Is anyone else concerned about environmental issues and our elections? Since the Citizens United ruling, we've seen an immediate change in our elections. The rise of SuperPacs and the unfettered flow of money did more to change our election results in 2010 than the Tea Party or anyone else.
It appears that we are seeing the same thing now. Scott Walker won in Wisconsin mainly because of the SuperPacs. His side out spent the Democrats 8 to 1.
In California, we had a sure bet measure, Prop 29, which was the first increase of our cigarette tax in almost 20 years. Cigarette taxes are very popular here, mainly because we have one of the lowest amount per capita of smokers in the country (people don't mind passing taxes that affect others). Big tobacco spent hundreds of millions compared to a few million the supporters had. The commercials were so deceptive that it looks like the measure that was leading by 15% will now lose.
What really concerns me is that this limitless amount of money people poured into elections has the potential to change our country and put it on a path against progress. SuperPacs don't have to reveal who they are, where they get their money, etc. They have the potential to set back states on many issues including alternative energy and conservation. We know the Koch brothers spend a ton of money getting legislation written the way they want it. They are now putting a ton of money behind getting people elected across the country.
I live in a progressive state, so I don't worry too much about us. But, I worry about how this is going to change the rest of the country especially in the Midwest and South.
Any thoughts on this? Anyone see a light at the end of the tunnel?
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
0
Big Money and Elections in the US
Started by FamilyTreeClimber, Jun 06 2012 09:43 AM
22 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 06 June 2012 - 09:55 AM
The only, very dim light I see is the possibility of the congress/senate passing a bill to limit contributions,
like it was before. At the very least, there should be transparency, so people will know that big oil/coal/big ag/ or
big pharma are pushing us around.
If it isn't reversed? Imo, our democracy is dead. Period.
Btw-it's "citizens divided" not citizens united-thanks to the "supreme" court.
like it was before. At the very least, there should be transparency, so people will know that big oil/coal/big ag/ or
big pharma are pushing us around.
If it isn't reversed? Imo, our democracy is dead. Period.
Btw-it's "citizens divided" not citizens united-thanks to the "supreme" court.
#4
Posted 06 June 2012 - 12:48 PM
I found a small glimmer of light in Wisconsin. The Democrats took back the state Senate. This means Walker can't work without restraint like he did a year ago. Also, it means that will big money kept the governor's seat, it wasn't enough to keep move the Senate back into the Republican's hands.
I agree with you, Shortpoet. I really wonder where Mr. John McCain is on finance reform. He was the sponsor of McCain-Feingold which restrained some of the money. He always campaigned on finance reform. I haven't heard a peep from him since the Supreme Court ruling. I guess he only disliked the money when it was the Democrats who were the beneficiaries.
I hadn't even heard of the Koch Brothers until 2010. They did an excellent job all those years of working in the background. I wonder if now that people are opening speaking about how they've meddled in elections and written legislation if we will find out more of their dealings.
I agree with you, Shortpoet. I really wonder where Mr. John McCain is on finance reform. He was the sponsor of McCain-Feingold which restrained some of the money. He always campaigned on finance reform. I haven't heard a peep from him since the Supreme Court ruling. I guess he only disliked the money when it was the Democrats who were the beneficiaries.
I hadn't even heard of the Koch Brothers until 2010. They did an excellent job all those years of working in the background. I wonder if now that people are opening speaking about how they've meddled in elections and written legislation if we will find out more of their dealings.
#5
Posted 06 June 2012 - 01:31 PM
That is exactly what the Citizens United decision did, sold our democracy to the highet bidder. There is an Attorney General in Montana I believe who is seeking to challenge the decision, and he is to be heard by the court, but it was put on hold until later, how much later I don't know. Cannot give you the particulars of his premise, but it said to be very positive that he may win. Don't think it will overturn the decision, but it will chip away at it.
Just read the post about the Wisconsin Senate, that is the best news all day. Good. Now if that investigation has evidence that there is something, that takes Walker to jail, hoop de doo. Sorry.
Just read the post about the Wisconsin Senate, that is the best news all day. Good. Now if that investigation has evidence that there is something, that takes Walker to jail, hoop de doo. Sorry.
#6
Posted 06 June 2012 - 01:56 PM
The democracy of America has been sold out. In fact it has been sold out to the point that I do not think our opinions even matter. As long as the people in power have the money they will pass what benefits the companies who pay the bills they have for their campaigns.
#9
Posted 08 June 2012 - 07:13 PM
It's ironic that when Stevens was nominated for the Supreme Court he was a Republican nominee (Nixon). His views were considered moderate to right leaning. I think that may say something about how the Republican party has changed since the 1980s since Stevens was considered left leaning when he retired. Yet, many of his ruling decisions remained constant over the decades.
