FWIS3

Leveling the playing field is not an acceptable interest for the government, Chief Justice Roberts said. Nor is “the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner ‘influence over or access to’ elected officials or political parties,” he added, quoting Citizens United. The only acceptable justification, he said, was rooting out “quid pro quo corruption” or the appearance of it.

I find it very interesting that leveling the playing field is not an acceptable interest for the government according to Justice Roberts.

SciFiFisher wrote: I find it very interesting that leveling the playing field is not an acceptable interest for the government according to Justice Roberts.

That's right, it's Free Speech and I want all the Free Speech money can buy!

The good news about this decision: it will save me some money. In any given election year, I usually give a couple of hundred to various candidates and campaigns. But what's the point if the Koch brothers are just going to write checks for a couple of billion to oppose everyone I'm voting for.

Swift wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote: I find it very interesting that leveling the playing field is not an acceptable interest for the government according to Justice Roberts.

That's right, it's Free Speech and I want all the Free Speech money can buy!

The good news about this decision: it will save me some money. In any given election year, I usually give a couple of hundred to various candidates and campaigns. But what's the point if the Koch brothers are just going to write checks for a couple of billion to oppose everyone I'm voting for.

They also say they only care if it actually causes corruption not MIGHT cause corruption. In essence they no longer feel it is up to the government to assume that large amounts of money will lead to corruption. They want to wait and see if it actually does.

SciFiFisher wrote:

Swift wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote: I find it very interesting that leveling the playing field is not an acceptable interest for the government according to Justice Roberts.

That's right, it's Free Speech and I want all the Free Speech money can buy!

The good news about this decision: it will save me some money. In any given election year, I usually give a couple of hundred to various candidates and campaigns. But what's the point if the Koch brothers are just going to write checks for a couple of billion to oppose everyone I'm voting for.

They also say they only care if it actually causes corruption not MIGHT cause corruption. In essence they no longer feel it is up to the government to assume that large amounts of money will lead to corruption. They want to wait and see if it actually does.

And since it already has caused loads of corruption, I can only assume that the Supreme Court Justices have been corrupted as well.

I guess the only thing we have to wonder now is which idiot Republican or Tea Bagger is going to be our next President.

We seriously are in need of some constitutional amendments.

But this way we know who all the money funders are and we can ignore or destroy their businesses by not shopping at their stores or taking loans from their banks or buying their fuel and don't forget, monies are people too.

This is going to play out in odd ways. If I understand correctly they let stand the restriction on the amount of a single donation to one candidate. What they did was say you cannot be capped on the number of candidates you can contribute to. So if you want to give $2600 to 100 different candidates you can. The current rule was that you were capped at $48,600 for total individual contributions to all candidates.

The more alarming part is they decided that capping how much an individual can contribute to party committees was a violation of free speech. So, the Koch brothers and etc can now openly contribute to a party committee instead of hiding behind an assortment of PAC's.

As an aside... it amazes me both A) how fucked up your Supreme Court is and B) how little regard Americans have for the Court (well, it's no surprise given what they do, but it is very jarring all the same).

Anyway, this decision? Utterly ludicrous. Mind-boggling. Insane.

Fun family thread via email where my dad sent around the Koch editorial in the WSJ. Basically what I get from him and Koch is the idea that the ends justify the means for their view of libertarian paradise, because the government shouldn't be so powerful in the first place that you need to buy a senator or whatever.

Seriously, that's more or less the "argument" as I read it. Argument in quotes, because the issue with ideology is you can't argue about someone over theirs.

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

Charles Koch: Freedom fighter.
Osama Bin Laden: Freedom fighter.

FZR1KG wrote:

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

Charles Koch: Freedom fighter.
Osama Bin Laden: Freedom fighter.

Huh? Pretty sure bin Laden was never interested in education or rigging the political process.

SciFi Chick wrote:And since it already has caused loads of corruption, I can only assume that the Supreme Court Justices have been corrupted as well.

Duh?!

brite wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote:And since it already has caused loads of corruption, I can only assume that the Supreme Court Justices have been corrupted as well.

Duh?!

They don't call me Mrs. Obvious for nothin'!

Rommie wrote:

FZR1KG wrote:

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

Charles Koch: Freedom fighter.
Osama Bin Laden: Freedom fighter.

Huh? Pretty sure bin Laden was never interested in education or rigging the political process.

I'm pretty sure Koch isn't interested in education either - at least not the way you're imagining.

SciFi Chick wrote:

Rommie wrote:

FZR1KG wrote:

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

Charles Koch: Freedom fighter.
Osama Bin Laden: Freedom fighter.

Huh? Pretty sure bin Laden was never interested in education or rigging the political process.

I'm pretty sure Koch isn't interested in education either - at least not the way you're imagining.

No- I just think comparing people to bin Laden is lazy on the Internet like comparing people to Hitler, and demand better of FZ.

Rommie wrote:
No- I just think comparing people to bin Laden is lazy on the Internet like comparing people to Hitler, and demand better of FZ.

That's fair enough. Though I'd submit that he's being more exhausted than lazy at the moment. You'll read the update soon.

SciFi Chick wrote:

brite wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote:And since it already has caused loads of corruption, I can only assume that the Supreme Court Justices have been corrupted as well.

Duh?!

They don't call me Mrs. Obvious for nothin'!

Hello Mrs Obvious. I am Major Oblivous. Pleased to meetcha!

Rommie wrote:

FZR1KG wrote:

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

Charles Koch: Freedom fighter.
Osama Bin Laden: Freedom fighter.

Huh? Pretty sure bin Laden was never interested in education or rigging the political process.

You're right, Bin Laden was probably more sociable too. lol ;P

I'm not comparing the two, I'm just tired of people throwing the "I'm fighting for freedoms of people" card around.
Though Bin Laden was all about education. His brand of education. The Islamic cause.
The cry for freedom in one form of another is the cry of most dictators.
Hitler used it, Germans should have the freedom to live in other countries without persecution. Slobodan Milosevic used the same thing for Serbs. Bin Laden used a variation of the same thing which is the same shit in a different bucket.
The Koch's are doing the same thing as well. The only differences are in how far they get with the same line.

e.g Koch claims he wants freedom for people then imposes control of people to get those freedoms by making claims that he will do X if Obama gets in. Generally X was some form of punishment of the workers he can fire. That makes him a self righteous hypocrite just like the rest because what he really wants is freedom to do anything he wants. He has no interest in giving anyone else that same freedom.

SciFiFisher wrote:They also say they only care if it actually causes corruption not MIGHT cause corruption. In essence they no longer feel it is up to the government to assume that large amounts of money will lead to corruption. They want to wait and see if it actually does.

or the appearance of corruption.

gosh = i wonder who will determine that?