Skip to main content

View Diary: Sherrod Brown continues to weather Super PAC assault (75 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So was SCOTUS right then on Citizens United? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, desert rain, mmacdDE, COBALT1928

    The heart of the Citizens United decision is that if a bunch of billionaires want to scream into the wind and spout right wing propagada, they and everyone else have the right to do so.   But no one is obligated to listen to them, or to agree with them.

    So if Super PACs spend millions of dollars this election and still lose, and get zero return for their investment, will they do so again in '14 or '16?

    How long will Super PACs be able to draw from the corporations that feed them without results.

    The Republican primary already gives us a good barometer.  SuperPAC money was unable to generate energy or support for any candidate.  The GOP is left with a horible nominee that nobody wants.

    Maybe this is the way it's supposed to be.  Let the worthless billionaires of the world shout out their lies and waste their money.  Maybe the whole system will backfire?

    •  No. They were dead wrong. (10+ / 0-)


      Money is not speech.


      You predicate your entire speculation on "if" they aren't successful. That's a huge if. And remains to be seen. An incredibly risky usurpation of democracy and a criminally ignorant reading of the 1st amendment. We'll see if they lose. But what difference does it make?

      Any idiot with half a brain can understand that 10 super rich people with 2 or 3 billion to burn shouldn't have more reach than 300 million of us.

      Citizens United decision was a shame and an embarrassment to everything this country is supposed to be about. Leftists and rightists at least agree on that.

      •  Agree (8+ / 0-)

        Wholeheartedly.  Citizens United is an affront to demrocacy.  My $100 donation can not match Shelly Adelson's 10 million.  And that was just to keep the leperous amphibian treading water for a few weeks.  

      •  Money has always been speech. Always (0+ / 0-)

        The fundamental problem with the CU decision was that political speech via money could not be regulated.  Almost every other form of speech - see OWS protests - have been draconianly regulated and "chilled".

        But money, dating back to 1776 has always been speech.  Printing presses, paper and ink were not free.  Revolutionary literature was not cheap to produce, it was backed by wealthy men.

        Money has always been speech, but all political speech should be regulated for the public good.  CU is a shame, and it's up to us to prove it so.

        But while money can plaster mesages all over, it cannot affect social media.  In the 21st century, I, right now have potentially more reach with my speech than the wealthiest man in 1776.

        So should Daily Kos blogging be banned or limited because we can reach far more people than all the poor who don't have internet access or the free time to blog?

        The money that you make that allows you to post here does give your speech more reach than a poor person.

    •  The problem is that while we may prevail (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG, COBALT1928, Creosote

      in some cases despite the amount spent by the opposition, there will be races that we could win if it weren't for the millions. Unlike the Kochs, we don't have endless funds for our candidates to buy TV time and billboards. So in a close race, in a swing district, they can win because of the money they spend rather than because of the ideas and history of the candidate.

      We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

      by Tamar on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:01:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site