I have given a great deal of thought to this in the past several years and I am welcoming all opinions. Just to let you know I intend to read every single comment, because ultimately this is important. AND I believe it will become a salient topic in the next two years [As did the recent conversation of Ballots -vs- Votes].
In 2010 the Supreme Court ruled on a campaign finance legal challenge known colloquially as The Citizens United decision. The essence of the decision was a speech issue. In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech.
Prior to CU corporations were limited in financial spending on behalf of political campaigns just like individuals. However, unions were not. Organized Labor Unions could spend unlimited amounts in support of candidates. Corporations were limited like individuals.
At the time of the January 2010 Supreme Court ruling Democrats and Barack Obama were furious. Corporations could now form SuperPACs and spend unlimited amounts of money ‘independently’ supporting candidates.
Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules on coordination and communication between the political campaigns and the independent SuperPACs was/is supposed to create a firewall. However, the obscure nature of that effort has failed miserably.
Real World Example. A SuperPAC can organize a pro-Ben rally, spend on the venue, spend on the banners, t-shirts, rally material etc., and then advertise it. If Ben shows up to deliver a speech, he’s not breaking the rules so long as Ben and the SuperPAC didn’t coordinate the event. Ben just shows up to share his support for the effort, thank everyone and everything is legal in the eyes of the FEC. Yeah, it’s goofy.
More commonly as a result of the Citizens United (CU) case, massive corporate advertising (considered speech) is permitted in support of the candidate; or the corporation can organize ballot collection or get out the vote efforts, etc. Again, as long as they do not coordinate with any “official campaign” ie. Mark Zuckerbucks, yeah, goofy. As a result, expanded corporate spending has massive influence over U.S. elections.
♦ Oppose CU – Democrats opposed the CU decision because they had an advantage with organized labor. Labor unions were considered a representative body of collective individual membership interests and could spend without limit on campaign support. Organized labor unions supported democrats. Factually, Barack Obama won his 2008 election specifically because the SEIU, AFSCME, UFCW, AFL-CIO and other organized labor supported him over Hillary Clinton.
The CU decision watered down this overall Democrat advantage because now corporations funding Republicans could counterbalance the spending support of the labor unions. Democrats stated the CU decision would inject billions into politics and would increase corruption.
♦ PRO CU – Republicans, in a general sense, supported the CU decision mostly because it did level the field with labor unions and also because the corporate lobbyist connections to the republican party meant a lot of corporate money was available to fuel republican Super Political Action Committees (SuperPACs). Factually, the CU decision created the ability of SuperPACs to exist.
The business of politics expanded with the CU decision and ultimately both the DNC and RNC clubs evolved to enjoy this unlimited donor spending.
The business sector of politics expanded as the financial aspects to the it grew. SuperPACs could now fund consultants, polling firms, campaign systems and the money inside politics as a business exploded.
Now we have political campaigns where spending tens-of-millions on a single race is commonplace. The modern ballot collection (harvesting etc) is now funded by this same flow of unlimited financial resources.
At the time of the 2010 Citizens United decision, I personally was in support of the ruling. However, in hindsight the benefits of leveling the field with organized labor have become overshadowed by the negatives associated with corporations now in control of which candidates achieve office.
Money was always a corrupting issue and politicians working on behalf of their donors was always problematic, long before the Supreme Court CU decision. However, CU exploded that problem on a scale that was/is almost unimaginable at the time.
A previous several million-dollar presidential campaign is now a multi-billion-dollar venture, and the corporations are purchasing every outcome.
So, here’s the question….
Knowing what you know now, how do you feel about the Citizens United decision?
I posted a recent poll on Twitter with this question, and I am interested in your opinion.
The responses so far are interesting:
Supported Then / Support Now = 19.8%
Supported Then / Do Not Support Now = 28.5%
Did Not Support Then / Do Not Support Now = 48.5%
Did Not Support Then / Support Now = 3.2%
Knowing what you know now, how do you feel about the 2010 Citizens United SCOTU decision?
Sup = Support
— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) November 25, 2022
Many, Most? Citizens have No Idea what you are asking about. Responses here are from a bubble of concerned citizens that engage in such discussions.
Vote Fraud, Money Regulations, even stolen sElections are Not Vital to most Americans daily lives. They will ignore, shrug and go about their routines.
Economic discussions are also disregarded. Only Dire Consequences to immediate life and food and shelter will be recognized and acted upon. Everything else is Theoretical Irrelevance.
You asked for answers, I’m answering “None of the Above” for those not participating.
