Supreme Court rules on caps
Via the New York Times comes this chart from the Federal Election Committee on the Supreme Court ruling on caps to political contributions.
Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.
First Amendment proof defense against Kochs and friends buying all the next elections: matching funds for every candidate or incumbent for every dollar contributed by anybody. Only mechanical answer possible.
Just like legally mandated, centralized bargaining (where everyone doing the same kind of work in the same locale negotiates a single contract with every employer) is the only answer possible to the race-to-the-economic and political-bottom.
Instituting the latter may be necessary before we can institute the former.
Matching funds would facilitate incumbents working for us 100% of the time — instead of raising money 50% of the time and “earning” it the other 50%.
Nothing could be easier than selling centralized bargaining (in place over a century in labor markets around the world — including the worlds most respected economy; think VW). As I have been spamming for years, supermarket workers and airline employees (think the regionals) would kill for centralized bargaining (lots of others too — try asking).
Nothing could be more exciting. Why do the Repubs have half the Congress? Because the Dems never venture out with something everybody would die for (or kill for).
Dennis Drew: Perhaps The Dems like the way things are moving. They might want to get in on the big money too.
Mike,
We know they do.
I need someone to tell me what alternative the Dems have to going after the “big money”.
The problem is that the GOP’s big money has figured out they can beat their demographic problem at the state level. Art Pope in NC: the Kochs everywhere. Dems don’t have those kind of people.
And US democracy is a total and utter sham. And gonna get worse.
“Let the good times roll”—(The Carrs) So now its openly bought off politics and politicians(corruption) and its ALL good. One can see this will work out well.
When the opposition party sez it s OK, that means its OK.
Roberts wrote in yesterday’s opinion that Congress may still “regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption.” He then limited “corruption” to an actual quid pro quo.
Which raises the question of what, exactly, the appearance of quid pro quo corruption looks like. Y’know, as opposed to the real thing.
My favorite quote from Robespierre, most appropriate at this juncture:
When, then, will the people be educated? When they have enough bread to eat, and when the rich and the government cease bribing treacherous pens and tongues to deceive them; when their interests are identified with those of the people.
When will this be? Never.
Hey, probably shoulda IMPEACHED Bush/Cheney early on and avoided some of this, ya know, Nan didn’t want it on the table.