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
The only outcomes the decision achieved was increase the trough from which they feed and marginalize the citizen’s voices. Neither corporations nor unions should be allowed to yield such influence in politics. That should also be expanded to NGOs, religions, media, and any other organized group with common interests and pursuits like the “kingmakers” in the RNC and DNC. Individuals no longer matter because of these special interest groups and the bludgeons they wield to defend their interests and revenue. This is why we have a nanny state, the covid lockdowns, the social media jails, the petri-meat and bug burgers, the climate change crap deals and more. Common sense still comprises the majority, but their bullhorns and bucks win every time.
Exactly. Money talks and BS walks. With the complete lack of moral and ethical values, and the total lack of concern of what the people want, anything and everyone is for sale in the game of politics, if the price is right.
The playing field isn’t even.
One legal citizen = One vote = One donation. No group donations period.
Perfect comment!! 100% agree
Concur. Mo money means mo corruption. Simple as that.
I agree unquestionably!
It appears that CU paved the way for the 2020 steal and possibly the Democrats 2018 midterm wins in the House with ballot harvesting methods paid for by Super PAC money. Notice how Democrats never mention CU anymore since it now works to their benefit. They only opposed it because they thought Republicans would reap the rewards of more corporate spending but now that so many major corporations have gone woke and Democrat they no longer oppose CU.
Spending by unions and corporations need to be capped because it’s not right that special interest groups can now game our elections through massive spending.
It may be possible for the individual State legislatures to create such caps by another means, since the Constitution retains to the States the manner in which elections are conducted, seems the States can pass laws not allowing funding from sources (whether individuals, corporations, unions, whatever) that are not residents or incorporated in that State – no outside money for elections, whether for/against candidates, offices, even the various local referendums and/or state constitutional amendments.
Such a change will take active citizen involvement and time, but could be done and would make legitimate, lasting change – along with repealing the 17th Amendment to put the selection for Senators that go to DC back into the hands of the State’s legislatures.
The red states conceivably (however remote) might impose caps. The blue states would not.
The result? Blue states have even greater influence.
My 2cents
That’s possible, but greater influence only for what happens within the blue states except for seats in Congress. You make a good point.
Am thinking extreme federalism, and remembering history where it was barely 1/3 of the population of the colonies that even wanted independence and
with the benefit of hindsight we can see what a determined minority can accomplish – thinking the determine minded minority of antifa which stemmed from the indoctrination of the socialist communist yet highly focused 1960’s radicals that quietly went about changing the nation from within via the education system targeting social issues.
It might be too late but notice all the young people in groups like Turning Point (surely there are others) that have that same stamina, and determined minds and hearts but opposite intent of those old radicals. It could happen.
I do think outside forces are going to have a huge impact, the movement of individuals from Italy to Brazil, Canada and Australia that have all said enough. Might push things in unexpected ways. It is the ones with the clearest thought and aim put into action that will make the real changes.
I nearly bought a condo on Santa Catarina Island, Rio de Sul, Brasil in 2006.
Now I really wish I had.
I would expect an increase in out-migration as time goes on.
Money obviously corrupts and skews the system, often in bizarre ways, such as the recent “mandate” effort. Special interests hidden legislators, etc etc
Don’t really know how to stop it, other than an entire stop and some type of restructure that benefits the entirety of the population, not based on left, right or the various divisions that are purposefully politically provoked
The systems have basically failed, slowly, over time. And are now an open threat to the governed
Everyone can perceive the problem, but as usual, what exactly IS the solution?
At this point, I see little or no difference between the unions, corporations (and that includes Google, Apple, etc.) and the RNC and DNC. As far as I am concerned, each should be banned from contributing funds to politicians. The political parties have far too much power and control – just try to get an outsider on the ballot.
Sundance, this has not only caught your attention, but others as well. In a recent podcast of the Duran Robert Barnes recaps the mid-terms and while the entire show is worth listening go to the 27:00 min mark as he mentions what you are also digging into
We’ve also been digging into this over at PDW as well. A recent CNBC article led to this https://archive.ph/2022.04.11-150502/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/us/politics/republican-donors-rockbridge-network-trump.html which has donors moving money around and regrouping post mid-term elections to recalibrate for 2024.
