And the election is more than a year away. Thanks to Citizens vs. United, the American electoral process is being buried under a landslide of cash from big donors, most of it going to Republicans, but Obama is considered likely to raise about a billion dollars for next years’ campaign, and something tells me he isn’t going to get all of it from working class folks. Or even much of it.
Those considerations were what led Rachel Maddow to state on her broadcast last night that the real opponent for Obama, no matter who the Republicans nominate, is going to be Karl Rove. Because he’s already got a quarter of a billion dollars to play with. And can undoubtedly get more. Hell, the Koch Brothers alone are worth 80 billion between them, toxic waste dumping, price fixing, traitorous Iran-dealing, teenager killing scumbags though they are.
So really, with the money flowing the way it is for political campaigning, what difference does it make who runs, especially on the Republican side? (Though it must be pointed out that Obama’s curious indifference to the criminality of the big banks makes a certain amount of financial sense now.) What chance does anyone who has to buy ads to get elected have against THAT kind of tide?
So basically this thread can be summed up as idle complaining because the other party is receiving more donations/contributions than the one you support?
Awww, John! You’re *adorable *when you pretend to be dumb. If someone walked in and offered you a hundred grand to right a thousand word essay on what I meant, you’d be cashing the check tomorrow.
Karl Rove raises a quarter billion dollars. This is bad, because he’s ee-ville.
Obama is “expected” to raise a billion, but it’s ok, because he’s one of the “good guys”?
Is the OP’s complaint really about the amount of money, or is it more a matter of trust? If it’s trust, then the amount of money doesn’t matter, right?
Why does the OP think that the government should be able to ban books and movies?
Also, the OP seems to be implying that Citizens United applies to donations to political candidates.
It doesn’t. It simply makes the sensible ruling that you can’t limit people’s ability to agitate against or in favor of political candidates.
To believe otherwise is to oppose free speech.
The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect people from being sanctioned for criticizing the government or government officials.
Citizens United was a great blow for free speech and while some people will take advantage of it, just like the KKK have used free speech rulings to march through Jewish neighborhoods, but unfortunately freedom for all means freedom for all.
Not really. I am as unhappy at the thought of Obama raising a billion as I am about the Republican raising another billion. It is really hard to see how a candidate can emerge from this tide of money not utterly bought out.
It’s the amount of money. I don’t trust that much money. On either side, but especially the Republicans since their ideology has no conflict with doing whatever is necessary to get lots of money into the hands of rich people. Au contraire!
So it is a fair decision because the poor as well as the rich are now free to write million dollar checks to influence elections? Also, I understand both groups are forbidden to sleep under bridges or beg for food on the streets! We are a marvel of egalitarian freedom, we are!
All that Fiorina demonstrates is that money doesn’t buy EVERY election. And in the case of the Wisconsin recall, I don’t think it was a money thing at all. No one would have had to pay me a cent to vote out those scum. I’m sure union money was present, but if you think it was the motivating factor, you are kidding yourself. But not me.
Can you flesh that out for us?