McConnell received $3.5 million from Russian oligarch-connected firm.

[Underseer]

https://mavenroundtable.io/theintel...-oligarch-linked-firm-93UjehU6aUCtejJRBFezCw/

Remember when Citizens United landed?

Remember when liberals complained that the ruling would lead to unlimited secret campaign donations, including possibly secret donations from foreign governments as long as the bribes went to PACs?

Remember when average Republicans told us that that definitely wouldn't happen?

It happened.

Can we admit that the Citizens United ruling was a bad ruling that was harmful to America? Can we admit that unlimited secret bribes is a bad idea?

Yes, this bribe campaign donation PAC donation became public, but how many more haven't? How many more foreign government donations are out there that we don't know about? I know this is going to be a controversial suggestion with our conservative and libertarian friends who think rich people, corporations, and foreign governments should have unlimited influence over our government, but I think we need to switch to publicly-financed elections like many other modern democracies have.

Yes, we would probably end up giving money to a few fake candidates who turn out to be running fake campaigns just for the money, but as long as we send them to jail publicly from time to time, that shouldn't be too bad, and it's still better than giving up our sovereignty. Shouldn't not being ruled by foreigners have monetary value?

And no, the taxpayer won't have to pay as much as elections currently cost. In countries that have publicly financed campaigns, there are strong restrictions on how long campaign season can last, and sometimes limits on what media outlets can charge for ads (or sometimes political ad purchases are forbidden altogether).

 

[RavenSky]

Confirmation of what we already knew. I would not be at all surprised to hear that every Republican we have wondered why s/he kisses the ass of Trump... this will be why.

 

[Elixir]

Confirmation of what we already knew. I would not be at all surprised to hear that every Republican we have wondered why s/he kisses the ass of Trump... this will be why.

Even if they're not ALL beholden to foreign thugs, it will forever be impossible not to suspect it of them if they side with Cheato on anything. I think the GOP could be in its death throes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Can we admit that the Citizens United ruling was a bad ruling that was harmful to America? Can we admit that unlimited secret bribes is a bad idea?

Citizens United was the correct ruling. Yes, it hurts America but the reality is no law can override the First Amendment. If we truly want to corral political speech it will have to be by amendment.

 

[ZiprHead]

Can we admit that the Citizens United ruling was a bad ruling that was harmful to America? Can we admit that unlimited secret bribes is a bad idea?

Citizens United was the correct ruling. Yes, it hurts America but the reality is no law can override the First Amendment. If we truly want to corral political speech it will have to be by amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see anywhere in the above that makes a foreign power giving 3.5 million dollars to a candidate okay.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see anywhere in the above that makes a foreign power giving 3.5 million dollars to a candidate okay.

I was talking about Citizens United. Funding speech is a fundamental part of speech.

 

[ZiprHead]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see anywhere in the above that makes a foreign power giving 3.5 million dollars to a candidate okay.

I was talking about Citizens United. Funding speech is a fundamental part of speech.

It wasn't for two hundred years beforehand.

Personally, I can speak quite well for free.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see anywhere in the above that makes a foreign power giving 3.5 million dollars to a candidate okay.

I was talking about Citizens United. Funding speech is a fundamental part of speech.

Citizens have free political speech.

Money is once removed from speech. Bribery is once removed from money.

Corporate personhoods are once removed from citizens.

Foreign governments are not citizens of the US.

Basically, saying a foreign government can bribe politicians is 5x removed from free political speech.

 

[RavenSky]

Citizens have free political speech.

Money is once removed from speech. Bribery is once removed from money.

Corporate personhoods are once removed from citizens.

Foreign governments are not citizens of the US.

Basically, saying a foreign government can bribe politicians is 5x removed from free political speech.

^^^ well put

 

[untermensche]

Can we admit that the Citizens United ruling was a bad ruling that was harmful to America? Can we admit that unlimited secret bribes is a bad idea?

Citizens United was the correct ruling. Yes, it hurts America but the reality is no law can override the First Amendment. If we truly want to corral political speech it will have to be by amendment.

Money is not speech.

Only ideas should win.

Not spending.

The first Amendment says nothing about spending money on campaigns.

Our entire system should be run as a democracy.

The candidates should arise from the people. Not appear from the wealthy elite supported by some wealthy elite.

 

[Underseer]

Can we admit that the Citizens United ruling was a bad ruling that was harmful to America? Can we admit that unlimited secret bribes is a bad idea?

Citizens United was the correct ruling. Yes, it hurts America but the reality is no law can override the First Amendment. If we truly want to corral political speech it will have to be by amendment.

