By Jessica Hopper
Rock Center
With the South Carolina primary less than a week away, residents of the state are being bombarded with a barrage of political advertisements funded by Super PACs.
“It’s coming in fast and furious,” said Randy Cable of South Carolina’s conservative talk radio station WORD.
Cable said that Super PACs are buying up a majority of his station’s air time.
“They’re a game changer,” Cable told Rock Center Special Correspondent Ted Koppel in an interview scheduled to air Monday night.
This election season is the first presidential race to feel the influence of Super PACs, political action committees that can receive unlimited money from individuals, corporations and unions. Some of these Super PACs have morphed into powerful outside organizations working solely on electing a presidential candidate of their choosing. While a campaign supporter can only donate $2500 directly to a presidential candidate, he or she can donate unlimited amounts of money to a Super PAC supporting the same candidate.
“The Super PACs are outspending the candidate committees two to one at this point in time,” Cable said. “The ones that are buying the most [air time] are going to have the biggest impact. You know, just like in the world of business and advertising, politics goes the same way. Those that spend the most have the biggest impact.”
Every major GOP presidential candidate has a Super PAC supporting their campaign. Super PACs are supposed to operate independently of the candidates, meaning they can’t communicate directly with the politicians and their campaign staff. Super PACs have been effective even with the communication barrier, because they are often run by people who already know how the candidates think. A look at whose running the Super PACs reveals a roster of former staffers and advisers to the presidential candidates.
Carl Forti, a former political director for Mitt Romney, helped launch the ‘Restore Our Future’ Super PAC in 2010. The Super PAC supports Romney's campaign for president.
Koppel asked Forti, "Some of the research I've read on you and your organization suggests that you may by the end of this political year have spent four hundred million dollars on the campaign. Is that fair? Does that seem reasonable?"
Forti responded by saying, "Potentially. Well, that seems a little high probably, but between the different entities it may be three hundred, three-fifty."
Of those criticizing the millions raised by Super PACs, Forti said, “There’s a lot of criticism leveled at Super PACs, but we’re just operating under the laws as provided."
The Citizens United Supreme Court decision in 2010 allowed the unique political action committees to form. In the case of Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the government could not limit political spending by corporations.
Some of this election year’s most negative advertising has come from Super PACs, giving candidates a way to effectively attack an opponent without having the blame pinned directly on them.
At a press conference held Monday morning in South Carolina, Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman cited the negative tone of this year's campaign when he announced he was dropping out of the race.
"This race has degenerated into an onslaught of negative and personal attacks not worthy of the American people and not worthy of this critical time in our nation's history," Huntsman said.
Political analysts say that an anti-Newt Gingrich ad run by ‘Restore Our Future’ during the lead-up to the Iowa Caucuses significantly impacted Gingrich’s one-time lead. Gingrich finished fourth in the caucuses.
“We learned in Iowa, if you unilaterally disarm, you might as well not run. If you allow other candidates to have a scorched earth, multimillion dollar ad campaign and there’s nothing that responds, they simply, by constant defamation drive you down,” Gingrich told Koppel.
Following Gingrich’s finish in Iowa, a Super PAC supporting the former Speaker of the House called ‘Winning Our Future,’ received a $5 million donation from wealthy casino owner Sheldon Adelson. In South Carolina, ‘Winning Our Future’ has launched anti-Romney advertisements.
While Gingrich has publicly denounced the negative advertisement, the Super PAC supporting him continues to run the ad that paints Romney as a greedy businessman and attacks his record from his days at venture capital firm Bain Capital.
“We’re now entering a world where until the laws are changed, every serious campaign will have one or more Super PACs. They will spend an absurd amount of money and it will virtually all be negative. That’s a fact,” Gingrich said. “Given the playing field right now, you have no choice.”
The power of the Super PAC has been mocked by comedian Stephen Colbert, host of Comedy Central's 'The Colbert Report.' Colbert created his own Super PAC and recently handed over control of it to Jon Stewart, renaming it ‘The Definitely Not Coordinated with Stephen Colbert Super PAC.’
Colbert handed over control to form an exploratory committee about a possible presidential run in South Carolina. His Super PAC also launched a satirical anti-Romney advertisement that likened the former Massachusetts governor to a serial killer, implying that Romney killed businesses.
Colbert talked to Koppel shortly before he relinquished control of his Super PAC.
“It would be stupid to be in the 2012 campaign or want your voice heard in the 2012 campaign and not have a Super PAC,” Colbert said. “I mean, the RNC, the DNC, those organizations really don’t mean much anymore. Karl Rove has more money than the RNC.”
Back in South Carolina, the advertisements seem to be getting nastier by the day as the million dollar donations continue to pour in.
“These Super PACs don’t have reputations to protect, so I think that there is a tendency for them to get nastier in the ads that they run and they don’t have the same restraints operating on them as candidate committees do,” said Ellen Weintraub, a commissioner for the Federal Election Commission.
Weintraub and the FEC are tasked with regulating the Super PACs. Weintraub said that a key difference between the PACs and the candidate committees is that the Super PACs do not have to disclose their donors as often. The first time that many of the Super PACs will disclose their donors will be at the end of January, which means that voters will have cast their vote in several key primaries before knowing who is behind the advertisements that flooded their televisions and radios.
“At some point, you have to step back from the regulations, you know, take your face out of the book and see the forest for the trees,” Weintraub said. “And I think for a lot of people out there, seeing the massive amounts of money that are being raised and spent by groups in the candidates’ names effectively on the outside, and seeing that these groups do appear to have some kind of connection to the candidates. I think it’s going to raise a lot of questions for the public.”
So how do political advertisements get so nasty? Unlike consumer advertisements, political ads do not have to be vetted by the Federal Trade Commission.
“I mean it’s actually more difficult to sell somebody white bread than it is to sell a president getting into the White House,” said Linda Kaplan Thaler, an advertising executive.
Thaler is behind campaigns like Wendy’s advertising campaign and the Toys R’ Us popular jingle, ‘I Don’t Want to Grow Up.’ Thaler said that when it comes to consumer advertising, it’s about building a love for the brand. With politicians, it’s different.
“You know, when it comes to politics, it’s not so much about, you know, that I have to love the candidate I’m voting for. It’s very often, I have to dislike him the least,” Thaler said.
Editor's Note: This report has been updated to include transcription from Ted Koppel's interview with Carl Forti. Ted Koppel's in-depth look at Super PACs airs Monday, January 16 at 10pm/9c on NBC's Rock Center with Brian Williams.
Leave a Comment:
corporations are people! super pacs can spend as much as they want and hide who contributes and how much they contribute!
so how much does the presidency cost? the highest office of the land is for sale.
the demise of our democracy....
Government of the people by the corporations for the corporations.
A crime. This is wrong and is criminal. Get out of our elections. Corporations are not people. Get money out of our elections. The days of lobbyist, bought elections, are over.......campaign/elections, tax without representation IS OVER.
Nothings changed....
Fire, remove, recall any politicians who does not agree. Corporations are not people, they do not get a vote, they cannot buy the position of the President of the USA. The con is over.
Citizens United -- One of the worst US Supreme Court decisions ever.
America goes to the highest bidder.
What a shame.
We elect our local & state judges, why not Federal & SCOTUS? There was a time when it was appropriate to appoint judges but that time is over. In this modern day and age, there is no reason why we the people can't have the right to vote. It's not as if they need to transports ballots by horse. And while we're at it, get rid of the Electoral College too. It's obsolete.
Let the President still appoint his [Executive] cabinet but no Judicial branch appointments.
They interviewed Colbert. Here's the ad from the SuperPAC. If corporations are people then...
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/video-stephen-colberts-serial-killer-anti-mitt-romney-ad
Write in vote and VOTE FOR NOBODY.
America is Number One! We have the best politicians Money can Buy!
After all, the higher the price the better the quality, eh?
We don't really need the election process, just see who has the most super pac money and he/she takes that office. This is a country run by the 1%, us 99% are just here for the ride.
I don't know why anyone pays any attention to political advertisments on TV anyway. Like all other commercials on television, they're nothing but propaganda whoever they're for or against.
THE BOTTOM LINE if we want fair elections , equal representation , all donations must go into a single fund and divided equally among the candidates to finance the campaigns , BUT it is not going to happen , because corruption controls our Country
The donations for ONE CANDIDATE do not come from the rich, but mostly just from the soldiers who are putting their life on the line across the globe in hundreds of bases, who give what little they can, but its added up. Since they can not be here to vote, please answer their call. . Ron Paul 2012
Darrel - I don't think that is a very reasonable idea. If you do that, people with high name recognition will want to keep donations down. It is hard enough for people to run against an incumbent now without making it even more difficult.
My hope for US is that voters consider the source and use information only from the candidates site or valid media sources. PAC's are the worst form of lobbiest.
Too bad the supreme court erred.
Our government is broken and unfixable short of a revolution, the presidency has been for sale for years now and the politicians wont change anything or the corporations will see to it that they are replaced, they know we are a nation of sheep and will do nothing but complain on some blog and then settle down for another episode of "Married With Children"
This is what a conservative weighted supreme court will get you, yes, just another reason to vote against the right.
This isn't just about American corporate money or just the presidency. Our leaders and representatives can be bought by foreign companies, individuals, and countries, nobody can track the money going to the super pacs.
For the longest time unions had a virtual monopoly on free speech. Meanwhile, corporations were not allowed to fight back. Like it or not the government treats corporations as people and has done so long before this decision. Given that, it was the only decision they could make.
