US Supreme Court upholds ability of billionaires to buy elections

[bush_cheney2004]

Shall I remind you it was you who wandered off into speech discussion. The thread was about buying and selling your government.

Wrong...it is a speech (not language) issue in the United States. Keep Canada's language problems in Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

More Canadian money men at work in America trying to win hearts and minds...this time from a provincial government:

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't think we have a lot of language problems here. We have decided on two official, but we have many more. But once again you wander. With all the money that TCP might have I still don't think Canadians are allowed to vote in the US, or did I miss something?

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think we have a lot of language problems here. We have decided on two official, but we have many more. But once again you wander. With all the money that TCP might have I still don't think Canadians are allowed to vote in the US, or did I miss something?

Canadians vote in the U.S. by spending millions on lobbyists and ad campaigns (see example above). Should this be "illegal" because foreign money is buying speech and influence in the U.S. ?

You are still confusing speech rights with language.

Edited April 4, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

But lobbyists (which is what runs yor government btw) can now spend even more billions to actually control votes. Mind you, your silly littel ballot means nothing in most states anyway. And I'm sure those lobbyists have infiltrated the electoral college which actually does elect your leaders, and is totally non-democratic. What a bogus system. And no, I think I'm quite clear on speech and language. Just like in the uS, we can make a speech in whatever language we want.

[Wilber]

Canadians vote inin oursthe U.S. by spending millions on lobbyists and ad campaigns (see example above). Should this be "illegal" because foreign money is buying speech and influence in the U.S. ?

You are still confusing speech rights with language.

In your country we have to play by your rules. Thankfully we don't have to copy them in ours.

[GostHacked]

I think Obama should be dropping his sponsors names in speeches.

'And this paragraph is brought to you by Mr.X from Company Y who donated a million dollars.'

[eyeball]

I only disagree with a system that allows money to talk louder than people.

The solution is a microphone so everyone can hear what is being said, by whom and to who.

Let money try to get the SC to convince people that money has the right to in-camera meetings with government officials

[eyeball]

The first amdendment protects all speech, even the bad stuff.

What's needed is an amendment that protects listening in, especially to the bad stuff.

[Shady]

I like this statement. Solid.

It's a great bumper sticker but it's nonsensical.

[bush_cheney2004]

But lobbyists (which is what runs yor government btw) can now spend even more billions to actually control votes. Mind you, your silly littel ballot means nothing in most states anyway. And I'm sure those lobbyists have infiltrated the electoral college which actually does elect your leaders, and is totally non-democratic. What a bogus system.

You clearly do not understand how the American federal election system works for Congress and Executive branches of government. However, I do understand your hate and disdain for a system that wields great influence in the world, and the frustration with being powerless beyond watching American media and buying air time for oil pipelines.

And no, I think I'm quite clear on speech and language. Just like in the uS, we can make a speech in whatever language we want.

The issue ruled on by the Supreme Court is ultimately a "free speech" argument, having nothing to do with language. The court has come down on the side of constitutionally protected speech, even for political campaigns and influence spending. Campaign finance reform is not above the highest law in the land (and no, that is not a Queen living in a foreign country).

[bush_cheney2004]

In your country we have to play by your rules. Thankfully we don't have to copy them in ours.

But you did "copy" many of them, taking only 200 more years to figure it out.

[Wilber]

But you did "copy" many of them, taking only 200 more years to figure it out.

Our systems are both based on English Common Law so it is no surprise that there are similarities. To say we copied you is a real stretch but there is nothing wrong with learning from others. That goes for the bad as well as the good.

[guyser]

But you did "copy" many of them, taking only 200 more years to figure it out.

But you(US) did "copy" many of them, taking only 572 more years to figure it out.Magna Carta,Eng Bill of Rights,

See ^ how that works?

Edited April 4, 2014 by Guyser2

[bush_cheney2004]

Our systems are both based on English Common Law so it is no surprise that there are similarities. To say we copied you is a real stretch but there is nothing wrong with learning from others. That goes for the bad as well as the good.

English Common Law did not include some of the liberties and the fundamental relationship of the governed to government founded in the U.S. Constitution. Some of the concepts are so pervasive that several members here mistakenly quote them as if they apply in Canada ( I guess they watch a lot of American television.)

Either way, I am glad that Canada finally graduated to such concepts... in 1982.

[bush_cheney2004]

But you(US) did "copy" many of them, taking only 572 more years to figure it out.Magna Carta,Eng Bill of Rights,

See ^ how that works?

Yes...I have socks older than 1982.

[guyser]

Yes...I have socks older than 1982.

Either way, I am glad that America finally graduated to such concepts... 572 yrs later Edited April 4, 2014 by Guyser2

[bush_cheney2004]

Either way, I am glad that America finally graduated to such concepts... 572 yrs later

We had to...so Canada could more easily copy them.

[On Guard for Thee]

sz

We had to...so Canada could more easily copy them.

Perhaps you forgot about 1812. Also we actually elect our leaders here, sans electoral college.

Edited April 5, 2014 by On Guard for Thee

[Michael Hardner]

Back to campaign spending....

Some points:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/13/politics/us-election-costs/

Television advertising is by far the most expensive item in a campaign's budget. Air time in major markets in key swing states can cost a campaign millions of dollars. Obama spent much of his money in 2008 advertising in large -- and expensive -- markets in battleground states.

And this:

http://www.adotas.com/2012/11/looking-at-the-election-ad-spend-2012-presidential-campaign-wrap-up/

Several reports have come out about how this year’s presidential election broke records in terms of political-ad spend, with preliminary estimates at just over $953 million spend on presidential ads on broadcast TV alone. The smashes the forecast of $700 millionpresented by the National Journal back in June. The actual spend breakdown reveals that presidential TV ads cost Republicans around $479 million while the Democratic Party spent just around $396 million

That seems like about 50% of the amount spent.

[Argus]

This is the sum total of your topic?

The Supreme Court ruling actually doesn't do what you say it does, but that would require a little more time and effort and digging through the details of the ruling. It actually allows individuals to give to the political parties again, which will have more control and transparency of the donors, instead of the way the current situation is. Which involves money going to super PACs.

You mean those individuals who were horrified at being restricted to giving only $5000 to a candidate? Yes, there must have been so many Americans feeling so anguished because the weren't able to give more than $5,000 per election to politicians!

Edited April 5, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

The problem I see with the Supreme Court rulings on campaign financing is they are defiant in the need to protect the Constitution while utterly ignoring the central purpose of that constitution. In allowing the moneyed class to so heavily influence elections and buy the favour of politicians the Supreme Court is rendering elections more and more unfair. The majority of those in congress are now millionaires. What happened to representation of the people by the people? These representatives don't represent anyone but their big-money backers in the gerrymandered districts where they need not fear any opposition except from other big-money backed candidates in their own party. And is the Supreme Court worried about that? Nope. While representative democracy fades away the Supreme Court blithely assists in its demise.

[bush_cheney2004]

....What happened to representation of the people by the people?

"Millionaires" are "the people" as well, and it was rich landowners that founded the nation. There are about 10,000,000 "millionaires" in the U.S., more than ever before. Big money is just as constitutionally protected as small money.

[Wilber]

Being a "millionaire" doesn't mean that much any more, It's the folks with the megabucks that can really take advantage of this.

When you consider that over 2 billion is spent on advertising during a presidential election year, it's the really big money that talks.

[bush_cheney2004]

Being a "millionaire" doesn't mean that much any more, It's the folks with the megabucks that can really take advantage of this.

When you consider that over 2 billion is spent on advertising during a presidential election year, it's the really big money that talks.

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.