Why can't we change?

[trenchfoot]

CU and rulings like it make it legal to donate money anonymously. Saying that since you can't ever get all money out of politics we might as well make it legal is like saying since we can't eliminate all murder we might as well make murder legal.

If I recall correctly, when the USSC ruled on CU, the court also mentioned that they assumed the legislature would pass a law that would require full disclosure on donations to correct the problem. The Dems acted promptly on this but their attempts have been blocked/suppressed by the Repubs.

 

[dank69]

The problem is that none of that is true. What you describe is simply a narrative presented to you. The FACTS are that both parties, in their ACTIONS, have expanded Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Both parties are explicitly federalist in their ACTIONS on marriage discrimination. Both parties are staunchly opposed to weed legalization. Both parties increase federal education spending. The Iran thing is more complicated since the executive holds most of the cards, but really nothing has changed in the past two administration wrt Iran. Not yet anyway.

Their actions are their votes. Their voting record is how they should be judged.

 

[Perknose]

And yet, only the people states looking for government to take from others other states and give to them, the people states unable to provide for their own education/child care/health care/birth control, ever seem to rise above the stupidity and apathy, in Democrats' hypocrites eyes. Curious, that.

Curious indeed!

 

[poofyhairguy]

Because politics has turned into tribal warfare. Who cares how your side won if it won?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Carson Democrats' take big money too.

And that makes it alright? But no criticism of the party that lead the way?

 

[trenchfoot]

Because politics has turned into tribal warfare. Who cares how your side won if it won?

I do, because HOW you win speaks to whether you need to disenfranchise, suppress, discourage and gerrymander your way into/keeping office OR simply represent the interests of the majority.

 

[Atreus21]

In case people are unaware, there are still limits to how much money an individual, PAC, or party committee can give to election campaigns.

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

 

[Atreus21]

As I said, Hillary has announced this will be one of four tasks she has set for her goals as President if she is elected. It has to be right up there as the most important problems facing the nation. Every American awake and informed knows this. If she fails or backs away from this we will probably have to wait for the US to disintegrate into revolution or die on the vine.

Hillary fighting to undo Citizens United is fitting, considering the origins of the case.

 

[HomerJS]

In case people are unaware, there are still limits to how much money an individual, PAC, or party committee can give to election campaigns.

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

Doesn't matter. PACs run their own commercials in favor of candidates. They just have to watch out for that "no coordination" part of the law which is easy to avoid.

 

[Atreus21]

Doesn't matter. PACs run their own commercials in favor of candidates. They just have to watch out for that "no coordination" part of the law which is easy to avoid.

And for some reason commercials aren't covered by the first amendment?

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem is that none of that is true. What you describe is simply a narrative presented to you. The FACTS are that both parties, in their ACTIONS, have expanded Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Both parties are explicitly federalist in their ACTIONS on marriage discrimination. Both parties are staunchly opposed to weed legalization. Both parties increase federal education spending. The Iran thing is more complicated since the executive holds most of the cards, but really nothing has changed in the past two administration wrt Iran. Not yet anyway.

When confronted, merely reassert what you said the first time. Over & over, as if repetition will make it true. That only works with the glenbeckistanese.

Marijuana, you say?

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congress approved a measure Thursday (219-189) that will prevent the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. The legislation marks the first time in history that Congress has voted in favor of ending the federal government’s war on medical marijuana patients and providers. A record-high 49 Republicans voted in favor of the measure.

http://www.mpp.org/media/press-releases/congress-votes-to-end-war-on.html

You were saying? Something that had the ring of truthiness to it, iirc.

The bit about both parties being "federalist" wrt gay marriage is quite cute. Obviously, that's why the Obama Admin refused to defend DOMA & why Dems support the obligation of all states to honor legal marriages formed in other states. Tell us who supported DOMA & who wants to not honor other states' marriages.

Education funding?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-governors-want-higher-education-cuts-recoup-budget-shortfalls

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/27/2535771/school-budget-cuts-sequestration/

Might want to reconsider your fervent belief in lies.

 

[Jhhnn]

Doesn't matter. PACs run their own commercials in favor of candidates. They just have to watch out for that "no coordination" part of the law which is easy to avoid.

There are no limits to anonymous contributions to politically active 501(c)4 groups.

Of course there's no coordination "between" such groups, pacs & campaigns. It's all organized at a higher level through delegation of tasks.

Just making it so that every dollar spent on politics is traceable back to its source would end a lot of the bullshit. Have something to say? Willing to pay to do so? Put your name on it. Be a man!