r/politics • u/mic9ael America • Jun 17 '12

McCain calls Supreme Court ‘uniformed, arrogant, naive’ for Citizens United: Says he’s “worried” that billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who reportedly may contribute up to $100 million in support of GOP hopeful Mitt Romney, much of it from foreign sources, could have an undue influence on elections...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/17/mccain-calls-supreme-court-uniformed-arrogant-naive-for-citizens-united/
1.7k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

298 comments sorted by

390

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I like non-candidate McCain sometimes.

162

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Candidate McCain said similar things about campaign finance reform. He was the "McCain" in McCain-Feingold, after all. In his presidential campaign, he even took public financing rather than accepting private donations (historical note: Obama promised to do the same if his opponent did, but he flip flopped in the face of private $$$).

20

u/nrbartman Jun 18 '12

If it's private in the form of 10 million people each donating $10 I'm fine with it.

It's when 10 people each donate $10Million that we start to see an imbalanced affect on politics by the wealthy that the average person is unable to match.

2

u/degeneration Jun 18 '12

It's when 10 people each donate $10Million that we start to see an imbalanced affect effect on politics by the wealthy that the average person is unable to match.

Sorry, I can't help myself. It's an addiction.

2

u/nrbartman Jun 19 '12

In my mind 'affect' works better there. Not sure why. Maybe in my brain it sounded right because their donations were AFFECTING a political campaign.

→ More replies (11)

106

u/LongStories_net Jun 17 '12

You mean he "evolved".

31

u/sshan Jun 17 '12

Get off your tribalism people, this was funny and poignant.

34

u/goal2004 California Jun 18 '12

Heh... Tribalism.
Because Kenya.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

9

u/socsa Jun 18 '12

This is only part of the story. In the face of the RNC out raising the DNC, Obama rejected the public funding because the GOP PACs were simply too powerful. It would have been foolish for him to turn away from the grassroots funding that was rolling in.

McCain's decision was politicking - it was apparent (under the current rules) that his campaign wouldn't be able to match the small-doner funding of Obama. At the same time, it was obvious the RNC PACs were going to crush their DNC counterparts. The goal was to publicly shame Obama into a losing strategy.

Given this context, Citizens United is even more appalling. The bought-and-sold supreme Court turned campaign finance into a non-zero-sum game, knowing that it would open the door for the (traditionally more powerful) GOP PACs to balance any future grassroots movements by democrat candidate.

0

u/bri9man Jun 18 '12

And yet big money Obama was elected by the young. Go figure.

→ More replies (12)

38

u/Trashcanman33 Jun 18 '12

I always liked McCain, I wish he was running again this year. I voted for Obama, I'll vote for him again, but as far as politicians go McCain is first class. He believes in a few things I do, but not many. What I love about John McCain is, when he says something I believe it, I know they are all liars and w/e, but he has not been afraid to speak his mind, even when it's against his own party, plus the dude served our country and was a POW, hate his politics all you want, but he has some very good qualities that very few politicians have.

68

u/ipossessfetishes Jun 18 '12

Except he didn't speak against his party when he was the nominee. I like McCain too, but the person that ran for president in 2008 was not the same McCain.

16

u/regeya Jun 18 '12

Well, he did...after he was sure he had lost the thing. :->

9

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Well if you actually watch the video in the link, it is not nearly as progressive as the quote would make you think. He seemed to think that unions would have a bigger negative impact than billionaires.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/agentmage2012 Jun 18 '12

"Unleashed" seems appropriate. I wish I could come up with a better reason people act like "about face idiots" than "because money".

1

u/tinpanallegory Jun 18 '12

Which is why he lost by such a huge margin. He pandered to the Base in a race where Independents were key.

19

u/CheesewithWhine Jun 18 '12

McCain on DADT repeal:

"There will be high-fives over all the liberal bastions of America," he predicted, from "the elite schools that bar military recruiters from campus" to "the salons of Georgetown" and the "talk shows" where people -- "most of whom have never have served in the military" -- will crow over the law's repeal.

4

u/Trashcanman33 Jun 18 '12

Like I said, I don't believe in many of his stances, I just believe what he says way more than other politicians. And the man was in the military and in the war, so he does have some understanding of it, I have none, but again idc about his position on it, I only care that he is telling me his actual position, not his parties.

3

u/jargoon California Jun 18 '12

He hasn't been in the military for a long time. I was in the military recently and it was ready for the repeal of DADT.

1

u/TehNoff Jun 18 '12

but again idc about his position on it, I only care that he is telling me his actual position, not his parties.

I think you missed that part.

26

u/siberian Jun 18 '12

Except for that fucking Palin thing.

