SCOTUS rules in favor of 1st Amendment regarding campaign contributions

[ArcadiaGP]

First Amendment wins big at the Supreme Court | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government

 

[Shadow8088]

it's just more "Money is speech" bull.... now people really can buy an election...

 

[MisterChester]

it's just more "Money is speech" bull.... now people really can buy an election...

+1

 

[ArcadiaGP]

it's just more "Money is speech" bull.... now people really can buy an election...

Those billionaires have exactly one vote at the ballot box. Just like you.

 

[ATOMonkey]

You can only buy an election if the people are dumb enough to sell you their vote.

The problem isn't with advertising, the problem is that our society is bursting at the seams with gullible idiots.

 

[Shadow8088]

uh huh... and they can spend their "speech" on delegates now...

 

[ArcadiaGP]

uh huh... and they can spend their "speech" on delegates now...

Who wants more information out there? Conservatives. Who wants less information out there? Leftists. That's what it is about.

 

[HoughMade]

So people think that government controls on supporting the candidate of your choice are a good thing?

Oh no, it's just the speech of people with money should be controlled....I gotcha...new definition of "freedom".

 

[MisterChester]

Who wants more information out there? Conservatives. Who wants less information out there? Leftists. That's what it is about.

To oversimplify it like this is wrong. Both sides have their information champions and hiders.

 

[Twangbanger]

You can only buy an election if the people are dumb enough to sell you their vote.

The problem isn't with advertising, the problem is that our society is bursting at the seams with gullible idiots.

+10. Exactly...and to borrow a page from the Liberals on the issue of voter ID laws, where is the proof these donations are distorting democracy? What is Constitutionally wrong with this ruling - other than just the fact that you don't like it?

The Democrats have the White House and Senate, soooo...is "anything less than one-party rule by Democrats" the new standard of proof that our elections are "unfair?"

The logic of these people: A) Divided government = obviously unfair system; B) a precinct in NE Ohio with 2,000 Obama votes and not a single one for Romney = "No Problem."

 

[HeadlessRoland]

You can only buy an election if the people are dumb enough to sell you their vote.

The problem isn't with advertising, the problem is that our society is bursting at the seams with gullible idiots.

Apt assessment of the situation.

 

[Trooper]

Dana Loesch referenced OpenSources.org on who is a heavy hitter. The majority were democrats.

Organization Profiles | OpenSecrets

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
very good graphics showing which party received the most from that donor

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/indivs.php

 

[jamil]

I was going to say, this probably benefits Democrats as much, if not more than Republicans. Now Soros can openly contribute to all the democrat senators without hiding behind pacs.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[HoughMade]

Whether freedom benefits one political group or another should never be a concern.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Those billionaires have exactly one vote at the ballot box. Just like you.

Yeah, the only difference between us and them in the political process is that they come to the polls in nicer cars.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Yeah, the only difference between us and them in the political process is that they come to the polls in nicer cars.

I typically walk to my polling place.

 

[Fred78]

For sale our government.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I typically walk to my polling place.

See? The privileged super-rich come rolling up in their Bently's, while guys like you, who can't even afford a car, walk to the polls so that their voice can be heard.

 

[indyblue]

You can only buy an election if the people are dumb enough to sell you their vote.

The problem isn't with advertising, the problem is that our society is bursting at the seams with gullible idiots.

Maybe the problem is not the advertising itself, but the advertisements content. Just like commercials can't make false/misleading claims, I believe there should be laws prohibiting false/misleading information/accusations (LIES) in political advertising. Everything stated in a political ad should be required to be true, no more false advertising and BS to bash the opponent unless they are proven facts.