Freedom is never served when only one voice is heard, that is fascism, not democracy. As people vs Larry Flint proved, even the worst speech must be protected or you have no first amendment. That being the case, rather than proposing fascism, realize that as much as you hate corporations, they do have a right to be heard.
Also recognize unions are big business as well, just with a different agenda.
Lest you all forget, the unions are not limited what they can donate. And they donate exclusively to the Democrats. More than that, the unions tell their people who to vote for, and MAKE their members volunteer to help locally. I know, I was in the AF of L/ CIO and SEIU for 30 years. Unions are just as bad a corporations. And I have friends in the teacher unions, and they are the same. And union people - it's your money they use, and then ask you to give more. Wake up people. Single pool of campaign funds, term limits for all.
What gives the Coporations the right to contribute any amount of money they want to a Presidential Canidate? We had Campaign Contibution laws which worked for many many years but the Supreme Court decided to abolish those laws by calling a corporation a person. A Union is/was made up of indivual contributors to campaigns. Corporations are run by a Board of directors who do not have any quams about donating millions and millions of earned income to a political campaign.
The Supreme Court ( Republican) screwed up the American election system. The Law has to be changed. The Supreme Court is not empowered by the Constituation to MAKE LAWS. They did and now we as a Nation are suffering the conquences.
FIX THE SCREW UP!!!!
If SuperPACs can recieve unlimited donations, why is there any limit on direct campaign contributions? This just serves to cover up where the money is coming from. Government and other corrupt entities are excellent at making everything so complicated and indirect that no one can see what's going on. If you are going to argue that corporations have a right to be heard you might as well shut up. Corporations are composed of people. Those people already have the right to be heard. Now those in control of corporations have double rights and more than double influence. That unfair advantage goes against everything this country stands for.
Super Pacs allow elections to be bought. It sickens me to know that corporations and special interests can purchase any elected official that they are to govern. The secretiveness of the donations is a joke. $1B will be spent by both the Democrats and GOP, under the guise of donations has to stop.
I'm ashamed of what has happened to "our" government.
STupid people who agree with the supreme court decision should not be allowed a vote. They are not intelligent enough to cast a vote.
Is it legal...appears so. Is it ethical...I don't think so. I think I will watch who has the most commercials and that sling bologna and definitely NOT vote for them. It seems all we can do is show the super packs that they have just the opposite affect they are going for. If a super pack buys all this time, we DO understand they are trying to buy the election and for their own greed. There is something they want and the person they are backing is going to get it for them most likely at the people's expense. If it was right and just for this REPUBLIC they should NOT have to buy it.
Everyone on here that is complaining needs to look at Dr. Ron Paul. He is incorruptible. He is the only candidate that isn't funded by goldman-sachs! Our controlled media ignores him and it's not because he it unelectable. If you want real change look to the man who isn't bank funded!
What about tax-exempt Unions who buy candidates and elections?
"Rich" Unions can contribute an unlimited amount of $$$$$ to buy an election.
Union corruption needs to be stamped-out.
What ever happened to electing the best person? Now we elect based on money. Typical.
Romney says right out to our faces that corporations are people. Good time to teach them a lesson and not let this spoiled snot win.
mygirl - that's the fallacy that everyone wants you to believe. Money only allows the candidates to advertise more, it doesn't guarantee them a win and it doesn't give them any more votes. All it does is give them a better chance of influencing people to vote for them.
No one makes a person cast a vote for anyone. You pull that trigger yourself. It's up to the individual person in the voting booth.
There is no rich Union or Super PAC in the booth with you when you vote.
There is a way to end this corruption. Cut and paste these amendments, print them out, circulate them and get your own local grassroots organization started to get enough signatures in YOUR state to petition for the Constitutional Convention to pass the Election/Campaign Finance Reform and Term Limits amendments. Tyler suspended me yesterday (after posting the link to the website faircampaignreform(dot)us on another thread, so I'm now going to just post the amendments. Interesting that he did that after 15 months of promoting the website on Newsvine, trying to get people involved in the grassroots efforts to change this corruption. Maybe one of the corporate donors decided this is too much of a threat to them????? Items in bold are for emphasis only.
Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Election Reform
We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.
Election Reform:
1. Abolish the Electoral College (Repeal Amendment 12)
2. ONE NATIONAL primary date to be held on the Tuesday eight (8) weeks prior to the General Election day for Congressional offices and for the President. Candidate petitions must be filed with the local/state elections boards 60 days prior to the Primary Election date. Federal election petitions shall be uniform in every state and shall include a "contract with the voters" that spells out clearly what that candidate stands for on all issues that they may have to address in elected office. They shall be held accountable in court for breach of that contract if elected and any/all terms are not met.
3. NO campaigning allowed for any elective federal office more than 60 days prior to the National Primary Date.
4. NO campaign contribution shall be donated to any candidate of more than $200 from an individual or $500 maximum from a family (spouses/children living in the same household.) No donations shall be made to a candidate more than sixty days prior to the primary date. No candidate shall contribute from their own funds more than 60% of the total donations from other private individuals.
5. NO campaign contribution from any PAC, corporation, union, non-profit organization, special interest group, etc. shall be allowed for any elected federal office.
6. NO third party campaigning (separate PAC ads, corporate ads, etc.) for/against any candidate shall be allowed at any time during or before the election season.
7. NO party conventions shall be held to select the presidential candidates. The selection must be done at the ballot box in the primary election.
8. The One Man/One Vote Supreme Court ruling shall be enforced by this Amendment, namely that NO federal candidate selection shall be by any means other than the ballot box on Primary/General Election Dates.
9. National Party Organizations shall NOT raise money for or donate to specific candidates of their party prior to the dates outlined above.
10. PAC's shall NOT be granted tax-exempt status by the IRS, and any non-profit organization who uses their funding for political purposes shall lose their tax-exempt status.
11. All lobbyists shall be outlawed from influencing Congress at all times.
This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state's Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.
Name Signature State Address
Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Congressional Term Limits
We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.
Term Limits for Congress:
1. Representatives to Congress shall serve no more than two two-year terms in the House.
2. Senators shall be elected to no more than two six year terms in the Senate.
3. No elected official shall serve more than six terms in office in any combined elected offices (House/Senate/Presidency.)
This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state's Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.
Name Signature State Address
Unions represent 8-12% of American workers and are often times the whipping boys of the right. The point is--no money should be allowed from any one. Public financing is the only answer. No money from any special interest. No defense contractors, lawyers, lobbyists, religious organizations, doctors, PHARMA, Wall St, etc.. How many senators or house members would vote for such a bill. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont proposed such a bill recently--to no avail.
"Unlimited contributions give "Super PAC's" power to change presidential race"
What ever happened to “the quality sells itself” motto?
Both parties are guilty of wasting $millions on election campaigns. Apparently President Obama is going to raise in excess of $1/2 billion in his quest for reelection. Doesn’t this reflect badly on us, implying that we are like a wh..e, who can be bought and used whichever way they please!?!
if that were true mayor bloomberg would be the next president.thank god its not!
In other words to hell with the First Amendment any time someone I don't agree with uses it to say something I don't like. That's what you're saying whether you'll admit it or not.
I can't help but laugh at all of the people crying about all of the money in politics. It's like you are all admitting you're idiots, lol! "Oh my, how on Earth can I be expected to think for myself? If people with lots of money put a BS commercial on tv I have no choice but to believe it without checking any facts for myself, it's on tv after all" LOL!
That's the real problem, it's not the money that pays for the BS, it's all of the people willing to "buy" into it.
I agree, but I can only assume you missed the part where the SCOTUS decided Corporations are not just "people" they effectively have more rights than you and I do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission) . So unless you can think of a way to override the SCOTUS, we're unfortunately stuck with this decision that affects the entire population unless sufficient Congressmen and Senators push for a new law changing the current statutes.
'Koppel asked Forti, "Some of the research I've read on you and your organization suggests that you may by the end of this political year have spent four hundred million dollars on the campaign. Is that fair? Does that seem reasonable?" '
I wonder if Koppel will ask the same question of Obama and the $1 Billion that he plans to spend in 2008. "Is that fair? Does that seem reasonable?"
Kagen = corrupt
Ginsburg = corrurt
Sotomayor= corrupt
Beyer = corrupt
Beyondthereef "Get out of our elections. Corporations are not people"
Neither are unions, but that doesn't stop them from spending hundreds of $Millions for the Democrats.
The only reason this is being addressed by the media is because it helps offset the huge union and lawyer contributions for the Democrats.
Roy you obviously are asking a rhetorical question... of course they won't. Obama is different. He is special to the liberal press... he can not do wrong.
BTW Willing you missed a few but one important one
Obama = corrupt closed door special interest favors...
Also contrary to what these whiny righties want to tell you, Union Dues may NOT be spent for political purposes. Right wingers have been paranoid about unions for years and have pretty much whittled away what rights they had. Politically except as a voice, they are not able to do that much. You don't currently seen any huge union PACs out there for Obama, and I doubt you will.
This from a well known Right Wing Right To Work site.
Unions are only an issue in the narrow and misinformed minds of the right wing. Roy, as usual, likes to dispense misinformation.
Roy, Secret money versus reported money. The wishes of a few versus the contributions and good faith of millions. Not the same.
Let's repeat that last part... "but we’re just operating under the laws as provided."
This is a very important and revealing statement that rebuts the argument for a regulation free campaign, market, or anything that involves power or money. The point is that greed will drive people or groups of people to act to the very limits of the law regardless of morality, ethics, or it's impact to our country and it's people. Reasonable limits are a necessary evil... like it or not.
Still no Lefty can answer the question as to why shouldn't rich bloated Union organizations pay taxes? Yet still buy politicians and elections.
