Should Obama Cancel Citizens United By Executive Order?

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The Citizens United decision was based in significant part on expectations expressed by majority opinion author Kennedy that transparency and other factors would prevent democracy from being scuttled by big money.

Since that expectation has proved to be invalid, shouldn't that decision and it's followup McCutcheon be null and void? The Executive Branch should go back to enforcing the laws in place prior to Citizens United.

Congress could act on it, too. And maybe that would be more preferable than creating another pissing contest about executive orders. But if Congress refuses to act and if the Supreme Court made a stupid mistake, should we be stuck with that mistake?

As the saying goes "the constitution is not a suicide pact."

 

[naturalmwa]

Maybe he should just get the IRS to investigate who gave money to all those black funds and release all the names? I bet they have some expertise on that already.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Maybe he should just get the IRS to investigate who gave money to all those black funds and release all the names? I bet they have some expertise on that already.

Well . . . that's one way to enhance transparency.

The problem is that those who like Citizens United and McCutcheon may talk a lot about transparency, but they don't really want people to notice what's going on.

Citizens United is the electoral equivalent of no longer requiring restaurant workers to wash their hands and thinking that signs will sufficiently address the health risk.

 

[The Tradition]

Democrats don’t like Citizens United because they think it might blunt their advantages. According to OpenSecrets.org, of the top five organizations — i.e., unions and corporate PACs — that give to federal candidates, all (mostly public unions) give 97 percent to 100 percent of their donations to liberals and Democrats. Of the top ten, eight give almost exclusively to the Left. Of the top 25, 18 donate disproportionately to the Left.

By the way, Koch Industries is No. 49 on the list, and the National Rifle Association is No. 74.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429789/money-politics-sanders-trump?target=author&tid=897

 

[naturalmwa]

Democrats don’t like Citizens United because they think it might blunt their advantages. According to OpenSecrets.org, of the top five organizations — i.e., unions and corporate PACs — that give to federal candidates, all (mostly public unions) give 97 percent to 100 percent of their donations to liberals and Democrats. Of the top ten, eight give almost exclusively to the Left. Of the top 25, 18 donate disproportionately to the Left.

By the way, Koch Industries is No. 49 on the list, and the National Rifle Association is No. 74.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429789/money-politics-sanders-trump?target=author&tid=897

Do you think the labor interests give more money than capital interests? Do you think Koch industries is inclusive off all the dozens of LLC's the Koch's run that give money? I think you are proving the point on transparency and pointing out the national review is willing to sell misinformation in hopes you won't notice.

http://www.republicreport.org/2014/unions-koch/

 

[The Tradition]

Do you think the labor interests give more money than capital interests? Do you think Koch industries is inclusive off all the dozens of LLC's the Koch's run that give money? I think you are proving the point on transparency and pointing out the national review is willing to sell misinformation in hopes you won't notice.

http://www.republicreport.org/2014/unions-koch/

Do you think unions are the only ones sponsoring/supporting lefty PACs?

 

[naturalmwa]

Do you think unions are the only ones sponsoring/supporting lefty PACs?

no

Overall contributions by Super PAC party orientation
Total itemized contributions, Democratic-aligned Super PACs: $311,349,464
Total itemized contributions, Republican-aligned Super PACs: $752,814,400
Total itemized contributions, all other Super PACs: $20,835,032
http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/outside-spending-2012/by-affiliation/

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Democrats don’t like Citizens United because they think it might blunt their advantages. According to OpenSecrets.org, of the top five organizations — i.e., unions and corporate PACs — that give to federal candidates, all (mostly public unions) give 97 percent to 100 percent of their donations to liberals and Democrats. Of the top ten, eight give almost exclusively to the Left. Of the top 25, 18 donate disproportionately to the Left.

By the way, Koch Industries is No. 49 on the list, and the National Rifle Association is No. 74.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429789/money-politics-sanders-trump?target=author&tid=897

Goldberg is the guy who wants us to think Hitler was a lefty - and by twisted logic that lefties are therefor fascists.

