Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  3 4 5 6 7  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
09:06 PM on 10/08/2013
What about the corruption of politicians using the public money to buy votes? I guess that doesn't count.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lolablev
Bring Peace into your Life
08:52 PM on 10/08/2013
An unfortunate turn of events - a continuation of corrupt policies - it will get worse before it gets better - people will finally wake up to this - I have some faith left.
photo
modeforjoe
We had the experience, but we missed the meaning
08:51 PM on 10/08/2013
Our politicians (I would have said elected leaders, but leaders they are not), seem to spend more time ensuring their next electoral victory than attending to national needs. The power of money as a corrupter of supposedly democratic processes is as ancient as Greece and Rome. We know how both of those ancestors ended up, and why.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
afairview
cheap energy, the best stimulus
08:49 PM on 10/08/2013
Just as there is a separation of church and state there should also be a separation of wealth and state when it comes to candidates and elections.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Grogger
Nothing is guarded more fiercely than unfair gain
11:35 AM on 10/09/2013
Bravo, have never heard those exact words expressed, separation of wealth and state. What's good for business may NOT be good for our country after all huh?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
afairview
cheap energy, the best stimulus
04:02 PM on 10/09/2013
I just think that when elected representatives should represent everybody not just the wealthy few.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kamact
Market Observer
08:01 PM on 10/08/2013
America sold to the highest bidders...resulting in crony capitalism and massively corrupt wealth extraction from the many to the few winning bribers...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Larry Brickey
07:52 PM on 10/08/2013
Easy to fix. Make all Federal elections tax payer funded. No outside gifts or $.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
R Wintercroft
The path to heaven runs through miles of clouded h
12:38 AM on 10/09/2013
How much per candidate? Obama is a billion dollar baby. How much money we on the hook for? 1 billion dollars per candidate? That is like 20,000 teachers. Or 10,000 teachers for 10 years.

100,000,000?

The cost to run political ads for your president is about 350,000 dollars every 2 weeks in every state.

That is 17 million right there, 420 million a year just for tv ads. 3 billion where spent on all political ads in 2012.

Are you saying that the tax payer should be on the hook for the 6-7 billion dollars it takes to run a campaign today?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Larry Brickey
02:46 PM on 10/09/2013
No. I believe the cost would gradually drop. Congress could set the limits per type of office. I certainly am tired of fat cats and corporations running politics.
photo
Kassandra
Libera Nos a Malo
07:51 PM on 10/08/2013
Don't you think that ship has already sailed?
photo
roopsag
Saving the world. One smelly person at a time.
07:43 PM on 10/08/2013
"Million Dollar Contributions Corrupt Democracy" - NOPE - Government so powerful that its members attract million dollar contributions is what corrupts democracy. Decrease the power and you will decrease the contributions. If Congress was not in charge of anything important, they would not receive any contributions whatsoever. When they control about half of the economy, and regulate the rest - you are surprised at corruption?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:00 AM on 10/09/2013
Why is it that only greedy people reverse the order of corruption as you have here? Over-concentrated wealth in the private sector and corporate ideology "capture" government and corrupt it. It is then made to work against the people in order to preserve the inequity mandated by greed. Reducing government to dysfunctional levels after they have implemented their agenda is a transparent ploy to make the agenda permanent. Are you greedy; why or why not?
photo
roopsag
Saving the world. One smelly person at a time.
02:29 PM on 10/09/2013
How do you think the concentration of wealth happens? BTW - where geographically do you think our wealth is concentrated?

If we just reduced government to the level it was when Bill Clinton left office - would that be dysfunctional to you? Was Bill Clinton greedy or dysfunctional? Why or why not? (you people cannot see that less government does not mean no government)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joseph Westfall
In Shambala I can see the forests & the trees
07:30 PM on 10/08/2013
in violation of Stare Decisis
Per: Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904)

A corporation, while by fiction of law
recognized for some purposes as a person
and for purposes of jurisdiction as a citizen,
IS NOT ENDOWED
WITH THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF A NATURAL PERSON,
but it is an artificial person,
created and existing only
for the convenient transaction of business
Justice Brewer concurring opinion
with the Majority
and
"in a republican government nothing
can be more impolitic than to give to wealth
superior encouragement, and facility in obtaining office."

Story, Joseph A. Associate Justice SCOTUS
Familiar Exposition of the Constitution

No. 08–205. Argued March 24, 2009—Reargued September 9, 2009––Decided January 21, 2010
page 47
Part III C
"Our precedent is to be respected unless
the most convincing of reasons
demonstrates that adherence
to it puts us on a course t
hat is sure error."
The EFFECT of which puts any CITIZEN or RESIDENT at HAZARD of a CONTEMT of COURT CHARGE;
who acting under the First Amendment's Right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances and the same Freedom of Speech they grant to Corporations for exercising the aforementioned Rights.