…and the huddled masses shuffle into the darkness of tyranny and bondage…
and are voting morons.
While correct, you highlight the dismal state of Citizenship.
Therefore, a proposal to grant citizenship only after passing tests, showing a healthy knowledge of civics, accepting responsibility for encouraging and preserving our Republic and contributing time in local activities, or serve in the military with distinction. Otherwise, a person is only a civilian with a lesser position in society. This would combat that esg crap.
Citizenship if you serve the country for a year or two: then can vote.
Make that 3 years if you want to work in the bureaucracy.
And 4 years if you want to run for office.
Put another way, how many “altruists” do you know?
So what do you think the odds would be of assembling 535 of them at the same time in the US Capitol?
Oh, and another one a ways down Pennsylvania Avenue?
I was leery of it then and the implications of it and didn’t support it. I am strongly against now. Corporations and unions don’t vote, people do. The entire election / political process has been corrupted by money. To be a politician is to be corrupted.
C’mon, man. The entire political process has been corrupted by a corrupt citizenry.
Yes, but what, at root, corrupted the citizenry into becoming a “corrupt citizenry” if not the love of money?
Apologies, my later comment below is similar to yours. I had not read your comment before I posted mine.
Completely agree, unions and corporations don’t vote and should not be part of the election process.
Zuckerbucks is a separate issue. Outside money being given to pay for government functions is corruption.
What Citizens United didn’t address was essentially in-kind campaign support by media for a preferred candidate and/or party as well as certain policy positions…because media coverage wasn’t part of the legal battle, apart from the central CU issue of who could buy media advertising.
Media influence on elections has a long history and, today, seems to operate beyond popular awareness, particularly given the widespread lack of skepticism and critical thinking.
Before CU, the unions had the advantage because they could use their vast monies for sub rosa political support. After the Citizens United decision the Left shed tears because of the unfairness of it all. How ironic.
I think the real game has always been who can influence elections without much of the electorate being aware of that influence…once sunlight shines on the media buyers and election influencers, their power appears to diminish to some extent.
But I have to pause and wonder whether that is true now—influence, fraud and rigging have occurred for two election cycles, and folks for the most part appear content to let that stand. This dynamic makes Citizens United seem inconsequential by comparison.
Inflation makes my opinion here worth not $0.02, but $0.011…🤠
I supported it then but did not understand the unlimited tentacles of money that would be allowed into campaigns, especially with PAC’s. I thought that if the company used its profits for payoffs, the shareholders would start complaining as their dividends declined. I will admit I was not well-versed in all of the aspects involved in the case as presented.
But even now, I wonder if the spirit of the ruling has been breached, especially by the PAC organization process.
And if citizens are limited in contribution amounts, then companies should be limited also, including the designation of in-kind contributions.
Your first paragraph describes my (initial) feeling. Part of that was driven by the “equalize the union inertia” perspective. That inertia is the reason they fight tooth & nail to avoid rulings that allow people to work without being required to pay union dues. Some states (WI, for example) have these provisions and it drives the AFSCME insane.
But, as Sundance pointed out in another recent recap, the 2 parties are themselves corporations and visibility into the tentacles of their cash flow is murky at best, and intentionally so.
Unions should have been prohibited from donating. So why was that not contested in court?
The elephants did not want to level the playing field, they wanted an even bigger slush fund.
Now the corporations are multinationals, own both parties and we get neo-facsism. Yup it could be – Citizens United ushered in corporatism.
I’d like to know how much foreign money is laundered through these super PACs, and what countries (CCP?) are doing the most ‘donating’.
Who knows, but one thing for sure is that Blackrock nor a single one of the multinationals they control give a damn about the Constitution or what happens to Mainstreet USA.
That’s absolutely correct
SCOTUS ushered in corporatism. CU was just the vehicle.
The CU seems to be the decision that was primarily responsible for America becoming a true oligarchy of special interests that write our legislation fund K st. and
push it through congress. So much for “Of the people, by the people and for the people”.
Gone with Andrew Jackson.
A labor union represents individual workers, like corporations represent individual owners (aka stockholders). Fact is most funding goes to candidates of both parties, often for election for the same office. Funding is not based upon ideology, it is based on influence and control, regardless of who wins the election, i.e., corruption, a system of legalized bribery.
It will never be fixed by any Congress, because both parties get lots of money to play the game. The whole system is well past a tipping point. All future elections will be corrupt and fraudulent, with the uniparty operatives maintaining control.
