"When The Supreme Court is Wrong"

[GannonFan]

I'm confused, did Citizens United give corporations the power to vote, and at the same time, did it give them the power to vote substantially more than an ordinary person (you know, a one-vote/one person person, not those people who vote more than once)?

If we don't like the candidate, and if we don't like them because they get all their money from some big bad corporation (sorry for the redundancy, I know every corporation is big and every corporation is bad, right kalmie?) then vote for someone else. Money follows the winners, it doesn't make them, we're just too lazy of an electorate to pick the right winners.

You're not understanding the problem. At all. And, it's not a Democrat vs. Republican thing. It's at the heart of the problem with both parties and as a person that loves to flash around the "independent" label, I would think you would be able to see this.

The problem isn't money deciding elections. Hell, most of the big corporations donate to both campaigns. They're hedging their bets.

The problem is that the winner of the election - whether Democrat or Republican - is beholden to these big money contributors. Lobbyists LITERALLY write the bills. That is insane.


Also, most of these corporations are government contractors. It's hard to think of a major corporation that isn't a government contractor. I know you and others aren't very fond of government spending... but, these political donations are why those who are elected give a reach around with the pork barrel spending. THAT'S why it makes sense for these corporations to shell out piles of money. Not because a Republican or a Democrat is going to be that much more beneficial to them from a pure political or ideological angle. They have bargaining power for more than they spend on political donations for government contracts.

Look at major govermnet contractors' donations in 2014. It's split almost down the middle. And relatively small donations compared to the massive size of their contracts.

Lockheed Martin:

House
Total to Democrats: $938,000
Total to Republicans: $1,350,250

Senate
Total to Democrats: $173,500
Total to Republicans: $168,000

Received: $44,114,358,506.35 in federal contracts

Northrop Grumman:

House
Total to Democrats: $944,550
Total to Republicans: $1,268,645

Senate
Total to Democrats: $147,950
Total to Republicans: $166,741

Received: $9,996,020,880.37 in federal contracts



The problem isn't that the corporations are partisan. In the vast majority of cases they aren't - and the large corporations are very bipartisan in their donations... intentionally so. The problem is that they write themselves fat checks and their lobbyists write (and oftentimes literally write) the legislation.



edit: and, not only is their spending bipartisan. a quick browse looks like they give between $1-10,000 to ALL incumbents. They give to everyone... and a few non-incumbents who they think might win.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but by your own admission then we don't really have a problem with campaign finance. If these mega corporations, the ones freed up by Citizens United to spend whatever they want on elections, are basically spending the same amount of money on both sides of the aisle during the election, and if the gross amount of what they are spending is relatively small compared to the actual cost of the campaign, then why are guys like klamie and the rest of the progressive movement so incensed about Citizens United and so myopically focused on campaign finance reform? At the end of the day, corporations are not dictating elections and free speech is not infringed. Why all the drama then? You contradict yourself when you say on one hand that they don't favor one side or the other and they don't spend a great deal, but then politicians are supposedly indebted to corporations who didn't do them any favors (i.e. advantages over the opponent) in terms of getting elected.

I don't have a problem, per se, with the private sector writing the legislation. The experts should write the laws. This isn't the 1790's anymore, the scale and magnitude of what we do is almost unfathomable to the quaint Founding Fathers. There's no way to get the right amount of expertise and the right blend into the 535 folks who sit in Congress - what they need to do, though, is to become better at assessing and determining what has been written for them. That's where we are a disaster waiting to happen everyday. Most of the stuff they pass is done with very little oversight so you do get some inefficiency written into the law by means of self interest. There needs to be enough critique on both sides of than issue that a legislator can then take that collection of viewpoints and decide how to move forward. Lobbying isn't a bad thing, again per se. Lobbying is people with interest and likely expertise trying to shape legislation. Why would we want to jettison that expertise just because the legislators we elect aren't good decision makers over the legislation in front of them? I'd fix the legislators before I fix the lobbying.

[JohnStOnge]

But, who checks Congress?

The People. Congress is accountable. The Supreme Court is not.

[/quote]Without a Constitutional check they would have unlimited power. They could do absolutely whatever they wanted. The Constitution would be worthless as it would be completely rewritten whenever a new party came to power. No, scratch that. There would only be one party. It'd be ripe for a dictatorship.

I'm assuming you don't think the President should have the Constitutional check on laws passed by Congress. That would be even more of a **** and we might as well just go back to a monarchy.

I know you hate SCOTUS... but, you should think about the alternatives.[/quote]

I have thought about the alternatives. I don't understand why you're concerned about the potential for unlimited power and being able to do absolutely whatever they want with Congress when Congress has hundreds of people who are subject to being taken out of office through the election process in it but NOT concerned about unlimited power and being able to do absolutely whatever they want with a Supreme Court composed of nine unelected, life term individuals with absolutely no accountability.

You're obviously not the only one like that. But it has always amazed me.