We never hear about the fact that the unions are protected, including with favored tax treatment. They're not churches; they're not shelters; they're not food kitchens; they're not charities.
The Union Bosses live like fat cats, yet their organization pay no tax.
How come the unions get away with not being taxed? Why should we accept as a given a policy set decades ago by the progressives giving favored treatment to unions, which are essentially just corporate entities of their own.
For those on this post calling the US a democracy, we are not a democracy, we were a republic; however, now we are an oligarchy with corporations controlling at the top! we have Supreme Court Judge John Roberts and his ilk to thank for the demise of our once great republic. I would really like him to disclose his tax statement, bet his income has soared since his rise in the court system and his being firmly in the pockets of big business.
It's people like WILLING_SNIPER that are the cause of this country's problems. The hostility emoted by him is that of a out of control mad man. No were in the Constitution does it say Corporations are people. Of the top ten political contributors only 2 are considered Liberal, only one is a Union. Willing-Sniper would silence the Unions and only allow Right Wing voices to be heard. Five Right Wing Activist Judges of the Supreme Court went outside the scope of Citizens United law suit. My only solace is that willing-sniper only has one vote.
Just as a add on: Corporations want a Laissez Fair Market (no rules) which only exists in one country in the world today. The country is Somalia and we all know how that is working.
Is this orgy of money in politics really what America should be all about?
This Roberts Supreme Court needs to be dismantled. It is puppet of right wing facism.
Actually, the corporations are not giving all that much money to the SuperPACs. Most of their contributions seem to be coming from wealthy individuals who are now freed from the $5,000 limit and disclosure problems that could have gotten them unwanted scrutiny.
Most corporate money will go to superPACs that support Senatorial candidates. The Presidency is simply too expensive to buy and it puta all your eggs in one basket. There are too many Representatives in the House and you have to buy so many of them and them keep them in line that is is described as like herding cats. And you have to buy them all over again every two years. But Senators, to quote Goldilocks are "just right." You only need to buy 40 of them and you can block anything you want. The House cannot block Presidential appointments, but the Senate can! And while the House still controls the purse strings, 40 votes in the Senate can block any item or add any otem thay want.
A Senator is the corporations best buy! China is heavily investing in American Senators, having bought the two Mississippe Senators and the two Alabama Senators to get $15 billion in tax breaks and exemptions for two Communist-owned carplants, one in Mississippi and one in Alabama. $15 billion in return for the paltry $15-20 million or so that has been spent to buy the four Senators and two Governors. You can't get a deal like that at Wal-Mart.
Hay catydid time to go back to history class. The United States was founded as a Democratic Republic because our founding fathers knew a mix worked better than either one alone.
For those of you who are totally against "Citizens United" and the Supreme Court ruling, you need to "google" David Cobb, who is the head of the "Move to Amend" group. This group is a national movement to abolish "Corporate Personhood." I think if you have a chance to hear him speak, you would be totally ready to join his movement. It's time to change the rules....the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling is just the latest -- and most blatant -- example that corporations have hijacked our government. The ruling opens the door to a floodgate of corporate money in elections and leaves ordinary citizens little opportunity to participate in our democracy. Corporations are using OUR legal system against us!! What can we do when we can only donate, at most, $2500 to an individual candidate, while corporations can donate millions to a Super PAC to "buy" their place in our government!
Another question to ask is why these candidates are spending so much to get a job that doesn't pay all that much....but, of course, there's the thing about "power." Rich people have it and they like it and they want to keep it....being president is one way of using that power against so many Americans!!
Willing.Sniper, I will try to answer your questions.
NO PAC money can be collected except by written permission by the union member.
The union can not punish the member in any way for not contributing and can not be forced to work on a comapign of any kind for the union.
Unions are non-profit by design. Unions DO have funds, like retirement funds, medical benefits funds and training funds. Most of which is invested mainly in the markets to be distributed as designed.
Union bosses , while have some perks, like unlimited travel (supposedly for business purposes) make far less than CEO's of most large corporations. Some are rich, I grant you, because they held high positions in companies they worked for and or are smart (or lucky) investors.
Union bosses are elected by the members under union constitutional by-laws. They can and are frequently voted out. One problem here is the voting membership is about as scarcest as the American voter in just about any election.
Union membership in the US is now about 12% of the work force, industry and public service combined. Not as big and all powerful as you would like people and sheeple to believe. Many union members vote republican. My union, AMO, (American Maritime Officers) is an example. The members I know are I would say 80% republican. They are all well paid ($70,000 to $130,000 a year for full time permanent) with pretty good benefits. The higher paid union members are usually republican. Another example is the paper mill in my town. Again 80% of those union members I know are republican.
A comment for all here: Listen closely to the political ads with pen and paper. Take notes then research what is said on the ads, especially negative ads. Just google the main sentence or charge made against a candidate. A lot of the time you will find these issues are taken out of context. Sometimes an incumbent has to vote for something he doesn't like because it was stuffed in a much larger more important bill (poison pills). Look at their full record.
Amused In The Midwest "Also contrary to what these whiny righties want to tell you, Union Dues may NOT be spent for political purposes."
Nice mislead. Not all of the union dues are used for political purposes, but the unions still spend plenty on the Democratic politicians. Where do you think it comes from?
[sigh]........once again, for the kids who were too lazy to pay attention in civics class.....
We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC with REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.
Got it??? Clear enough? Now, do I need to explain it???
Of course, in true newsvine fashion, I would smugly add that our country has since been co-opted by the wealthy corporations and special interests (of ALL kinds across the political spectrum), thus leading our country into what is now considered an "imperial oligarchic corporatocracy".
There. You can go back to your frivolous arguing now.
"...being president is one way of using that power against so many Americans"!!
The seated president (candidate) is also covered in your statement.
Well, as an example of money spent. The Superbowl ads cost four million a minute. Does that guarantee sales? I thought the VW darth vader kid was 'cute' but I didn't go out and buy a VW. I don't care how much they spend on ads, or who spends that money, in fact, I generally consider the flashier campaigns as being an attempt to hide a lesser candidate. I think I may be in the minority since I research the candidate and base my vote on research rather than propaganda.
LMarcT "Roy, Secret money versus reported money."
I suppose that next you will try to tell me that the union leaders actually check with the union members before making political contributions - 96% of which go to Democrats. Besides, the article indicated that there IS disclosure by so-called Super Pacs.
I would be all in favor of outlawing both corporate and union political contributions, but legalizing one but outlawing the other is not 'balanced'.
Personally, I think that political contributions by public employee unions is a serious conflict of interest, as in;
"If you don't give us what we demand, we'll elect someone that will".
Even FDR, the most liberal President we've ever had, recognized this, and opposed political activities by public employee unions.
rednawt "NO PAC money can be collected except by written permission by the union member."
That does not mean that union contributions require permission of the union members. In most cases, union dues collected for political contributions are MANDATORY, and when union members are actually given a choice, they will 'opt out' by overwhelming numbers. In most cases, they do not have that option - although laws do vary by state.
Didi-376564 " What can we do when we can only donate, at most, $2500 to an individual candidate, while corporations can donate millions to a Super PAC to "buy" their place in our government!"
And unions can donate millions too and 'buy their place in government', so why not limit contributions by both unions AND corporations to $2,500 each.
I won't 'cry' that much about the Republicans getting a little more in contributions from businesses than the Democrats since the Democrats still raised about $815 Million in the 2010 election cycle vs only $589 Million for the Republicans - that's almost 40% more for the Democrats. Here's the link;
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.php?cmte=&cycle=2010
Isn't it interesting that the Democrats still got 'shellacked'?
Joethe lib,
You shoukd look up your information before you correct others. We as a people bandy about the word "democracy," but the framers of the Constitution were afraid of a true democracy. Do you pledge allegiance to the "democracy"or to the Republic?
What really bothers me is that the people who are stupid enough to be that easily influenced are allowed to vote at all. As Winston Churchill said:
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
Roy, are you a union member? If you don't like who your union supports, then don't contribute to the PAC. Simple as that. Only PAC money can be used to support candidates. It is also used to lobby Washington. An example of this is, in my union, to educate members of congress on the Jones Act, which regulates waterway transportation. Construction company associations use PACs to lobby for their concerns. The AMA uses PACs to lobby for medical issues. I know you don't need a lecture but in short, PACs are VOLUNTARY! ALWAYS!
And Joe, if we were truly a democracy we wouldn't need the electoral college. Personally I think the electoral college is an out dated concept, but I am sure that those that hold the Constitution as a sacred document woukd disagree.
rednawt "Roy, are you a union member? If you don't like who your union supports, then don't contribute to the PAC."
Let's be realistic. If I were a union member and decided to 'opt-out' of union political contributions, the union could force me to resign from the union.
How many people are willing to do that, even if they totally disagree with how the union spends their political contributions?
Give it a rest with the union crap. You guys never let up with this crap. People have a choice to donate or not donate to the union. Plus, you can get a list of all the donors who contributed from the unions. You can't do that with the Super PACS. So just give this Union crap a rest. You guys are like an ignorant broken record.
@Roy Wilson
How about a little proof about what you're saying. You know, documentation.
Dennis Price "@Roy Wilson How about a little proof about what you're saying. You know, documentation."
Glad you asked. When you exercise your 'Beck Right' to opt out of union political contributions, here is part of the disclaimer from a site that assists union members to opt-out;
"By clicking the submit button and exercising my “Beck” rights, I acknowledge that my union may require me to resign."