Perhaps a Convention of the States could come up with an amendment to fix the problem, although I am fearful of corruption with that movement as well.
A CoS would be controlled by the same players and result in a Corporatist Constitution.
I don’t know if a Convention of States (CoS) could correct this particular situation, but I do know that we are already operating close to a Corporatist Constitution.
Convention of States is the solution. It was the solution our Founders added to the Constitution in Article V to give we the people the ability to correct an out of control, tyrannical federal government. sDee, you need to go back and read SD’s article on information and being an absorber of information. The truth is that the Article V process cannot rewrite the Constitution, it can only propose specific amendments defined by the individual state legislatures of 34 states in three specific areas to 1. Impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, 2. Limit its power and jurisdiction, 3. Limit terms of office for all of its officials. The approved amendment(s) have to be ratified by ¾ of the states. I am quite sure you have been influenced by the naysayers and fearful, perhaps the John Birch Society?
Labor unions leadership represents labor union leadership, NOT “the workers”, just as Corporate leadership doesn’t represent the interests of stockholders, it represents ITS interests.
And no, I am not sure HOW to “fix” this.
I know PDJT won in 2016, despite being significantly outspent, and this was not a unique occurence.
A populist, authentic candidare CAN overcome significant spending disparity.
However, with the ballots vs votes system, it isn’t possible for an authentic, populist candidate to get more BALLOTS, as ballot harvesting operations are fueled by MONEY.
Well, almost half recognized this scam for what it was, back in 2010. If i’m Adding right, 77% have figured it out now. This constitutional shit, like almost all legal shit, is deliberately combobulated. Not even Justices can get it right, yet joe six pack sees right through it. Always follow the money. A chimpanzee could see the pols and Corp America salivating.
Lois Lerner reportedly weighed in with her opinion:
https://legalnewsline.com/stories/630469608-lois-lerner-deposition-unsealed-lincoln-worst-president-citizens-united-worst-thing-that-s-happened-to-country
“He read email she sent in 2012, stating, “Citizens United is by far the worst thing that has ever happened to this country.”
“We are witnessing the end of America,” she wrote. “There has always been a struggle between the capitalistic ideals and the humanistic ideals. “Religion has usually tempered the selfishness of capitalism, but the rabid hellfire piece of religion has hijacked the game and in the end we will all lose out.” He asked if he read it correctly and she said “yeah.”
“He read email she received after the election stating, “Democrats have a majority of the Senate and Republicans have a majority in the House.” He read her reply, “Whoo-hoo. It was important to keep the Senate.” “We don’t need to worry about alien terrorists,” she wrote. “It’s our own crazies that will take us down.”
Very interesting quotes. So the Democrats feared Citizens United because it allowed other funding sources besides public employee unions for elections. Is this why they ramped up the cheating?
Unions don’t speak or vote. So why were they allowed to insert themselves into the election process?
Corporations don’t speak or vote. Again, why were they allowed to insert themselves into the election process?
It’s people who speak and vote. So it should be people, and only people, who should be able to participate in the election process. Especially when it comes to donating to candidates.
Neither unions or corporations should be able to donate to candidates.
Period.
To answer your question, like other respondents, I was leery of it then and think it should be reversed now.
The correct solution should have been to remove the ability of unions to donate.
In hindsight, it is surprising that anyone could have thought that giving corporations (essentially) unlimited power would make things better.
Best comment TC
Thx!
There was also the flawed view, that Union LEADERSHIP was invariably in opposition to Corporation leadership, hence that CU was “leveling the playing field”.
There are many policy areas where both Union leadership, and Corporate executives are “Woke” and support the same woke agenda.
And, there is NO comparable organisations, with unlimited funding, to purchase representation for the “other side” of any policy.
Yes, best comment!
Other countries can own part of a American corporation.
Government employees can collectively favor a particular party based on the benefits
that they will receive.
I was leery of it then as well.
No unions should be able to donate.
I wanted them to limit the unions to the same standards as corporations.
Ashamed to say I supported CU not on ideology but as a knee jerk reaction to the unfairness of union money. I supported The Patriot Act not on ideology but as a knee jerk reaction to 9/11 and terrorism. I supported Bush, McCain and Romney because they were better than the alternative I was given.
Im sticking to thought out ideology from now on. The last six years…Trump, COVID, Ukraine and so many other events…have opened my eyes.
MR, you’re not the only one!
A lot of things we used to take for granted — we can’t any more.
I don’t think the current generations are unique in this.
Need to get that condition with you knee looked at,…oh, forget about Drs, though!
