Flap Your Lips Friday
Posted by Michelle Moquin on April 4th, 2014
Good morning!
More of the same same…
From Think Progress:
How The Supreme Court Just Legalized Money Laundering By Rich Campaign Donors
Republican Billionaire Sheldon Adelson
CREDIT: AP PHOTO/KIN CHEUNG
Chief Justice John Roberts begins his opinion in McCutcheon v. FEC with a flourish: “[t]here is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” He then spends the next forty pages explaining why that participation includes the right of rich people to attempt to buy elections. Thanks to the decision Roberts and his four fellow conservative justices handed down today (Though Thomas did not join Roberts’ opinion, he wrote a more radical opinion calling for all limits on campaign donations to be eviscerated), wealthy donors now have a broad new power to launder money to political candidates — they just have to be a bit creative about how they do it.
Prior to Wednesday’s opinion, federal law placed two complementary limits on campaign donors. During the current election cycle, donors may give no more than $5,200 per election cycle ($2,600 for the primary and another $2,600 for the general) to a given federal candidate, and there are also higher limits on how much they can give to party committees and political action committees. These limits remain intact.
What McCutcheon invalidates are aggregate limits on the total amount of money that donors may give to all federal candidates ($48,600) and to all political committees ($74,600). Thus, before Wednesday, donors could spend as much as $123,200 seeking to influence the 2014 election cycle — now they can spend as much as they want. Make no mistake, this decision benefits no one except for a handful of very wealthy donors (and the candidates they give to). Who else can say that they’ve already given more than a hundred thousand dollars worth of donations and that they are upset that they cannot give even more?
A major purpose of the aggregate limits was to prevent money laundering schemes that could enable donors and political parties to evade the cap on donations to individual candidates. In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer lays out what some of these schemes could look like. The Democratic or Republican Party, in one example, may set up a “Joint Party Committee” consisting of all three of their national party committees and a state party committee from each of the 50 states. Under McCutcheon, a single donor may now give as much as $1.2 million to this joint committee, which would then be distributed to the various smaller party organizations.
Once the money is distributed, however, it can legally be redistributed to the races where it is likely to have the most impact. Thus, for example, the Republican Party committees in safe red states like Idaho, Utah or Mississippi — where large infusions of money aren’t exactly needed to win elections — can redistribute their funds to battleground states like Ohio or Florida. Meanwhile, blue state Democratic committees in Vermont and Rhode Island can do the same.
Similarly, the same wealthy donor might decide to write a maximum dollar donation to every single Republican House and Senate candidate in the country — perhaps by writing a single $2.4 million check to the same “Joint Party Committee” which then distributes the funds. Once this money is distributed, candidates in safe seats can then redistribute at least some of it to candidates in disputed seats — and the rest can frequently be used to benefit candidates in tough races through “coordinated expenditures.”
Roberts denies that these money laundering schemes will actually arise, but many of the arguments he raises to defend this point betray his own naiveté how modern elections work. The Chief Justice argues, for example, that for these money laundering schemes to work a donor would have to engage in “illegal earmarking” — federal law prohibits a donor from “directing funds ‘through an intermediary or conduit’ to a particular candidate.” But a wealthy donor does not need to earmark his donations for these money laundering schemes to work. Indeed, it is in both the donor’s interest and the party’s interest if the donor does not do so. A donor will typically want his money to go to the candidates who are most likely to benefit from his money — those in closely contested races. By donating to a joint party committee, the donor gives their party more flexibility to redirect their money to the candidates who appear most in need as the election approaches.
Similarly, Roberts claims that “[t]he Government provides no reason to believe that many state parties would willingly participate in a scheme to funnel money to another State’s candidates.” But this argument assumes that each state Democratic or Republican Party is an island. If Republicans control the Senate, Mississippi’s Republican senators have more clout and Mississippi Republicans benefit. The same applies to Rhode Island’s Democratic senators when Democrats control the Senate. America has two national parties and it has a national legislature. When Iowa elects Republicans to Congress, that makes it more likely that Republicans in Mississippi will see their preferred policies enacted into law.