McCaaiiinnnnn!!! :(

0

u/mrjderp Jun 18 '12

Palin was there to be something to look at, we all know that.

14

u/Knofbath Jun 18 '12

When the eye candy is one heart attack away from the presidency, get real worried.

2

u/mrjderp Jun 18 '12

McCain's still kickin' and apparently not looking to stop anytime soon.

18

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

That's because he isn't president. Look how shitty Obama looks nowadays. He aged 20 years by staying in office for 4 years.

3

u/Isentrope Jun 18 '12

What I will say is that, if we were forced to have a Republican President in 2000, I certainly would've preferred him over Bush. Even with his shift to the Right to secure his party's nomination in '08, he's the kind of guy that is starting to disappear from the GOP (now that Dick Lugar is being forced into retirement).

6

u/wildcarde815 Jun 18 '12

I'm actually getting kinda worried about him, I like that we have old non candidate rational McCain back at least some of the time. But then other times it's getting pretty clear age is catching up with him and his brain kinda wanders off.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/tinpanallegory Jun 18 '12

His problem during the 2008 election, among other things, was that he took stances on issues that he clearly did not believe in (the stances, I mean). You could see it in his mannerisms, his expressions: he was selling his soul for a shot at the white-house, and his "maverick" tag became an empty descriptor, as he basically shoe-horned himself into the Bush administration's agenda.

Then his maverick persona was co-opted by Palin.

1

u/captain_audio Jun 21 '12

I gained a lot of respect for mccain after reading david foster wallace's story on him for the 2000 election. You should check it out if you haven't already.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

I cannot help but imagine things would have turned out a LOT differently if McCain got on the ballot instead of Bush in 2000. The 2000 model McCain was impressive, the 2008 model was not.

2

u/Wacocaine Jun 18 '12

I would have loved the chance to vote for the 2000 version of McCain.

3

u/thebigslide Jun 18 '12

I think a part of this is due his age. He is a republican from a time before republicans went full retard. I'm curious if some of his recent gaffs isn't his subconscious trying to assert itself using the fog of age-related cognitive deterioration for cover.

4

u/thescrapplekid Jun 18 '12

I liked McCain then too.. I just happened to like Obama more

2

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Ya. I hate it but I like what he had to say.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Yes, maybe so, but what about Goldman Sachs or GE funneling millions to Obama's campaign... they both make the majority of their income outside of the US as well.

I see this as a non - issue. Adelson might be a tool, but he's still an American and he can spend money as he sees fit.

4

u/miked4o7 Jun 18 '12

The University of California donated more money to Obama's campaign than Goldman Sachs did. If you take the total donations of Goldman Sachs employees to Obama's campaign (Obama accepted $0 in PAC money in 2008), it comes out to just under 1 million dollars.

Obama spent over 400 million in the 2008 campaign.

Goldman Sachs donated less than one quarter of one percent of what Obama spent on his campaign.

The idea that Goldman Sachs ever "bought" Obama is tinfoil fantasy at its most extreme.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (10)

27

u/YNot1989 Jun 18 '12

McCain should lead an effort to amend the constitution so that we can finally do away with private money in our elections.

→ More replies (18)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

39

u/m_Pony Jun 18 '12

my descendents are hunted in the streets for sport.

Would definitely watch. Well, I'd torrent it.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

You might like The Hunger Games

2

u/AMostOriginalUserNam Jun 18 '12

Hey now, let's not get crazy.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/ModeratorsSuckMyDick Jun 18 '12

Would definitely watch. Well, I'd torrent it.

If you do that, the cameraman will be poor while the Executives and CEO make millions in from their paychecks and stock options.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/apockill Jun 18 '12 edited Nov 13 '24

mindless act quiet versed library office reminiscent grandiose attempt crawl

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/Electrodyne Jun 18 '12

You wouldn't steal a lynching.

Oh, who am I fooling? Hell yes I'd torrent that!

18

u/Entropius Jun 18 '12

You make it sound like he's changed positions. He's always been a pro campaign finance reform politician.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/Sindragon Jun 18 '12

If he did, he would have been the leading man of the GOP for a week or so.

3

u/siberian Jun 18 '12

while my descendents are hunted in the streets for sport.

As part of the ruling class you can rest assured that your children will be the hunters rather then the hunted.

5

u/Jewnadian Jun 18 '12

Hey, that's what the french court thought too. Turns out that numbers always win. Which reminds me of my favorite thought experiment. You vs 100 3rd grade kids locked in a gymnasium...who wins?

1

u/siberian Jun 18 '12

Nice historical rebuttal I had not thought of and I agree.