Keep us in the loop as you discover more, this is a topic that has the interest of many.
Corporations AND Unions should be held to the same spending limits as private citizens. First of all, they are using money invested with them by their shareholders and union members, so we don’t know if individual rights are being twarted here or not! I personally feel they should not be able to invest any money into candidate support. It is the individual people who elect, it should only be the individual people who pay to support with a cap on spending.
One of the reasons elections go haywire IS because of the money thrown around. Not a true democracy; not protecting individual rights, but corporate executives and union bosses rights over those of the people. The law should change; the SCOTUS got it wrong.
“Corporations AND Unions should be held to the same spending limits as private citizens.” Be honest, we fund both with our patronage and membership. The only enforcement would have been against the little guy and organizations like Project Veritas, etc.
The spending is out of control. How about financial limits on all political spending? All can join in but all are limited. Communications are not limited these days any and every candidate can reach the voters they are appealing to, without spending a billion dollars. Accumulating millions of dollars should not be part of the game and the limited funds should all be spent on the campaign, every dime, with nothing left over to line any pockets.
All Unions should be banned from political contributions. Individuals should not be allowed to make contribution to PACs or any NGO that commits politics, that exceed individual contribution limits. Corporations should be subject to the same limits as individuals.
If you cannot vote on a particular election you should not be allowed to donate money to any candidate in that election. Unions, SuperPACS, George Soros, etc. should be banned from donating in any election in which “they” cannot cast a ballot.
I was like you Sundance. I saw the decision as a way to level the playing field. I would have preferred though that the premise was not expand the Union donation influence to Corporations/PACs but to eliminate the Union donations. But that’s not what happened. So, now we’re stuck with bloated confluence which has effectively destroyed legitimate elections.
Simply, my answer is I supported then and don’t support today.
IMHO, Big Money is the BIG problem with our elections. The amounts are staggering and eye-popping. The greed of our politicians at the expense of the ‘little guy’ is ruining this Country. It’s corruption on steroids. We the People, little guys, are limited with the amount we can donate, but big corporations are not, but probably should be. Why is Mark Zuckerbucks allowed to give over $400 million, and I’m limited to $2800 or whatever the current amount is? Corrupted elections are the result.
Campaign donations are not free speech, they are bribery in the wide open.
So when we do away with Campaign Donations, the rest of the ubiquitous and egregious crony capitalism and insider trading will stop? Or will we just have ensured that no opposing viewpoints will be allowed to be heard in the months preceding an election (think NY Post and Hunter Biden laptop).
I didn’t support it then really, but thought what the hell. That was before, in my experience, Xi and his purchasing the world’s elites. Then came BlackRock, etc. This can be proven throughout by the mere presence of America First; Wall St. vs Main St.
Like you always say, SD, and I love it: “Trump disrupted TRILLIONS!”
That was before, in my experience, Xi and his purchasing the world’s
elitesparasites.Both of you bring up Xi which presents one of the biggest potential issues:
Foreign influence.
It may not be a Wall Street vs. Main Street issue as much as a Pro-American vs. Pro-Global (possibly not in Americans best interest) issue.
Multi-National Corporations may not always be operating in the best interests of America and Americans. In that case, I don’t see how they are allowed to have a voice/freedom of speech right in elections.
Also, there is a big difference between investing in good campaign advertising to influence voters and investing in the balloting process to influence election results. $ towards voters vs. $ towards ballots.
The whole votes vs. ballots switch removes the voter from the process.
I believe you are correct. It seems no congress slug is representing us.
Even MTG has made some “curious” statements/actions. Don’t hear much from fellow Buckeye Jim Jordan any more.
The context of the decision is very, very important.
Citizens United isn’t the full title! It was Citizens United Against Hillery. It was a group that was creating a film to expose here and oppose her campaign for senate in NY. The corporate structure was created for finance and liability reasons and is a standard practice for making a film..