Here's a link;
http://unionrefund.org/report.asp
Here is another link for those interested in finding out why unions protested so loudly in Wisconsin against Governor Walker's giving union members the right to 'opt-out' of paying the political contribution portion of union dues;
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264545/opting-out-unionization-katrina-trinko
oh no.dont ask roy for proof.youll get an phone book full of crap.since we're electing traitors how about we remove the need for u.s. citizenship.how about we outsource congress to china just like our manufacturing base.this is hard,but fun,for the billionaires running this country and expensive
crap i was too late dang roy your fast
What I got seems to be a dead link.
Roy, I opted out of PAC. I experienced no retributions. I actually advanced in my career quicker then most.
Dennis, agreed, but if Roy wants to spout off on things he knows nothing about he should be exposed to all for such. Any other union member want to comment?
Beck only applies to non-union members who have their pays nnegotiated by the union.
http://www.lawmemo.com/nlrb/beck-qa.htm
So it really doesn't apply to what you're saying. FAIL on your part Roy.
Dennis Price "What I got seems to be a dead link."
Try;
http://unionrefund.org
Nothing I said was incorrect. Union members have the right, under the Supreme Court Beck ruling, to opt out of paying the portion of union dues applicable to political contributions, but the union has the right to force the member to resign from the union as a result.
Interestingly, when Governor Daniels in Indiana signed legislation making the paying of union dues by state workers voluntary instead of mandatory, about 90% of them quit the union and pocketed the dues money for their families.
It would appear that the vast majority of public union workers don't think much of how the unions spend their money.
Roy
I read it. According to the FAQ they have the same degree of union representation but they don't have the right to vote. Not a big deal. I didn't see anything all so terrible there.
Dennis Price
So what did I say that was incorrect?
A union member can exercise their right to opt-out of paying the dues portion that is used for political purposes, and the union has the right to force them to resign from the union if they do so.
In effect, the unions require that their members contribute money for partisan political purposes (over 90% to Democrats) as a condition of being part of the union, whether they like how the contributions are used or not.
Since unions give hundreds of $Million in contributions to the Democrats, it's easy to see why the Democrats love them and will do almost anything to please the unions.
@Roy
The union has the right to force them out because Beck only applies to nonunion employees represented by the union. So if you want to opt out citing Beck you have to quit the union. You can't have it both ways Roy at least not according to the ruling.
Unions are a heck of a lot more transparent then PACS. They can supply names of donors. PACS don't have to.
As for the money, hey, you don't like it, give money to the PACS. The Democrats are just taking a page out of the Republican play book and doing it better. Sucks to be Republican I guess.
Dennis Price "@Roy The union has the right to force them out because Beck only applies to nonunion employees represented by the union. So if you want to opt out citing Beck you have to quit the union."
So you admit that unions force their members to make political contributions, virtually all of which go to Democrats, whether they like it or not. Thank you.
As for PACs being less transparent, they still have to file reports to the Federal Elections Commission. Also, virtually 100% of the money that goes to PACs are made by people who support the political objective of the PAC, whereas only about half of union members are registered Democrats, yet virtually all of their political contributions are directed to Democratic politicians by union leaders, whether the members agree with it or not.
By the way - I'm not a Republican - in fact, I never voted for John McCain, G W Bush, Bob Dole or GHW Bush. I would have loved to see Hillary elected though in 2008 - Too bad, she would have done a much better job than Obama.
Gotta go now - time to tuck my 6 year old daughter into bed and our nightly prayer. Bye
As all of my readers are well aware I had been and have been warning of this 63 year old campaign finance law being overturned and the implications as such. I sought to extinguish the blaze before it was set. I hoped to sway the thought of it to no avail. And in fact am not shocked by what I in fact had foretold.
Money corrupts all absolute. Lies no account to be held and anonymous donors. In America? In politics? Democracy? Really? You may thank Alito personally as it is him and him alone that got the ball rolling in the court supreme. And in all of its wisdom it has proven if nothing else beyond a shadow of doubt,.. It has none.
So what does this mean I have asked to all of the elections for the last 63 years in kind? Were they illegal? A go back as was the Prohibition era? Hmm. ; ] I admire Mr. Stewart and his minion and there brash attempt to awaken the buffoonery of it all. Bravo my good friend ; ]
Cheers
I would have to agree with Roy Wilson. Just recently the bill for the SOPA is coming up for debate and you can definetly see how many democrats were given enormous amounts of money to support it. I don't know if they were trying to buy their votes, but it sure does look like it. In case any of you were wondering what the SOPA was, it means STOP Online Piracy ACT. This act makes it illegal for you to use Youtube, Wikipedia, and any of the 1000's of sites that students and teachers use on a daily basis without first paying a hefty price. It's funny that so many democrats bought into this act and are supporting it. They must think that our school system is already good enough without having to pay for extra resources. Where's that money coming from?
All these people in government can be bought if the price is right!
These SuperPac lobbyists can run all the ads they want. They can lie uncontrollaby all they want and be immune from libel laws if that's what their Supreme Court Justices give their paid votes to support but all in all, the bottom line is that my mind is made up from exactly what I have heard come out of these republican candidates mouths before their smuck campaigns began. They have voiced their intent to attack Iran and pretend like they didn't commit treasonous acts in order to get support to start the war. They intend to dismantle the rights of the people in the states systematically and take us back 50 years. Not even one of their intents would be of any benefit to the actual hard working people of this nation. I don't need to hear a bunch of lying rich people to tell me what I have already heard come out of these republicans mouths already.
You're not even a republican, so what do you care about what the Presidential Republican candidates say? All you can do is bash any republican who does not conform to your ideas. I at least gave Obama a chance and he has failed this country. He will not be getting my vote AGAIN!Keep in mind, Obama is RICH as is most members of Congress. I agree with you! I know I wouldn't want to hear his lies again.
I have to care. If any of them are brought into power with a majority, this nation may very well end up in a civil war. They have divided this country to it's core and are now letting religious fanatics control them and the destiny of this nation.
Roy you are seriously dense
What part of NONmembers do you not get? NON+Those who are not members ...See NON=No
I was in a union once, I am not a fan of unions, and I opted out of the PAC.
The trade organization I am now a member of also has a Pac (It is not in any way a Union) I opt put of the PAC there as well.
Now if you would just OPT out of here, we could avoid your drivel of non-facts since you will be a non-member.
In other words, your votes no longer count in America.
Capitalism = rule of people who hold Capital, pure and simple. US is not a democracy - it is a country ruled by international capital holders. Look at our election spending, look at our foreign policy, look at our trade policy, look at our healthcare system - all in place to benefit multinational corporations at the expense of American People.
UnHappy, you should really do some research. You are so very far off where SOPA is concerned. First of all there is no way to buy your way around SOPA. It will not stop students from using YouTube or anything else unless they are stealing copy protected content. The law restricts access to content by blocking things at the DNS level and makes payment processors and others responsible if they accept payment for, or dispense copyright infringed product. It does a lot more things that border on censorship and will also stop folks like WikiLeaks from doing what they do. It is not a good law, but you know nothing at all about it evidenced by your post full of nonsense fear mongering. The bill was introduced to congress by a Republican, Lamar Alexander. It has a group of 12 bipartisan congress people supporting it. Your attempt to make it a Republican or Democratic thing is laughable. It is bipartisan, and it is not a good law. Please get a clue and do a little research.
You know, I was going to try and engage our "friend" Roy, but as I kept reading his broken record like parroting of RW talking points and propaganda, I realized it was useless.
I don't know about others, but I contribute just short of 1 hour per pay period to my PAC. It is voluntary, with no retribution or hell, even taunting, if you don't contribute. What it will be this cycle I don't know, but in past cycles we've contributed about 60-40% D/R; much to the objection of many members. There is a committee that determines where the money goes, not a "Union Fat Cat Boss". And this despite Congressional REPUBLICANS (most, but not all of them) fighting to destroy my profession and my Union. Even Union members vote for pols seeking to destroy them.
Just like the rest of the electorate, stupid is as stupid does.
Roy, Agreed. What's fair is fair. Now go check the laws regarding union political donations and the use of dues for same....
Willing.Sniper
Don't you just hate that overpowering debate argument "I know I am but so are you"? To twist the union backing of a candidate to be somehow equivalent to hundreds of millions spent on pure unfettered propaganda is insane...
There are a lot of heated debates on here for an issue on which most people agree.
I am a democrat. I believe that super pacs are wrong. They are wrong when corporations contribute to them. They are wrong when unions contribute to them. They are wrong for democratic candidates. They are wrong for republican candidates.
I do not blame the candidates for playing by the new rules. If the NBA allowed traveling with the ball instead of dribbling, it would be foolish for one team to not do so out of protest as they would have not chance of beating a team who just carried the ball down the court. This fact makes me sad-but it is true.
Rather than fighting amongst ourselves-the best plan would be to unite-conservative, independent, liberal, other...all who think that the SCOTUS made a huge mistake and work to limit or change the ruling. We all seem to agree that this is hurting democracy-so let's stop the finger pointing at each other and start making changes.
At least unions are people (not for profit, but for labor rights--i.e., YOU), but have long been gone and why your wages have been stagnant for the last 30-40 years. Any argument from this perspective is a joke.
AND any defense of the right-leaning SCOTUS over-turning 100 years of precedence that gave us Citizen's United is idiotic too. Now that right-wingers like Gingrich are getting a taste of his/her own medicine, he complains about it.
Colbert using a Super PAC to constantly remind us that Romney thinks corporations are people is SO fitting. If Romney was POTUS and could appoint more judges to the Supreme Court, what do you think would happen people? Think that through -- All the GOP/TP candidates believe corporations are people, but Romney actually says it out loud!