Seriously, it takes time, and practice to learn, like a vulcan to suppress STRONG emotional reactions: to not allow yourself to be “triggered” as strong emotional reactions cause critical thinking to go MUTE.
Funny.
“Republicans, in a general sense, supported the CU decision mostly because it did level the field with labor unions and also because the corporate lobbyist connections to the republican party meant a lot of corporate money was available to fuel republican Super Political Action Committees (SuperPACs).”
So it looks like the CU decision was a typical government response to a perceived problem: Throw More Money At It!
Since when has that action ever worked out in favor of the citizen/tax payer? Today, thanks to the wealth of exposure due to the Trump era, we can see with increased clarity the manufactured divide within the traditional two party system. CU has only served to enrich the uniparty at the expense of us all.
I don’t believe government ever looked at it as a problem. They looked at it as an opportunity, to line their pockets, and this time with big money. Never let a crisis go to waste.
Time to end the fiction that a “ corporation” ( including business entities such as businesses, partnership, limited liability company) and non-business groups (just exclude the non religious organizations altogether and save taxpayers’ resources examining exemption status) are “persons” entitled to vote. Only qualified voters of these United States should have the right to vote. The voting “rights” (yet seemingly without responsibilities) accorded to corporations, especially multinational corporations, have led to the concept that they have the same rights as individual persons which is ridiculous and led to so much harm. While individuals are imprisoned for their criminal acts, corporations merely pay fines, “the cost of doing business”. Enough. Consider the damage done to the sovereign citizens of these united States by the multinationalcorporations that have outsourced US manufacturing and production to other countries weakening our economic independence and national security. No foreign ownership of any real estate interests, including long term leases, in these united States. Accordingly, no corporate money for elections. These companies are not individuals.
Citizens United began with a case where the government banned the airing and advertising of a political film, in the name of suppressing “the corrupting influence of money.” During oral arguments, attorneys for the government argued that the laws in question gave them the power to ban books.
Money in politics is a problem. The government dictating who can and cannot spend money in politics was not, is not, and cannot be a solution to that problem.
I supported Citizens United then, and I continue to support it now.
Good, but do you not want to address the problems it has caused: the disenfranchisement of the citizens, who are the actual body politic? Free speech ought to be preserved without the negative result of financing the demise of self-government.
I see your point. But the decision has made it so corporation’s can now influence which books to burn.
And for some reason, David Bossie still is treated like some sort of hero on the right.
https://reason.com/2016/07/25/what-you-wont-hear-about-citizens-united/
In favor then, in favor now.
I remember Rush speaking on this issue before the ruling and his opinion was that money is speech no matter if it comes from a corporation or an individual.
Yes, but in the reality of things, 25 Million from a corporation buys them more speech (potential influence) than 25 bucks from a private citizen or 25k from a group of private citizens. Yes, it may not pass Constitutional muster, but in my simpleton brain I just wish there was a universal limit to how much any entity, whether it be a corporation or a private citizen, is allowed to contribute to a campaign. Heck, I’d set the limit at $100 in my world.
You’re both right, which is precisely why I believe it would have been used only against the dissenters, while the vested parties would have found a loophole. Just look at the shadow banning, censorship, de-platforming and de-personing of the last three years. When you have government-funded NPR leading the partisan disinformation charge, what’s the point in acquiescing to limits on our own free speech? Seems naive in concept and positively masochistic in execution.
This is a good point also.
Rush was wrong. Money buys you speech but it isn’t speech itself. Money is simply the tool used to accomplish a goal.
I am far more concerned about the influence of the intelligence community’s black budget, AI psychographic scans, and psy ops color revolution plays against the voting citizenry than I am about GM or Ford or even Goldman Sachs running Super Pacs. In a way, the latter is just a cover operation for the former.
Speech is speech. Is money speech? A printing press enables speech, as did ink. License the press and tax the ink, and you erect economic barriers to speech. As with any other licensure scheme, the rich and well-connected will always find a way to make the barriers the censor of all speech but their own.
The internet has introduced unprecedented opportunities to sway the public mind and indeed the culture itself through censorship, distortions, and delusions. It has also introduced unprecedented opportunities for Truth to emerge from the web of lies and myths carefully constructed by the elites – as long as it remains free from CCP-level controls.
Like guns in the hands of the weak, the ability of a single truthful voice to rocket around the world at the cost of only, say, $8 a month, is a great leveler – IF internet freedom is guarded and sustained so that freedom to speak, free of economic or other barriers, is allowed to persist.
