Gleaning Facebook: Money in Politics

From Terrell's Facebook:

And today we learn that Joe Ricketts, who has more money than all but 370 other Americans, will finance a campaign to smear Michelle Nunn, the daughter and frank disciple of Sam Nunn (not exactly a wild-eyed liberal) as a reckless spender. Boy and girls, it is time for Americans of all stripes to learn that commercials for happiness enhancing drugs or drinks or dream machines and commercials for (or against) political candidates, however plausible-sounding, heart-rending, or flag-draped are bought and paid for by folks with more money than love and goals that have nothing to do with your well-being.

Comments

Terry Lewis
The Democrats and Republicans are all about more money for more power. My Democratic party sends me an email nearly every day from either Mrs. Obama, Joe Biden, Our Party, or someone running for office wanting more money. There should be a law to limit fund campaigns to the millions that are provided to the two major parties!!!

Terrell Shaw
I'm not sure of the best method, but we must do something to counter the corrosive effect of money in politics. One thing we might start with is a very strict full disclosure law to make it impossible to keep political contributions private. If you ask for my vote you should tell me exactly who is bribing ….errr…. supporting you.

John Countryman
Don't vote for your own subjugation, people!

Rob Friar
Of all people, John McCain and I think it was Feingold on the Dem side tried like the dickens to get campaign finance reform done several years ago, and they were nearly run out of town on a rail...I seriously can not see when this will stop unless folks get their heads out of their butts, stopped being bribed for their votes based on one or two key social issues that their elected officials really intend to do nothing about (abortion is still legal, and gay marriage is slowly gaining acceptance) and vote for people who are willing to put a stop to this unlimited "bribery".

Terrell Shaw
I might phrase it less graphically, Rob, but yes. 

Sam Burnham
Money follows power because it buys the influence of the powerful. If power was taken from government and returned to the people, money would follow. Every time the government gives itself more power it draws more money.

Anne Edwards Langley
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

----------------

From Terrell's Facebook: 

A little math (not my first love but I think it's right):

• Sheldon Adelson gave (using round numbers) $100 million to political candidates in the 2012 election cycle. That is roughly 0.0025% of his net worth. A very minor daily dip in the stock market would cost him much more. Chump change folks.

• If a person with a mere million dollar net worth gave $2501 dollars he would have borne a greater sacrifice for his beliefs.

• If percentage-of-net-worth given to political candidates rather than raw dollars is the measure Sheldon Adelson is nothing compared to me.

Reckon y'all will be reading in the papers about a parade of 2016 hopefuls to Avenue A Rome, Georgia?

There is something fundamentally obscene about our election campaigns being primarily fed by crumbs from Soros-Koch-Gates-Adelson types' tables. Whatever your politics, surely you can see the coercive, evil effect upon our system that entails.

-------------

Robert Reich must've read my posts this morning.

From Robert Reich's Facebook:

This is no April Fool’s joke. Today, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court in “McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission,” went beyond “Citizen’s United” to strike down overall limits on how much an individual may contribute in one election cycle to innumerable federal candidates and to party committees. Overturning 40 years of national policy and 38 years of judicial precedent, the Court’s decision allows federal officeholders to solicit and individual donors to pour as much as $3.6 million directly into federal campaigns every election cycle – buying unparalleled personal influence in Washington and drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens. (It gives me no satisfaction that I testified against John Roberts at his confirmation hearing years ago.) This is the most brazen invitation to oligarchy in Supreme Court history.

In my view, we must amend the Constitution to establish once and for all that (1) money is not speech under the First Amendment, (2) corporations are not people, and (3) we the people have the right to set limits on how much money individuals and corporations can spend on elections. You with me?

Comments:

Laurie Craw
 I actually think this ruling that political donations are "speech" might be just the thing we need to reduce the unfair influence of very rich people on our democracy. If making a donation is "speech," then no donation to a candidate, political party, or political action committee or any organization that makes contributions to a candidate or political party or otherwise acts to influence an election should be anonymous. You give the money, you put your name on it for all to see. I'm not up on all the "back door" ways that wealthy individuals give money to campaigns without their names being disclosed, but that's where we ought to be looking. I have little money to give to support a candidate, but If I say something in public, if I write a letter to the editor for public reading, the people who hear me or read what I wrote know who I am. And there may be personal consequences for me from people who strongly disagree with my opinions. It should be the same for people who give money to influence elections by way of advertising, underwriting campaign expenses, getting out the vote on election day, etc. If money is their "speech," they need to own it and take the consequences. 

Terrell
Yes. We should totally close loopholes and demand immediate public disclosure of every donation. Secret money should be absolutely outlawed.

 ------------------