Just a quick Hat Tip to Alex Wagner for something well put
Chief inJustice Roberts:
“spending large sums of money in connection with elections does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual that spends large sums may garner influence over elected officials:”Bill Maher responds:
“Either he is a liar, or he is too naïve to hold any important job, including and especially this one. This is like a legal ruling written by the Little Mermaid”
Link to video in case it gets pulled from youtube: http://www.mediaite.com/...
“When you look at yourselves and the position you’re arguing here, it is simultaneously ..the Roberts court..the legacy of the Roberts court will be allowing the corporations and wealthy individuals to gerrymander and jury rig the electoral process at the same time that the courts are trying to make it harder for people to exercise their right to vote. If that is the side of history you are on we are in two different worlds.”Tom Davis (R):
“I think campaign finance [regulation] was well intended but all it did was starve the parties of money . This decision strengthens parties. I think that is a good thing”I’ve heard this 'superpac vs political party' argument before and it exposes something about republicans that they've gotten away with far too long. Their neo-con mindset. In almost every "fix" to a problem is an excuse for more war. Whether that war is about invading a country or settling a dispute over campaign finance law.
As an example; when republicans see one country that has nuclear WMD’s threatening or attacking another country without WMD, the republican solution is to arm the non WMD country. Add more explosive tinder to the situation - and make money on it
Or for another example. When there is a mass shooting in a school yard, a theatre, a bar.. wherever; the republican fix? Arm the teachers and in some GOP circles -> Arm the students themselves. – insane. When the obvious answer is to get rid of the threat, not double down on it to “even things up” - and make money on it
The goal should be get the big money influence the hell out of elections, not 'let's even things up" with even more money.
And in fact this whole 'superpac vs political party' GOP meme itself is also false. Only 571 individuals hit the limit. It is those few 1%ers that are being given this additional electoral leverage. So to say this ruling should be understood as merely to help "strengthen"political parties in order to compete with superpacs is just more republicans spin
Alex Wagner straightens the republican slant:
“this is the issue. This is the most important issue.. is making sure that the 571 Americans that maxed out on contributions last year should be able to give even more money, and at the same time, let’s make sure it’s harder for old people and people of color and young people to vote.”
I pretty much ignored Carrie Sheffield who piped up with this old republican dud:
“Can we say Carly Fiorina? Can we say all these failed candidates that pumped millions of their own money in this state alone..” [blah, blah, blah,] “the liberals broke the system” [ blah blah..] “Obama..”As if one bad candidate losing after burning through gobs of disposable cash proves that big cash gave no advantage to those most wealthy. Wealth can be a powerful deodorant but some candidates & campaigns just suck too bad
Bill Maher sums her comments up:
"..again.. Excuse me, that sheds light on nothing."Alex Wagner has done a bang up job focusing the argument into direct uncomplicated terms. Keeping it simple helps me to spread the word, so I really appreciate Alex Wagner's sense of things on these points:
• Following Citizens United, and gutting of the VRA, McCutcheon v FEC hands over even more power to only 571 of the wealthiest individuals and no one else who by contrast, are left fighting, not just to be heard, but to hold onto their right to vote at all
• Republicans and the RWNJ Roberts court are assaulting American democracy and civil rights by ruling against every real working person in favor of the 1%ers & corporations. A republican vote is a vote against 99% of America
• The left has ceded too much and originalism has become the purview of the RWNJ. The framers did not define 'quid pro quo' corruption as narrowly as the far right justices on this bench have interpreted it.
On that last point, I would make a distinction between we of the Dem base and Dem politicians who have on certain important issues, ceded the interpretation of the constitution to the RWNJ's. Gun safety.
Big money (NRA/ALEC et al.) and a cooperative MSM sure has given voice to the far right on this and too many Dems backed off on Gun safety measures fearing a primary challenge. 80% populist at one point recently were in favor yet - no progress
And then there is this:
If you think that the Supreme Court’s desision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission was bad, just wait: worse may be on the way.And Bill Maher did pretty well on this too - imo
So why is the case important? Because the language of Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion suggests that the Court remains committed to the project announced most prominently in the Citizens United case, four years ago: the deregulation of American political campaigns.
Thanks for stopping by :)
P.S. this is posting out early as kind of a time experiment I've been meaning to try, so I won't be around 'til a bit later and promise to read up on any comments. Hope that's cool