As far as the Constitution goes: We are ALREADY not governed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has deviated from what the Constitution actually SAYS and any reasonable effort to follow its intent countless times. The idea that we follow the Constitution is a complete joke. So at worst it's just a matter of deciding to let people who are accountable twist the Constitution vs. letting people who are NOT accountable twist the Constitution. What we have NOW is people who are totally unaccountable twisting the Constitution.

[kalm]

You're not understanding the problem. At all. And, it's not a Democrat vs. Republican thing. It's at the heart of the problem with both parties and as a person that loves to flash around the "independent" label, I would think you would be able to see this.

The problem isn't money deciding elections. Hell, most of the big corporations donate to both campaigns. They're hedging their bets.

The problem is that the winner of the election - whether Democrat or Republican - is beholden to these big money contributors. Lobbyists LITERALLY write the bills. That is insane.


Also, most of these corporations are government contractors. It's hard to think of a major corporation that isn't a government contractor. I know you and others aren't very fond of government spending... but, these political donations are why those who are elected give a reach around with the pork barrel spending. THAT'S why it makes sense for these corporations to shell out piles of money. Not because a Republican or a Democrat is going to be that much more beneficial to them from a pure political or ideological angle. They have bargaining power for more than they spend on political donations for government contracts.

Look at major govermnet contractors' donations in 2014. It's split almost down the middle. And relatively small donations compared to the massive size of their contracts.

Lockheed Martin:

House
Total to Democrats: $938,000
Total to Republicans: $1,350,250

Senate
Total to Democrats: $173,500
Total to Republicans: $168,000

Received: $44,114,358,506.35 in federal contracts

Northrop Grumman:

House
Total to Democrats: $944,550
Total to Republicans: $1,268,645

Senate
Total to Democrats: $147,950
Total to Republicans: $166,741

Received: $9,996,020,880.37 in federal contracts



The problem isn't that the corporations are partisan. In the vast majority of cases they aren't - and the large corporations are very bipartisan in their donations... intentionally so. The problem is that they write themselves fat checks and their lobbyists write (and oftentimes literally write) the legislation.



edit: and, not only is their spending bipartisan. a quick browse looks like they give between $1-10,000 to ALL incumbents. They give to everyone... and a few non-incumbents who they think might win.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but by your own admission then we don't really have a problem with campaign finance. If these mega corporations, the ones freed up by Citizens United to spend whatever they want on elections, are basically spending the same amount of money on both sides of the aisle during the election, and if the gross amount of what they are spending is relatively small compared to the actual cost of the campaign, then why are guys like klamie and the rest of the progressive movement so incensed about Citizens United and so myopically focused on campaign finance reform? At the end of the day, corporations are not dictating elections and free speech is not infringed. Why all the drama then? You contradict yourself when you say on one hand that they don't favor one side or the other and they don't spend a great deal, but then politicians are supposedly indebted to corporations who didn't do them any favors (i.e. advantages over the opponent) in terms of getting elected.

I don't have a problem, per se, with the private sector writing the legislation. The experts should write the laws. This isn't the 1790's anymore, the scale and magnitude of what we do is almost unfathomable to the quaint Founding Fathers. There's no way to get the right amount of expertise and the right blend into the 535 folks who sit in Congress - what they need to do, though, is to become better at assessing and determining what has been written for them. That's where we are a disaster waiting to happen everyday. Most of the stuff they pass is done with very little oversight so you do get some inefficiency written into the law by means of self interest. There needs to be enough critique on both sides of than issue that a legislator can then take that collection of viewpoints and decide how to move forward. Lobbying isn't a bad thing, again per se. Lobbying is people with interest and likely expertise trying to shape legislation. Why would we want to jettison that expertise just because the legislators we elect aren't good decision makers over the legislation in front of them? I'd fix the legislators before I fix the lobbying.

Pretty soliloquy but too damn long. Which points would you like me to dispatch first? The quaint part where the politicians pay more attention about what goes into each bill?

(Hint: they're spending half their time fundraising. Neither they nor their massive staffs have time for this shit called legislation )

But you're sense of free market of ideas equity is cute. I'll give you that.

[GannonFan]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but by your own admission then we don't really have a problem with campaign finance. If these mega corporations, the ones freed up by Citizens United to spend whatever they want on elections, are basically spending the same amount of money on both sides of the aisle during the election, and if the gross amount of what they are spending is relatively small compared to the actual cost of the campaign, then why are guys like klamie and the rest of the progressive movement so incensed about Citizens United and so myopically focused on campaign finance reform? At the end of the day, corporations are not dictating elections and free speech is not infringed. Why all the drama then? You contradict yourself when you say on one hand that they don't favor one side or the other and they don't spend a great deal, but then politicians are supposedly indebted to corporations who didn't do them any favors (i.e. advantages over the opponent) in terms of getting elected.