Roberts does, however, raise one fairly strong argument in support of his belief that wealthy donors will not resort to complicated money laundering schemes — thanks to the line of cases culminating in Citizens United, they won’t have to. Before McCutcheon, wealthy donors basically had free reign to spend as much money as they wanted seeking to influence elections, just as long as they give that money to “independent” organizations such as super PACs. In light of this body of law, why would a candidate resort to an elaborate money laundering scheme when they can simply write a check to the super PAC of their choice?
It’s a good question, and not an easy one to answer. But it’s hardly an argument for eliminating even more limits on how far the wealthy can go to influence elections. If allowing a single person to spend millions of dollars to change the outcome of an election is a bad idea, then it is a bad idea no matter what kind of legal regime permits that spending to take place.
*****
Readers: I guess it’s that time again. Here are Anonz’s exact words as he posted them years ago. It was his comment in response to some readers who were upset over his wealth and the ways that he has continually attained it. I’ve printed them before. However, in light of the continued conversation and the political climate around this election year, I thought it was a good idea to print them again.
Anonz’s advice on how to stop him and others like him:
(ANONZ) Destroy it by; (1) insisting that special interest groups not be allowed to lobby congress. (2) Out law PAC’s political contributions (3) get your Congress to fix the opinion rendered by the bought and paid for 6 of the Supreme Court who ruled that corporations can spend as much as they want on political issues and candidates.
I can now buy any candidate in either House. I can influence any law to my benefit. I can influence you and most americans to believe what I wish about any issue. Your crooked Supreme Court gave me the right to spend any amount of money to influence the passage or any issue.
Criticizing me may make you feel good, but it has no affect on anything I do. Voting to eliminate the people who keep the likes of me from being regulated would be effective in stopping me from profiting at your expense.
But I have no fear of that because you secretly envy the money and power I have. You dream of being one of us, so you allow us to have unfettered access to to the profit trough.
Sure I have more money that I will every be able to spend, but if you are too stupid to regulate me, and too stupid to make me pay my fair share of taxes, and if you continue to allow me to set up corporations with all the rights of a living person, I WILL CONTINUE TO GET RICHER AT YOUR EXPENSE.
And unfortunately, I will continue to brag, boast, be in your face about your STUPIDITY. Deciding whether to rant against me or to vote against me will determine whether you will wise up or remain a mat for me to wipe my feet on as I stroll to that feeding trough.
It’s obvious enough of us didn’t heed his advice because it hasn’t gotten much better since he posted those words; it’s gotten worse. I’m HOPEing by reposting them again, it will piss off enough to inspire action. Thoughts? Opinions? Blog me.
Alycedale: For some reason, you just popped into my mind. Are you still reading? I HOPE so, and I HOPE you are well.
PeaCE OuT.
BLOG UPDATE:
The blog url address, has changed from .com to .net. The new address is blog.michellemoquin.net. So, although there is a redirect from blog.michellemoquin.com to blog.michellemoquin.net, please take note and change your bookmarks bar to go directly to blog.michellemoquin.net. Thank you.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
April 4th, 2014 at 9:59 am
33. Social Butterfly Says: April 4th, 2014 at 8:30 am
Hi Guam friends – I wanted to make sure you all were aware of the ice cream recall by the FDA-
=======================================
Håfa ådai Social Butterfly:
Thanks for thinking of us. I’m telling everyone I know.
Si Yu’us ma’ase
Thank you
Anna
April 4th, 2014 at 10:25 am
There needs to be publicly financed elections like all other democratic nations have . This is the most important issue right now, trumping all other issues such as war, climate change, economy, healthcare, and budget crisis.
Why? Because if we don’t take the money out of politics we won’t be able to get anything else done. Take the money out and we will see the true wishes of the American people.
April 4th, 2014 at 10:28 am
Thanks S.calia T.homas A.lito R.oberts K.ennedy for another S.T.A.R.K. raving mad decision.
Now the the Republican party can go on offending women and minorities and just bury the elections in money from all their rich white guy friends. Might not even have to gerrymander anymore.
April 4th, 2014 at 10:30 am
I find it pretty easy to choose sides in Washington this time around. The repubs rigged the voting districts. The Repubs suppressed voters. The Repubs, KOCH BROTHERS bought off the supreme court disision on campiagn contribution once, and are about to do it again.