Clinton and her campaign sued to stop them. They were too clever by 1/2.
At the time I was please to see them prevail, but reading the opinion it was clear (even to a layman) that it was a very broad ruling that basicly gave corporate boards the ability to out spend everyone in a campaign. It is actually worse than I expected as the amount of money, the who, and the were are hidden in this giant slosh of PACs and donations.
Money isn’t the problem; uninformed / stupid people are the problem. One issue people / minor issues people are probably the biggest problem.
If it’s not the votes that count, but the Counters of the votes that matter, then your assertion is moot.
Money will always be able to purchase the Counters.
Ideologues can always be overshadowed by mercenaries.
Individuals should be the only participants. Each of us gets one vote and a donation cap.
Organizations of all types should be excluded from participation because the individuals who comprise the collective already participate.
This prevents the individuals who lead those organizations from getting undue influence, against the collective will of their membership. This is inevitable.
Therefore, organizational participation distorts the Free Will of We The People. It should be entirely disallowed.
“Individuals should be the only participants. Each of us gets one vote and a donation cap. ” OK, I’ll play along. Who enforces the new rule, and how?
The only loser out of this arrangement are the populists and MAGA or Bernie crowd.
It would be very hard if impossible to reverse. The only way I see it done is to (somehow) declare non-human entities (ie corporations, unions, ngo) as single use. Corps single, and only, use is to provide a product and make a profit.
Speech should be reserved only to human entities. Corps, Unions, etc, don’t have that right. But Corps, etc, respond to shareholders. Small biz owed by one person can refuse to bake a cake because it’s the 100% owners’ speech. A large “public” Corp serves the whole country, thus its “speech” has to represent ALL the country. So it has to bake the cake. Because it has ALL Speech, it has NO Speech rights.
How do you make that change?
1. Constitutional amendment
2. A movement to force a new SCOTUS decision (this new info, in hindsight) be brought forth
3. Passage of law in Congress (good luck with that!)
4. State Laws to prevent that, gets you back to SCOTUS
5. Parallel Economy is formed; Movement only uses those corps for biz
6. Large small donation network is created
7. Inoculation of citizens against big money propaganda, so no amount of $ can sway people
I’ve never supported the unions or corporate donations to politicians or lobbyists in general. That being said, if we are to believe Mike Lindell’s research and Dr. Frank’s conclusion about the manner of theft of the 2020 election then it really doesn’t matter one bit about donations if some junta can simply take control and change the votes in the machines. I believe Dr. Frank from what he has presented and am still shell shocked that it was possible and that they got away with it.
Under “Citizens United,” it was a matter of time until a fake corporation – FTX – was created, administered by ostensive clown children, and used to supercharge donations to Democratic party entities from opaque sources. I should not think legitimate corporations would enjoy being extorted as a cost of doing business. I should not think the Supreme Court expected their decision to lead to covert and overt efforts to overthrow the sovereignty of individual states, such as Arizona, aimed at establishment of a single-party, central regime.
“,,,used to supercharge donations to Democratic party entities from opaque sources. I should not think legitimate corporations would enjoy being extorted as a cost of doing business.” CFPB, anyone?
We are rightly concerned about the preservation of individual rights. It is often difficult to see clearly what the effect of a given decision regarding those rights will be. Especially when there are competing groups or individuals’ rights involved.
(Having completed a first draft of this comment, and thinking about my examples, here’s an added observation on human ingenuity and character. It seems there will never be an end to the creative ways individuals will find to grab power to the detriment of the people and yet stay untouched, and even praised.)
An example comes to mind: the so-called ‘Robber Barones’ of the late 1800s. Now, individuals were in charge of large corporations and used then legal monopolistic means to drive competitors out of business so they could then jack up prices and become wealthy and powerful (but I repeat myself). And often do even more repulsive things like create sweat shops, endangering lives of employees to increase profit. Essentially, a few individuals had power, and they raped the vast majority of individuals. And We the People put a stop to it. The ‘rights’ of the corporate bosses were curtailed when it was decided the rights of the vast majority of individuals were being violated. And it was only understood after a test – allowing these bosses the latitude for the effects of their unchecked greed to become known.