I don't have a problem, per se, with the private sector writing the legislation. The experts should write the laws. This isn't the 1790's anymore, the scale and magnitude of what we do is almost unfathomable to the quaint Founding Fathers. There's no way to get the right amount of expertise and the right blend into the 535 folks who sit in Congress - what they need to do, though, is to become better at assessing and determining what has been written for them. That's where we are a disaster waiting to happen everyday. Most of the stuff they pass is done with very little oversight so you do get some inefficiency written into the law by means of self interest. There needs to be enough critique on both sides of than issue that a legislator can then take that collection of viewpoints and decide how to move forward. Lobbying isn't a bad thing, again per se. Lobbying is people with interest and likely expertise trying to shape legislation. Why would we want to jettison that expertise just because the legislators we elect aren't good decision makers over the legislation in front of them? I'd fix the legislators before I fix the lobbying.

Pretty soliloquy but too damn long. Which points would you like me to dispatch first? The quaint part where the politicians pay more attention about what goes into each bill?

(Hint: they're spending half their time fundraising. Neither they nor their massive staffs have time for this **** called legislation )

But you're sense of free market of ideas equity is cute. I'll give you that.

I think it's cute that you and Skelly both agree that corporations give equal money, and ultimately not even large sums of money to politicians on both sides of the aisle, and then complain that politicians are beholden to these small donations and are basically bought by these corporations. You bitch and moan about campaign finances and corporations buying favoritism because of it and then say in the same breath that they don't give a lot of money and they split it equally so as not to favor any candidate. Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing.

[kalm]

Pretty soliloquy but too damn long. Which points would you like me to dispatch first? The quaint part where the politicians pay more attention about what goes into each bill?

(Hint: they're spending half their time fundraising. Neither they nor their massive staffs have time for this **** called legislation )

But you're sense of free market of ideas equity is cute. I'll give you that.

I think it's cute that you and Skelly both agree that corporations give equal money, and ultimately not even large sums of money to politicians on both sides of the aisle, and then complain that politicians are beholden to these small donations and are basically bought by these corporations. You bitch and moan about campaign finances and corporations buying favoritism because of it and then say in the same breath that they don't give a lot of money and they split it equally so as not to favor any candidate. Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing.

I don't think the size of the donations is small. I think it's enough to either move legislation or at least gain access beyond obligatory constituent relations. In certain individual races it can massively tip the scales and globally there are single donors both domestic and foreign that are donating hundreds of millions per cycle. Again, why do they give so much? Do you really think there's no ROI? Are they just shitty businessmen who don't know what they're doing?

I also don't believe I've made the blanket statement that campaign donors split their spending easily. There are certain races where they may give equally to both and I'm sure some give about the same to each party. Again, this is to buy access and move legislation. It's especially important when their needs to be a compromise to get enough votes from each side to pass. You can also make the case that the interests of both parties and their members often intersect.

It's not necessarily equal from a big picture standpoint and much of it is indirect through proxy groups like ALEC.

Look, Ganny, this is all pretty obvious and basic stuff that is not even hidden any more. Try catching up a little because you can be a fantastic adversary when you have your ducks in a row.

[JohnStOnge]

Bottom line is that it just amazes me that ANYBODY would say that the "final word " should be determined by simple majority of 9 unelected and completely unaccountable life term appointed officials.

To me when you just State that it's AMAZING that anybody thinks that is how it should be. Yet that's how it is.

[Skjellyfetti]

I didn't say the size of the donations is small.

I said the size of their donations is small relative to the billions in government contracts they are awarded. They're a small investment.

But, as far as campaign contributions go, they're quite large.

[kalm]

Bottom line is that it just amazes me that ANYBODY would say that the "final word " should be determined by simple majority of 9 unelected and completely unaccountable life term appointed officials.

To me when you just State that it's AMAZING that anybody thinks that is how it should be. Yet that's how it is.

Why do you hate the founding fathers?

[Skjellyfetti]

Bottom line is that it just amazes me that ANYBODY would say that the "final word " should be determined by simple majority of 9 unelected and completely unaccountable life term appointed officials.

To me when you just State that it's AMAZING that anybody thinks that is how it should be. Yet that's how it is.

Again, what is your alternative?

Still believe that Congress should just check themselves?

[BDKJMU]

Bottom line is that it just amazes me that ANYBODY would say that the "final word " should be determined by simple majority of 9 unelected and completely unaccountable life term appointed officials.

To me when you just State that it's AMAZING that anybody thinks that is how it should be. Yet that's how it is.

Again, what is your alternative?

Still believe that Congress should just check themselves?

He never said Congress should check themselves . You have the electorate to check Congress. Who is there to check the courts?

[kalm]

Again, what is your alternative?

Still believe that Congress should just check themselves?

He never said Congress should check themselves . You have the electorate to check Congress. Who is there to check the courts?

Congress and the states via Article 5 of the Constitution as suggested in the OP.

[Skjellyfetti]

You have the electorate to check Congress.

Brilliant!

Approval of Congress in the teens. Incumbent reelection rate in the 90s. Wow! You're right. The electorate DOES check Congress.

And, the electorate checks the President as well, right? We should eliminate all Congressional checks of the President and just have the electorate "check" him.