This up-coming mid-term will be the most important election in our history. Can they really buy off Democracy ? Will we let that happen. I vote NO. I don’t want OUR government governing for the 1%. I want them governing for ALL of us.
April 4th, 2014 at 10:35 am
Michelle, this article marks a tragic day for the American People. The Supreme Court did it again to American Citizens. We all learned something that we suspected to be true for a long time but now we know for sure S.T.A.R.K. is bought and paid for. They will always side for those whose pockets they are in.
We no longer have a Government. We have a Corporation guised
by a Government veneer. The “Corporation” now views the American
People as its “employees and subjects.” Democracy took the heaviest
hit in history. The Corporation will now speed up the total destruction of this
planet.
We have passed 31 irreversible climate tipping points, each with a feedback loop capable of rendering the earth uninhabitable for human and most other life. And we are only experiencing the results of carbon emissions from 40 years ago since there is a 40 year lag between the time of the emissions and their observable effect in the environment.
It’s over. Be kind to each other.
April 4th, 2014 at 10:36 am
“WE THE PEOPLE” MUST DO THE FOLLOWING:
[1.] REMOVE ALL ELECTED REPUBLICANS AND TEA-PARTY MEMBERS FROM THE CONGRESS.
[2.] ELECT DEMOCRATS TO REPLACE THE REPUBLICANS.
[3.] IMMEDIATELY START PETITIONS TO REMOVE THE FIVE CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.
[4.] MARCH ON THE SUPREME COURT AND TAKE POCESSION OF IT. IF NECESSARY, ARM OURSELVES, AND TAKE OVER THE SUPREME COURT. WE MUST OUST THESE FIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.
[5.] MARCH ON EACH HOUSE OF THE CONGRESS AND DEMAND THAT THEY IMMEDIATELY WRITE AND PASS A LAW TO OVERTURN “CITIZENS UNITED vs THE FEC.
[6.] MARCH ON EACH HOUSE OF THE CONGRESS AND DEMAND THAT THEY IMMEDIATELY WRITE AND PASS A LAW TO OVERTURN THE “McCUTHEON vs THE FEC RULING.
[7.] WE THE PEOPLE MUST START A NATIONWIDE STRIKE AND NO ONE REPORT TO ANY EMPLOYMENT OF ANY KIND UNTIL THE CONGRESS FIX THESE DEMANDS. IT WILL NOT TAKE TO LONG FOR ALL OF THE CORPORATIONS, INSTITUTIONS, COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS LOOSING MONEY BEFORE THEY DECIDE TO SUPPORT US IN OUR DEMANDS.
April 4th, 2014 at 10:37 am
Another easy way to game the system: a wealthy donor can give the $2,600 individual limit to a handful of candidates that he particularly supports. Then give the limit to the various PAC’s and these new “joint party committees.”
Since his contributions to the handful of individual candidates is pubic knowledge, he is thereby telling the PAC’s and JPC’s his preferences for the second-tier donation of the money he contributed to these PAC’s and JPC’s.
If he is a big enough wheel, the PAC’s and JPC’s will honor his “recommendations.” He can also give them clues by donating a smaller, but still significant, amount (say $2,400) to certain other individual candidates, and varying amounts to others.
All these clues tell the PAC’s and JPC’s where their fat cat wants his money to go, sort of like the standardized bidding clues in the card game, Bridge.
April 4th, 2014 at 10:38 am
The pictures on this blog say it all. http://blogforarizona.net/justice-john-roberts-mccutcheon-money-laundering-scheme/
April 4th, 2014 at 10:43 am
Sen. Mitch McConnell was one of the bag men that carried the pay offs to S.T.A.R.K. Other payoffs were made to members of their families in the form of jobs, bonuses, benefits, and cash.
The Right intends to own this country by any means possible. They want Obama impeached and dead.