So, people here are pointing out we had (still have) labor union bosses’ greed for power over-ruling their obligation to make decisions in the best interest of their membership and We the People. Essentially raping them with unchecked power and money. A test was allowed, and we now know this is unfair to We the People. Should it not be curtailed?
In the case of the CU decision, I have to admit I was not watching carefully or understanding at the time. But one notes that the ruling did nothing to curtail the power of unions, but rather to enhance the power of corporations. And perhaps those who were watching and understood better should have seen that no one would wind up speaking for We the People. However, it’s easy for me to criticize, having the benefit of hindsight. Nonetheless, we now know. A test has been allowed, and it’s clear the effects of the decision are an utter failure.
Two warring factions have fought for control. And perhaps are not even fighting for control any more, are they secretly collaborating? The tests have been done, and whether they are collaborating or not, it’s clear their goal is to rape and control the people. In the case of the Robber Barons, it was clearly not only morally proper to stop them, it was the only thing to do. Is it not also proper to do so regarding these new issues? I worry that it is too late. Nonetheless, it seems it would be a dereliction not to try.
Publicly traded corporations have ZERO business donating any monies to Super-Pacs. Investors of all shapes and sizes have given these entities money to run, expand and grow their businesses. I get lobbying for laws that are beneficial to these companies, although I am not necessarily for them. Dollars given to Super-Pacs are coming from the dollars meant to run the business, not politics. So many people are invested in funds which invest dollars into large corporations, sometimes people have no idea where funds have invested the money. These corporate entities have a responsibility to the shareholder, first and foremost, they should not be using big corporate piggy banks to get their friends elected. After all, the CEO, CFO, COO, etc political beliefs may not be the same as their investors, which is problematic. There is too much non-transparency to the investor to see where the money goes. The board and the C-Suite have an obligation to their investors to use company assets to maximize shareholder value, end of story! If these C-Suite folks and board members want to to donate to politics, they need to personally donate or take companies back private. In no way, shape or form should you be using my investment dollars or retirement funds for these activities.
Great discussion and much needed.
I was never “for” Citizens United. I believed we would get to where we are now. My father used to load the two of us girls into the car as kids in the 1970s to go flip off paid picketing union members outside of the local K-Mart. We thought it was good fun flipping the bird. My dad would roll down the window and ask how much these people were paid and who bussed them. Dad would then b**** the ride home about how unions would be losing power within my lifetime. During a school teacher strike the NEA decided to pull in “nowhere Ohio” my family broke their plan including an Uncle comendering a school bus, in his bathrobe, to break the picket line. I would answer the phone and adults would threaten my father.
Anyway, we feared, in my family, corporate consolidation of power more than Union power. Unions could be broken if needed. My father passed away just after the CU verdict and could not believe fellow Republicans did not see the dangers. Kind of like the Patriot Act.
We are not anti business nor anti employee people. I grew up driving through Millionaire’s Row in Cleveland, now a complete s**t h**e. Many family members and friends were/ are business owners. I also was raised with an understanding of Fascism, Marxism, et al. My dad was absolutely correct about a ton of things.
In the early 1990s I discovered fraudulent voting and elections, spending two years researching Cuyahoga County. I met with Tom Hays Board of Elections Director multiple times. I met with my then Congressman’s Chief of Staff Mike Connel. I met with all County Commissioners. I met with Republicans pretty high up on the national level. Nobody was interested. I was threatened by a sitting judge who became a congresswoman who objected to the 2004 election.
What I learned is that Motor Votor had enabled a treasure for fraud and nobody was going to upset this gift. Everything discovered in AZ in 2020 was not new to me in the slightest. Combined with big money, machines, and 30 years of being able to create registrations has brought us here to this discussion. Now add the enterprise ballot harvest and the Fascists are winning. We are being governed by criminals. Until people realize we are being played by everyone I do not know what we do to change this situation. I do now it has to start upon the precinct level.