That is exactly why the globalist elites and the Left are so threatened by a wild and unregulated internet.
The answer to “bad” speech is more speech. Always has been, always will be.
The battle now lies on other fronts than trying (and always failing) to control who spends how much money trying to persuade others. A US with CU is better than a US without CU.
None of it matters if we can’t get our rogue IC under control.
“Speech is speech. Is money speech? A printing press enables speech, as did ink. License the press and tax the ink, and you erect economic barriers to speech. As with any other licensure scheme, the rich and well-connected will always find a way to make the barriers the censor of all speech but their own.” -What Alex said
Before CU – Democrats used Union BIG $$$ to influence the outcome of elections in their favor.
After CU – BIG $$$ from Global Corporations, Duplicitous Democrats/Republicans, Super PACS, Unions and every other Tom, Dick and Harry they can trot out are allowed to influenced the outcome of elections in their favor.
Seems to me CU (SCOTUS) has done EXACTLY what those who brought the issue TO SCOTUS wanted i.e., prevent ONLY one side of the ideological/ political/GLOBAL spectrum from having a significant advantage over the individual, by giving EVERY ideological/ political/GLOBAL side of the spectrum “POSSIBLE” a nearly INSURMOUNTABLE advantage over the individual.
The “Essence” of the matter (which the SCOTUS seems to have CONVENIENTLY MISINTERPRETED) is that NO entity, of any stripe, whether public or private, (MUCH LESS GLOBAL) should have any more ability to influence elections, BY ANY MEANS or RIGHT, than a Private Citizen.
What SCOTUS should have done is REMOVE the protections afforded the Unions thus leveling (Somewhat) the playing field.
What the SCOTUS has “Decided” to do INSTEAD…🤔
…Allow everyone “BUT THE CITIZENS of The UNITED STATES of AMERICA” a nearly INSURMOUNTABLE ADVANTAGE in DECIDING the outcome of THE “CITIZENS” ELECTIONS (We the People… and all that)- under the guise of “Freedom of Speech” for the GLOBALISTS!!!
The Citizens… Not So Much!
INSANITY!!
essence
ĕs′əns
noun
1) The intrinsic or indispensable quality or qualities that serve to characterize or identify something.
2) The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things.
3) The most important part or aspect of something.
imho
I was mildly annoyed about the Supreme Court Citizens United Decision in 2010. Now it is irrelevant to me. If the court overturned Citizens United tomorrow, I would continue to live under the rogue regime in Washington State that came to power as the result of DECADES of election fraud.
The consequences of election fraud include a governor who can fire people from their jobs for refusing an experimental pharmaceutical product and bureaucracies shutting down small businesses. Election fraud was going on long before Citizens United.
When I first witnessed election fraud in the 2000 federal election, it was already an entrenched system involving Democrat operatives and their dedicated activists. In 2000 we were voting on punch cards and most (if not all) of the fraudulent ballots were cast IN-PERSON. When a person is not registered to vote, they vote on provisional ballot which should not be counted until voter eligibility is resolved. Unverified provisional ballots are an election fraud classic and in 2000 they were used to determine the Senator from Washington State.
The after-election election is the current preferred method. “Magic ballots” are found for the regime candidate so often that it’s virtually impossible to trust the system.
If there is no plan to end election fraud, then there is no reason to have any election and Citizens United will be even more irrelevant than it is today.
What does it do but fund the “illusion of choice”?
As some have noted, it was the correct decision wrt the Constitution. That has not changed. The rules that govern what is acceptable/unacceptable are woefully inadequate to prevent the corruption of our political system. The corporations of the time of CU were on their way to becoming the multinationals that we experience today, but had not amassed the amount of power they now wield. Have their “voices” not become undue foreign influence on our elections? Has not the not-so-subtle manipulation of the algorithms in social media platforms become an unacceptable influence?
It’s complicated, no?
The multinational corporations were around long before the CU decision, but yes, they are far more powerful than they were in 2010.
I am an attorney for a state and we received specific guidance from our state ethics division that the hatch act is officially not enforced anymore on the federal level so therefore it’s moot as far as the state is concerned
Having read the opinion, I believe it was correctly decided. I despise the corrupt politicians who have chosen to not put barriers in place within Congress that could eliminate much corruption (e.g. ban on lobbying and affiliated occupations for 10 years following federal employment, mandatory placement of all investments in blind trusts for legislative employees including staff, nominal limit for honorarium for first 5 years out of the legislature, etc.).