April 4th, 2014 at 10:45 am
I guess this didn’t work. “Call out Sen. Mitch McConnell for his intervention in a Supreme Court case called McCutcheon v FEC…”
http://donlichterman.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/call-out-sen-mitch-mcconnell-for-his-intervention-in-a-supreme-court-case-called-mccutcheon-v-fec/
April 4th, 2014 at 10:47 am
S.T.A.R.K. are earning their pay. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/04/the_subtle_awfulness_of_the_mccutcheon_v_fec_campaign_finance_decision_the.single.html
April 4th, 2014 at 10:52 am
What a sad day for America. “The Roberts opinion was supported in full by Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia. Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the dissenters, and orally announced the dissenters’ reasoning in a presentation that ran longer than the Chief Justice’s announcement of the ruling. Breyer’s opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor.”
It was as most here know a bought and paid for decision right down the political lines. It is easy to follow the money. Most of the members of S.T.A.R.K.’s families started to profit way before the decision was handed down.
Obama knew months before the decision was rendered which way it would go. Everyone was showing the money trail to him. But he couldn’t prosecute because it would have looked like jury tampering.
April 4th, 2014 at 10:53 am
This should not be a partisan issue. Regardless of your party affiliation or beliefs, this is not a good development for democracy. Congress is being high-jacked by the plutocracy.
April 4th, 2014 at 10:55 am
Xena, It has long since been hijacked by unions of all kinds — that is, for the ‘Rats.
April 4th, 2014 at 10:57 am
So, the Republicans have decided that we don’t need democracy in the US anymore.
April 4th, 2014 at 10:58 am
WB#14, What unions? There aren’t many left thanks to the republicans.
April 4th, 2014 at 10:59 am
John#15, We haven’t had any democracy for a long time. The problem is only getting worse all the time.
April 4th, 2014 at 10:59 am
Kerry#16;
Thank God! Just a bunch of thugs. They were relevant 100 years ago, but now they are filled with criminals. With any luck, they’ll all disappear.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:01 am
Marryann#17, the problem is only getting worse all the time because Republicans vote consistently and only for Republicans. The rest of us vote only sometimes and when we do there is no telling how we might vote.
A well-organized minority can easily defeat a disorganized, discouraged and inattentive majority, even in a real democracy.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:02 am
WB#18 – And you would like two men with a private agenda influencing millions of voters to whatever flavor of government they want?? that’s what just happened.
Rob Walton The Koch brothers and Murdoch and sons and any other billionaire can now buy as many votes as they are able. A handful of billionaires that have never felt poverty or missed a meal are now tellng you what you should do, and you lap it up because Fox ( Murdoch) tells you to be afraid.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:03 am
John#15, It has been a very long time since they did.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:06 am
There is no doubt that the Robert’s Supreme Court will go down as one of the most corrupt, morally bankrupt, politicized, nefarious and out of touch Supreme Courts in our history (and that is saying something considering the history of our Supreme Court).
S.T.A.R.K.’s history of politicized 5-4 decisions is incredible and some of their decisions like Citizens United would be laughable, if they weren’t so S.T.A.R.K raving insanely bad. They are truly the poster child for Supreme Court justice term limits.
Given their disregard for precedent, I do not see many of their decisions standing in future Supreme Courts. We’ll have to live with the effects for a while, but given the next President is a Democrat (almost a certainty unless they nominate a serial killer), most of their decisions will be thrown out by the next Supreme Court as soon as some of these “Republican” justices “kick the old bucket”, hopefully sooner rather than later.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:07 am
Clamity#20, Two words: George Soros.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:08 am
Publicly funded elections only. Broadcast media must provide commercial free and equal airtime for all candidates to state their positions and debate the issues. If broadcast media refuses to do so, we pull their licenses to use the PEOPLES’ airwaves.
Next, amend the Constitution to clarify that licensed business entities are NOT people and as such have no constitutional protections and are only entitled to the laws that enable the business license.
Part two of the amendment must clarify that money is not equivalent to speech and therefore not covered under the 1st Amendment.
Eliminate all corporate lobby groups.
There… that’s a start
April 4th, 2014 at 11:09 am
WB#23: Two names: the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:10 am
Jeff#22, I pray that you are correct:for If not I pray for my country who has lost its way stolen by the pirates of Wall Street and their Cronies in Washington.
People must always come before profits! You do not need a bible to know that you should not kick sand in someone else’s face. We learn in kindergarten that we should treat others as we would have them treat us!