There won't be any hope of changing campaign laws at the Federal level with the current Congress. One can hope that the things being done at the local level will start the change we need. Who would have thought we'd go from bipartisan campaign finance reform to overturning almost all restrictions and laws.
Did anyone see the stuff Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert did on SuperPacs as part of their shows last year? I think in many ways they were the ones who really educated the public on what it means to have secret donors working in the background manipulating campaigns. When Colbert did that segment on setting up a SuperPac and had the official on who explained how few rules there are surrounding them, it was eye opening.
There won't be any hope of changing campaign laws at the Federal level with the current Congress. One can hope that the things being done at the local level will start the change we need. Who would have thought we'd go from bipartisan campaign finance reform to overturning almost all restrictions and laws.
Did anyone see the stuff Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert did on SuperPacs as part of their shows last year? I think in many ways they were the ones who really educated the public on what it means to have secret donors working in the background manipulating campaigns. When Colbert did that segment on setting up a SuperPac and had the official on who explained how few rules there are surrounding them, it was eye opening.
#11
Posted 09 June 2012 - 10:02 AM
Shortpoet, they need a Constitutional amendment as I understand it to overturn this piece of ......... As far as the lameduck session, the Republicans are not going to do anything, what with the successes they have had, and think they are going to have with the mass amounts of money to buy elections. Another thing that is very disturbing, is the outright lawlessness of Governors like Scott in Florida to purge voters from the rolls to steal elections. The Republicans have gone completely berserk.
#12
Posted 09 June 2012 - 12:24 PM
artistry, on 09 June 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:
Shortpoet, they need a Constitutional amendment as I understand it to overturn this piece of ......... As far as the lameduck session, the Republicans are not going to do anything, what with the successes they have had, and think they are going to have with the mass amounts of money to buy elections. Another thing that is very disturbing, is the outright lawlessness of Governors like Scott in Florida to purge voters from the rolls to steal elections. The Republicans have gone completely berserk.
#13
Posted 09 June 2012 - 05:59 PM
Interestingly enough, a few days ago an old friend from high school ranted about money in politics in a Facebook status update. Several of us agreed with him. A few of us decided to do something, so we started a page called 28. It stands for the need for a 28th amendment to the Constitution (and I'm particularly proud that I came up with the name ;). What are the chances it will work? Pretty slim, but it's worth standing up for anyway. The page is brand new and we haven't done much with it yet, but we could really use some support and "Likes" if you're so inclined.
https://www.facebook.com/28forus
And here's the message in a nutshell. It's actually a pretty radical departure from the status quo but I think it makes sense.
We believe that The US needs a 28th Amendment to the Constitution devoted to Election Reform in order to regain the power of the vote of the people.
Description
We propose a true campaign finance law. Candidates can only raise funds from registered voters from within the state, district, or municipality they are running for office from. Only presidential candidates can seek funds from any location. Corporations, businesses, organizations and the rest should be banned from contributing. Only individual voters can contribute, because only individual voters can vote. If a candidate cannot raise sufficient funds from the people he/she seeks to represent, this should be viewed as a major hint.
This page is our initial answer to fixing the election process in the US.
https://www.facebook.com/28forus
And here's the message in a nutshell. It's actually a pretty radical departure from the status quo but I think it makes sense.
Quote
We believe that The US needs a 28th Amendment to the Constitution devoted to Election Reform in order to regain the power of the vote of the people.
Description
We propose a true campaign finance law. Candidates can only raise funds from registered voters from within the state, district, or municipality they are running for office from. Only presidential candidates can seek funds from any location. Corporations, businesses, organizations and the rest should be banned from contributing. Only individual voters can contribute, because only individual voters can vote. If a candidate cannot raise sufficient funds from the people he/she seeks to represent, this should be viewed as a major hint.
This page is our initial answer to fixing the election process in the US.
#14
Posted 09 June 2012 - 07:00 PM
You never know, I think there are enough people fed up with what is going on in campaigns, especially this cycle, that they may just get behind it. One woman in California started a petition against the $5.00 fee Bank of America wanted to charge customers. She got thousands of signatures over the internet and BOA backed off of the fees. Go for it. Hope it flys. Good luck.
#15
Posted 09 June 2012 - 07:33 PM
artistry, on 09 June 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:
You never know, I think there are enough people fed up with what is going on in campaigns, especially this cycle, that they may just get behind it. One woman in California started a petition against the $5.00 fee Bank of America wanted to charge customers. She got thousands of signatures over the internet and BOA backed off of the fees. Go for it. Hope it flys. Good luck.