And as if a plutocracy isn't bad enough, conservatives are on the news demonizing "secularists." Per the founding fathers, we are supposed to have a secular government. If we didn't, than it would be a theocracy you right-wing idiots! If you're against a secular government, you are for Christian Sharia Law I suppose?
Holy cow, all these far-right crazies need to be shut down, and they need to be shut down now. Throw the Teapublicans out -- Obama/Biden - 2012!
If you want PACs to not exist, tax them. Tax them at a rate of 90%. No one will bother.
Therein lies one of the reasons for the Electoral College.
Likewise be wary of public funds, which allowed Teabaggers to run in 2010 without vetting. Requiring candidates to get a minimum of signatures or contributions on their own is the only way to protect us from crazies getting elected on the tax-payer dime. We just need to return to campaign limits and transparency--it can be done if there is the will to do it.
Sometimes when Romney isn't repeating his memorized crock of crap, he slips and says something very telling, like he can't have illegals working for him because of his image. In this last debate he did it again, when he said he'd answer the question when and how he damn well felt like answering it.
President Obama has tried to reach across the aisles so many times in so many ways, including appointments like Robert Gates at Defence, Ray LaHood at Transportation, Huntsman as Ambassador to China, and tried for Judd Gregg in at Commerce--who declined under great pressure from the uncompromising right-wing. What do you suppose Romney, who likes only "yes men" would do?
Keep the SCOTUS safe from Romney appointments, and our nation safe from another unnecessary war -- Obama/Biden - 2012!
Super pacs are the creation of rich fascist pigs like David Koch. The Vilification and munipulation of our government has become a sport with these super rich right wing hypocrites and it’s truly damaging our country. The government is our government by ‘our’, I mean the American people. We all depend on services provided by the government and this whole right wing spin about government causing the counties troubles is a huge steaming pile of B.S. It is the Republican/Tea Party that is the real problem and they along with their super pacs must be purged from our political system if democracy is to survive in America.
The cost to buy the presidency could be infinite. Corporations can buy unlimited amounts of airtime, billboards, bullhorns wandering though your neighborhood. They can make sure you hear their message. But, if you, as a voter, keep in mind that every message you hear in the media, is as likely to be a lie as the truth, you make them waste their money and fail to buy your vote. So, when you see a lot of advertisements for or against a political candidate, you can pretty much ignore the content of the message. What you should keep in mind that what's you're hearing is the message of big money. The candidate who looks good is the media will be the candidate the corporate interests prefer.
This is what drew my attention to Ron Paul. The media kept pretending like he didn't exist and skip him to discuss Perry or Newt or even the pizza guy with his 9,9,9, crap. This made me think that I should support the candidate that has the big money scared.
"Corporations Are People"! I can just imagine BP, on a toilet, pinching off a tough one!
I'm actually amazed schools haven't taught this, I learned it in school half a century ago. It's appalling that this is news to anyone.
Yet another failure of our union dominated education system.
Corporations pay taxes.
Rich Unions are tax exempt.
Both contribute to the candidates of their choice along with American citizens, but the rich Unions are the only ones who don't pay any taxes!
Nor do the PAC's or SuperPAC's. They are also granted "non-profit" status. That is why we need to pass the above noted constitutional amendment.
Are you crazy? GE paid NO taxes for many years as have lots of other big companies. I say vote ALL and I mean ALL these scumbags out of office. Let's get some plain honest folks in there to run this country. No businessmen, unless they are honest, definately no lawyers. It will make it hard to get working at first, but we really need to clean house. And I am a LIBERAL! I am sick of it all!!
Ohio Guy,
I'm with you. Lets start with Obama. They say he's got 1 billion lined up for buying his re-election. Yeah folks Obama is buying his election.
p111
For the longest time unions had a virtual monopoly on free speech. Meanwhile, corporations were not allowed to fight back. Like it or not the government treats corporations as people and has done so long before this decision. Given that, it was the only decision they could make.
Also recognize unions are big business as well, just with a different agenda.
p111 -
The unfair character of the Citizens United decision is that corporations have unlimited money to contribute anonymously, and these super pacs get it from who knows where (overseas interests?). Unions can't hold a candle to the billions of corporate money being thrown into the process. Unions' resources are obtained from individual union members. Note that only about 15% of the workforce is unionized.
It should be noted that Citizens United is a hard-right organization, and this decision was not only made by hard-right SCOTUS justices, particularly Scalia and Thomas, both of whom added language to the ruling. Further, this decision represents exactly what the SCOTUS should not be doing, which is legislating from the bench. Scalia and Thomas, in particular, are guilty of a profound conflict of interest.
Unfortunately, we're stuck with these abject jerks (along with Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy), since SCOTUS justices are un-impeachable.
In the future, we can expect corporate money to determine our leaders unilaterally, which is not a pleasant thought.
Senator Bernie Sanders has started a petition for his amendment called The Saving American Democracy Amendment that will stop this nonsense. It won't let me give you the so just go sanders.senate.gov to read and sign thank you
I doubt Obama will need the billion with this lineup of clowns running.
Why was the media so against Huntsman? He was by far the only one I would vote for if I wasn't already planning on voting for Obama again. The reason being is he is the only one who didn't sign the Pledge of Norquist. Not sure, but Ron Paul might not of either but his stance on wars, including the war on drugs, is what is keeping him down. Too much money involved there to upset THAT apple cart.
The fact that any President would have a billion dollars for a campaign is corrupt. Ron Paul is the only candidate, running or seated, that is in it for the People by supporting the law of the land - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He takes no corporate money. He returns money from his budget to the Treasury every year. He will take no retirement funds for his Congressional service . And NDAA - a sweeping vote by a majority of Congress and signed off by Obama - quite effectively negates the Bill of Rights. Save the Republic. Peace. Liberty. Sound Money. Ron Paul 2012!
Please, the actual candidates aren't chosen by campaigning. Note how Romney has always been in the lead, how the media has ignored Paul and how there are no democrat candidates other than Obama. Look at the last elections. There are kingmakers out there and you don't see their faces but they are the one's picking, chosing and running the candidates. Think not? Once again, check out the last elections. Frankly, it's become a choice of lesser of two evils for waaaay too long now.
We have one party masquerading as two parties. Think it will make a hill of beans difference as to who gets elected. Then, as someone already posted, the money is on the Senate, best value for the buck. Paul won't get the nod, it is Romney who was chosen and annointed. Even if some odd fluke saw Paul getting elected, he would be powerless against the entrenched dems and repubs in congress.
What a magnificent country this is.
A Wall Street hedge fund is able to purchase the Republican nomination for president and it is protected by the constitution. A person hooked on FOX or the NRA and is in fear of his government may purchase a houseful of lethal weapons and yes, also protected. A majority of National elected office holders deems it prudent to offer national health care for all its citizens and it too is constitutionally the law of the land.
We are all free to agree or disagree in an open forum as this and yes, it too is protected by our most perfect constitution
Thank you founding fathers.
there should literally be riots over SuperPACs. The fact that there aren't shows that Americans have no idea how much they have been sold out.
Can anyone name the 5 supreme court judges who should be in jail?
I can.
Haha, the right-leaning SCOTUS over-turned 100 years of precedence and gave us Citizen's United. Now that right-wingers like Gingrich are getting a taste of their own medicine, he complains about it.
And Colbert using Citizen's United to constantly remind us that Romney thinks corporations are people, it's SO fitting. If Romney was POTUS and could appoint more judges to the Supreme Court, what do you think would happen people?
And as if a plutocracy isn't bad enough, conservatives are on the news demonizing "secularists." Per the founding fathers, we are supposed to have a secular government. If we didn't, than it would be a theocracy you right-wing idiots! If you're against a secular government, you are for Christian Sharia Law I suppose?
Holy cow, all these far-right crazies need to be shut down, and they need to be shut down now. Throw the Teapublicans out -- Obama/Biden - 2012!
Laws restricting the amount of money political organizations can spend on issue campaigns or individual campaigns has no effect whatsoever on people who are smart enough to separate out the B.S. and propaganda from the truth. I doubt, for example, that anyone who supported the Obama health care reforms when they were first presented was influenced one scintilla by the estimated (Wall Street Journal) $2 billion spent on defeating the package in Congress. These laws aren't needed for the SPA's. That would be Smart People of America, like Mr. Colbert. The reason Mr. Colbert wants restrictions is to protect the nation (God, what a wonderful human being) from the Stupid People of America -- those who aren't as smart as Mr. Colbert and who cannot separate realty from propaganda. And there, my friends, you have in one neat little package, all you need to know about the elite, effete people of America. They're going to safeguard America from the dummies who live among us. It's a bit like the goofus on the San Francisco Board of Nannyvisors who recently convinced his colleagues to prohibit parents from buying Happy Meals at McDonald's because those parents are too stupid to understand what is nutritious for their children.
The supreme courts decision that money is free speech and therefore cannot be denied, lacks the vision to see the obvious, that lack of money denies the freedom granted to the rich & powerful.
Plutocracy isn't on the way...it's here. If you want the American dream today, you'll have to move to Denmark or Canada, because it's just folklore in the US today.
So the basis of your argument is that smart people don't need laws to curtail Super PACs. So I take the SPA's are the ones that agree with you, right? Assuming the populace is divided so neatly into the "smarts" and "dumbs" as you'd like people to believe, I have two observations...
1) smart people are influenced by advertising just as much as the dumb
2) dumb people get one vote, just like smart people.
Try again?
You hit the nail on the head!! Good reply.
