Sheldon Adelson: is he Romney's "bankroller"?

I never said they were. Democracy rests on several pillars. Relatively equal representation–in elected official and voice–is one of those pillars. Though already imperfect, pushing it further towards a system of government where influence is highly concentrated in a relative few subverts democracy.

Yes I can, as well as people who think that gaming a system is morally permissible if it’s within the bounds of established (or yet to be established) rules. I think people who serially cheat on their wives or girlfriends are morally reprehensible. I think people who move assets around in anticipation of divorce are morally reprehensible. I find people who take advantage of–or condone–a broken system knowing that they’re doing so morally lacking.

Are you serious? The OP wants tl discuss whether this guy J’s Romney’s “bankroller,” so it seems to me we need a definition of that term if we are to discuss that.

That, in and of itself, is what we need to get mad about. It shouldn’t cost anything.

Why do you care so much about what other people spend their money on?

Romney will agree to anything if he thinks it will get him elected. A lot of money will help him get elected.

It’s got to cost something. Campaign buses need gas, staff don’t work for free, ads cost money to produce and show, etc.

The only cost free Presidential campaign is one that we don’t have. If you want to ban all campaign activities and just hold the election, I can get behind that. But if you’re going to have a system where the media and the political class can command the airwaves, I don’t see how Sheldon Adelson adding his voice is damaging to democracy. If he bought a news station like Roger Ailes and broadcast his propaganda 24/7 no one would be disputing his right to do that. So why are we disputing his right to buy 30 seconds of air time?

In any case, there has never been a limitation on individuals spending as much money as they want on independent political activities. Citizens United only covered corporations. Sheldon Adelson has always had the right to spend as much as he wants. AS long as he doesn’t donate it directly to a candidate or political party.

I wonder if Mitt has any second thoughts about taking casino money…

Give 'em all equal shares of free airtime and ban any other advertising; problem solved.

Just how long do you think it will take for a Romney administration to take federal control of gambling and implement laws saying that citizens don’t have the right to “regulate gambling” in their own state? Do you realize how much money is spent on each cycle trying to get the various levels of gambling approved in each individual state? With one fell swoop, that could all be taken care of and that would be a huge ROI on what Adelson and his ilk have spent getting Romney elected.

As for a “major” bankroll? No, there are industries that own much, much more of Romney if he’s elected, but the man has contributed far more than enough to get the legislation that he’s looking for.

It isn’t just the Mormon beliefs. I’ve already seen Christian leaders justify voting for a Mormon (remember, from a Biblical Christian perspective, Mormonism is a cult).

If nothing else, this campaign will highlight those who stand by the teachings of their faith and those who are happy to toss their beliefs aside for political expediency.

You have turned just about every American into a contributor to political campaigns. Do you see why?

Yes, and I don’t see why not. Covered here.

My theory is that Adelson bankrolled Gingrich long after it was clear the Grinch would lose, in order to spoil Santorum.

If he wants a Pub to win this year, that would be a good strategy.

Well, you’d have to do more than that. You’d have to give them funds to pay campaign staff, campaign travel, and so on. But even so, that doesn’t make the campaigns free. They’re just paid for by the government.

Fwiw, an aspect of this which wouldn’t be allowed in the UK, and presumably most of Europe:

That’s surely got to be a contentious issue for some; any foreign doror could be a front for a foreign state or other interests seeking to influence policy?
In passing, the way the UK has approached this since 2000 is through primary legislation, and from this angle:

Btw, I’m not suggesting the UK approach is better/perfect, it’s just the idea of foreign donors seems … something of an open door.

Think Bricker thinks abortion doctors are going to heaven?

You can’t prove it causes corruption! Also, political class and liberal media and Soros liberal hypocrisy you won’t rest until all speech is banned!

“Corruption”? What?

Mitt isn’t taking it. Adelson is supporting him independently. Boy, the campaign finance discussion has become Orwellian. Now, speaking out in favor of a candidate instead of donating to his campaign is called a “contribution”. Okay. Then that means the NY Times is a heavy contributor to the President’s reelection and should be regulated as such.