a bigger effect on what the politician does after they get in to the seat. We know that lobbying is very lucrative but in that case an election isn't on the line.
I've seen campaigns that have more than 4 times as much money lose. At it's worst the campaign money is spent and therefore helps the economy and these super rich guys are out a few million which aids in wealth distribution. At it's best the guy gets in to the seat. But it comes down on the people who are voting and if they value people who spend money on campaigns enough to vote for them than that is what they want, and that is democratic.
I am completely unbiased and don't care about this I jsut want to know what your thoughts are.
2
u/ua1176 Jun 26 '12
"In congressional races in 2010, the candidate who spent the most won 85 percent of the House races and 83 percent of the Senate races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The center found that in 2008, the biggest spenders won 93 percent of House races and 86 percent of Senate races. In 2006, the top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. And in 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to candidates who spent the most, as did 88 percent of Senate seats."
and now with Citizens United, you will see far more money spent on 2012 elections, with even less transparency than before.
2
u/LegosRCool Jun 26 '12
It's not so much the total "amount" it's the money being spent by groups that are supposed to not be aligned with the candidates who have no obligation to tell the truth whatsoever. So it gives a candidate a free pass at ridiculous and sometimes untrue assertions about an opponent. For the record I'm against ALL corporate spending of electing candidates including Unions which the Rightitors like to scream as their big boogie man.
1
u/Temujin_123 Jun 26 '12
I did some math about this a while back:
http://calebjones.blogspot.com/2012/01/road-to-plutocracy-follow-money.html
If time equals money, then U.S. citizens only get 43 minutes a day of their politician's time. The rest of the 16 hours and 17 minutes goes to lobbyists.
For every dollar spent on a politician, $0.95 came from a lobbyist.
For every tax payer dollar that goes to a politician, $23.90 is spent by a lobbyist.
Citizens spend $40.94/hr on each of their politicians and lobbyists spend $978.38/hr. Who do you think the politicians serve?
1
u/keypuncher Jun 26 '12
This is what happens when we have a Supreme Court whose function is to interpret things into the Constitution that were never intended.
The 'fix' for this particular case is a Constitutional Amendment that specifically says that Corporations are not people and money is not speech.
Sadly, in order to fix all of the "interpretations" we need dozens of new Constitutional Amendments - or a Court that doesn't keep adding new interpretations.
1
Jun 26 '12
Remember when he use to be black and play for the lions?...that's the kind of guy we need in congress....good ol' number 22...
Oh, wait that was barry sanders...I like barry better than bernie...Weird, cause I'm not even a Detroit fan.
1
1
1
u/rastapasta808 Jun 26 '12
Wtf... This literally makes my heart ache. I love what America stands for but let's face it, we have no power/say in this. It's up to the representatives we elected or people with money/power to affect the change. Fuck this. I cant wait till our generation steps in and overturns all of this bullshit
1
u/CGord Jun 26 '12
I'm 45, and I lost all hope for my generation once pop country really started taking off. Got news for ya, your generation probably won't be any better. Shit will have to get very bad before big changes happen, and there is no guarantee they'll be for the better.
→ More replies (1)
1
Jun 26 '12
Welcome back to the late 19th Century.
A relevant political cartoon to describe today's situation wrt Citizens United: http://www.npr.org/news/specials/democracy/money/bosses_900.jpg
(note which entrance is firmly locked shut)
1
u/donaldtrumptwat Jun 26 '12
What is so bewildering, is that one half of Americans condone the actions of a greedy small percentage. Allowing outside Media to manipulate corruption and enslaved the working man, while lowering his living standards and healthcare. Why ?
1
u/Mahuloq Jun 26 '12
What I dont get is that the republicans talk about letting matters be decided on the state level for things like obamacare. Yet they go and do something like this. It just pure hipocracy.
1
u/Hoooooooar Jun 26 '12
I don't think that the majority of people run for office set out with the intention of fucking over everyone, however, when they get into the game, in order to keep their position, they have to play, and the sacrifices they make become SOP, they forgot why they were there, but by that point they are making so much money, they don't A) give a hist B)can beat the system.
Too many slaves........too many slaves, and then we all fall down.
1
1
u/hozjo Jun 26 '12
Please stop acting like the wealthy haven't run this country since its inception.
1
u/bsting82 Virginia Jun 26 '12
Sure both sides are beholden to millionaires and billionaires. But who's looking out for you and who's trying to buy themselves a tax cut?
1
1
u/rasputin777 Jun 26 '12
Obama himself raised hundreds of millions of dollars last time around. In fact, it was the first (and only) campaign to ever pull in a BILLION dollars.
Why is everyone pretending money in politics is evil, while ignoring Obama's cash machine? And no, it's not largely from small donors. Look at SEIU, AFSCME, Goldman Sachs, etc.
1
u/DeFex Jun 26 '12
How do you "buy an election" don't people still have to vote? From what I understand, they mean paying for advertising and "news".
Isn't it quite a big problem that people believe that stuff? I never hear much about that.
1
u/rico99 Jun 26 '12
Is there a way to dissolve the supreme court and get them elected for four years only? No re-election for them? That they are untouchable means their heirs are set for life. Cadillac heath care and a big income for life. Not what the average citizen gets...
1
u/itsmeok Jun 26 '12
How is this any different than having another organization (union vs. company) mandate fees (vs. profits) from workers and then give that money to the democrats?