@Andy, you are correct. I put my house on the market when Obama declared that the U.S. land is now part of the war zone and Denmark is exactly where I'm headed. I hate to, but I feel so alone against the mass people here and with everything truth or lie clear as the sun to me for decades, its looking pretty bad faster and faster. They just have no idea of the history of our country or of ALL governments record in the worlds history. I sense something big is getting ready to go down and I hate to say it, but they are going to just blindly let it happen. Man I wish they would get in touch with the founders words. We were great, but I was born to late. Once I'm out of here I hope to never look back, but I know I will. And it will continue to break my heart even more. Not for the fools of this land who give it away, but for the spirit of O' YE' COLUMBIA. She was such a great story of a true republic. If Ron Paul does not wake some more people up in South Carolina and they defeat the Sick Sanitorium, I will be dropping the homes price some more. That will put it below what I paid in 1994.
NDAA had broad bipartisan support and Obama signed it. That does give me pause. At a time when we are supposedly winning big against terrorists, why do we need this law? Either we aren't being told the truth about terrorism, or the law is for domestic uprisings. The latter would truly scary.
One things for sure, I'm glad I live in the country. The cities will go first then the chaos will spread to the near suburbs, then far suburbs, finally to the country side.
Your definition of "smart" is differentthan mine. "Smart people" don't get conned by advertising or BS speeches. "Smart people" can think for themselves and figure ut the truth in the months they have available before any election.
Just because someone is generally "smart" doesn't mean they can't act "dumb" when they go to vote.
Paddy
Laws restricting the amount of money political organizations can spend on issue campaigns or individual campaigns has no effect whatsoever on people who are smart enough to separate out the B.S. and propaganda from the truth.
Paddy -
You assume there's a significant number of Americans that can separate propaganda from the truth. I'd like to think so myself. However, I've seen enough examples on these forums and have talked to enough people - including long-time friends of mine - to be skeptical as to their ability to discern propaganda from real life facts.
If corporations are people, they should be allowed to die when they reach the age of 20% older than the average lifetime of flesh and blood people. When one of their products or services causes a death, they should be put in prison for manslaughter.
Bck Country I can easily prove your "Advertising Does Not Impact Me" Drivel
Things Go Better with _____
Have it your way at_______
Name the Clown at McDonalds________
____They melt in your mouth not in your hands
Snap Crackle and____
Admit it, you knew every one of them
If advertising/marketing did not effect you then nobody would own a Jaguar, nobody would own a Rolex and nobody would would buy Polo Clothing. See jags are actually fairly horrible cars, Rolexes tell the time the same as any other watch and you can buy nice looking one for less than 10% of a Rolex's Price and Polo is just a Rip Off of Lacoste, Brooks Brothers etc...and they charge more.
But you (consumers) do buy them, and they do it because we told them in a cute convincing way in an ad or marketing program, and you bought into it. Your home is filled with examples of what I am talking about.
I have seen it innumerable times, we run a campaign, sales go up, the cuter the more they go up.
But to you to admit that is a sign of weakness, a challenge to your supposed intellect. Oh well. See you at the Mall.
Tell that to Samuel Chase. SCOTUS judges are impeachable. Just like the President the justice must be charged by the house, and tried by the senate. It is only politics that prevent us from getting rid of these justices that like to legislate from the bench. The next time you see a candidate running for the house in your district, make sure you ask him/her if he/she is willing to impeach SCOTUS judges who are legislating.
Do not watch television. There is nothing worthy or good on it anyway. If you really care about this country, yourself and your family then get rid of the moron box (TV).
ElitistNot - okay - over-react much????
Not at all, got rid of my idiot box along time ago.... to many people waste countless hours getting fat in-front of that thing, when they could be educating themselves or exercising.... to many people have replaced critical thinking with whatever ideals are on that blinking box.
And the computer monitor is rapidly replacing the TV. Just look at some of the posts here, hehe.
So then you watch tv on the net?
You can catch most TV shows through the network websites, and get the same slanted news as you get in the broadcast/cable "news" programs....after all, that is exactly what this website (and Newsvine as part of that website) is.....an extension of a cable "news" network.
Jolly I can, My Computer can open a window and I can watch any channel I get on Cable in a small window.
But hey, the Internet is for Porn!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKNnwLL991c&feature=related
(Song from Broadways Avenue Q)
Super PACs are a result of the Supreme Courts' ruling that money is free speech. The fallacy of this decision is that it failed to see the obvious...lack of money now leaves the majority of Americans without speech when it comes to our election system. It also fails to see that this decision will render Democracy into a plutocracy, where the rich, powerful, & well connected, will canon all aspects of our government.
If an American wants the ideals & dream of America today, he better pack and move to Denmark or Canada! That dream is nothing more than folklore in the U.S.
I don't think the SCOTUS failed to see the obvious. They knew damn well what they were doing. So sad. Bye bye America
And this is where our system is flawed because we have no higher court to appeal and it is completely obvious to everyone, except the wealthy and corporations, that SCOTUS made the wrong decision.
SCOTUS...why use such a moronic acronym?
They made the only decision they could make. Since government treats corporations as people and people have free speech rights, there is no other decision.
It may not be popular but the court would turn this country into complete anarchy if they valued popularity over the constitution.
There is no way to keep money our of politics, that was the folly of McCain/Feingold, all money did was find a different path. Even public funding is a joke, who gets funding, who doesn't? In addition, it is easy to make subtle comments on TV to get a leg up on one candidate or another, that is impossible to police.
Repeal McCain/Feingold, let people give as much as they want to any candidate or party but demand full disclosure. That is the only rational solution.
No, the only rational solution is to pass the above noted constitutional amendment. The SCOTUS can't overturn that the way they can Congressional laws.
Andy -
Couldn't agree more.
Andy-L...how can you say that the majority of Americans are without speech when it comes to the election system? We can vote. Money spent on campaigns isn't the problem. It's us, the ones who vote that are the problem. We're too easily fooled into believing whatever the ads throw at us. Basically, what people here who rail against the PAC funding are saying is; I can't think for myself so it's not fair for these PACs to take advantage of my stupidity.
Constitutional amendments mean nothing if they are ignored. We've seen alot of that from the administration legislating around the Congress lately.
Anti trust proponent.....LOVE IT!!!! Now all we need is a candidate for president running with it! Money out of politics NOW!!!!
Another scary fact...corporations own the majority of the media outlets and now they can secretly buy offices in our government.
So...let's see, they can spend as much as they want, say whatever they want without burden of proof, and own all media outlets that would've offered a counterpoint, or exposed them...Hmmmm.
All we need now is to privatise law enforcement so we can quietly be arrested as dessenters.
I think we should look into limiting the tenure of the "Supreme" Court justices. They are allowing the Presidency to be bought and paid for. There is little Supreme about this Supreme court.
Andy-L,
You are absolutely right, and furthermore, none of us regular folk will ever be able to run for office. Only those with money and giant egos will ever be able to make it in this political system.
"We the people" have been effectively marginalized by our own Supreme Court and its stupid decision.
If money is speech, then is not having money speech, too? Not having money cannot make any sounds that can be heard.
"We the People no longer exists. the Constitution has been basterdized to the point of being a meaningless document, our Republic is dead.
Again given how government defines corporations, the decision is the only one they could make. Just because you don't like a decision, does not make it stupid or wrong, all you do is show your own stupidity.
p111- who cares how our corrupt government defines corporations? Does the government have power over the Supreme Court? Then that court would not be supreme.
"The decision is the only one they could make": it is amazing that you would think that the Supreme Court is just a helpless, powerless body, with all of the "law" that they have conjured up out of thin air in the last 60 years, inventing all sorts of things out of the Constitution that nobody had a clue existed, including the generation that wrote the Constitution.
The emperor has no clothes. I wouldn't bring up the concept of stupidity if I were you. I would wonder if you are part of the treasonous club that has inflicted the mortal wound to the USA.
p111- On further review, I take back the personal attack, but goodness sakes, I can't believe that anybody would take the position that the American people must of necessity allow themselves to be pillaged and raped. That is precisely why the wound to America is mortal, because the majority of Americans have been hypnotized and brainwashed that the way things are is the way that they must be.
Bring back Huey Long from his grave. He was the last politician in America, with a shot at governing, who meant business (and even he had plenty of faults.) Of course he met his end by acute lead poisoning, conveniently. Too big to fail is too big to exist. The rise of massive corporations, massive fortunes, big unions, huge bureaucracies was the death of America. Burn it down and start over. Sorry, Ron Paul, you don't have a shot. The powers that be, will ensure that.
p111
Again given how government defines corporations, the decision is the only one they could make. Just because you don't like a decision, does not make it stupid or wrong, all you do is show your own stupidity.
p111 -
I couldn't disagree more. And furthermore, what you're saying is that most of the people on this board - including myself, are stupid.
You are, as are everyone here, certainly entitled to your ideology. I have friends who share your ideology - including a long time friend who played lead guitar in a band I was in in the early 70s. He was pretty liberal then while I tended to be more Republican-leaning. He's a truck driver now, and I'm still playing music. I haven't changed my ideology - I've stayed put while the ideological spectrum shifted way off the map.
The fact of the matter, p111, is that right-wing justices on the SCOTUS established a ruling that has been overwhelmingly repudiated by legal scholars everywhere. It is an opinion, nothing more - nothing less, but in this case - being the SCOTUS, their opinion is undifferentiated from the law of the land. And in my view, they way overstepped their bounds.
Evil.....pure Evil. Corporations DO NOT GET A VOTE. period.
You are right. They don't get to vote. Nobody said they do. They just get to spend money to try to influence people to vote the way they prefer. Of course, if they are unsuccessful, they will end up throwing away an awful lot of money for nothing. And, I doubt you will see the media railing against the super PAC's since they have to be making a fortune from all the advertising.