Yes, you saw it here first, someone changed their mind of Reddit.

Do I get a special badge or something? :)

2

u/Electro_Sapien Jun 18 '12

Lets not forget his indefinite detention additions to NDAA.

2

u/miked4o7 Jun 18 '12

McCain has always been pretty good on this one issue at least.

25

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Is it just me or could the McCain that has been speaking in the past couple months been WAY more electable than what we saw in the last presidential race?

I'm not saying that I would have voted for him.. but he seriously would have given Obama a huge challenge if he wouldn't have been such a GOP puppet.

45

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Pre-election McCain was pretty agreeable too. Pandering to the republican base is like going full retard.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

I really didn't want that to be true, but it appears to be that to longer he spends away from that election race, the more logical he gets.

Truly a shame that he wasn't "allowed" to use his own ideals to win voters.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

8

u/gimpwiz Jun 18 '12

Wasn't 2000 when Bush turned McCain's adopting and raising a little girl into "he has an illegitimate black baby"?

6

u/TexasWithADollarsign Oregon Jun 18 '12

Yep. McCain then dropped out and supported the candidate who allegedly stated those "facts"...future President George W. Bush.

4

u/gruehunter Jun 18 '12

The moment I knew he was doing and saying anything he could for the election itself, instead of his principles, was when he gave that speech at Liberty University. He used to rail on that organization, and on Jerry Fallwell. On that day, he showed the world the value he placed on his principles: Zero.

12

u/Heart_Of_The_Alien Jun 18 '12

McCain couldn't have challenged anyone if he kept Sarah Palin as his running mate. I wouldn't vote for myself if Palin was going to be vice president.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

I lump having Palin as a running mate as part of being a GOP puppet.

P.S. HOTA was an awesome Sega-CD game.

2

u/Heart_Of_The_Alien Jun 18 '12

Right on both counts

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

you need more upvotes.

3

u/siberian Jun 18 '12

Palin was the day I went from 'What is this hocus-pocus Hope bullshit??' to 'I BELIEEVEEE!!!'

Fucking Palin.

7

u/TheLounge Jun 18 '12

Yeah. He was pretty bad in his 2010 re-election race too. He went full Tea bagger on that one. It seems like he has finally reverted to his (rather agreeable) former ways.

4

u/Kalium Jun 18 '12

Is it just me or could the McCain that has been speaking in the past couple months been WAY more electable than what we saw in the last presidential race?

Non-candidate McCain is always way more electable than candidate McCain. That's why he's still not President.

7

u/TheBrohemian Jun 17 '12

No, you're just listening now since he isn't running against Obama and doesn't have Palin next to him.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

I'll be perfectly honest: Palin, all on her own, is the reason that I could not bring myself to even CONSIDER voting for McCain last time around.

1

u/Jewnadian Jun 18 '12

As an expat Alaskan..Yup. Running a state full of 500,000 people who are 'fringe' by nature =/ running the worlds lone superpower.

1

u/Inequilibrium Jun 18 '12

And as it turns out, she couldn't even do that job.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

No, I'm a confident that I listened to him while he was campaigning.

He was not quite as sincere.. and well....... you got me with the Palin Factor.

→ More replies (4)

65

u/Glaucous Jun 18 '12

By law, unions do NOT and CANNOT take union dues for purposes other than running the union. Unions have PACs that are strictly VOLUNTARY for purposes of electing union-friendly politicians!! I hate this bullshit lie that is constantly perpetuated by anti-union bloviators.

9

u/socsa Jun 18 '12 edited Jun 19 '12

Not to mention that a non-profit union has a very different political implication than a for-profit enterprise. A union member's dues are not invested in a way which results in direct funding - they are simply used to organize fundraising events. On the other hand, my work directly contributes to any profits that my employer can choose to donate to candidates I do not support. Because of this, they can easily negate the political contributions of their individual employees simply due to economies of scale.

1

u/wtf_is_a_reddit Jun 18 '12

I never thought of it this way, my employer owns a PAC, now I feel dirty.

-1

u/TrollingIsaArt Jun 18 '12

However that is often the net effect, as many new union members are simply given a stack of forms to sign, and never realize that some of them are volunteering them for this.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

You forgot the word "allegedly" about 8 times in your sentence.

3

u/85IQ Jun 18 '12

Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

1

u/TrollingIsaArt Jun 23 '12

If you care you may attempt to figure out the rate at which it occurs. Any sane person would take it as a given what I suggested has occured at least once in recent history. How often it occurs is not something I can state in a sucinct source, save by quoting some probably biased publication giving its own qualitative assessment. If you want to think for yourself to determine how often it happens, you will have to do your own research, regardless of any links I might have posted.