I don’t think anyone could have imagined 12 years ago how this single decision could have so corrupted the electoral process. Even the Democrats didn’t understand at the time how this could be used to solidly entrench their Marxist agenda within the US. But evil finds a way to corrupt everything, even well-intentioned and constitutionally valid decisions. You have the formula exactly correct. Big donors buy electors—electors agree to serve the interest of the big donors—one hand feeds the other and and creates the great fascist state that cannot be disassembled. This symbiosis is how politicians and big corporate interests retain power and wealth for generations to the detriment of ordinary citizens, and CU has absolutely facilitated this phenomenon. It would be different if big corporate interests were aligned with the values of ordinary citizens, but they are aligned only with creating massive wealth for themselves and their large institutional investors. So, if politicians can give them what they want in return for pushing their sole ESG agenda, what the heck. What did a former CFO of mine at a large multinational once say to me? “The things I won’t do for money,” as he laughed and walked away from a discussion we were having about upholding principles. Very sad, but CU has certainly exacerbated this.
IMHO, the most simple solution would be to put a cap on the amount ANY candidate/campaign is allowed to spend, which would then put the onus on the candidate to personally “work” to persuade people to support him/her. However, this only attempts to remediate the symptoms, not the cause, which IMHO, is the fact that the general electorate in America is stupid. Perhaps apathetic is a kinder analysis of those who know so little about the country, issues, and traditions but the result of their apathy/stupidity is the same; the eventual extinction of our Republic. Adams opined over two hundred years ago that in order for the American experiment to succeed three things were needed: an informed electorate, an engaged electorate, and a moral electorate. Today, our nation possesses NONE of these requirements to any great extent and we are seeing/feeling the impact of their absence. In short, we have become too stupid, too self-absorbed, and too morally bankrupt to make choices which will allow our children and grand children to live in a free country. Mark Steyn, in his book “America Alone”, posed the question; “can a nation become too stupid to survive?”. The answer appears to be a resounding YES!
So, a question. An individual donor has a limit on how much they can give an individual candidate, right? Does CU effectively eliminate this donor cap if the donor gives to the superPAC (e.g. Save America PAC)?
Most still aren’t aware all the $ in the world won’t change:
Deuteronomy 32:28 “…they are a nation void of counsel…” Our leaders are stupid if we’re kind, but evil if we’re honest.
Isaiah 3:4 “…I will give children to be their princes…” Our leaders have the intellect of spoiled entitled children.
Isaiah 3:4 “and babes shall rule over them.” Not ‘hot lookin’ ladies’, mental midgets, of His choosing. e.g. Fetterman?
Proverbs 8:15 “By Me kings reign…” No one rises to power unless so planned by Him. e.g. Pedo-Joe? All part of His Plan.
Proverbs 8:16 “By Me princes rule…” He chooses what, and/or who, we deserve as a nation. Doesn’t have to apply to individuals, if we follow Him.
1 Corinthians 10:11 “...all things happened…for ensamples…upon whom the ends of the world are come…” Fig Tree Generation 1948- ?
“Oh yeah? How do we even know for certain that’s THIS generation?”
Mark 13:28 “…learn a parable of the fig tree…” Generation of the Fig Tree, Jesus said, “learn it”.
Jeremiah 24:1-3 “…good figs…evil figs…” – 2 peoples in control of the Temple Mount, Judah & Islamists. Began in 1948. No other moment in history applies.
Hosea 12:10 “I have spoken by the prophets…and used simlitudes…” – Father’s parables aid us in ‘picturing’ His thoughts.
“But no one teaches this in any church, religion, ministry, or anywhere that I’ve ever heard…”
Amos 8:11 “…I will send a famine…of hearing the words of the LORD.” – “Teachers” everywhere, but the Truth is scarce.
Mark 13:30 “...this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.” – What generation? Generation of the Fig Tree.
The corporate ruling class (read uber wealthy, corporations, DNC, RNC, and unions) through the power of $ funneled into PACs are able to completely drown out any individual’s speech.
In other words, the power of your speech will equal the size of wallet. Feudal system returned.
Didn’t support then or now.