Congress haven’t put in controls because they’re raking in the (CU) cash
I think that there should be an absolute monetary limit to election campaign spending for all parties. Each candidate would be limited to, for example, a million dollars total, including in kind donations. As a starting point, there would no longer be the assumption that the one who raises the most money is the likely winner. Maybe even the one who makes the most effective use of their money would be seen as a positive by a voter. We might get candidates who may actually believe they are the best nominee for the job. Of course, where the million dollars for each candidate comes from would be a gigantic national discussion, as would so much else
that is not covered in my comment tonight. But if the kazillions of dollars that are at stake could be eliminated from the very beginning, it seems like that could be a fast and easy (ok, no way easy!) way to correct what has gone so very wrong in our elections process.
The problem with that approach is that advantages what I would call the people backed by taxpayer-funded organizations: teacher’s unions, SEIU, police/fire, social services groups, environmental groups, etc. Campaigns need money, messaging, and manpower. If you restrict the hard dollar money spend, then “free” manpower and media becomes outcome-determinative. That is where the quid pro quo of organizations that live off government come into play, because they all have professional organizers on staff, canvassers, ballot harvesters, etc. Likewise, you cannot ever as an R break through media dominance and narratives on issues (see, e.g., abortion), without a real consistent money spend.
Since you asked…
I supported it then.
Am indifferent to it now.
Where do I see the problem:
– Never in my wildest dreams did I think that 12 years later, public companies (managements and boards) would disregard the sole purpose for their existence, i.e. maximizing shareholder value.
– I also could not foresee that these same public companies would be “run” (terrorized) by woke Karens in their HR departments.
– I also couldn’t fathom that 12 years later, half the population (actually 1/3) would be overcome by a state of mass formation psychosis.
So IMHO it would appear that external factors, unrelated to the CU decision have brought us to this point.
Which begs the questions: was the corporate election spending brought about by the CU case in any way responsible for the external factors which have obviously “re-purposed” it?
The obvious answer is probably, but as a second order effect.
Where I see the problem is in the decoupling between shareholder interests, customer interests and corporate management of the CU plaintiffs, that has taken place after the 2008 financial crisis.
If you recall, the national debt when W was leaving office was $8T, which then ballooned to $21T during Obama’s presidency. Fed’s balance sheet went from $1T to $4T during that time period.
The result of the crisis and all the subsequent bailouts was that the USGov created a dependence on the federal backstops (bailouts) when market conditions turned south. This created the short-circuiting of the corporate mission from “maximizing shareholder wealth” to “maximizing ability to get bailout relief”. So to curry favor/endear themselves with the Administrative State, the corporations introduced all the weird HR fueled diversity programs and ESG investing, while throwing 50% of their customer base under the bus.
Who needs customers when they got free money from the Federal Government waiting to bail you out when you make bad corporate decisions? (Check out the link below.)
How will this end?
The systematic “fragility” introduced into the US financial system through the bailouts (both Treasury and Fed) will eventually cause the corporate world (as reflected in their stock prices) to go tits-up as the English say.
In the not-to-distant future we will experience a “market clearing event”. I think a crisis from the intentional destruction of the US Dollar as the global reserve currency will do the trick. The debt market will collapse (like the GSE’s in 2008 – future debt crash will be led by EuroZone debt collapse just like the last time) and market forces will eventually re-establish true “value” albeit at a much lower level. Here the gold people are correct.
So finally, can the system be saved?
One aspect of the last 12 years that is very positive is the citizens involvement in the election process. From the Tea Parties to MAGA and now beyond…
The precinct strategy promoted on Steve Bannon’s show is great and the KEY. I suspect that deteriorating economic conditions will force more people to involve themselves in the electoral process. I could see the 2024 election in which President Trump gets 100m+ ballots. If this happens, the Administrative State will run out of dead people who they can “ballot harvest” to the polls. In other words, the 100+ needed to beat Trump will become obviously not credible.
Other than the above path, I do not see a way out.
Below is a peak behind the Wizard’s curtain.
Nine minute video is worth watching.
Note Terry Duffy’s observations of present day Washington.
Regarding Citizens United, not sure we can put the cat back in the bag, whether the decision had adverse affects or not. Seems to me that the byzantine network of so-called NGOs is of even more risk than PACs and corporations. At least with the latter you can trace the interests currying favor. NGOs multiply a particular person’s opinion, such as George Soros, by a huge multiple. The Dems have mastered this con well and only work to add to it by other machinations.