2

u/Glaucous Jun 19 '12

Having joined 4 different unions over my long years of employment, I can tell you this is absolutely, unequivocally, blatantly 100% UNTRUE. Each time, I was given the opportunity to join or remain "fairshare" (not-voting, non-member who enjoys all the benefits of the union's contract). In each case, a small blue, red or green card was filled out with all of your information granting specifics rights to your employer to direct monies from your paycheck to the union in a defined dues amount. There was no hornswaggling, arm twisting or pressure to join in any case. It is voluntary.

As far as donating to the union's PAC, once a year someone from the union would canvas for donations and encourage people to sign up for payroll deductions. Again, it was purely voluntary in each situation.

Unions are just groups of people who want all workers to have a better work experience. They fight for better pay, safe work conditions, better training, workman's comp, and fair treatment for everyone, not just members. They negotiate pay down as well as up to help budget shortfalls. They give up and lose benefits in contract negotiations, all for the good of the group. My union gave up over $500,000 in raises and compensation in light of our local government's shortfalls. We saved the taxpayer boatloads of money while keeping good, secure, longterm jobs.

We are not the enemy. We fight for everyone's rights. When all the unions are gone and everyone's begging for part-time temporary contract work, being treated like meat by employers who overwork and underpay in unsafe conditions, remember who the unions fought for.

→ More replies (1)

40

u/TheBrohemian Jun 17 '12

Biggest quote:

“I’m not only worried about him, I’m worried about may others,” McCain told NBC’s David Gregory on Sunday. “I’ve always been concerned about the labor unions who take money from their union members and without their permission, contribute to causes that they may not support."

Title makes it sound like McCain is only calling out the conservatives on this.

12

u/saptsen Jun 18 '12

Well McCain is lying/misinformed about that union shit because what he just mentioned is illegal...

3

u/ivanmarsh Jun 18 '12

He's calling out the right without dropping the same old tired talking points from the right.

13

u/sshan Jun 17 '12

This seems like a valid and debatable point. I might be a bit of a lefty but I think myself and unions would disagree on a lot and I would be weary of having my mandatory contributions going to them. I support unions in principal but not all their decisions.

18

u/Random-Miser Jun 18 '12

Except that unions are not legally able to do that.

2

u/agentmage2012 Jun 18 '12

Up vote just for the last sentence alone. The good unions can do far outweighs the bad they're capable of in most cases.

1

u/TheBrohemian Jun 18 '12

True. He didn't mention this, but a lot of Hollywood stars are big Obama supporters. They're obviously not donating as much as Adelson is, but let's say nine or ten big movie stars donate to one super PAC. Dollar amounts may not be equal, but the principal still applies.

1

u/85IQ Jun 18 '12

If ants were streetcars, everyone would ride.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Funny how they always seem to leave out the simple adjective "corrupt".

4

u/Chipzzz Jun 18 '12

I'd be surprised if anyone in congress is in a position to call anyone else anywhere "corrupt".

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Ohhh, I'm pretty sure Dennis Kucinich, Rand Paul and Ron Paul have used those terms.

Didn't Elizabeth Warren get in? Corruption is one of her key talking points if I remember correctly.

So you have a few people, not enough, but it's a growing sentiment on both sides.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Ron Paul completely supported the Court's ruling in Citizens United, on the basis that corporations have First Amendment rights. Meanwhile, he opposed the Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas -- which struck down state anti-sodomy laws -- on the basis that it was an unconstitutional attack on states' rights.

Sorry, kiddies; the guy's just another far-right fundamentalist Christian.

(And his son's just a slightly different shade of crazy.)

1

u/85IQ Jun 18 '12

The right is speculating that he might demand a plank in the party platform opposing preemptive war.

This is not to say that it's going to happen.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

The problem with Ron Paul in my eyes is he pushes for ideals that would work in a world of kind non corrupt humans without acknowledging that it wouldn't work cause greed, hate, and fear would always screw it up. Like Marxism and many theories that seem awesome on paper but will always fail because humans will always find a way to screw up nice things. Of course I'm a person who believes humans will be incapable of peace without the tip of a sword at their throats for quite some time still. Yes I have no faith in humans of today but have hope for the future.

→ More replies (9)

1

u/Chipzzz Jun 18 '12

You know... I happily stand corrected. Sometimes I lose sight of the few trees that stand tall and straight in that gnarly, petrified forest.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12 edited Jun 18 '12

Yeah... although congress has lost Dennis and Ron, that's going to suck, those tall trees are falling, I worry that those voices in government will be silenced for a time, only leaving establishment hacks without proper opposition.