I am not opposed to individuals spending their own money to support politicians. I think it should be public information and disclosed at the time of the donation/bribe. No hiding behind corporations, charities or NGOs. Open, honest and above board with actual penalties when those rules are ignored or delayed.
I don’t think any corporation, union, churches, NGO or charity should be allowed to give any money, in kind or aid at all. ONLY voters, i.e. citizens allowed to vote in the U.S. should be allowed to give money or in kind help to politicians in this country. I think most of the fraud and nefarious acts are accomplished and disguised by group donations.
Those actors and actresses we saw go to jail for bribing college officials to get their kids into better colleges is the kind of penalty I think should be embraced. You give a million dollars to someone running for the presidency and don’t make that fact public at the same time as the donation then you get a year in jail in if you are Jeff Bezos. If you as a union boss gives union money you go to jail. If you create or are part of an NGO that harvests ballots you go to jail. No exceptions.
did not support then, do not support now
This is a tough one but I think I fall in the support both then and now camp. But with a caveat.
I have to admit that at time the decision came down I had a limited understanding of the issue vis a vis unions. I thought it was solely an issue of corporations being treated as individuals and imagining they had faced contribution restrictions beyond that of individuals. Knowing the union issue now, I’d support it even more.
BUT … as with the current issue of ballot harvesting – i.e. do we play the Democrat’s game or outlaw harvesting? – I would now prefer both corporate and union contributions to be restricted to the individuals level.
This brings my thoughts about this closer in line with those I hold on disallowing corporations to base what should be fiduciary responsibility decisions on ESG standards.
Since we only have the illusion of choice in political candidates, where the money comes from or where it goes has no real impact. We will nearly always have two bad choices in candidates.
As an example of how money does not necessarily elect a candidate, I give you Robert Francis O’Rourke of Texas. “Beto” received over $200 million in campaign funds from the Dem party in his three unsuccessful runs for senate, president and governor.
Since a majority of federal races are not competitive, much more important is district drawing at the state level and ballot harvesting. Focusing on money is the shining light that blinds us to where the real focus should be.
Take the media off the table and the whole equation changes.
They have their fingers on the scales in a way that skews all other parameters!!!
In my mind, corporations are using money from consumers that may or may not agree with their political leanings. Unions have a requirement about a portion of a members union dues cannot be used for political purposes if the member files the overly burdensome paperwork.
Could corporations be required to get permission from each and every consumer that buys a product? Unions and corporations should be allowed to donate but only if the burden is on them to show everyone has given approval or only approved monies can be used..
This should be so burdensome that the administration of the system overwhelms the wants of the union or corporation to get involved. Too much paperwork will make all of this stop and the burden should not be on the individual. It should be default that people do NOT agree and donating can only happen if the entity confirms they have a preponderance of agreement from the source of their money.
We have to take ALL of the Corp/PAC/Union money out of these elections – leave the personal donation limitations we currently have. (Max $2,500). And once we are done the primaries – the govt (States for State races & Federal Govt for federal office) will give each candidate a set amount of money to run the race and get their points of view out to the voting public
This means:
The enormous sums of money have to be taken out of the election process – it is WAY OUT OF HAND and is one of the things driving the country into the ground … another key negative for the country’s political process is the completely corrupt news media – but that’s an issue for another time.
GH
I find it a bit of a reach for the SCOTUS to equate bribery with free speech. Their decision has taken election fraud to new levels of insanity.
I would favor only individual voters being allowed to donate to candidates or campaigns with a strict dollar cap (perhaps $100 per citizen).
Unions or corporations should not be allowed to purchase our elections, PERIOD.
And keep in mind that those corporations are often multinational, as well as the NGOs, or the charities, etc., so in essence the powerful of OTHER nations get to meddle in or peddle their influence in our elections. This should all be rejected.
Then maybe we can talk about the alphabet agencies inferring in other countries elections.
Wife and I discussed this a few weeks ago. We grew up in a region of ultimate union corruption and criminality.
She was not impressed when I told her that I was starting to rethink the CU decision.
