Over half of money donated to Super PACs since Jan 2011 came from just 46 people

[fezzyfestoon]

Democracy in action!

[fezzyfestoon]

Clearly, the fact that Newt Gingrich is now the presumptive Republican nominee and flattening Obama in the polls shows that Sheldon Adelson's millions spell the end of American democracy.

And? What's your point, that it's ok because that one guy didn't succeed? Same goes for Krazen, what is your point? That Democrats are worse? Who cares, both sides are absolutely horrendous regarding campaign finance. What is the purpose in defending your party in a battle akin to cancer vs AIDS?

[fezzyfestoon]

Clearly, the fact that Newt Gingrich is now the presumptive Republican nominee and flattening Obama in the polls shows that Sheldon Adelson's millions spell the end of American democracy.

And? What's your point, that it's ok because that one guy didn't succeed?

It's wormyguy.

Who cares, both sides are absolutely horrendous regarding campaign finance. What is the purpose in defending your party in a battle akin to cancer vs AIDS?

Nobody's saying that either side is innocent, but you can't really say that they're equally as bad as each other.  As the article and Bacon King have pointed out, Republicans form the lion's share of these megadonors.  Nobody can argue with that (except krazey, who doesn't count).

Yeah, yeah...I just wanna see if they can reconcile the absurdity of what they're saying.

[fezzyfestoon]

Clearly, the fact that Newt Gingrich is now the presumptive Republican nominee and flattening Obama in the polls shows that Sheldon Adelson's millions spell the end of American democracy.

And? What's your point, that it's ok because that one guy didn't succeed? Same goes for Krazen, what is your point? That Democrats are worse? Who cares, both sides are absolutely horrendous regarding campaign finance. What is the purpose in defending your party in a battle akin to cancer vs AIDS?

Campaign finance is really a fabricated problem that a handful of butthurt individuals yell about for whatever reason they choose to yell for. It's a general lack of interest in freedom of speech.

So in your mind, there is no challenge to the concept of democracy when power is concentrated among very few? When does that change the system from being democratic? These people control the process over the people and you don't think there's anything wrong with that?

[fezzyfestoon]

It doesn't matter what the average Joe thinks or how he votes, he only has two options anyway. And those two options are slaves to their big donors. Without them, they can't run a campaign against each other. Money is the number one determinant in elections. The more money you have, the more influence over the national discussion you have. If you're giving millions to your candidate, he better start talking up your issues if he wants to keep competing. How does that give any power at all to the voters? Without money they can't choose which candidate can advertise to boost their national profile, they don't get to decide which issues are being discussed and pursued, they barely have any say at all. You honestly don't realize that? Or are you just so far beyond delusional that you think it actually matters how loyal you are to a party thy doesn't need you, want you, or give a half a shet about you? Our entire manner of political discourse is so polluted by the actual politics of this nation and its predication on money.

[fezzyfestoon]

But remember guys, America is the greatest country in the history of the world, precisely because of our love of democracy.

I'm sure this is meant sarcastically, but I really think it's a sign of true freedom and democracy that you are allowed to spend your money to promote your views. Even if your views disagree with those of others, or even if you had more money than someone else (OH, THE HORROR!!!!), you're still allowed to do that.

This isn't a positive development, but I don't think I can call it a negative one either. It just is, and that's neither good nor bad.

EDIT: The last paragraph refers to the fact that 46 people (corporations are people, krazen, so, yes, 46 total) make up more than half of superPAC contributions is neither good nor bad, not the existence of a system where that is possible. That's clearly good.

Yes, if there's anything that freedom and democracy stand for it is consolidated power and influence.

[fezzyfestoon]

Campaign finance is really a fabricated problem that a handful of butthurt individuals yell about for whatever reason they choose to yell for. It's a general lack of interest in freedom of speech.

Ok, so campaign finance abuse is no big deal and who even cares, right?  Billionaires gonna be buyin' elections forever and always and that's totally a-ok.  But voter fraud is a BIG F[inks]ING DEAL and there are like millions of examples of it and liberals and unions and Democrats are the DEVIL.

Billionaires are patriots though because they donate to the Republican Party and bestow upon us the privilege of minimum wage servitude that forwards their money/patriotism. Their charity makes the world go round. When you start making a point out of protecting the rights, dignity, integrity, and universal success that lead to the American dream and honest democracy and capitalism...pssh, corrupt socialist scumbags.

[fezzyfestoon]

If I give $1,000 to Barack Obama's re-election campaign, I'm expressing my support of him with my wallet.
If I give $100,000 to Barack Obama's re-election campaign, I'm making an investment and I expect something in return.
If we're going to argue that money=speech, then let's limit that speech to a few thousand dollars. We limit all kinds of other speech already.

Superpacs are not donations to any re-election campaign.

And BitTorrent is for legal downloads only...