Article

2014-04-02 Home Front: Culture Wars

Supreme Court strikes down overall limits on political contributions

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by DarthVader 2014-04-02 11:39|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top

#1 Will it actually affect anything?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2014-04-02 11:43|| 2014-04-02 11:43|| Front Page Top

#2 Grom, most likely not.

I hate the amount of money we have in politics and feel it is causing the erosion of the middle class and the small business owner at the hands of the super big businesses and their political chums.

However... as a libertarian I agree with the ruling.

Posted by DarthVader 2014-04-02 12:13|| 2014-04-02 12:13|| Front Page Top

#3 DV, the problem is not that there is so much money in politics, it's that there's is so much to buy with it.

As a sort of libertarian I agree with you. If we didn't have so much government with so many rules and regulations that will make or break an individual or company or industry there would be no pressing need for those political donations.

But due to supply and demand there are always people looking to compete in the political market rather than the free market. Easier to buy yourself protection from competitors than to actually build and price better products/services to compete.

Posted by AlanC 2014-04-02 12:40|| 2014-04-02 12:40|| Front Page Top

#4 Well money does buy stuff. If you have more money you buy more stuff. That includes politicians.

Perhaps if we have enough money in politics struggling Democratic state senators won't have to hawk guns just to make ends meet.

Posted by Steve White 2014-04-02 13:42|| 2014-04-02 13:42|| Front Page Top

#5 MSM is a huge part of the problem. Unless a candidate has the money to pay for TV ads, MSM will NOT report on them. Even in the debates the MSM decides which are major candidates and which are not based on the amount of contributions and previous publicity each candidate has received and the bulk of the questions go to the major candidates. My guy Duncan Hunter got the shaft that way in the 2008 Republican primary debates. The moderators went whoring after the likes of John McCain and Mike Huckabee while ignoring Hunter who had a lot of good things to say if they would have just listened to him. And who was that actor who was running? They fawned all over him until he stiffened up like a redwood plank. It was sickening. That's how we get milquetoast, RINO, Chamber of Commerce sponsored Republican candidates instead of true conservatives.

Then, even when a candidate gets MSM attention it will be in the form of thirty second sound bites that are no more informative than the TV ads. They'll tell you more about how much money a candidate has received and where he stands in the polls than where he stands on the issues. They will never tell you about the characters like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers who have surrounded the candidate. They won't ask a candidate if a phrase like "redistribution of the wealth" is really a euphemism for socialism. They won't ask for the candidate's birth certificate or college transcripts unless his name is George Bush. So the money has a lot more influence than it would have if the media weren't so corrupt, lazy and slanted to the left. If people see a whole helluva lot of Baraq Obama reading from his teleprompter in front of fainting school girls and not so much of John McCain they won't remember what either one of them has to say, only the name recognition and repeated exposure will count.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2014-04-02 13:59|| 2014-04-02 13:59|| Front Page Top

#6 #4 Dr. White wins the thread! :-D

Posted by Barbara 2014-04-02 14:17|| 2014-04-02 14:17|| Front Page Top

#7 Sadly true, #5 EU. :-(

Posted by Barbara 2014-04-02 14:18|| 2014-04-02 14:18|| Front Page Top

#8 Dr. White is not allowed to win threads anymore. It's in the rules. It's the Tu ordinance.

Posted by Shipman 2014-04-02 15:15|| 2014-04-02 15:15|| Front Page Top

#9 This just means the Trunks get access directly to monies that the Donks have been funneling to themselves via unions, PACs, blind overseas untraceable money cards, etc for generations. If nothing else, for efficiency sake, it should remove the usual middle/third/fourth handlers from the game and we'll know who's really the source in the game. Means a lot of people 'who know people' won't have an influence or job anymore.

Posted by Procopius2k 2014-04-02 18:20|| 2014-04-02 18:20|| Front Page Top

#10 No limits or restrictions on campaign giving. Just disclose it all in real time on the Internet.

Posted by Iblis 2014-04-02 19:15|| 2014-04-02 19:15|| Front Page Top

#11 Statistically speaking, there could not be much fraud since so few people would be donating over the old limits anyway.

Right?

Posted by gorb 2014-04-02 23:30|| 2014-04-02 23:30|| Front Page Top

23:59 Bubba Graiting8281
23:30 gorb
23:28 gorb
23:13 Zenobia Floger6220
23:08 Bubba Graiting8281
23:06 OldSpook
23:05 Bubba Graiting8281
23:03 Bubba Graiting8281
22:58 Shipman
22:52 Shipman
22:48 Shipman
22:34 USN, Ret.
22:29 USN, Ret.
22:24 Bubba Graiting8281
22:06 Glomock Angique5238
21:20 Mugsy Glink
20:40 Barbara
20:33 CrazyFool
20:32 49 pan
20:31 Airandee
20:27 Mugsy Glink
20:27 JosephMendiola
20:25 JosephMendiola
20:18 CrazyFool