But now that Sundance has expressed his misgivings (not her dunce husband) she is willing to look at the downside of the CU decision.
Congress has been doing this it seems like forever. Consequences be dammed. It is now almost impossible to repeal, or otherwise get rid of their self-serving legislation . This bureaucratic behemoth of a government is unstoppable.
I meant to add that I believe that the best solution to the destruction of our electoral systems is to demand from candidates their version of A Voting Rights Act for the 21st Century.
One day, in person, ID, no machines at all, paper ballots, transparent bins, counting streamed at every precinct, transportation of bins streamed, running totals on the net from precinct to final totals, severe criminal penalties for election infractions, multiple monitors at every step.
I’m sure there are more features that can be reasonably added.
I, like Sundance and many others here, at the time supported the decision. Admittedly, I did not delve deep into the issue but saw it at the time as an issue of fairness – allowing other entities, in this case Corporations, to operate in the same manner as the Unions in making political donations.
At the time of the case decision, I had recently belonged to a Union whose politics and political donations were mostly in opposition to my own political leanings and preferred candidates, (the job position itself belonged to the Union, there was no choice) and I believed – as others have noted – that the decision would bring some fairness and leveling of the playing field.
My union dues financially supported candidates and political positions with whom and in which I did not agree and I welcomed a counter balancing force to the many Unions’ great political influence.
My thinking was, why should Unions be the only Entities allowed to raise large amounts of money to donate to political campaigns and thereby exert influence?
Now, the whole operation has become an out of control monster and I can no longer support it.
But since running for political office requires astronomical amounts of money in order for candidates “to be heard”, (yes, some good candidates have managed to be elected even though vastly outspent), how do we best address this issue?
“Money was always a corrupting issue..”
Money will always be the corruption factor. The people who vote for these changes are corrupted. These people don’t want this fixed. They have the control now.
I feel the only fix is getting back to real voting on Election Day. Make it a holiday, ID required, ink stain on one finger, ballot is read by a isolated counting machine and same day tallying is via voice count to voting center at each district then state…. Until this is nailed down they will play games that we cannot overcome.
I think we need to think about the system of government we have. The authoritarians over the last 100 years have focused mainly on controlling the Federal Government first and have won control over it. Now they are after the states. I believe the state is our firewall.
To gain back control of the states I see first the people of each state need to have their state voting system under control. To get each state government to agree a We the People fist voting system is to start with a God centered rally in each state outlining our God given rights. The elected legislatures that attend that rally are then held accountable to the peoples will…. A lot of work. That work needs to be done. If not we will lose the Republic for ever. Or it will get kinetic
Get rid of both….Labor Union and CU. One person One vote.
Nice, Sundance!
Fyi – Freedom Fox’s Substack explored this very same topic in early September. I hope you’ll read it, I believe it adds to the conversation, understanding.
https://freedomfox.substack.com/p/the-obama-wink-and-roberts-nod
The biggest issue is not corporations being allowed to say what they want in the public Square, it is that you as a person can be kicked off the public square that corporations “manage”. President Trump blocked a Twitter troll from his Twitter account, and the Supreme Court ruled he could not kick people off his Twitter because it is the Public Square. How can a corporation kick Trump off the public square? The corporations being allowed on the square is not the problem, them kicking others off because of their free speech is.
The biggest issue is that corporations today, post-CU, are co-equal partners with government, doing a totalitarian regime’s dirty work around a constitution that prohibits direct censorship. Public-private partnerships. Aka, “Fascism.” The best form of government according to Benito Mussolini. The most tragic part of this realization is that its been going on for a very long time in the US. Since Mussolini and Hitler embraced and lauded it. Leaders in the US also did, just in more of a subterranean way. We, The People only now beginning to wake up to how much of a Fascist state has been built around us. All the while we were distracted with the totalitarian threat of Marxism. Enemies to the left and to the right. Quite the predicament.