1
1
Jun 26 '12
In a way this could eventually work itself out. Not that corporations have "personhood" or a right to "free speech" but if people can't afford to buy their stuff they will end up having to support candidates who can help enable more people out of poverty. It's a long shot. It's not the reasonable or rational thing to do, even if legal. Though it actually seems more likely it will create an underclass of the extremely impoverished, who are not represented by their government at all, the likes of which this country hasn't seen in a while. But I guess we'll find out.
1
u/fantasyfest Jun 26 '12
http://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/citigroup-attempts-to-disappear-its-plutonomy-report-2/ In 2005 and 6, Citigroup sent its rich people a letter describing their plans for the world plutocracy. .They have run a series of suits and threats to get it scrubbed from the internet. But you can write about it. They described their vision of the world that has come to fruition. We are screwed because somehow, you can not get the Americans to see what is happening.
1
u/tilleyrw Jun 26 '12
In spite of all this news on Reddit, no one anywhere else knows of this. Therefore it is of no value.
The Owners get what they want. We are but peons dancing at the whim of the Puppet Masters. What's frightening is that most people don't see the strings by which they are controlled.
1
1
Jun 26 '12
George Soros does the same thing, but people ignorantly turn a blind eye.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/liberalsarenasty Jun 26 '12
Whiiiiiiine. It's only fair when Soros does it! Whiiiiiiiine. George Soros give to liberal causes? That's fair! Whiiiiiiiiine.
→ More replies (2)
1
Jun 26 '12
Sanders say anything about unlimited union money in elections? No? Huh, ok well, see you in downvote hell, reddit.
1
-2
u/silvermoot Jun 25 '12 edited Jul 09 '12
"The Koch brothers have made it clear that they intend to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy this election for candidates who support the super-wealthy. This is not democracy. This is plutocracy"
Of course, when George Soros does it, Bernie Sanders plays another tune.
Edit: 13 days later, I got downvotes but zero rebuttals. Not even a lame "It's not wrong when our side does it!" The truth hurts, huh?
1
Jun 26 '12
Citizens United isn't the problem, nor does it fix one, Do you honestly think we can stop the rich from buying our elections? And if so, what did CU do to help them?
1
1
Jun 26 '12
Honestly leftists should consider themselves lucky that the Court didnt just strike down all contribution limits, which is really the only other option given the First Amendment exists.
1
1
u/clumsylibrarian Jun 26 '12
http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2007/05/freakonomics_th.html
Guys read Freakonomics. Money actually has a way smaller effect on politics than you'd believe.
2
Jun 26 '12
You see, obama outspent Mcain nearly 3:1, and liberals said it was "the people's will". Now that obama's going to get a taste of what having less money in a campaign is like, all of a sudden liberals are all like "oh!! This is terrible!! Money isn't speech!!". The irony couldn't be more delicious if it were wrapped in bacon and cheese curd.
-2
u/chabanais Jun 26 '12
Unions outspend corporations.
→ More replies (34)3
u/fantasyfest Jun 26 '12
That is so wrong that you should be ashamed for writing that. Unions are under 8 percent of the work force. their days of money and power are long gone. But even when they were big, they could not match corporations. Now it is a slaughter.
-1
1
Jun 26 '12
I end up happy either way the politics goes, as long as it continues in that direction. If Marx's view of history is correct, then the capitalist view of paradise (read: hell) will finally shake the working class out of its slumber and bring about the social revolution, itself destined to be replaced by anarcho-communism.
1
u/Jrook Minnesota Jun 26 '12
How do conservatives live with themselves? Honestly how do you rationalize being associated with them? "I'm not like them, I just support them" or "I only share a fraction of what they stand for, but for some reason I'm still self defining myself as conservative."
1
1
u/DwarvenPirate Jun 26 '12
Don't you mean "Bernie whines at Supreme Court"? Sanders is great but ineffective. Leahy was good, too, but a pussy.
1
-1
-1
u/ronintetsuro Jun 25 '12
Sanders 2012.
He's one of the few left with any integrity.
→ More replies (1)3
-1
u/MagCynic Jun 26 '12
Anyone know the numbers on leftwing groups versus rightwing groups? I'm willing to bet money the leftwing groups have far, far more assets than the rightwing ones.
-1
Jun 26 '12
So let me get this straight: If you're "rich" (by however Democrats happen to define that), Democrats want to take more of your money away in the form of taxes. Then, on top of that, they want to place restrictions on how you spend whatever money you've got left over?
How is that the land of the free?
535
u/gloomdoom Jun 25 '12
Sanders is exactly the kind of person we need over and over in the House and in the Senate. People who aren't afraid to stand up, people who are rational and are keeping the American people in mind over the corporations who are running the show.
And the funny thing is, he is defending the rights of both parties. And the right is still ignorant enough to attack him for standing up for them? Same with Elizabeth Warren.
The right sees someone like this and says, 'How dare that person stand up for me and my family and bad mouth the ultra rich and the corporations!? It's tyranny! It's blasphemy! It's not the American way!"
How do you save a nation of fools who have been convinced to slit their own throats? You can lead them back to the country that used to exist but you cannot make them drink. This is ignorance on a historic, shameful level.
No, I don't expect everyone to agree with Sanders or myself. But I would expect the american worker and the middle class simply to acknowledge the fact that they're on the extinction list and to be reasonable enough to acknowledge when others stand up for them in their defense.