I would like to think Buckley would be embarrassed by Goldberg's nonsense. But I'm not sure. He was often more concerned with appearing clever than with truth or honesty.

In the linked piece, Goldberg whines that liberals want to prevent the Kochs from changing the conversation. No. We want to prevent the Kochs from buying the conversation. There's a difference.

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

No, but if Obama wants to cancel Roe v Wade by executive order I'm all for it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Bernie and Donald have spoken against SuperPACs, if anyone cares.

no

Overall contributions by Super PAC party orientation
Total itemized contributions, Democratic-aligned Super PACs: $311,349,464
Total itemized contributions, Republican-aligned Super PACs: $752,814,400
Total itemized contributions, all other Super PACs: $20,835,032
http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/outside-spending-2012/by-affiliation/

And remember, this is the declared money.

 

[The Tradition]

Goldberg is the guy who wants us to think Hitler was a lefty - and by twisted logic that lefties are therefor fascists.

I would like to think Buckley would be embarrassed by Goldberg's nonsense. But I'm not sure. He was often more concerned with appearing clever than with truth or honesty.

In the linked piece, Goldberg whines that liberals want to prevent the Kochs from changing the conversation. No. We want to prevent the Kochs from buying the conversation. There's a difference.

But no problems with Soros buying up all the free speech, right?

 

[naturalmwa]

2016 financial activity for super PACs

2,076 number of super PACs
$322,404,169 total raised by super PACs
$149,571,220 total spent by super PACs

96.2% spent by conservative leaning groups

https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2016&disp=O&type=S&chrt=V

 

[naturalmwa]

Bernie and Donald have spoken against SuperPACs, if anyone cares.

And remember, this is the declared money.

Yep, in one story it showed the Kochs give something like $40 million in declared money and another $400 million in dark money.

 

[naturalmwa]

But no problems with Soros buying up all the free speech, right?

He's buying less than 4%, so not nearly the boogeyman the Kochs are.

 

[The Tradition]

2016 financial activity for super PACs

2,076 number of super PACs
$322,404,169 total raised by super PACs
$149,571,220 total spent by super PACs

96.2% spent by conservative leaning groups

https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2016&disp=O&type=S&chrt=V

Take a look at this:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0

All that super PAC money isn't helping the republican recipients, much. Jeb Bush has the most PAC money by far, and he's nowhere in the polls.

Maybe money doesn't cancel out democracy after all.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Goldberg is the guy who wants us to think Hitler was a lefty - and by twisted logic that lefties are therefor fascists.

I would like to think Buckley would be embarrassed by Goldberg's nonsense. But I'm not sure. He was often more concerned with appearing clever than with truth or honesty.

In the linked piece, Goldberg whines that liberals want to prevent the Kochs from changing the conversation. No. We want to prevent the Kochs from buying the conversation. There's a difference.

But you are certainly fine with liberals dominating the conversation on owned media through government limited airwaves.

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

Are you saying lefty voters are so stupid and easily influenced by Koch Brothers political spots that one minute they are poised to pull the lever for Bernie but after a barrage of Trump spots on the nightly news they scratch their heads and say, " you know, I agree let's make America great again, and that Sarah Palin would make an excellent Secretary of Defense. " Maybe you're right, the skulls full of mush do have to be protected from evil, predatory Koch brothers.

 

[naturalmwa]

Take a look at this:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0

All that super PAC money isn't helping the republican recipients, much. Jeb Bush has the most PAC money by far, and he's nowhere in the polls.

Maybe money doesn't cancel out democracy after all.

It's probably a wise strategy to try to change the topic. But did you notice this:

Republicans have outpaced Democrats in raising money from unlimited donations. On average, the Democratic candidates have raised more limited campaign money than the Republicans.
Total Raised in 2015 (in Millions)
17 Republicans raised $260.7 in unlimited donations where 6 Democrats raised just 17.1. The money has its party. The real difference between the Rs and Ds isn't about size of government or religion and social issues. Its about support of capital or support for labor. If you get a paycheck, you should be voting D. If you give out paychecks, Rs are your team.

 

[The Tradition]

It's probably a wise strategy to try to change the topic.