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm
All the way up to the American presidency, Prescott Bush, father and grandfather of two American president’s, was Hitler’s banker. Making sure the checks written by the Third Reich cleared in payment of the bullets and bombs that killed American GI’s. Treachery from within our own ranks in the GOP that exceeds even the destruction of our nation by D’s. This is the biggest issue. It explains the hostility to MAGA of Bush/Cheney types. Fascists vs. Patriots.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
More on the rise and appeal of Fascism within the US. And western Europe, going back to the 1930’s.
https://lithub.com/a-good-journalist-understands-that-fascism-can-happen-anywhere-anytime/
Controlled Opposition Endgame:
Henry Kissinger, January 2009, Squawk on the Street Interview; achieving the New World Order.
HK going deeper:
https://www.henryakissinger.com/articles/the-chance-for-a-new-world-order/
Why Obama and not Clinton?
1) David Rockefeller knows he is very close to the end of his life and is desperate to see achievement of his life’s work.
2) Clinton “baggage”.
3) Obama is a fresh face, product of the communist network and saleable to the general public by the controlled propaganda press.
The Super Pac rule provided muscle to the “Right”wing of the “UniTurkey”. The “Left” wing took control of organized labor under Bill Clinton’s presidency.
Thus, unfettered financial control by the NWO Syndicate was the best possible tactical move to close the door on Americanism and the Constitutional foundation of the Nation.
Go back to the Squawk on the Street Interview and listen again to Henry Kissinger.
Individual American citizens have cap on contributions but global (US based) corporations with unlimited resources do not … How is it corporations and unions should have free-er speech than I?
I remember hearing about this case, not the exact details, but enough to know that this decision was wrong then and still wrong now. Consider this statement as my vote for your poll Sundance.
There is only one to know about this supreme court decision and one thing only. The supreme court decision cemented the ability of corporations and individuals to BRIBE POLITICIANS. Yes, I’m aware of, is ‘money free speech or not’. That is not the point. At what stage does a little donation to say I support you 100% (speech) to here’s a huge donation, I want you to do me a favour (bribery)?
Let me rephrase the above paragraph. “Lobbying and donating money to politicians is the legal version of BRIBERY in USA”. I support the decision to overturn this monumental blunder.
Sitting and thinking about my stance, maybe I’m a little too harsh in what I have said. If money is to be donated to political individuals or political organisations. Then a complete audit of where the money is being spent be implemented. The sunlight principle in play. Knowing humans, they would find a way to work around this rule.
My best wishes and salutations on your thanksgiving day from downunder.
Regards
Climate Heretic
PS Little joke to myself “Covid Heretic” ha ha.
I have always felt that only registered voters who are eligible to vote for whatever candidate, bill or measure should be allowed to contribute to that cause. That amount should be restricted so no one person or small group of persons have an oversized amount of influence. This eliminates the unions and corporations since they are not voters. This also eliminates the outside funding and donations. No longer would voters in another state be able to influence another’s state elections. It would also take a lot of money out of politics and eliminate most of the never-ending TV ads that are so full of BS you could float a small yacht. Politicians would have to start representing the people to earn their votes. The best way for voters to decide would be debates, so not showing up to one would be a huge problem for a candidate.
I was oblivious then, and I’m apathetic now.
Do you honestly believe overturning CU will stop big money from flowing into pol pockets? Remember when 0bama funded his campaign through untraceable prepaid credit cards? They’ll just find new ways to get the money where they want it to go.
The uniparty have discovered the power of ballots over votes. They would rather spend millions on ballot harvesting than campaign ads, because they know ballot harvesting is as sure as thing and they can buy. Ads are just a distraction.
Did lack of publicity defeat Kari Lake, or was it shady ballot practices?
Ranked choice voting violates the one person, one vote principle, but it remains unchallenged.
Too many sketchy practices to list.
The core problem is that speech costs money to disseminate. Unless you find a way to flood all communication channels with speech for no cost, or find some way to shift the cost to some neutral party then you will have problems which I don’t think laws will fix. That opinion is partly based on personal experience as my wife has been treasurer of a state political party and also run for state office. The laws create a market for people selling services to keep you from getting fined or worse by FEC or state equivalent (here, the CSC).
But hey, if you want the gov’t deciding what funded speech is OK go for it.