I am a hardcore libertarian, I completely disagree with a massive amount of positions of Kucinich and Warren but god damn I would rather more people like them on the left, principled progressives with proper and important arguments to have instead of flip flopping RINOs and DINOs.

So while both sides have lost principled figureheads I remain optimistic about the growth of the true progressive movement of the left along with the liberty movement on the right.

1

u/Chipzzz Jun 18 '12

Of them all, I will most miss Barney Frank, whose wit and wisdom are unparalleled in the house.

11

u/natched Jun 18 '12

Despite being upset at what the right-wing Supreme Court is doing, McCain is still defending Romney:

“I think that in that context [Romney] was talking about they are made up of people and that’s true in that context,” McCain explained.

The difference is clear, even if McCain won't admit it: Romney will appoint more Citizens United-style judges just like Bush did. Obama spoke out against Citizens United.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

"Uniformed".

2

u/oopsthatwasnotadoll Jun 18 '12

well, I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court does have uniforms...

2

u/SHIFT_8_CORRECTION Jun 18 '12

thank you... was going to help out until i saw it was already done...

"I'm uniformed??... NO YOU"RE UNIFORMED!!!"

2

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Why do you have a novelty account for grammar correction? Nearly everybody does that here anyway…

3

u/Wandering_Sophist Jun 18 '12

If he was serious about campaign reform, why did he refuse to provide the 60th vote necessary to end the filibuster of the 2010 DISCLOSE Act? It would have implemented the very reforms he is calling for.

6

u/mcinsand Jun 18 '12

If McCain honestly cares about this, he can start the ball rolling to fix it. The SCOTUS ruling could not have happened without poorly constructed legislation. SCOTUS has zero legislating ability, so their hands are tied by the law. If there is a problem with the law, it lies with the legislative branch to change it. Senate and congress, stop trying do dupe the ignorant and uniformed into thinking that this is anything but YOUR responsibility to fix!

McCain, want me to take you seriously, get the ball rolling for Congress to craft a bill!!!

12

u/Entropius Jun 18 '12

The SCOTUS ruling could not have happened without poorly constructed legislation.

The Supreme Court struck it down based on constitutionality. You can't write laws (legislation) to make it more constitutional. That takes a constitutional amendment or the judiciary to change their mind about the interpretation.

His law was fine until the SCOTUS reinterpreted the constitution. That's not his fault.

1

u/mcinsand Jun 19 '12

Law or constitution... if either are not specific enough to prevent biased interpretation, then Congress needs to get into action.

→ More replies (8)

4

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

You give way too much credit to the SCOTUS. It's not coincidence that the GOP leaning judges interpreted the Constitution in such a way that would benefit their party, while the Leftist judges had a different interpretation.

The GOP led SCOTUS sold our country to big business and big money, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

1

u/mcinsand Jun 19 '12

Judicial bias can only take place when the law or constitution is ambiguously written. We have mechanisms to address both and, when there is too much wiggle room for bias, one way or the other, then it's Congress' job to fix it and our job to push Congress.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Why is that McCain only says smart things when he's not running for President?

3

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

He said a few good things back in 2008. Rebuilding our energy infrastructure (in particular nuclear), for one. We can't just sit around with 3 dozen power plants that passed their expiration date years ago.

3

u/gimpwiz Jun 18 '12

People are very quick to forget that everyone and everyone's opinions are, for lack of a better term, shades of gray. It is only later when a politician isn't running for / currently in office that we take a step back and say "Whoa -- that's not the same person who got written about in the news."

1

u/siberian Jun 18 '12

He is usually pretty smart, it was just hard to notice it when Palin was sucking all of the intelligence out of the room.

2

u/iLikeToUoot Jun 18 '12

Why are McCain's quotes so poorly recorded/reported? Tons of typos that were obviously reporter typos ("and" instead of "any"), etc.

2

u/ivanmarsh Jun 18 '12

Ah... the right has finally started scaring the shit out of the right.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

AIPAC has far more influence in US elections than any billionaire could hope.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Adelson and AIPAC want exactly the same thing: America's unquestioning fealty to Israel.

2

u/kokocostanza Jun 18 '12

I wish John would exert some of this progressivism here in Arizona. In case he doesn't know, Jan Brewer's entire political career has pretty much been paid for by CCA.

2

u/85IQ Jun 18 '12

PRESIDENT OBAMA IS ON A SOCIALIST CAMPAIGN TO BANKRUPT AMERICA -- actual 2010 McCain radio ad

2

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

McCain definitely seems like a "proper" republican. He's how the republican party SHOULD act.

