US Supreme Court upholds ability of billionaires to buy elections

[Wilber]

As well they should....big money buys more speech. Two billion is only about $6.00 per citizen. The federal and state governments spend far more than that.

Thank you for clarifying that in the US, free speech isn't free, it is directly related to the size of your bank account.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thank you for clarifying that in the US, free speech isn't free, it is directly related to the size of your bank account.

Logical fallacy...obviously big media advertising is not free. Canadian interests (including governments) paid such money to lobby the U.S. for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.

[Argus]

Logical fallacy...obviously big media advertising is not free. Canadian interests (including governments) paid such money to lobby the U.S. for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.

There's nothing wrong with lobbying congress or parliament. The problem, the wrong, comes in presenting a cheque with your lobbying (or a check).

It continues to amuse me that Chretien cast about desperately for a legacy after his years of doing nothing in office, and the one lasting legacy which will benefit Canada is him outlawing political donations from anyone but actual voters.

And he did that out of spite for Paul Martin! lol

[Wilber]

Logical fallacy...obviously big media advertising is not free. Canadian interests (including governments) paid such money to lobby the U.S. for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Get back to us when they start backing candidates and parties during your elections.

[bush_cheney2004]

There's nothing wrong with lobbying congress or parliament. The problem, the wrong, comes in presenting a cheque with your lobbying (or a check).

I think labour unions or teacher unions would disagree. They write "cheques" all the time.

[bush_cheney2004]

Get back to us when they start backing candidates and parties during your elections.

[On Guard for Thee]

Ha Ha, I guess this was funded by those Canadians who want to get the Keystone XL going. A bit of a contradiction! But oh well.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ha Ha, I guess this was funded by those Canadians who want to get the Keystone XL going. A bit of a contradiction! But oh well.

Yes...some Canadians want to influence American politics with their money, but then complain about this court ruling ? Poor dears.....

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes...some Canadians want to influence American politics with their money, but then complain about this court ruling ? Poor dears.....

Oh, I'm not complaining, I don't live there. We have fairly stringent limits here which seek to stop big daddy warbucks from buying the vote.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh, I'm not complaining, I don't live there. We have fairly stringent limits here which seek to stop big daddy warbucks from buying the vote.

And how is that working for 'ya ? Ever heard of Adscam ? The only difference between influence peddling in Canada and the U.S. is that the payoffs are a lot cheaper...north of the border.

Edited April 6, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

And how is that working for 'ya ? Ever heard of Adscam ? The only difference between influence peddling in Canada and the U.S. is that the payoffs are a lot cheaper...north of the border.

Quite familiar with it. Wow a whole 2 million misspent. The difference between here and there is, it's illegal here.

[On Guard for Thee]

That would by why YOU have heard about it.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The difference between here and there is, it's illegal here.

So are other forms of speech....Americans do things differently.

[bush_cheney2004]

That would by why YOU have heard about it.

No, I heard it about mostly from an American blogger who ignored Canada's silly publication ban on the Gomery Commission. Free speech U.S. style.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, I heard it about mostly from an American blogger who ignored Canada's silly publication ban on the Gomery Commission. Free speech U.S. style.

You're still fretting over Gomery? Ten years ago, no publication ban, and the federal court quashed the findings. Tempest in a teapot.

[Argus]

I think labour unions or teacher unions would disagree. They write "cheques" all the time.

No, actually they don't. Labour unions are not allowed to donate money to political parties in Canada.

[Argus]

And how is that working for 'ya ? Ever heard of Adscam ? The only difference between influence peddling in Canada and the U.S. is that the payoffs are a lot cheaper...north of the border.

No, the difference is that payoffs, both legal and illegal, completely control American politics at all levels. In Canada they're a rarity.

[eyeball]

Control in Canada is accomplished via revolving door incentives.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, the difference is that payoffs, both legal and illegal, completely control American politics at all levels. In Canada they're a rarity.

Not so rare....it happens in Canada more frequently than many want to admit, including one of the clumsiest and obvious ways often referred to here at MLW: The Airbus Affair. The only difference between the U.S. and Canada is how much money changes hands.

[eyeball]

"It is only a slight understatement to say that lobbyists run our government."

Democracy Watch

[kimmy]

Leaving comparisons to Canada aside, are any members of Team America actually of the opinion that campaign finance rules in America are good, or that this ruling and Citizens United were positive steps?

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Court rulings striking down campaign finance laws are definitely a good thing. Unconstitutional restrictions on speech should never to be tolerated. President Obama's campaign(s) laughed at the idea of accepting limited government campaign funding and the accompanying restrictions.

[eyeball]

So when did money and speech become one and the same thing, around the same time corporations transformed into people?

[bush_cheney2004]

The court has been clear about this with recent rulings:

... in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court upheld the idea that “free speech was essential in a free society, and that speech was not less protected because the speaker was a corporation, labor union, or other organization.” The Court upheld disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors, and also kept in place a ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Edited April 6, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[kimmy]

If one has decided that giving money to politicians is a protected form of free speech, then why should there be disclosure requirements, a ban on direct contributions from corporations and unions, or campaign financing laws of any sort?

-k