Buying the election with foreign money
 

The striking thing about this election is the sheer volume of attack ads on TV. Ads that slam candidates, without mention of supporting their opponents, and are not approved by any candidate. The little blurb at the end is some obscure committee or organization. Most of us predicted the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case, on January 21st, would lead to this.

link

It seems some of the donations to the Chamber of Commerce partisan attack ads, are coming from overseas.

I think the Supreme Court ought to be summarily executed and replaced for this decision, and the Kelo v. City of New London decision. :mad:

Didn't this start in the last election when the R's were up in arms about Obama's fund-raising in small amounts from anonymous donors using untraceable prepaid credit cards?

I agree that the Supreme court decision has opened the proverbial floodgates and, like you, disagree with their decision.

It started in the 1780s, but it was always under the table till SCotUS made it OK.

Whichever party appointed the majority of the scotus should be shot, too.

Nah, when you pick a judge you know which way they lean, but you really can't be sure they won't be this fucking stupid.

Oh sure, I'm not a "Constitutional Scholar", or even a lawyer (he said proudly), but I've read the Constitution. I've also read enough about the people and their ideals, that created it, to know these two decisions fly in the face of a government "by the people", and the basic premise of private property. :mad:

I am pretty sure that foreign money has been influencing or attempting to influence our elections for quite some time. The first time I remember it coming into the news was when Al Gore was found to have taken money from the Chinese. So I guess it is not too much of a new thing. But there is no doubt that the recent ruling allows them to shield the sources better.

From Salon.

That's what I said.

"shadowy group of wealthy cowards."

Curious they would use this term when the Dems have the same people in their camp, oh well. What is good for the goose is good for the gander I guess...

How can you say "same people" when we don't know who the fuck they are?:eyebrow:

Nonsense. By dollar, the US Chamber of Commerce has been the largest lobbying organization and is a Republican support organization. Restrictions have been removed on all campaign spending. We have no idea how much the USCC is now spending using secret names such as Policy for a Better America. They can now lie all they want. And never be held responsible.

Unlike people, corporate organizations can be created, lie overtly, spend massively to promote that lie, then dissolve without any consequences. The person or organization they represent is not accountable for the lies. During the short time that corporation exists, it has all the rights of any citizen without obtaining citizenship. And will dissolve before any charges can be filed. Often the public has no idea who that organization was fronting for.

Supreme Court said this was good. Alito even denied (during the State of the Union address) that this mess would happen. McCain said he wished one member of the bench had served in a political function - even as a Sherriff. They had no idea the mess they created. And it will get worse every two years as organizations now learn that overt lying (without any consequences) is now legal.

Politics is now about who can spend the most to promote lies. Representing people or interests of America, or promoting new ideas - no longer relevant.

Underlying all your doom and gloom is the assumption that dollars will continue to directly translate into votes.

Maybe this deluge of attack ads will be the incentive for the american public, on the whole, to become media-literate and informed voters.

I think it will in two ways.
One, if you repeat a lie often enough, and loud enough, on TV, some people will fall for it. Especially people that get all their news from TV.

Two, the constant haranguing in these attack ads will turn people off, so they won't vote at all. That leaves the activists and cronies in control of the vote.

Remember, if only three people in the country vote, assuming the candidates vote for themselves, the third vote rules.

Simple, shadow people on one side, are no less shadow people on another. The point is both sides are using it to their advantage. None of this should surprise you.

Tangental to the thread, but just because I'm been neck deep in Infinite Jest again, like recreationally making myself crazy and depressed. Here's my man Dave Wallace circa 1999-primary-season:

From Up, Simba!

It doesn't matter how you vote or if you vote. One politician is as corrupt as another. And in the unlikely chance that a few decent ones get voted in, do you really think they'll refuse the blandishments of the lobbiests, special interest groups, etc.? No. I don't think I could if someone waltzed into my office with the offer of a few million in an off-shore account.

I don't know. Its 2:30 in the morning here, and I can't sleep. Insomnia makes me even more fatalistic than I normally am.

Soooooo... I checked on Google to see if my perceptions are due to lack of sleep, or if the American public has gone to sleep.

This is the first or second article I found:

And this was money that they admitted to owning.

Exactly! Why should they care, really? This is part of the reason we see the current incredible antics in Washington where law makers are gridlocked except when it comes to using tax payer money to bail out financial institutions which have all the morality of a bank robber who needs the cash for a fix. At least its unequivable what the bank robber is doing. Corporate excutives just wring their hands for a few minutes then vote themselves a raise or go flying past the rest of us on their golden parachutes.

Get voted into Congress and jump on the gravey train. There are currently 237 millionaires in Congress.

The site is very interesting, but I'm not so sure that's its non partisan. Too tired to look further tonight. I'm going to go lie down on my bed, stare up at the ceiling and try to think good thoughts. HAH!

Here's the link to the info I quoted above:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008...wed-congr.html

50% of political contributions should go to paying off the national debt. If you can afford to buy a politician, you can afford to help the country.

Maybe a special 50% federal tax on TV ads would pay off the debt quicker, like sales taxes that are so popular among the well-to-do.

I'll agree with spexxie on that.
And with respect to opensecrets.org -
Its basically a bunch from The Center for Responsive Politics

Here is what Wiki says about them:
I love the cheapshot at he end by The Hill. :eyebrow:

The Hill just doesn't like having its collective pants pulled down! :eek:

Pa. Democrat admits helping Tea Party candidate
I'm NOT saying that the R's don't do the same thing, but if this isn't illegal, it should be. His cavalier attitude on the subject is exactly what is wrong with the system.
I'm interested to see what happens after the election because as I read this I found several other places where it is being "reported" that similar things are happening.

If you want to know all about how to get the opposition to manage your ballot access petitioning, just ask me, because I pioneered the approach in Pennsylvania.

Just noticed I forgot the link

Link

And that is why big government is bad! Why the hell would any government need 237 members of Congress! Joking with you.:D