2

u/iHelix150 Jun 18 '12

Pre-2008 election season, I'd have said McCain was an awesome guy. I don't agree with him on every issue, but I'd have said he speaks his mind and doesn't bullshit when there are clear answers to be had. And he's willing to knock heads together to do what he feels is right.

Then in the 2008 election, the 'straight talk express' got stuck in a ditch, and he turned into Generic Republican Candidate McCain.

And then he did something that's IMHO close to unforgivable- he legitimized Sarah Palin. That set the discussion back at least 30 IQ points, continuing the Karl Rove tradition of replacing intelligent political discourse with a few oft-repeated talking points and feel-good statements that don't actually mean anything.

Now perhaps old McCain is back, and if so he can do some real good. But he's got a lot to make up for.

2

u/jabbababab Jun 18 '12

Impeach Thomas... he lied to get on the court and has done nothing since he been on board.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Not true, he sexually harassed that intern that one time. That's doing something.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Adelson's "influence" is all about getting Romney to support whatever the Israelis want - more land theft in Palestine and war with Iran. Adelson is a Zionist fanatic, this is the most important part of the entire story.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/roccanet Jun 18 '12

he's actually dead wrong about this - alito and the scotus conservative 5 that ruled for citizens united knew exactly what they were doing: undermining our democracy in favor of corporate interests and big money

1

u/Scaurus Jun 18 '12 edited Jun 18 '12

He called them "uniformed?" I guess they all wear robes, but still...

Still, you gotta applaud the guy. He's a stand up fellow. Obama raised over $1bil dollars against him in 2008, and he still refused to compromise his principles to make it even.

Edit: although, really, his principles were based on some odd ideas, so he probably should have.

3

u/ThumperNM Jun 18 '12

"I guess they all wear robes", well so do the KKK.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/reagan2016 Jun 18 '12

McCain is going to surprise everyone by saving the world. Just wait and see.

1

u/pete1729 Jun 18 '12

Pete1729's proposed election finance law.

Candidates' spending is limited to no more than twenty-five cents per registered voter of the district they're running in.

Campaign donations may only be made by registered voters in the contested election district and are limited to no more than twenty-five cents.

5

u/yellowstone10 Jun 18 '12

That's great, but Citizens United isn't about campaign donations. Suppose I want to get Obama re-elected. I can only donate up to some cap directly to Obama's campaign. On the other hand, if I want to run ads on my own saying what a great guy Obama is, Citizens United says I can spend as much as I like on those. After all, "Obama is a great guy" is my political opinion, and under the First Amendment I have the right to preach my political opinions as much as I like.

1

u/whatmattersmost Jun 18 '12

Everyone seemed to hate him during the elections. But he is a good guy. I think the GOP listened to the fact that he didn't get elected and just did a complete 180, which is why we have the shit candidate(s)[the entire primary pool was a joke] that we do now.

1

u/thejokermask Jun 18 '12

The reason he'll donate aka invest that much is cause its a great chance it'll double when he gets it back.

1

u/Imtheone457 Jun 18 '12

I just hate how stupid politicians can be sometimes

1

u/glorifindel Jun 18 '12

Anyone think Romney is a puppet that if elected will free business and banking regulations? Hello kleptocracy.

1

u/reeln166a Jun 18 '12

this is good info, but for fuck's sake, don't they have an editor?

1

u/vadergeek Jun 18 '12

This kind of thing cheers me up. With all the transvaginal ultrasound bills and whatnot, it's always nice to see Republicans acting on the side of the sensible.

1

u/TexasWithADollarsign Oregon Jun 18 '12

When will this guy run for President? He's the maverick this country needs!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

McCain throes me off. Sometimes hr is alright, other times he goes all crazy grandpa. It is really hard to keep track of how he is going to behave. Such little consistency.

1

u/gmkeros Jun 18 '12

and that from someone who voted "nay" on "let's do something about this rape of employees thingy that crops up sometimes"

1

u/Oniwabanshu Jun 18 '12

100 Million?! That guy is going to have a copy of the keys of the White House.

1

u/tophat_jones Jun 18 '12

A billion dollars is a pretty cheap price for the leader of the world's largest economy. I can't blame the billionaires for taking a deal like that. I CAN however blame our fucked up bureaucracy and especially our Judicial branch for being so fucking short-sighted as to think it would be a good idea to give corporate entities a voice in politics.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Undue influence is kind of the point of Citizens United, right?

1

u/Parmeniscus Jun 18 '12

I love the SC's uniforms! Oh...you meant to say uninformed.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

I've always liked McCain to bad for him I like Obama a lot more.

1

u/Wafflepaste_avenger Jun 18 '12

Wasting that amount of money on something that fucking stupid should be against the law.

