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

[krazen1211]

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.

[opebo]

Is the fact that a few, wealthy people select who will be president a new fact to some people here? Do you actually think your vote for president matters? If so I applaud your idealism but shake my head at the naivete.

Yes, I for one am quite aware that Capital controls us all, though I wouldn't perhaps put it quite so personally as you do above.  But my question to you is - knowing that, how can you have a Libertarian avatar?  Is it meant to be funny?

[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?

[krazen1211]

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?

The people of course retain the authority to choose their representation regardless of how many millions someone like Meg Whitman spends to obtain elected office. The exact details of how someone like Obama acquires millions of dollars from Wall Street is really opaque to the average joe, who really doesn't know or care.

Power remains with the people and remains democratic, subject to of course Nathan's veto on issues he deems otherwise, in which case it is no longer Democratic, but Nathanatic.

[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.

[Vosem]

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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

So Teddy Roosevelt was a butthurt liberal who wanted to limit free speech. Who knew?

[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.

[Joe Republic]

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 anyway.  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.  Also, too, gay marriage.

[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.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Power remains with the people and remains democratic, subject to of course Nathan's veto on issues he deems otherwise, in which case it is no longer Democratic, but Nathanatic.

I think you would enjoy living under a purely parliamentary system in a country not subject to any international human rights law very greatly, krazen. Are you sure a country with an encoded bill of rights and no notwithstanding clause is right for you?

[opebo]

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.

The underlined concept is the rub, Vosem.  If these people are allowed to appropriate this money from those below them in the hierarchy, then for sure those so yoked are not free, but slaves.

[krazen1211]

Power remains with the people and remains democratic, subject to of course Nathan's veto on issues he deems otherwise, in which case it is no longer Democratic, but Nathanatic.

I think you would enjoy living under a purely parliamentary system in a country not subject to any international human rights law very greatly, krazen. Are you sure a country with an encoded bill of rights and no notwithstanding clause is right for you?

Certainly I am. In fact, Citizens United is essentially based on an expansionary view of such bill of rights.

The Nathan solution is of course based upon a more restrictive view of freedom of speech.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Power remains with the people and remains democratic, subject to of course Nathan's veto on issues he deems otherwise, in which case it is no longer Democratic, but Nathanatic.

I think you would enjoy living under a purely parliamentary system in a country not subject to any international human rights law very greatly, krazen. Are you sure a country with an encoded bill of rights and no notwithstanding clause is right for you?

Certainly I am. In fact, Citizens United is essentially based on an expansionary view of such bill of rights.

The Nathan solution is of course based upon a more restrictive view of freedom of speech.

More restrictive in that it's a view that doesn't consider a preferential option for the rich 'free', yes.

Also it's obviously not the issue that you were initially referring to, but I suppose I shouldn't expect anything other than complete disingenuousness and malice from you anyway.

[Vosem]

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.

Freedom and democracy stand for freedom - which is many things, but in this case, the right to spend your money howsoever you choose so long as you do not cause anyone actual harm - and democracy - the right to vote for whosoever you choose. I think we can agree trying to convince someone to vote for someone is not causing them actual harm.

[Indy Texas]

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.

[Chaddyr23]

I am just curious that how much do these people stand to gain when investing $10 million in a candidate or political campaign sounds like a great idea.

[krazen1211]

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.

[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...