Not changing the topic. Apparently, the White House isn't for sale.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

The Citizens United decision was based in significant part on expectations expressed by majority opinion author Kennedy that transparency and other factors would prevent democracy from being scuttled by big money.

Since that expectation has proved to be invalid, shouldn't that decision and it's followup McCutcheon be null and void? The Executive Branch should go back to enforcing the laws in place prior to Citizens United.

Congress could act on it, too. And maybe that would be more preferable than creating another pissing contest about executive orders. But if Congress refuses to act and if the Supreme Court made a stupid mistake, should we be stuck with that mistake?

As the saying goes "the constitution is not a suicide pact."

In other words - are we Ok with Obama acting as emperor?

 

[The Tradition]

In other words - are we Ok with Obama acting as emperor?

Yeah, I'm waiting on the thread suggesting Obama should issue an E.O. repealing the 22nd Amendment.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Goldberg is the guy who wants us to think Hitler was a lefty - and by twisted logic that lefties are therefor fascists.

I would like to think Buckley would be embarrassed by Goldberg's nonsense. But I'm not sure. He was often more concerned with appearing clever than with truth or honesty.

In the linked piece, Goldberg whines that liberals want to prevent the Kochs from changing the conversation. No. We want to prevent the Kochs from buying the conversation. There's a difference.

You don't think Hollywood, the new York times, abc, nbc, cbs, cnn, msnbc, Huffington post, etc have bought the conversation?

 

[naturalmwa]

Are you saying lefty voters are so stupid and easily influenced by Koch Brothers political spots that one minute they are poised to pull the lever for Bernie but after a barrage of Trump spots on the nightly news they scratch their heads and say, " you know, I agree let's make America great again, and that Sarah Palin would make an excellent Secretary of Defense. " Maybe you're right, the skulls full of mush do have to be protected from evil, predatory Koch brothers.

Yes, I believe marketing works. Don't you?

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

Yes, I believe marketing works. Don't you?

I don 't own a veg-a-matic, a pocket fisherman, a nu-wave oven, I haven't bought gold, a PX 90, I haven't sponsored a third world child or ever given a nickle to the SPCA. So I guess you must own all these?

 

[naturalmwa]

I don 't own a veg-a-matic, a pocket fisherman, a nu-wave oven, I haven't bought gold, a PX 90, I haven't sponsored a third world child or ever given a nickle to the SPCA. So I guess you must own all these?

All of those sell. I think that means you just got owned.

 

[The Tradition]

All of those sell. I think that means you just got owned.

Most "as seen on TV" products fail. But, they hit a home run often enough that the failures don't matter.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Yes, I believe marketing works. Don't you?

So you classify all paid media as marketing?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

But you are certainly fine with liberals dominating the conversation on owned media through government limited airwaves.

Even if that were true - which it clearly isn't - it's not so much a question of who's talking as who's buying the content and whether the content is honest.

If one side is dominating" the conversation because they are telling the truth and making honest arguments, that's not the same as if they are dominating it with propaganda and lies and using their control of the means of communication to prevent honest debate.

I know, I know, too nuanced.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Even if that were true - which it clearly isn't - it's not so much a question of who's talking as who's buying the content and whether the content is honest.

If one side is dominating" the conversation because they are telling the truth and making honest arguments, that's not the same as if they are dominating it with propaganda and lies and using their control of the means of communication to prevent honest debate.

I know, I know, too nuanced.

No - not nuanced. Naive.

Of course it's true - and unfortunate so many people like yourself can't see the biased content originating from a great majority of the national media on a daily basis. If you poll every American on every major issue - and then track all the messages/opinions on all major media - without a doubt the message on major paid media is slanted left of center overall.

As for your 'truth and making honest arguments' comment - c'mon. Seriously dude - are you really that much of a simpleton? Do you really think the issue is if one side is telling the truth or not?

 

[TexMichFan]

I don't think either side can claim they were low on spending. Both sides try to cherry pick numbers that make their side look poor but it just is not the case.

