Let's look at the reality of it.  

The Koch Brothers have made it very clear they plan to spend $1 BILLION dollars to put Conservative candidates they approve of in office. If they annoint Jeb , then their money combined with Bush coffers could prove insurmountable in the General election. Whoever gains their ultimate favor, the Kochs will have an impact on our political landscape, and it does not give me comfort.

Sheldon Adelson support being tied to a pro-Israel position means his money will not make a difference in the General Election, no matter how many Jewish ZOG conspiracies meinarsche aspires to promote. The schism over Obama's Iran deal will negate much of what has in the past been seen as a strong Democratic leaning demographic. More like 55-45 instead of the 80-20 of previous elections. Too bad the American public can't stomach the idea of a Jewish President.  

Donald Trump can and will spend $1 Billiion of his own money. We know this is true because he says so. (o_O) But until Trump actually does release his tax returns and financial documents, and until he is prepared to put ALL his assets into a blind trust (as the laws require), I'm simply not taking him seriously, but give him credit for being VERY entertaining and providing compelling television. It's a reality show in the making in case you haven't figured it out yet.

The Clinton Super PACS probably have immediate and promised capital of close to $1 Billion of their own. It's Hillary's last best chance to get into the Oval Office. If only she had Bill's approval ratings.

Holy Fucking Are You Kidding Me???

While some of you are jumping out of your skin over Trumps current polling stats, while some of you are spilling Benghazi bilge all over Hillary comments, and did Graham really invoke Monica in New Hampshire? Do you KNOW how lame that is!?

You should REALLY not pay attention to the preliminaries... the clown car parade doesn't really mean shit till the low hanging fruit drops off, much like in March Madness, nobody really cares until the Quarterfinals.

Look at where the money is flowing and from which sources, and that's where you will find who's likely to be driving the clown car come Convention Season.

Until then, its a dog and pony show for ambitious politicians and business people hoping for enough attention to get them their next job in the private sector, or an advance on their book.

How do you follow dark money. As far as we know the Chinese can be funding a candidate to the tune of big bucks enough to have him or her elected. Something has to be done to reverse Citizen's United.  

But, I do agree with you about not taking much of the clown car drama's seriously.

Just keeps getting higher and higher. Only Those who can raise lots of it can play.

Reversing Citizens United should be the top priority for people who genuinely care about democracy.

And, btw, how is it "less democratic" for the SCOTUS to side with the First Amendment? If we are going to err, shouldn't it be in favor of the bill of rights rather than against it?

END OF MESSAGE

but blew it on this issue?

In your defense, the righties seem to be claiming the exact opposite, that the SCOTUS got it right on this issue and blew it on ObambaCare and Gay Marriage.

Personally, I think they blew it on  two of the three cases. I am with you on this one. I don't think that putting elections up to the highest bidder is in our best interests, but the irony is not lost on me that the same people who have been telling us that SCOTUS has spoken and that ObamaCare is now the "law of the land" and we need to just accept it, now believe the Court has blown it because they disagree with the ruling in this case.

For the record, I am not sure the Supremes were on solid legal ground on any of the three decisions, even the one I agree with, but I will admit I am happy that gays can now be just as unhappy as straights.

Or joining an organization? The SCOTUS simply said they shouldn't.

The answer to others free speech isn't less speech, it is more speech.

They sided with the First Amendment.  

That's a good thing, all things considered.

Did you see my post about the 7 toss up senate seats in 2014?

After all, a corporation funded that movie just as much as Citizens United funded “Hillary.” Jimmy Stewart was pretty damn critical of members of Congress, just as CU was critical of Hillary.

        Mr. Smith was fiction. Who funds Jon Stewart? Gulp- it is  a corporation. Is he pure comedy, or partly satire? I’d say he is mostly satire. Satire is political speech.

      If you reverse Citizens United, both Stewarts could be banned by the government.