Our representatives have abandoned us for the fodder they receive from Billionaire’s but we will one day take our nation back and light the world with a true Social and Civil Democracy for all! Can you hear the people sing!
April 4th, 2014 at 11:11 am
Jeff#22, I’m not sure that I would call the Supreme Court corrupt exactly, but it seems clear that a narrow majority on the Roberts Court does not adhere to what I consider perhaps the most important of the founding principles of this country and that is a faith in democracy.
Quite the contrary, they seem to place their faith in the rich and powerful rather than in the wisdom of the population at large.
What is especially sad is that this seems to be what so many ordinary citizens want as well, at least as judged by their voting patterns over the last 30 years or so.
These Justices came to the Court through appointment by presidents who shared that distrust of democracy and it was the voters who put those presidents in office.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:13 am
Winston#24;
well said, and I always remember it was both Reagan and Clinton who changed the media responsibility, form the public good to the corporate welfare.
We have the power, but the American people have become so divided and selfish, few will compromise their good for the common good.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:13 am
Was anyone really surprised by this ruling? I would think that anyone remotely following politics would have known the outcome before the ruling was handed down.
Most people should know by now that free speech is only reserved for those who can afford it.
Welcome to the United Banana of America.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:14 am
PCL, Thank God for capitalism! :-)
April 4th, 2014 at 11:15 am
That Court is no longer supreme!
April 4th, 2014 at 11:15 am
CG#30, I have no problem with responsible capitalism.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:16 am
SCOTUS= Supreme Corruption Of the United States
April 4th, 2014 at 11:17 am
We are well on the road to a fascist/police state. And the people went down with a whimper playing their video games and drooling over celebrities.
Welcome to the hunger games.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:17 am
PCL#32, I have a problem with that word “responsible”. ”Responsible” is very much like “common sense” and “reasonable”, they are vague and changeful and liberals use the two a great deal as if they were the arbiters of the meanings.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:19 am
Sheldon Adelson spent $110 million of his own money supporting candidates in 2012 and most of them lost. Ross Poirot spent $20 million of his own money running for President and lost, and John Corzine spent $65 million of his own money and lost his attempt at being re-elected Governor of New Jersey.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:20 am
Take Big Union money out of politics and the it will be fair eliminating corporate donations. Otherwise all that the left is doing is vying for an unfair advantage in their own favor. Same goes as with Soros verses Koch.
Arguing unions are workers voice is nothing short of ruse. Members have effectively little or no influence where & how their hard earned Middle Class dues are donated in the political arena.
Next, since money is the mother’s milk of politics is a totally new paradigm must be invented. I say, excluding foreign donations, allow everyone & every entity to donate as much & as often as they like. However, instantaneous disclosure via the internet & the press for all donations from one cent to whatever be required.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:21 am
Kevin#35, Fair enough. But…I have a problem with those who try to say that only “liberals use the two a great deal as if they were the arbiters of the meanings.”
April 4th, 2014 at 11:22 am
Individuals in unions and shareholders (or workers) in corporations should be allowed to have their money spent according to their varied interests (definitely not spent so one sided as often happens with corporations or unions). I believe the Wisconsin Republican State committee in the 2000 election (when there were many liberal and moderate Republican donors) passed a Resolution 34 (if memory serves accurately) to only spend that money on the very most conservative candidates. I would have demanded my money back or donated as much as possible to the opposition.
The California Republican Party became a machine in my eyes, when they primaried out the most electable moderate (by comparison) Republican, Richard Riordan. They installed a far more conservative candidate they were sure would still win. (You can look up who that was, yourself, since all my old party regulars couldn’t remember who that was two months after the election.)
When their chosen candidate didn’t beat Gray Davis, Darrell Issa spent part of his fortune to initiate a recall election (where he thought the Republicans would actually support him as the favored candidate). Davis had barely started his 2nd term, but that fact and “TERM LIMITS” precluded him from running again, other than trying to keep his current term. The Republicans selected a more moderate but electable candidate to support in Arnold Schwarzenegger. They weren’t all that happy with him but they did manage to get the governorship back on their side.