Root cause, imho, is the vast amount of $$ to be had from our terribly bloated government, whose favors are dispensed by corrupt and self-interest politicians, and worse, faceless bureaucrats over whom we have no effective control.
Reduce federal spending and you’ll restrain the corruption and chicanery.
Re. FTX, it is sadly not surprising. My years in finance and consulting showed me how phony so many so-called “geniuses” are, and how lacking in judgment many of those regulating and managing their activities.
So the answer is similar to my prescription above–i.e., less regulation means lowered payoffs by sycophancy to government.
Your observation about the NGO’s is correct.
I would add that:
We have a parallel global ruling class that has established a large degree of influence over popularly elected governments.
Through the NGO’s, they are now influencing court appointments. Brazil is a good case in point. So what we are witnessing (outside of US – for now) is a global judiciary that is taking over the role of the executive branches.
I always take NGO to stand for No Good Organization.
Too bad the Dems didn’t offer to discontinue accepting Union $$ since they supposedly saw the problem CU would create.
In a perfect world that neither party would agree to, each individual would be limited to some dollar amount…say $10K to contribute towards elections. This limit would also apply to unions. ANY sort of organization.
People could spend up to $10K directly supporting candidates, political parties or organizations.
I am not fully versed on 501c 3s and 4s, but understand one of those is allowed to engage in politics if it is something like less than 1/2 of their activities. Well, any 501C 3 or 4 that provides 1 cent of donations to candidates, parties or political messaging would count towards someone’s $10K cap, as would the portion of an employee’s union dues that are used for politics.
The whole game about 501C’s pushing “issues” and not “politics” or candidates would also require much stricter guidelines.
BTW, I too have been thinking about the problem of way too much money being in politics these days.
I would personally like to see donations to candidates be limited to residents of the candidate’s state (excluding presidential candidates of course). This would mean the SEIU could only funnel a fixed % of dues collected from residents of any state to that state’s elections. This % would be the same across the country for any given union.
Stricter guidelines have never worked.
It was a bad decision then, and it still is. Only a mouth can speak. Words convey thoughts. Fingers type words. Facial expressions convey stuff too. Money is not speech !
Money corrupts like no other thing, and has no place in politics except for allowed salaries.
The 1st A has been stretched beyond belief. Some are acceptable, others not.
Striking this year were the near demands for money as the inference was whoever spends the most will be the winner – SICK !
stop both union and corporate donations
All the arguments sound like this to me: “If only the government could control exactly the right things, then people could be prosperous and free.” Good luck with that.
The original point of campaign finance regulation was to eliminate bribery. Ever since then, campaign laws have transmogrified into a monster that bears no resemblance to the original intent. It’s all about who gets power and control. While labyrinthine laws open many avenues for selective enforcement, google and facebook and twitter have unlimited funds to influence elections without a single regulatory barrier.
Frankly, I don’t believe the risk of bribery is worse than what we have now.
I supported CU then because I thought it was a step on the path to eventually eliminating these unconstitutional speech controlling laws altogether. But I now realize no one ever had that path in mind.
CU didn’t affect lobbying so the bribery issue was never resolved.
It’s a product of the law of unintended consequences.
I don’t think Americans support corporations buying politicians via election funding support.
Definitely needs to be revisited. I am wondering if some changes in general election laws could fix it?
Identifying the problem correctly is always the first step to solving a problem. Citizens United was “sold” to we the people as a counter to anonymous liberal money. Of course the problem wasn’t liberal money, it was anonymous money. I fell for it too in the beginning, but as I got older, I realized that when you can’t identify who the donor is, you can’t hold your elected officials accountable. ALL anonymous money needs to be banned. Every dollar has to come with a name and address of the donor. With that said, in this day of technology, reporting monies can be and must be virtually instantaneous. Maybe 48-72 hours. All on line so the public can review and see daily.
only those who vote should be allowed to donate (notice not ballots) one verified registered voter for each dollar donated
In this era of social media and ease of access, it angers me that so much money is spent on political advertising… but it’s all about the “fluency” of ideas.
It looks to me like CU just made it officially possible for corporations to own politicians. So much money goes into politics and so little good comes out of it. What a racket.
Citizens United got it exactly backwards. The problem was not that corporations had donation caps, it was that the unions didn’t. Put caps on the donations from *both*
It seems to me that if the problem was unlimited money from unions influencing elections, then the solution would be to block organized unions from pumping millions into campaigns. Opening another money faucet just injected another unfair influence peddler into the game and exploded the problem. I didn’t understand CU at the time, but I don’t like the outcome.
