Billionaire Gives $5 MILLION to Gingrich Campaign

[kalm]

The system was bad, CU made it worse.

http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and ... ars-later/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please, that piece was junk. I automatically discount any essay talking about Citizens United when they bring up the Dred Scott decision as a reference point. Your link went out of its way to say that this wasn't as bad as Dred Scott, and then in the next paragraph talked about how it was similar.

All that piece did was say that money is run amok in elections. Gee, who would've thunk that. Good thing we didn't have excessive spending in campaigns (and outside of campaigns) before. If only we could find a time when money didn't matter in elections then we could go back to that Utopia that people seem to think existed before this ruling. Problem is, that Utopia never existed. Bummer.

1) Campaign donations create access and favorable legislation to specific industries and companies regardless of whether or not the legislation is beneficial to its constituents

2) CU makes giving easier and less transparent

3) Economic freedom and competition suffer.

Not all that hard to figure out.

[GannonFan]

Please, that piece was junk. I automatically discount any essay talking about Citizens United when they bring up the Dred Scott decision as a reference point. Your link went out of its way to say that this wasn't as bad as Dred Scott, and then in the next paragraph talked about how it was similar.

All that piece did was say that money is run amok in elections. Gee, who would've thunk that. Good thing we didn't have excessive spending in campaigns (and outside of campaigns) before. If only we could find a time when money didn't matter in elections then we could go back to that Utopia that people seem to think existed before this ruling. Problem is, that Utopia never existed. Bummer.

1) Campaign donations create access and favorable legislation to specific industries and companies regardless of whether or not the legislation is beneficial to its constituents

2) CU makes giving easier and less transparent

3) Economic freedom and competition suffer.

Not all that hard to figure out.

You lose the argument on step number 2, at least as being significant. It's always been easy and it's always been less than transparent. Citizens would've been significant if it was hard for money to get into elections before and if things were transparent before. Again, a lot of bellyaching when the field hasn't changed in 200 some years of elections. You would get the idea that some people thought McCain-Feingold was effective. Not sure where they came up with that idea.

[kalm]

1) Campaign donations create access and favorable legislation to specific industries and companies regardless of whether or not the legislation is beneficial to its constituents

2) CU makes giving easier and less transparent

3) Economic freedom and competition suffer.

Not all that hard to figure out.

You lose the argument on step number 2, at least as being significant. It's always been easy and it's always been less than transparent. Citizens would've been significant if it was hard for money to get into elections before and if things were transparent before. Again, a lot of bellyaching when the field hasn't changed in 200 some years of elections. You would get the idea that some people thought McCain-Feingold was effective. Not sure where they came up with that idea.

Spending jumped exponentially in 2010. It's on track to doing so again this year. CU is significant, otherwise it wouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court and they wouldn't have made as aggressive a ruling as they did.

[kalm]

Elizabeth Warren was talking about who government works for on The Daily Show and cited a statistic that the top 30 US corporations pay more in lobbying fees than they do in taxes.

Yep, it took us awhile to get here, but here we are.

[Ivytalk]

Elizabeth Warren was talking about who government works for on The Daily Show and cited a statistic that the top 30 US corporations pay more in lobbying fees than they do in taxes.

Yep, it took us awhile to get here, but here we are.

That lady is a laugh riot. The only good thing that would happen if she beats Scott Brown is that Harvard would be rid of her for at least 6 years. Warren and BHO are two peas in a pod: self-righteous douchebags whose shit doesn't stink.

[kalm]

Elizabeth Warren was talking about who government works for on The Daily Show and cited a statistic that the top 30 US corporations pay more in lobbying fees than they do in taxes.

Yep, it took us awhile to get here, but here we are.

That lady is a laugh riot. The only good thing that would happen if she beats Scott Brown is that Harvard would be rid of her for at least 6 years. Warren and BHO are two peas in a pod: self-righteous douchebags whose shit doesn't stink.

I would have thought Ivy educated self-righteous douchebags would be right in your wheelhouse.

[GannonFan]

You lose the argument on step number 2, at least as being significant. It's always been easy and it's always been less than transparent. Citizens would've been significant if it was hard for money to get into elections before and if things were transparent before. Again, a lot of bellyaching when the field hasn't changed in 200 some years of elections. You would get the idea that some people thought McCain-Feingold was effective. Not sure where they came up with that idea.

Spending jumped exponentially in 2010. It's on track to doing so again this year. CU is significant, otherwise it wouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court and they wouldn't have made as aggressive a ruling as they did.

Define exponentially in that case. I understand the math that would imply, but I'm not sure you're using it correctly in this case. Spending increases in every election, and the amount of increase increases as well (leading to the exponential claim). Let's see the evidence this was as much of a watershed of spending increases as you're claiming it to be.