Thanks! I think as we go along we'll start a petition as well. We're just getting started. Right now I'm trying to think up a way to sum up what we think should happen in a fast, catchy, easy to understand phrase. People sometimes have such short attention spans...
#16
Posted 09 June 2012 - 11:24 PM
Change starts at the bottom, not the top. When enough people get together, then their voices are heard. Just as artistry mentioned about the bank fees. What did the banks care if they lose one customer? Lose a few thousand and it starts to hurt a little.
We do need an amendment to fix this mess. Talk about an activist court. They took a very narrow issue about an anti-candidate documentary and came up with "corporations are people and money is speech". If money is speech, then the rest of us are in trouble.
Artisty, Rick Scott's voter roll purge has met opposition. All 67 voter registration district heads (I don't know their title) have decided to oppose the action. The rolls cannot be purged unless they give the go ahead. They are refusing on the grounds that the voter purge list is so faulty that they cannot work with it. Also, a Florida court ruled that the new rules for voter registration are unlawful. This was law that says if you collect voter registration cards you have to turn them in within 48 hours or you will be considered a felon. A teacher got caught up in the law. She had students fill out cards as part of the civics class but turned them in after the 48 hours. They were going to press charges. How silly is that?
I always thought the point of democracy was to have as many citizens as possible voting. Not just the elite.
We do need an amendment to fix this mess. Talk about an activist court. They took a very narrow issue about an anti-candidate documentary and came up with "corporations are people and money is speech". If money is speech, then the rest of us are in trouble.
Artisty, Rick Scott's voter roll purge has met opposition. All 67 voter registration district heads (I don't know their title) have decided to oppose the action. The rolls cannot be purged unless they give the go ahead. They are refusing on the grounds that the voter purge list is so faulty that they cannot work with it. Also, a Florida court ruled that the new rules for voter registration are unlawful. This was law that says if you collect voter registration cards you have to turn them in within 48 hours or you will be considered a felon. A teacher got caught up in the law. She had students fill out cards as part of the civics class but turned them in after the 48 hours. They were going to press charges. How silly is that?
I always thought the point of democracy was to have as many citizens as possible voting. Not just the elite.
#17
Posted 10 June 2012 - 02:20 AM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 09 June 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:
Change starts at the bottom, not the top. When enough people get together, then their voices are heard. Just as artistry mentioned about the bank fees. What did the banks care if they lose one customer? Lose a few thousand and it starts to hurt a little.
We do need an amendment to fix this mess. Talk about an activist court. They took a very narrow issue about an anti-candidate documentary and came up with "corporations are people and money is speech". If money is speech, then the rest of us are in trouble.
Artisty, Rick Scott's voter roll purge has met opposition. All 67 voter registration district heads (I don't know their title) have decided to oppose the action. The rolls cannot be purged unless they give the go ahead. They are refusing on the grounds that the voter purge list is so faulty that they cannot work with it. Also, a Florida court ruled that the new rules for voter registration are unlawful. This was law that says if you collect voter registration cards you have to turn them in within 48 hours or you will be considered a felon. A teacher got caught up in the law. She had students fill out cards as part of the civics class but turned them in after the 48 hours. They were going to press charges. How silly is that?
I always thought the point of democracy was to have as many citizens as possible voting. Not just the elite.
We do need an amendment to fix this mess. Talk about an activist court. They took a very narrow issue about an anti-candidate documentary and came up with "corporations are people and money is speech". If money is speech, then the rest of us are in trouble.
Artisty, Rick Scott's voter roll purge has met opposition. All 67 voter registration district heads (I don't know their title) have decided to oppose the action. The rolls cannot be purged unless they give the go ahead. They are refusing on the grounds that the voter purge list is so faulty that they cannot work with it. Also, a Florida court ruled that the new rules for voter registration are unlawful. This was law that says if you collect voter registration cards you have to turn them in within 48 hours or you will be considered a felon. A teacher got caught up in the law. She had students fill out cards as part of the civics class but turned them in after the 48 hours. They were going to press charges. How silly is that?
I always thought the point of democracy was to have as many citizens as possible voting. Not just the elite.
attorney general said not to.
And don't forget the hanging chads that forced us to have bushwacher. Ouch. Florida's "election" folks are nuts
(to put it nicely)
#20
Posted 25 June 2012 - 05:44 PM
Shortpoet, that is my thought, that they will purge the rolls anyway. In total thirty states, are trying to suppress voter turnout. And yes, today the Montana fight against Citizen's United was tossed by the Supreme Court.
FamilyTreeClimber, democracy as we know it is under full seige.
FamilyTreeClimber, democracy as we know it is under full seige.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users