My solution, without limiting the amounts, includes disclosure over a threshold of twice the per capita donation, and taxing all donations above the per capita average to provide matching funds to candidates and groups based on qualifying with individual signatures on petitions ( 90 percent of the union members may sign for one side, 10 percent for the other, and perhaps different percentages of shareholders and workers in non-unionized work places would have much more diverse percentages for different candidates or groups.
There are also ways to create modern versions of the ancient Greek Councils of 500 (citizens drawn by lottery to set the agenda the legislators would have to address, most interestingly updated to the Deliberative Democracy movement and PBS’s “By the People” forums). See http://www.nextca.org/videos/e…
All politicians actions should be compared to the agendas developed by such statewide, truly diverse representation, citizen forums. Many candidates have not addressed even one of the top 10 concerns from such forums.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:23 am
I could sit here and list all the right wing policies that have been put in place over the last 30 years that have eroded any mechanism that a citizen has to fight back short of open revolt but it would be too long.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:24 am
Don’t forget to register and vote. And then vote in every election. Every year.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:25 am
Mike#40, We’ll take one or two then.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:26 am
PCL#38, Liberals have used those very words in their arguments against larger capacity ammunition clips ignoring the fact that only in the case of fully automatic weapons is the rate of fire diminished when a clip must be changed.
The FBI can run a background check in a matter of minutes yet to receive a Firearms Owners ID in Illinois, which is necessary for the purchase of firearms, takes 6 weeks. This is not reasonable and it is not responsible and it shows a decided lack of “common sense”.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:27 am
Jane#41, Australia imposes a small fine on any eligible voters who don’t vote.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:28 am
Jane#41, I agree. Voter turnout is often low, sometimes embarrassingly low. In the recent NYC mayoral election, it was 24 percent — a record low. In the 2012 election, it was 57.5 percent, down from 62.3 percent in 2008.
Despite an increase of over eight million citizens in the eligible population, turnout declined from 131 million voters in 2008 to an estimated 126 million voters in 2012 when all ballots are tallied. Some 93 million eligible citizens did not vote.
April 4th, 2014 at 11:30 am
I find it interesting that George Soros, national labor unions and other liberal high-dollar donators are never mentioned in pieces on this subject. Why would that likely be?
Similarly, the piece argues that voting has been made harder after the Shelby County decision – not only is it harder to fly, cash a check or receive government benefits without a photo ID, it is impossible to do so. Why should voting be different?
April 4th, 2014 at 11:30 am
Kevin#43, Yeah, like deregulating and “trickle down” was very reasonable and common sense, logic fail.
April 4th, 2014 at 12:17 pm
Logic fail? Your arguments show a level of chop logic rarely seen in people beyond the age of 10. The funny thing about the frontal cortex is that even after it is fully developed sometime in a person’s middle 20s you still have to learn how to use the damn thing, you obviously never bothered. Stick to emotions, it IS what liberals do.
April 4th, 2014 at 12:18 pm
Because the left (or so called left) aren’t the ones spending the majority of the money nor are they the ones fighting for their right to do so. It’s quite obvious why the right wing donors such as the Koch brothers and Adelson are the ones mentioned, but I guess you didn’t really think it over.
The question concerning Big Money out of politics should be a question that grassroots from all camps should be able to unite in, but obviously it seems that the right wingers are so pro free market that they feel elections should in fact be traded rather than voted.
Requiring voters to present an ID is in itself not really a problem and viewed without any regards for the context in which it is implemented it is a fair piece of legislation. Now cue context.
The voter ID laws are passed in highly segregated areas where many of the Democrate core voters often don’t have a photo ID nor do they really have the money and/or the motivation to get one. Getting people to vote in the US seems to be hard enough without making people pay for it.
Now add to this another bit of context. There are virtually no cases of the kind of fraud the legislators are targeting happening in the US, and as such, the motives for the legislators (R) passing these laws must be questioned.
Is it really because they are worried about fraud or is it because they know that these laws will have a disproportionate effect on voter turnout among Democratic voters? To me the answer seems pretty obvious.
April 4th, 2014 at 12:22 pm
The American people have decided that we do not need democracy or the rule of law anymore. If they felt that they still needed what has been taken away they would speak. But they are mainly silent because they have been hypnotized by the Television set into believing what they want to hear. America has turned into a prison!