This alone destroys the enumerated case ruling and is self-evident grounds for removal.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
R Wintercroft
The path to heaven runs through miles of clouded h
12:52 AM on 10/09/2013
I really could take this apart a couple of ways. I will give you the choices.

1.) The first amendment right is not inalienable right. The first amendment right by definition is a transferable from person to another. The money, speech, art, religion, faith, are all share with in the group. If the action can be shared it is not inalienable. Inalienable rights fall strictly under liberty and life by the constitution of the united states. Liberty and life of a person can not be transferred or sold.

or

2.) The Northern Securities Co. v. United States case is talking about the right of a monopoly compared to the other example. Now why is this important. Because a company that finds itself violating a law can not hide behind inalienable right. Just like you can not hide behind the name of "pursuit of happiness" meaning owning a Canadian. Citizen United cases and others did not have the person violating the law, but had a law created to prevent them from exercising basic rights. Like the first amendment.

The two examples are so far part it is not even funny.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joseph Westfall
In Shambala I can see the forests & the trees
08:30 AM on 10/09/2013
very well written!
by
an act of Congress
under U.S. Cons Art 4 & 6

Volume
12 United States Statues at Large
Chp.
VI . -An Actfor the Admission of State of West Virginia

into the Union,
Dec. 31,1882.
Which
approved the W.V. Constitution,
by
said constituton
ARTICLE
III

3-1.
Bill of rights

All men are,
by nature, equally free and independent,

and
have certain inherent rights,

of which, when
they enter into a state of society,

they
cannot, by any compact,

deprive or divest
their posterity, namely:

The enjoyment of
life and liberty,

with
the means of acquiring and possessing property,

and of pursuing
and obtaining happiness and safety.

Rights
can not be divested even by those forming
Corporations!
All
that can be granted is power and authority

over
CERTAIN subjects incorporated for!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joseph Westfall
In Shambala I can see the forests & the trees
07:28 PM on 10/08/2013
Whether the enactment is wise or unwise,
whether it is based on sound economic theory,
whether it is the best means to achieve the desired result,
whether, in short, the legislative discretion
within its prescribed limits should be exercised
in a particular manner,
are matters for the judgment of the legislature,
AND THE EARNEST CONFLICT OF SERIOUS OPINION
DOES NOT SUFFICE TO BRING THEM WITHIN
THE RANGE OF JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE.'
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. McGuire,
219 U.S. 540, 569
SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER
HELD: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to pre-clearance;
..... But a more fundamental problem remains: Congress did not use that record to fashion a coverage formula...

This is a grievous departure of the duty of the court; from saying WHAT thing maybe legislated, to HOW a thing is legislated.
07:14 PM on 10/08/2013
I suspect the SCOTUS will not uphold the aggregate contribution limit.
Then Sen. Tippy the Turtle (R-Ky.) will get what he wants.
Even if the Justices change in the coming years they seem so reluctant to reverse earlier decisions that it won't make a difference.
And there's no hope of the Legislative branch doing anything about it.
So in the next election cycle the few large contributors who already hold sway will do so even more.
Also, my shoes are uncomfortable and my coffee got cold before I even drank half the cup.
*sigh*
I'm going to bed
:-(
photo
tnkeating
Dyslexic agnostic insomniac
07:07 PM on 10/08/2013
What Democracy?...........
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
charon
In Dogs We Trust
06:48 PM on 10/08/2013
The Supreme Court justices just want the best for America--the best government money can buy!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
libertysanders
06:47 PM on 10/08/2013
I fervently hope the limits are struck down. In a free country a citizen may give his money to whomever he chooses. Freedom demands nothing less.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Terrywhilton
11:55 PM on 10/08/2013
Those of wealth may GIVE as freely as they wish to a person. They must not be allowed to BUY a person---even though that person fervently wants to be BOUGHT. There are laws against that sort of behavior--even though the buying and selling are consensual.
photo
Gregg-O
1 of the used-to-haves
02:42 AM on 10/09/2013
So you support the 'buying' of politicians.
photo
wishiknew
Life = work + goodtimes. Keep it balanced.
06:42 PM on 10/08/2013
I am so thoroughly disgusted that this is even up for debate. First Citizens United, and now the notion of completely removing limits... Not a freaking thing on mainstream media talking about how damaging this could be (their paychecks come from the obscenely wealthy who stand to benefit the most).

Will someone please tell me how ANY normal working person would benefit from this?
photo
Gregg-O
1 of the used-to-haves
02:44 AM on 10/09/2013
They don't give 2 hoot's about the normal working person. I'm as disgusted as you are !