Discussion for article #231013
Then someone should start the petition on the WH website to beg Obama to veto this. Oh, that’s right…to late…11th hour…no way to be heard.
All this provision does is give the plutocrats the opportunity to spend more to influence the parties DIRECTLY as opposed to having to go through the indirect routes afforded by PACs, etc. Your $50’s already meager influence on policy was just reduced by a factor of hundreds. It only increases their influence over both parties’ policies and further tips the scale against the middle-class. What a fucking joke and an atrocity. If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.
8 Likes
as we move ever closer to a mega-billionaire just flat out functionally acquiring a state - my guess will be Kansas - at a bankruptcy sale …
2 Likes
Rich people increasing the influence of rich people yet again. What worries me is that this is becoming so common that soon it won’t even be considered newsworthy.
2 Likes
At lease these contributions are public record. I guess unless the S.Ct. declares that people are 501©(4) groups.
4 Likes
While Campaign Finance is a hot topic, and this travesty needs to be addressed, how about a more complete breakdown of the spending bill? This is a politics and policy website right?
- The provision to allow multi-employer pensions to cut benefits for already retired workers?
- Provision to change Dodd-Frank to allow banks to keep their swap/derivative trading units within the “bank” structure with FDIC insurance backstopping their losses?
- Provisions preventing the Interior from placing 2 species of grouse on the Endangered Species list (which was preventing further oil and gas exploration) and prohibiting funding for the DOE light bulb efficiency program?
- Defense provision that prohibits the closing of Guantanamo Bay?
Will any of this change via the Senate vote? I doubt it. But it would be nice to have national conversations on this…
6 Likes
In this season of giving Congress once again shows that charity begins at home.
1 Like
Adelson is a toad and a traitor to this country. Like the Waltons and Koch’s, he throws dollars around so people will pretend he’s relevant, but at the end of the day it’s really all about greed.
1 Like
May have to go to Ezra Klein for any in-depth analysis.
1 Like
probably only a matter of time.
According to the Washington Post article, “In a two-year election cycle, a couple could give $1,296,000 to a party’s various accounts.”
How is that a limit, in any meaningful sense of the word? According to whatsmypercent, that much income would put a couple in the top 0.5%. A couple that could afford a contribution that large would have to be in the top 0.1%.
1 Like
Why do it piecemeal when you can buy the whole (federal) government?
Democracy my behind.
When are we going to acknowledge the fact that we live in an oligarchy, with our government almost totally controlled by the wealthiest citizens and corporations. We have one political party, the Republicans, that is completely controlled by the top one percent. We have another political party that is very much beholden to the wealthy for it’s continued survival. We have absolutely no political party that represents the interests of about half of Americans that hold no personal wealth.
2 Likes
re: Having a national conversation on this…
Judging by the results of the mid-term elections we just had, most Americans either wouldn’t understand what you just wrote or would and just don’t give a sh*t anymore. They’ve decided that even trying to make life better just doesn’t make a difference. In order for ANY of the things you just mentioned to change, it’s gonna have to come from Americans demanding they change not the right or the left. Just Americans. And right now, they’re pretty much MIA. Congress knows this better than most.
1 Like
With this provision and the easing of onerous banking regulations, I think we can declare this bill a true victory for bipartisanship.
Who slipped this into the bill? There has to be a record of who put this in.
1 Like
As bad as Florida law is, it has one or two bright spots. One is that no bill can be passed that addresses more than one subject (I’ve greatly simplified that description). You can only introduce items that are specific to the purpose of the bill.That means that you can’t add anything about campaign financing laws into a budget bill. Sure, the legislature tries to get around it by making the purposes very vague or all-encompassing, but for the most part, it works. That means that congress can’t add earmarks and they can’t hold a bill hostage to achieve a non-related goal.
1 Like
Oh yeah, you’d think that as rich as Addledbrain is, he could get a better hair-dye job.