April 4th, 2014 at 12:23 pm
Kevin#48, Well, that was the most empty, useless, unsubstantiated comment yet, but thanks for your vacuous personal attack. Like you have the unmitigated gaul to speak globularly for all liberals, you can barely speak factually for yourself.
April 4th, 2014 at 12:25 pm
Kevin#48, So say the gun enthusiasts.
April 4th, 2014 at 12:28 pm
PCL#52, I’m a gun enthusiast. I love them and have lots.
April 4th, 2014 at 12:29 pm
We’ve all worked hard to make health care reform a success — many have fought for decades.
It’s something I’ll tell my grandkids about.
OFA is putting together the permanent record of the people who made health care reform happen — everyone from Teddy Roosevelt to Barack Obama and, yes, even Richard Nixon.
It will be permanently installed at OFA headquarters in Chicago to be a constant reminder that lasting change is possible when we come together and organize.
Think about how long Americans have fought for this. In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt was the first president to advocate for health care for all Americans. When we passed the Affordable Care Act, more than 45 million Americans were uninsured.
Now, millions of young adults can stay on their parents’ plan until 26, millions more are covered through the expansion of Medicaid, and as we heard this week, more than 7 million Americans signed up for private coverage through the marketplace. And, year after year, it’s only going to get better.
That’s why we fought for this law.
http://my.barackobama.com/You-Made-History
Thank you,
Erin
Erin Hannigan
Health Care Campaign Manager
Organizing for Action
April 4th, 2014 at 12:33 pm
THE LATEST FROM REDSTATE
Dissent on a one-way street
The left in the United States increasingly refuses even to consider other arguments. Children must be taught only the left’s arguments. Scholars and pundits must only share the left’s views.
Any other views must be marginalized, silenced, or punished. Those who hold unpopular views must be shunned, fired, or re-educated.
| READ MORE » http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/04/dissent-on-a-one-way-street/
April 4th, 2014 at 12:40 pm
Thank you for “Daily Events.” It is a source for the Right that levels the playing field against the bullS**t of the Left.
I believe what we’re witnessing in the US since Obama took office in 2009, is the result of Saul Alinsky’s playbook, “Rules for Radicals” being put into action. Obama was the community organizer who followed this playbook.
The thirteenth rule: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and marginalize it” is exactly what’s happening here and across the US. Yesterday, in the Wall Street Journal, Charles Koch, President and CEO of Koch Industries, whom the Left loves to vilify, wrote an opinion piece, “I’m Fighting to Restore a Free Society” which can be found here:
http://ow.ly/vqVDx The article proved so popular that it was temporarily unavailable for a time because the servers were overwhelmed. People are slowly waking up in this country, slowly. Hopefully, come November, we’ll see the rise and reincarnation of the “Silent Majority” at the voting booths.
April 4th, 2014 at 12:43 pm
In November we need to go to the polls and vote out every Democrat we can to give them a lesson. I don’t care if the Republican is considered a RINO and isn’t conservative enough.
They aren’t Democrats who have gone far left and adopted the progressive agenda.
April 4th, 2014 at 12:44 pm
PW#56, I read that piece by Charles Koch and actually clapped when I finished reading it. The left love to vilify and demonize anyone and everyone on the right without ever stating any facts or reasons why they are demonizing them.
They just repeat a name and talking point about them and eventually all the LIbs take it as truth. No thinking for themselves, not research into anything, just “this is the way it is” and you have to go along. Must be easy being one of those sheep who doesn’t use their brain.
April 4th, 2014 at 12:49 pm
Nick#58, I don’t suppose you realize that if you substituted “Right” for your “left” in your last paragraph, you would have come closer to the truth.
It is even easier being one of the sheep who uses the opinions of fox fake facts as their brain. What a good source of talking points that makes.
Just thinking.
April 4th, 2014 at 5:19 pm
Nick, seriously – you need to reread #59 Helen, and Helen ditto that thought.
…and Mischa, those words were written by Anonz a long time ago, (a few years maybe?) – apparently us humans aren’t as high functioning as we like to believe we are (have a great weekend : )
Luv, Zen Lill