        Are you sure you want to do that? I have a better idea of dealing with dark money. Why not a federal law requiring full disclosure of donors to corporations and other organizations who engage in political advocacy whether in the form of attack ads or satire. You could do that without running afoul of the First Amendment. That way, if China is funding Jon Stewarts and Colbert’s satire of Republicans, we at least would know.

      There was in fact a federal bill called the Disclosure Act that tried to this. But the Republicans tacked on an amendment that excluded the NRA. That is right, the NRA gets a lot of money from foreigners to fund its political advocacy arm and does not particularly want to disclose who they are. They want to make it look like American citizens are the ones who oppose all gun control.

 
The bill died. Now, we have to guess how much foreign money is fueling those NRA attack ads.

        Citizens United was correctly decided. You can’t ban political speech. Rich guys don't lose their FA rights just bc they are rich. And guys who associate together to form a corporation shouldn't either.  But we can deal with some of the problems created by some tough disclosure laws

working towards regulating political speech on the Internet, in what seems to be heavy handed ways and generally against their present opposition.

Their plan was shelved last year but I read recently (can't find the link) that the Democrats on the FEC are still looking for ways to regulate Drudge, etc.

As I am 100% in favor of what you are saying and advocating on this topic.

Good post.

with respect to corporations and unions.

       Federal law  prohibited corporations from using treasury funds to pay for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. And precedent held that political speech COULD be banned based on the speaker’s identity as a corporation.

        The Supreme Court in Citizens United held that the First Amendment prohibited such complete bans on political speech by a corporation:

 
       “Federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general
treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an "electioneering communication" or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U.S.C. § 441b. Limits on electioneering communications were upheld in McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93, 203-209 (2003). The holding of McConnell rested to a large extent on an earlier case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990). Austin had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity.

  In this case we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell.
We …hold that stare decisis does not compel the continued acceptance of Austin. The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and
disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether. “

 
         So yes the government not only was "trying" to ban corporate political speech but did so. This is why I say the “reverse Citizens United” crowd has it wrong.  The result is the government can ban political speech by corporations. They only way to deal with the problems this creates is through the door the SCOTUS left open – disclaimer and disclosure requirements

I know many have proposed that Mr. Obama sign an executive order that guts Citizen's United but he has so many EOs going it is hard to keep count. Not sure how they could regulate the content of the Druge Report beyond the existing exceptions to FA doctrine.

...You can agree or disagree with the actual decisions, but the Court still has the right to decide the cases.  

Righties scream "judicial activism" when the Court decides cases about rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution (abortion).  That's because they believe in "originalism" or "strict construction" - if it's not in the four corners of the Constitution/Bill of Rights, the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the case.  At least that's what they say when they don't agree with the ruling.

Righties are hypocrites and remain silent when the Court decides that corporations are people and their money = speech.  That's not in the Constitution yet righties don't tear their hair out and scream about judicial activism over the Court's decision when the Court rules in their favor.

Take the Second Amendment...please!  Righties think it's holy and cannot be interpreted, even though we're no longer using single-shot, inaccurate muskets and single-shot pistols.  Both took a long time to load and can't compare to today's automatic weapons.  Righties say that doesn't matter - you can't interpret the Second Amendment other than the way it was written 225 years ago.

But the First Amendment - that's a different story.  The First Amendment clearly applies to people only, yet righty S.C. justices have found somewhere in the First Amendment that corporations are people too and have First Amendment rights just like people.

But you can't be surprised by their hypocrisy.  These are the same family value thumpers who are out screwing hookers as much as any lefty.

The court had to go so far as to defend the "intent of the law" instead of the "letter" in it's last ruling, but ruled originally that the law was a "tax" when supporting it the first time, despite the Administrations earlier insistence to the contrary until it became obvious that it was the only way to save it. Talk about talking out of both sides of one's mouth.

