The Lies about Campaign Finance Reform

Pretty much everything you'e heard about the recent Supreme Court decision from politicians and the news media is a lie. I try at least a little to set the record straight.

Here's the Supreme Court's decision: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• supreme
• court
• campaign
• finance
• incumbent
• protectionism
• obama
• congress
• grayson
• rachel
• maddow

[WeRoar4All]

Have you seen the Ron Paul "SuperBomb" where there is NO LIMIT upon contributions that can be made?

YouTube.com/watch?v=ngkpAswjxg­0

I guess the only part of the "Campaign Finance Reform" Ron Paul really cared about was reducing the number of signatures to get someone on the ballot...

[shanedk]

@WeRoar4All "Campaign finance reform" is a euphemism for "incumbent protectionism." It does NOTHING to curb corporate influence of politicians--in fact, it does just the opposite--but it makes it VERY difficult for challengers to mount effective campaigns.

[birchroot56]

@shanedk @weWhy would he limit his own campaign when all the others have no limits? That would be to definition of stupid.

[shanedk]

@birchroot56 WTF are you talking about?

[WeRoar4All]

@shanedk I completely agree.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you we have a corporation (known as the United States & the New Columbia-formerly and still known as DC) pretending to be a govt. ;o)

[mkjackson]

@shanedk I've searched as hard as I could for a particular clip but since I can't find it any longer I'll just sum up. I've seen some pretty extreme (and racist) folks in there that I just can't deal with such as Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin. When I say monster, I mean as in Frankenstein's monster. There doesn't really seem to be a consistent stance with the Tea Party, so to stand with them seems impossible. As for "grassroots", am I misinformed about the Koch brother's (and friends) involvement?

[shanedk]

@mkjackson How is the "Tea Party" a monster to you? Is this not the very kind of grassroots power we've been talking about?

[mkjackson]

@shanedk I see your point, I suppose my concern is that as things get bigger, accountability becomes less binding. If we get bigger, we only create another monster (IE Tea Party) that is just as obscure/bizarre but without the brand recognition of the "Pepsi/Coke" duo we see today. Regardless, thanks for your quick replies and your insight.

[mkjackson]

@shanedk I apologize for the double reply but I just want to ensure that I clarify that "one person, one vote" is meant in the figurative as in this day and age, it is not the good of the people who vote who matter to a politician as much as it's the backers who pay for their commercials. Maybe you're right... but I wish there were a way to level the playing field by bringing the big boys down to earth more than prop us up to their unreal heights (which is part of the problem IMHO). :-(

[shanedk]

@mkjackson "I only wish there were legislation to ensure "one person, one vote"."

There is! Not that it works...

"If large corporations are already corrupting the system then how will unbinding us AND them help anyone?"

For the same reason that arming good people protects against criminals, who are going to get the guns anyway.