Nor do you hear about all the union money flowing in as well.
Let me guess, you built the computer you're using yourself right? No cell phone, no tv, no nothing? Surely you wouldn't be supporting "pure evil" in any way would you? Moron.
You're right, they don't get a vote. The people who run the corporations do get to vote. period.
p111..... can a corporation vote?? simple question... it is about an election of the people by the people for the people..... lets make it simple.
It's pretty much there. Who can challenge the Super Pacs? Unless you have an equal amount of money, no one. Once a court ruled on a slander charge the damage is done and the Election would be over. We Loose they Win. Unless the add is personally endorsed I won't even listen to what they have to say so let the Super Pacs waste their money and consider all the adds they run to be lies. WE Win they LOOSE.
Super PAC's can spend all the money they want, but they can't make me vote for something or someone that I don't believe in? Since all candidates will have a super PAC backing them (regardless of party affiliation - so stop trying to sound like this is somehow different for one side or the other) there will be more commercials and a lot more negativity. Other than that, I doubt they will have any real substantive effect in the long run. I think the vast majority of voters base their decisions on something other than commercials.
find the super pacs, identify and eliminate
Sorry, that's fascism.
Demand that your state allow write-in or one of the following options on the ballots IF they don't already do so, then cast one of these votes: NONE OF THE ABOVE (NV) or NO VOTE (USVI). Tell all of the candidates (federal, state, and local) that they are undeserving of your vote. Imagine what would happen if either of these two votes were the top vote getter. I still haven't been able to get any election board to define what would happen if such a top vote were to happen. BTW, a NOTA or NV vote should be counted for every office on the ballot, since you are indicating that for every office. In the USVI, the NO VOTE button is right next to the VOTE button, so you are casting a negative vote for every candidate on the ballot. I'm not sure, but I think Nevada has the option listed for each separate office.
impeach the roberts supreme court of corruption now !
agree. fired, impeach, remove, recall ALL of them. Their rulings mean nothing. They are moot.
And the slow march to a fascist dictatorship continues, with people cheering it on.
Explain yourself, p111. I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly. My guess is, the removal of the SCOTUS justices would likely be done in the format of a referendum.
Are "unions" considered a "super-pac?" I would, but it's tough to find a mention of what "union" contrubutions are defined as. Do all members of a "union" have a say in how the dues are spent?
Majority.
It was Unions that elected the last so called president. Mr. Obama has said he will have a war chest of over a billion dollars when it is his time to run this fall. I am not sure how much but a good share of his money is from foreign sources, like Soros and others.
No it wasn't. I am not in a union and I voted for Obama.
When I was in the union, we had no say in who they supported, we were told they were supporting a candidate and that was that. There was never a vote in our local or any means of discussion.
Yes it was union money, wall street, and other corporations that made up the bulk of Obama's war chest. That's why he demanded public funding initially then completely changed and went private instead when the real money started flowing in.
Who do you think goes to those $50,000/plate dinners, the homeless???
Unions collect dues and give the money to whoever the leadership wants, regardless of what members want, that is the norm. They are no more representative of the people than corporations are.
Corporations pay taxes.
Rich Unions are tax exempt.
Both contribute to the candidates of their choice along with American citizens, but the rich Unions are the only ones who don't pay any taxes!
Yeah, and they don't make profits either, maybe we should tax groups like the NRA too?
Willing Sniper, if the RICH unions are exempt ,why are they audited?I think you are being used by the Lairs NETWORK.Also the unions have to represent ALL its members regardless of their views politically.If a member pays a fee or membership dues that individual has the right to representation.the republicans have demonized UNIONS forever accusing them for the economic disaster,if the unions are so influential why have the unions lost millions in membership over the last3-4 decades?with this trend in mind compare the loss of middle class and working poor economic growth, compared to the upper income earners.in my opinion your argument has no reality.
Oooo, Tetrapoda......good retort!
SCOTUS is a joke - so sad
I'll hear no more of this talk about democracy and freedom.
Bread and Circuses
Only joke to those too stupid to understand the rule of law and the constitution.
There is only one way to stop it since our supreme court was bought out too. When we as a people find out what corporations are financing these PACs, we simply do not do business with them. You can finance a campaign but you wont sell any product here. The only way to do it, regardless of who they all are, is to run them out of business or darn close.
We know these 6- 10 largest banks are in on it and everyone needs to pull their money out so they wont have so much influence. It can start there immediately.
Clean Government Amendment. The SCOTUS can NOT overturn an amendment.
Yes! If you don't like the constitution change it, don't ignore it.
As an attorney, I think the simple solution would be a law to only permit campaign contributions and political ads from people who are eligible to vote. This would eliminate industry and unions contributing to PACs. There is nothing unconstitutional to limit it in this manner.
You really need to expand your thinking. How are you going to put the big corporations out of business, when 'our' government has decreed that we have to buy from them. You can no longer grow your own food because the FDA says so, you can't buy it from local farmers and ranchers, again because the FDA says so. The FDA mandated that farmers and ranchers have to use approved poison on crops so no more true organic food available. This type of control reaches into every industry and business in America, and they are all so intertwined you can't seperate them out. Just look at Monsanto and see what they are involved in. Nothing, not even the air you breathe is free from govt. regulation!
So, what you're saying is - Let's try to make the banks fail that we bailed out because they are "too big to fail". Somehow that doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.
Where did you get all of that BS from, Bert? There are TRUE organic foods available, including at farmers' roadside and community markets. And there is NOTHING stopping you from planting your own garden and growing your own food (personal consumption.) You can even do container gardening on your deck or patio if you live in an apartment with a deck or patio.
ATP- You're right, but so isn't Bert in a way. Go look up the Copenhagen summit records, especially the Codex Alimentarius.
And for the record, I am appalled at the way Monsanto has rigged the agricultural business. They ARE evil, and despite my dovish stance on most things, I would feel no demoralization to hear the entire Monsanto administration had been strung up at dawn. Hell, I'd even play the drum roll.......
Yes, Monsanto is a criminal in the agricultural world. They have done more to destroy our quality of farm life than any other corporation, but actually none of this has anything to do with the topic of the thread.
I would love to rail against Monsanto,but since they now own most of the ranch land in the valley I dwell in, I think I'll just keep my head down.
Thank God for the GOP Super PACS and their money or we might just have Obama sitting pretty in the White House for another four years. Obama has a ONE BILLION DOLLAR war chest, but just wait until the GOP sympathizers begin to empty their pockets and Obama's money will be chump change. Oh, happy day!
AmosMasurrpianski - Super PACS are a disgrace to this country. You were probably glad when the Supreme Court elected Bush weren't you? Believe me - there are more Obama supporters out there than you know!
It so plain to see that the GOP has no agenda other than to get rid of a black president. Look at what they offer, NO ONE! It is a joke, not a good one, with who is running.
Obama 2012!!!
Watch Amos piss and moan when the superpacs from the left start playing the game. This should be a no brainer - Citizens United was the worst ruling in my lifetime and is a disgrace to our country. Get the money OUT of politics and circulating in the economy instead.
The supreme court did not elect Bush, they prevented the Florida court from violating it's own constitution. Moreover, in a recount sponsored by five liberal news papers, Bush won by every scenario demanded by Gore.
Nice try though.
Russ, congratulations that is the first racist post I've seen today. Funny isn't it, only liberals bring up race. Are you channeling your inner Robert Byrd? :<)
Lib, superpacs are already operating, UAW, SEIU, etc. The decision is the worst possible decision to any progressive who wants to turn this country into a fascist police state. Fascism cannot stand opposing points of view, only the state view.
Money in politics DOES circulate through economy! Where to you think that money goes? Ad agencies, TV stations, reporters, actors, graphic artists, etc. all get jobs and make salaries, which they in turn spend.
"The supreme court did not elect Bush, they prevented the Florida court from violating it's own constitution. Moreover, in a recount sponsored by five liberal news papers, Bush won by every scenario demanded by Gore."
You're delusional if you really think that. The 2000 election was exactly what the framers of the early Republic DIDN'T want, an election determined by courts; and the SCOTUS insisted that it had the right, and short of civil war that became the least bad alternative. Money doesn't talk it swears.
Your delusion is that if the Supreme Court hadn't made the decision it made, Gore would have won. That's not true. The recounts made still showed Bush winning Florida. The SC just negated the Dem controlled Florida Supreme Courts decision which was unconstitutional.
Whats more, they can be foreign corporations. Let that one sink in for a minute.
Sorry, that's a lie.
Hey pee, good luck enforcing that; are you certain that you can always separate an American from a foreign corporation? It ain't so easy.
If they are not compelled to disclose their donors (at least until a given date), then who is to say that foreign entities cannot join in the game??? Especially with all the whitewashing and laundering of the money itself? Most Americans have felt our elections were up for sale to the highest bidder a long time ago. It simply got easier to do so after the CU vs. FEC ruling.
As Bill Moyers says, I'll believe that a corporation is a person when Texas executes one.
What do you expect a left wing fascist to say?
Good boy, you spelled fascist correctly.
Alright, p111, I've seen enough of your posts to know that you are not stupid.
But you blew this one. The fascist ideology is much similar to an ultra-right wing philosophy than an ultra-left ideology given our current political atmosphere. In today's environment, our Democrat party would become socialist, while the Republican party would become fascist if goaded into extremes.
And don't go retorting with the lame drivel that Nazi Germany was leftist and fascist. Their party campaigned on "national socialism" (hence the term "Nazi"), but quickly devolved into a state of paranoid authoritarianism and control of markets, hence fascism.
a "left wing fascist"? damned if you ain't totally retarded. Perhaps you are a socialist conservative?