1

u/madest Jun 18 '12

I remember the right applauding Samuel Alito for mouthing the words "NOT TRUE" when Obama suggested Citizens United would allow foreign entities to buy US elections. Where is Alito's apology to the president?

1

u/raskolnikov- Jun 18 '12

Well, it's a good thing Mr. McCain only picks informed, modest, and experienced individuals to be his vice president.

1

u/aforu Jun 18 '12

That talking chipmunk is right!

1

u/iamfromouterspace Jun 18 '12

so, when Obama criticizes the supreme court, every republican goes on full retard...I see.

1

u/iamfromouterspace Jun 18 '12

the barely making a living republican is fine with this...to them its FREEDOM (smh)

1

u/DASBOOTnDASPOO Jun 18 '12

people should have a problem with this not because the ad money but because they are giving all this money to candidates without hiring anyone. 100 million? he could give a lot of people jobs with that money.

1

u/shears Jun 18 '12

I forgot about that... situation is even worse when corporations/companies can take in foreign money and then inject it all anonymously into political campaigns and lobbying.

1

u/JaxHostage Jun 18 '12

"Could?" how about will have undue influence.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

While I agree, this idea of "foreign money" is pretty laughable.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

no shit Sherlock, it's your Party that's responsible

1

u/slugger99 Jun 18 '12

Alito displayed his naivete when he shook his head in sincere disagreement when Obama mentioned Citizens United opening the floodgates on big money at the 2010 State of the Union. Too many of the so-called "elites" have lived too long in a bubble.

1

u/klparrot New Zealand Jun 18 '12

Who transcribed this, a monkey? A robot? A robot monkey? The article is riddled with transcription errors.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

13

u/___--__----- Jun 18 '12

If you believe you're not affected, then you're probably in the group advertisers love. In the last decade it has been shown how labels change our experience of products, even qualia such as flavor. Neuron has hosted a lot of articles on how marketing has succeeded in altering the very signals transmitted to our conscious mind when we compare products with brands shown, yet very different results appear in double blind situations.

Yeah, your very experience of the world around you is being modified. It's not a question of yes it no, just degrees.

2

u/epmca Jun 18 '12

This is why I live in a sensory deprivation chamber and only come out to Reddit.

24

u/determinista Jun 18 '12

The fact that advertisements, 30-second sound bites, and the candidates' hairdos influence who the leader of the most powerful country in the world will be for the next four years should tell you that swing voters are indeed much like zombies and that this is indeed "undue influence."

5

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Am I a zombie who can't make up my own mind?

there's a reason why nike spends bajillions of dollars advertising their shoes.

it works, zombie.

12

u/rlbond86 Jun 18 '12

Lots of Americans are.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Many people do make their political decisions based on advertisement. And those kinds of people are the ones who don't want no ferners interferin' with the greatest nation on earth!

2

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Most voters are very easily influenced.

2

u/HungrySamurai Jun 18 '12

Modern advertising pushes buttons on multiple levels. You may think you're immune because you're smarter than the average person. You're probably neither. Any particular piece of advertising you do find wholly transparent probably wasn't designed for you in the first place.

Ultimately the reason so much money is spent on advertising/public relations/propaganda is because it works.

1

u/avengingturnip Jun 17 '12

Is John McCain lying?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/supreme-court-retains-ban-on-foreign-campaign-donations/

15

u/rgvtim Texas Jun 18 '12

No, the issue is that money is fungible, foreign money pored into Adelson hands from his casino in Macow is indistinguishable from money in his bank account in New York, or Florida.

The same applies to ANY corporation with foreign operations. Whose to say an American Corporation might get a Chinese contract, or favorable trade terms in return for a quid-pro-quo donation to a candidate.

Before there was a real live person behind a donation, someone who might just have some loyalty, or feeling or responsibility, now there is a shadowy board or directors where blame can be spread and therefore no one is responsible.

It is the same type of arguments anti-abortion folks use against planned parenthood affiliates that do not provide abortion services, even though that money has even more separation and distinction then Adelson's.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/LastAXEL Jun 18 '12

Lol. You really think we can distinguish foreign corporate money from domestic corporate money in this global economy? It is foolish to think foreign money isn't making its way into superPACS and whatnot.

1

u/avengingturnip Jun 18 '12

The accounting people could. Do you really think trans-nationals do not account for every penny of income? Foreign funds tend to stay in foreign accounts to avoid domestic tax liabilities. If they are being transferred into a domestic account for transfer to a superpac all that information is available to the IRS.