Rather than allowing corporations the right to inject unlimited funds into an election, perhaps the answer should have been to REMOVE the right of unions to inject unlimited funds into an election.
I have often wondered why there was so much money allowed with the PACs but I wasn’t familiar with the CU decision. I’m much more involved since Trump came along. Thanks for the info.
No PACs and no union money. Strict limits. Put the bums out of business.
If I remember correctly, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are ‘people’ based on the definition of a corporation in the congressional dictionary.
Anyways.
The more money out there the better. NOT because more money wins elections, but that more money DOES NOT DECIDE who wins an election.
I think people are finally realizing this.
The realization is that ballots wins elections.
Cheating wins elections.
It took awhile, but all of this money makes people aware of this reality.
An example: In Arizona
Kelley spent 75,000,000 dollars for 1,128,917 ballots.
Masters spent 9,000,000 dollars for 1,005,001 votes.
Plus and additional 47,000,000 dollars
from outside groups, that probably favored Kelley.
Who knows if any of these numbers are accurate
Point being, that there is more than enough money out there for anyone to win an election if the game was fair.
You are not going to win a rigged system.
Hope this makes sense. 😬
You are right about the Supreme Court ruling, but corporations should not be regarded as “people,” so it is far past time for the real people to fix the problem.
Democrats decried Citizens United, but have used it to their benefit much better than the Republicans. The Koch Brothers who supported Citizens United switched parties to do their dirty work when they saw how well the Democrats had managed Citizens United. (one brother subsequently died). The ultra rich that want to enslave us don’t care which party they use to to that. I had always said Soros and the Kochs had the same agenda, just used different parties to do their bidding. Now they are both on the same side. Any conservative that didn’t see the danger in this was a fool.
Corporations should not be treated as persons by law. The SuperPACS have led to greater corruption. Corporations should not show political favoritism. That’s why going woke has been bankrupting them. But, there are corporations that I must use that spend money on political issues that I am not in favor of. I end up paying to support policies I do not believe in through corporations.
It’s not just the money. As the population grows, the number of representatives stays the same. So, each citizen’s influence on their representative diminishes as the population grows.
Citizens have been rendered less powerful because of the SuperPACS. It also makes the elections to any office ridiculously expensive.
Excellent analysis. I agree with you. The CU decision has become a big FU to Americans. It has given Corporations more power to control our lives.
Great topic and responses…
Did not support then and don’t support now. My opinion is that only CITIZENs who are legally able to vote should be donating and there should be a limit. Political (corruption) campaigns have become an industry and it is out of control.
Unions are 99.99% Communist-Demonrat supporters. Your dues are paid and confiscated and the use of that confiscated money is decided by just a few people. Just like our FEDERAL TAXES…illegally confiscated and spending decided by corrupt and bought-off politicians…we receive ZERO benefits for our taxes. (they can’t even protect our country’s border)
Unless there is a MONUMENTAL-in-size grass-roots effort (uprising) to FIX the election process itself, the CU will not matter. The ballot steal has been perfected and those in power will NOT give it up without a very ugly fight, and that includes the RINO’s on the republiCON side of the UniParty. Starting small in local elections is great, however, the life-altering and governing decisions come from the governors, state legislatures and the illegitimate federal government.
Time to shut it and the union grift down.
I would always then & now be against big corporation money influencing elections. Along with the dirty dealings of unions, always corrupt since beginnings. We’re STILL reaping the slavery of the mafia!! FREE, SIMPLE, IN PERSON, SINGLE BALLOT VOTING! NO ROOM FOR CHEATING!
Without a real voter I D and term limits and same day voter results like in Mexico this subject is moot. Sorry . Viva Mexico!
Bob, then why is Mexico run by the Cartels?
When $200 million is spent to win a senate seat, you know the system is corrupt. The part time politician is replaced with the professional politician. Why would ultra rich people seek an office that pays a small six figure salary? Tyranny is not cheap.
Never forget the in kind donations from the media/social media that always favor demokkkrats or corrupt Republicans
God gave us the minds to think with and the voice to share our thoughts. Nothing else is needed.
In kind contributions should be enforced by the oversight agencies.
It has become crystal clear…..all of the oversight agencies are owned by those for whom they have oversight.
All.
What good is a law/rule/decision that is not applied equally or at all?
I don’t believe for a split second obuma and the dimocraps were furious. They were playing the opposite of the same coin. They too wanted this. The unions were just a lead up to expanding their money making schemes.