So we need unlimited secret bribes because bribes are the same thing as free speech?

- - - Updated - - -

Can we admit that the Citizens United ruling was a bad ruling that was harmful to America? Can we admit that unlimited secret bribes is a bad idea?

Citizens United was the correct ruling. Yes, it hurts America but the reality is no law can override the First Amendment. If we truly want to corral political speech it will have to be by amendment.

Money is not speech.

Only ideas should win.

Not spending.

The first Amendment says nothing about spending money on campaigns.

Our entire system should be run as a democracy.

The candidates should arise from the people. Not appear from the wealthy elite supported by some wealthy elite.

Only ideas should win? Are you insane?

How is Loren ever going to establish an aristocracy to rule over us if those dirty commoners in the middle class have as much influence as the economic elites?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and just in case anyone wanted to see the documents for themselves:

https://dworkinreport.com/2018/10/0...ling-lindsey-grahams-russia-linked-donations/

He's definitely taking money from the Russians. No wonder he is working so hard to protect Trump from that treason investigation.

Ah well, we didn't need the rule of law anyway, because we have to make sure that hostile foreign powers have enough free speech rights to give unlimited bribes to American politicians.

 

[Elixir]

I was talking about Citizens United. Funding speech is a fundamental part of speech.

I have no funding. So I have no speech? Or I have speech, but lacking a fundamental part? Crock of shit, that is.
CU is bullshit concocted by the most corrupt sectors of federal government for no other reason than to keep their donors in power. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "free speech".

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I was talking about Citizens United. Funding speech is a fundamental part of speech.

I have no funding. So I have no speech? Or I have speech, but lacking a fundamental part? Crock of shit, that is.
CU is bullshit concocted by the most corrupt sectors of federal government for no other reason than to keep their donors in power. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "free speech".

Very well said.

If I can see one silver lining in this cloud it is that we are becoming one people, not a planet of ignorant, provincial tribes.

 

[Ford]

I was talking about Citizens United. Funding speech is a fundamental part of speech.

I have no funding. So I have no speech? Or I have speech, but lacking a fundamental part? Crock of shit, that is.
CU is bullshit concocted by the most corrupt sectors of federal government for no other reason than to keep their donors in power. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "free speech".

You have no funding, so you have no access to the kind of speech that gets politicians elected: advertising.

The millions given to PACs goes to (among other things) those relentless attack ads that blanket the airwaves and fill your mailbox in the run up to an election. There's also the robo-calls, social media campaigns, etc. All this stuff costs money and if you don't have any, your voice is drowned out by those who do.

And after the election, your level of access to your elected representative is based on how much you contributed to their campaign. What's that? You didn't give any money? The town hall meeting is next year sometime and you'll have to wait in line to ask a question. Oh, you bought a $1,000 plate at a fundraising dinner? We'll see if there's an open spot on the Senator's calendar next week.

That's the thing about Citizen's United. It opened the floodgates for dark money, and all that money is buying something. Access. Influence. In the case of one mega-donor, it bought a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

 

[RVonse]

Can we admit that the Citizens United ruling was a bad ruling that was harmful to America? Can we admit that unlimited secret bribes is a bad idea?

Citizens United was the correct ruling. Yes, it hurts America but the reality is no law can override the First Amendment. If we truly want to corral political speech it will have to be by amendment.

As someone who voted for Trump, even I think Citizens United sucks. Its nothing but total corruption and tyranny.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The only problem with any of this is that the failed Sanders campaign--among others--proves that money doesn't buy elections. As for allegations of pay-to-play, that depends entirely on the person and can't be generalized. Obama's top donor in 2008 was Goldman Sachs. He famously fucked them over once in office (according to them) and so they backed Romney instead in 2012. Romney (like Sanders) outspent Obama and still lost.

If you believe the Trump narrative in 2016, then Trump "beat" Clinton in spite of the fact that Clinton significantly outspent him (Trump spent half as much supposedly).

Are there bribe attempts? Of course. That doesn't just axiomatically mean everyone takes the bribes (i.e., plays as a result of being paid). Clinton has been consistently accused of this and yet all the evidence proves this has never happened. Even in regard to "access," the record shows (repeatedly) that she did not simply drop everything for large donors, let alone change any policy because they donated.

I agree that spending caps are a good idea, but not because of arguments from incredulity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So we need unlimited secret bribes because bribes are the same thing as free speech?

1) I'm talking about what the Constitution says. You don't just get to ignore it when it's inconvenient.

2) We already say political speech shouldn't be anonymous. I agree with that.