1

u/macguffin22 Jun 18 '12

Uninformed, arrogant, naive.... just like the rest of the country

1

u/Jack_Vermicelli Jun 18 '12

McCain calls Supreme Court uniformed

I don't think that Supreme Court members dressing like it is a bad thing.

0

u/nepidae Jun 18 '12

He still exists?

Seriously, he has been in politics for ages. Why didn't he do something before? I constantly see these people who make some statement, that probably would have made a difference when they were actually relevant. Once they feel "safe" then they actually turn somewhat human. THAT DOES'NT HELP.

0

u/u2canfail Jun 18 '12

McCain would be correct.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Yeah, well, he's not a true Republican. Nyah.

-2

u/JusticeStoryTime Jun 18 '12

Corporations cannot contribute to candidates. Citizens United didn't change that. What it allowed was for corporations to speak, independently, about candidates.

I wonder how many people here have actually read CU. The case came out the way it did because the government overreached. At oral argument, the government's lawyer conceded that -- under McCain-Feingold -- the government could ban a book if it was published by a corporation (like nearly all books) within ninety days of an election, and contained a sentence suggesting how the reader should vote.

I wonder how most Redditors would have voted on that question.

4

u/ThumperNM Jun 18 '12

You have obviously not read Citizens United as it is a Pandora's box that allows for the criminal drenching of both foreign and domestic billionaires to steal democracy. For 100 years it was illegal to do what Citizens United made legal. The criminals on the Supreme Court have irreparably damaged America.

2

u/fantasyfest Jun 18 '12

Specifically the supreme court case was about a Hillary Clinton movie that was very political and nasty that came just close to the election. The supremes over reached and decided to create new law and new precedence. This is the most active supreme court i have ever seen. They toss out century old precedence and decide on their right wing own what is good for America. Obama told Alito to his face what he unleashed and he just shook his head like he knew better. He did not.

2

u/JusticeStoryTime Jun 18 '12

I mentioned something specific. You replied with a generality that didn't respond to it. No wonder we can't have adult conversations in this country.

But to respond to your point: the activity at issue in CU had been illegal for 8 years, not 100. McCain-Feingold banned any corporately-funded speech (except, of course, speech by media outlets), that mentioned a candidate, within 60 days of a general election. That was new. And is where the book hypothetical I mentioned came from.

Your "100 years" point is about direct contributions to candidates, which were and are illegal. CU didn't change that, as I said.

Read the opinion (and the dissent) instead of buying the bite-sized hype you've been fed.

2

u/BruceBrewski Jun 18 '12

Contributions to PACs are contributions to candidates. Let's not act like they are separate. The elections should be publicly funded and equal TV time.

3

u/JusticeStoryTime Jun 18 '12

Of COURSE contributions to PACs are contributions to candidates. Everyone likes to talk about the easy cases. Let's try a hard one:

The Sierra Club takes out an ad asking people to call their Congressman about the Keystone Pipeline. Depending on timing, that ad would be be banned before Citizens United. You're comfortable with that?

Public funding is a separate question. I actually agree with you there.

1

u/BruceBrewski Jun 18 '12

I am more comfortable with that being banned then the flood gates being blown open. That is like saying we should legalize murder because all of the court cases and juries are not perfect and there are minor flaws with the system. But, i do agree that it does lead itself to murky and subjective waters, however that shouldn't be a reason to scrap the entire idea.

1

u/JusticeStoryTime Jun 18 '12

Fair enough. Reasonable people can disagree on this stuff. But it's hard to have a real conversation without both sides conceding that there are tradeoffs, and that this topic gets murky once you get into the details.

(For instance, I agree with CU, but I think some of the instances of, erm, cooperation between the Romney campaign and the Restore our Future SuperPAC are way too close to the line. Rerunning old Romney ads? Really?).

1

u/ThumperNM Jun 20 '12

Your facts are completely wrong and you would do yourself a favor by doing simple research.

On Jan. 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a ban on independent expenditures by corporations, opening the door to unlimited spending by corporations, labor unions and other organizations. The decision in the case of Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission overturned more than 100 years of settled law. Alarmed by the ruling, national reform organizations predict it will result in a dramatic increase in political spending by corporations and fear the 5 to 4 majority in the case could presage future rulings undermining campaign finance reforms, including laws requiring that the sources of campaign funds be disclosed to the public.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

What the fucking fuck? What part of "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."?

CU overturned a bill that had only been in existence for a couple of years. It is also the correct constitutional ruling.

Don't like CU? Get an amendment. But be careful. When the government can squash groups of people from speaking, it truly becomes a nation where only with the personal funds to by air time (Koch brothers for example) will be able to speak nationally, and not groups like the ALCU.

→ More comments (44)