It's about time "WE THE PEOPLE..." or the "99" make a statement at the polls - where it will count! It seems there is a little known loophole left for US. If you, like me, are tired of "voting for the candidate you hate least...", then cast a non-of-the-above ballot. It's simple to do, get your ballot and file it unmarked. Sooner or later N/A will win an election and the system won't know how to handle it. It is possible, that is why we get those public service announcements reminding us to "vote the non-partisan portion of your ballot...". Non-of-the-above has been close to winning one or more of those races simply because people check Rep or Dem and forget the rest. I think it's time corporate USA hears from WE THE PEOPLE!
Anyone can contribute to a super-PAC. Democrats or Republicans. So what's the problem?
ralph396 - or Syria, China, Saudi Arabia (which contributed heavily to one PAC in 2008). That's the problem. Plus, as individuals we have limits on what we can contribute to a politician. PACs have no limits on spending. Our Presidency should not be for sale.
The problem is that all of that money is buying the government they want instead of actually circulating in the economy for all of US.
An individual citizen can contribute to as many Super PACS as they want. There is only a limit when you contribute directly to the candidate himself.
So if you really want a certain candidate to win, contribute to a Super Pacs that supports him.
"The problem is that all of that money is buying the government they want instead of actually circulating in the economy for all of US."
That's a lie. The money goes to the ad agencies that produce them, the stations that run them, and to all the people employed in both areas. They spend that money, and so it goes.
They don't just truck it down to the dump for crying out loud!
lib50 - that money does circulate through the economy. It is spent on advertising that requires graphic artists, photographers, etc. Why would they need money if they weren't going to spend it?
Come on, half the time they are using pictures from the internet. That money is not doing anything except greasing the palms of politicians and their minions. Are you actually DEFENDING the superpacs? You actually want that elections bought by foreign and/or domestic corporations and others? Sorry, I think a large majority of Americans will disagree with you.
lib50,
Apparently you haven't priced commercial air-time on TV or radio these days if you think that is how they spend the money.
Personally, I think we would be much better off without super PACs, but the fact that they exist does not mean the end of the world. Everyone seems to have a "chicken little" complex about the subject. All it does is change how money gets into the fray and who it is ultimately used by - very little else changes.
And, what I find most amusing, is that 5 - 6 months from now, during the height of the campaign, it is highly likely that you and others will be on here staunchly defending President Obama's support from super PACs on the left. And corporations (sometimes the same as those pumping money into the Republican side) will be donating massive amounts of money to support him.
I would rather that money go for infrastructure, pay down the debt and other worthy projects that actually put more people back to work, not going into corporate medias pockets. And I don't want ANYBODY getting money from superpacs, right or left. The problem is, until there is a change both sides WILL do it. This decision by the activist Roberts court is one of the worst decisions in my lifetime, it allows the purchase of our government. But as long as one side does it so will the others, and they would be stupid if they didn't. And it is a very big deal, sorry you find it amusing. Come back in November and see if you still feel that way.
You may think that putting that money into infrastructure or to pay down the debt makes sense, but since it is not tax money it would never be used in that way anyhow. The simple fact is, it is being spent and thus goes into the economy. Whether the money the media outlets get is ultimately spent on new cameras, updated sets for the news anchors, or given out as dividends to stockholders across the country, it increases economic activity. For months everyone has been complaining about all the money that the large corporations are sitting on - now that they are at least doing something with it, you are still going to complain. Obviously, we need them to call and get your approval before they make such important decisions on how to spend their cash.......
So are we finally over the stupid "job creator" moniker for the rich? Instead of creating jobs they are buying government. In what world is that a good thing? But hey, lets give 'em more tax cuts!
Teapubs - protect and serve the elite no matter how it damages the country.
Vote for the man without the superpac - RON PAUL
to paul nosaint: Ron Paul is not in favor of supporting or backing Israel. He exhibits anit-semitic positions. So, if you support Ron Paul, (1) you don't believe in the Judeo-Christian Bible; (2) you are not a Christian in any way or form; (3) you have some hidden agendas that are down-right scary; (4) yu are so far out to the right you are not in the mainstream of American thought; and (5) you support the Arab Muslim control of the world. Good for you. I hope God is paying attention (I know that he is). You are an atheist, a foolish non-believer, and a mental blank. And you are a woman-hater, a bigot, and that explaiins why you didn't like Michele Bachmann. You and Paul deserve each other.
OMG, Gordon, here we go again. Boy, you really had to stuff the idiotic Israeli issue in there, didn't ya????
First of all, people who do not support Israel are not necessarily "anti-semitic". I, for one, do not support the Zionist ideology, and therefore I cannot support the Israeli government or their agenda. This has NOTHING to do with your Judaism or average Jews themselves. Hell, even the Jews in Israel cannot all agree on the Zionist agenda. Wake up.
Second, I AM a Christian. My religious leanings are derived from the teachings of Jesus Christ, NOT Abraham, Moses, or David. The entire fact that the OT (the Torah) is included in the modern canonized Bible is a complete farce. The only book worth including is Genesis, since it pertains to the notion of Origins and Paradise Lost. The rest of the OT is a bunch of rules and laws made for the Hebrew Israelites during the time of antiquity. It has NO bearing on modern Christianity (or, should not!), especially since many of the edicts are in direct contradiction to Jesus' teachings.
The rest of your post was simply ad hominem drivel and worthy of Tyler's negation.
For the record, Israel does not deserve any of our money until they can learn to use rational diplomacy with their neighbors. I can think of many other uses for that $3B we send them every year.
It is not an election if you can buy it!...
Super Pacs should be outlawed...Wrong, wrong, wrong...
So should tax-exempt rich Unions that buy elections.
Super PAC's do not buy elections. They simply buy adverstising. They do not get to vote. They don't get to change the election results. It is still up to the people to cast their votes as they see fit. The only thing a super PAC can do is help to influence people to vote for or against candidates or issues.
I vote and so far I haven't received a dime for mine. The President still has to be voted into office. There are many cases where the biggest spenders didn't win their election.
Keep dreaming. Statistically speaking, 90% of the time in a race, the candidate with the most money to spend wins the election.
So, you guys can argue semantics all you want, but the reality is that, yes indeed, elections can be "bought".
It is all about repetition and recognition. The PAC's learned from the master. Gobbels would be so proud.
I assume you will be denouncing the super PACs just as loudly when they are ones that support President Obama, right? Or, are you so naive that you actually believe that corporations only support Republicans?
Anybody that believes this article either has no will to vote thier conscience or is a moron or both. Super PACS are nothing put the employee, group, rich people, and corporatations pooling money and using to their benefit. Every corporation that I know wants its employees to contribute to the PAC. If you do you are throwing away your money.
Research the candidates and give your money to the candidate of your chose. If you think the PAC's are putting your desires first you need to get help.
Sorry, but I see so many idiots with college degrees that it makes me wonder how the human race ever got to where they are today. Unfortunately, I also wonder when we are going to wake up and stop killing each other for the profit or power of some moron that has no interest in you other than what he/she can get from you.
I know a nasty attitude. But the truth hurts.
Wait until China or Iran puts billion into super PAcs to funds our Elections... Its going to happen..Who is going to know.......Sad day in the History of this country that the SC ruled in favor of the Corps.
It already happened in the last election. The Saudi's had lots of money behind McCain.
To maze. Well, Saudi Arabia already put Obama in the White House. And the saudi money went to Democ-rat candidates . Money rules, all right, and it isn't American money. The Supreme Court failed to see the forest for the trees, and still can't. Not only that, one more lib on the Supercourt will make it the absolute tool of the Left-wingers, the Democ-rats and the subversives in America. And don't kid yourself; the Saudis didn't spend one buck for McCain. Der Feuhrer will see to it that every dime he needs will come from Saudi Kings. Why is that so hard to believe? The Democ-rats have already won everything. I am 80 years old so I won't be around to see the horrible end to all of this.
Let's see, SeekingSanity says the Saudis backed McCain...Gordon Levy says they backed Obama. I suppose it depends on which bandwagon you decide jump on. Facts are irrelevant....
delete, see below
to say this is the demise of our country is ridiculous. Anybody who watches / listens to ANY political ad is an idiot.
Every politician in this race has a record which you can read / verify on the internet without bias. Check their voting record, compare it to your values, pick a candidate. Make all these SuperCRACK idiots waste all their money and still have the best candidate win the primary.
Unfortunately there are WAY too many people who are swayed by the ads. That is a fact. Get the money OUT of politics.
to Steve: Thanks to Oil money, the Saudi Kings, and Der Feuhrer, this nation has been closed down by Islam. It's already happened. Russia and China will also want a piece of the U. S. and they will secure it from the Islamic world. The 2012 election won't and can't change any of this. God is foresaken in the U.S. HE (God) was our only hope. I am 80 years old and know what the end is going to be like in our nation, and I don't want to see it...and probably won't. So write your comments, all of you, and see if that helps. It won't. It's all over but the shouting. Just alot of land for sale, is all that is left of our once glorious nation. Funny -- we went from slavery in l775, to slavery in 2012 (this time we wil be the slaves).
ya.....we all know that voting works...
Bush took office, even though he lost both times in the popular vote...
Any big federal election in the last 20 years that didn't go the right way for corporate AmeriKa, was recounted until the 'right' candidate got the win...
ya, voting works... for 1%.
BUY AMERICA...used to be a sales pitch for american products, now it's just a sales pitch for DC's politicians.