Spending Related to 2012 Presidential Race

Blue Team
Candidate Spending $540,812,931
National Party Spending $292,264,802
Outside Spending $131,303,352
Total $964,381,085

Red Team
Candidate Spending $336,399,297
National Party Spending $386,180,565
Outside Spending $418,635,080
Total $1,141,214,942

 

[naturalmwa]

So you classify all paid media as marketing?

Maybe, but it's not the point I was making. I was making the point that marketing can work to change opinions and outcomes. I makes me smile that any would attempt to argue in opposition to that obvious point.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Maybe, but it's not the point I was making. I was making the point that marketing can work to change opinions and outcomes. I makes me smile that any would attempt to argue in opposition to that obvious point.

Of course marketing can work - but completely ignore the fact many messages educate, inform, etc.

And what's funny is you basically admitted to his message that "lefty voters are so stupid and easily influenced"

 

[naturalmwa]

Of course marketing can work - but completely ignore the fact many messages educate, inform, etc.

And what's funny is you basically admitted to his message that "lefty voters are so stupid and easily influenced"

What's fun is you admitted to it too. Mirrors are unforgiving. In your need to score a point you prove the fool. As if educating and informing isn't all part of marketing. Pick your battles better mate.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

What's fun is you admitted to it too. Mirrors are unforgiving. In your need to score a point you prove the fool. As if educating and informing isn't all part of marketing. Pick your battles better mate.

Yes - I admit lefties voters are so stupid and easily influenced. You got me.

 

[naturalmwa]

Yes - I admit lefties voters are so stupid and easily influenced. You got me.

The reflection got you. It must be a blinding sight.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Do you really think the issue is if one side is telling the truth or not?

That's been shown again and again, study after study. Sure, there are sleazeballs on both sides but the right is overwhelmingly the offender.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

That's been shown again and again, study after study. Sure, there are sleazeballs on both sides but the right is overwhelmingly the offender.

Sometimes you have to step back and just wonder if what you believe is really a rational belief. If you really believe that the right lies considerably more than the left - then of course it's easy for you to fall for almost any grubering the left throws out. But of course - most folks who are rational will agree with this vanity fair article - that the idea one party dominating the lie department is obviously a fallacy.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/05/flawed-study-gop-more-dishonest
...Beneath all the hype, though, this report struck me as one of the silliest statistical analyses I’ve seen in a long time. While I do think that the truthfulness of the G.O.P. has sunk terribly in the era of Tea Party delusions, studies like this one detract from the real job of trying to keep politicians honest.

Here’s what’s wrong with the study. Well, almost everything is wrong with the study...

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Sometimes you have to step back and just wonder if what you believe is really a rational belief. If you really believe that the right lies considerably more than the left - then of course it's easy for you to fall for almost any grubering the left throws out. But of course - most folks who are rational will agree with this vanity fair article - that the idea one party dominating the lie department is obviously a fallacy.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/05/flawed-study-gop-more-dishonest
...Beneath all the hype, though, this report struck me as one of the silliest statistical analyses I’ve seen in a long time. While I do think that the truthfulness of the G.O.P. has sunk terribly in the era of Tea Party delusions, studies like this one detract from the real job of trying to keep politicians honest.

Here’s what’s wrong with the study. Well, almost everything is wrong with the study...

Climate change.

Do I really need to say anything else?

By the way, your Vanity Fair article doesn't actually disprove that Republicans lie more. It merely doesn't like one particular study that came to that conclusion. It doesn't even prove that particular study wrong.

Not that I would expect you to understand that.

 

[The Tradition]

Climate change.

Do I really need to say anything else?

Yes, climate change is a huge lie. What's your point?

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Climate change.

Do I really need to say anything else?

By the way, your Vanity Fair article doesn't actually disprove that Republicans lie more. It merely doesn't like one particular study that came to that conclusion. It doesn't even prove that particular study wrong.

Not that I would expect you to understand that.

Is that really what my article does? Oh my goodness - how could I have ever known that but for your insight?

Instead of looking down your nose at everyone who disagrees with you it would be wise to make sure you are actually advocating a position grounded in objective reality - and not just in political spin.