As for the 2nd amendment, it can be argued the founders "intent" was for the citizenry to be armed on a par with the government in order for Government to always be in fear of the citizenry and not the other way around. Somehow the concept of government working for us as opposed to ruling us seems to have gotten lost over the last 225 years ago.

My point is, lefties are every bit the hypocrites they claim the righties are. I am not defending righties where it is plain they are indeed hypocrites, just pointing out that they hardly have a monopoly where it comes to hypocrisy.

In the late 18th century there were people that owned field artillery pieces. When not in service they took them home for storage.  

The case can be made that it was government over-regulation vis-a-vis prohibition that gave rise to criminal gang violence which in turn gave rise to the first ban and regulation of automatic firearms. I'm not suggesting anyone be allowed to own a nuke but the Second Amendment's intent HAS indeed been distorted.

Examine the evolution of free speech vis-a-vis technology:
During the 18th century the circulation of free speech (i.e. it's volume and speed) was restricted to how loud a person could yell or how fast a horse could run with printed material. The intent of the First Amendment's frees speech clause has survived the advancement of the telegraph, telephone, radio, TV and the internet. People do try to argue that basically too much (communication) technology in the hands of the "wrong" people is bad for society. Really no different logic than that which HAS been applied to 2nd Amendment.

This is a radio discussion between the single Republican FCC commissioner Ajit Pai and liberal talk show host Alan Colmes.

Pai was relating some inside information he'd gained in talking to Democrat people he knows at the FEC.

I'm in favor of TOTAL disclosure of donors AND expenditures, amounts donated and spent and where spent and dates; instantly, easily and freely available to anyone. None of this bracketed BS I've seen recently coming from the Clinton Foundation, someone gave between $1,000 and $20,000? Available online instantly and continuously, none of this annual or quarterly reporting. I'd also be in favor of treating equally the decision makers of the corporate donors (President, CEO and board members). I know that's already available but don't make people have to go digging for it. If people and corporations want to participate in the political process, great, but there should be ZERO anonymity and secrecy. This would apply to all politicians and their groups, all PACs, all lobbyists, all corporations and individuals and non-profits (even non-political ones). If you're getting the tax protection you should be 100% transparent.

END OF MESSAGE

And having a right to walk down the street with a machine gun are two fundamentally different propositions.

You need to retread the prefatory clause and see how it qualifies the operative clause of the second amendment.

If you are right, the safe act would be unconstitutional on its face.

...the Constitution - that's judicial activism.  I said you could agree with the decision (Obamacare) or disagree (Citizen's United).  Righties scream "judicial activism!" when the Court rules against them but remain mum when the Court "interprets" the Constitution in their favor without a shred of support in the Constitution.  That's hypocrisy.

BTW - it's fucking hard to type the word "Constitution."

Your attempt to put words in mouth is par for your course.

I wasn't attempting to be "right" about anything in today's time reference. It was a discussion regarding original intent that GaG brought up. I merely added supporting facts to his notion or assertion. Your extrapolation of the idea into today is meaningless as the SCOTUS has for decades already distorted the original intent, which I also did address a portion thereof regarding there support for outlawing civilian automatic weapons 80 years ago.

Another example of distortion of the 2nd Amendment that is closer to today is the present fact that an ACTIVE DUTY, ON DUTY (2 separate things) Army officer or NCO is not allowed to even take his SEMI-AUTOMATIC sidearm back and forth from his own on-base home to/from his daily workplace (unless he his Military Police or assigned to specifically and actively engaged in the protection of something. (paraphrased in case you look it up).

So you see...even the title of your own post (that you seem to classify as a fundamentally sound position) is ILLEGAL today. And not just for a militia member but for an active duty officer that is on duty. I did inject the use of the word "sound". Maybe you'd like to clarify.

I'm offended you would even think I would want a carve out for anyone.

REALLY? My post wasn't assertive enough? Christ!

The fact you believed I could justify an exemption, tells me you probably have one in mind you'd like to see exempted. Who would it be?

BTW, I'm not an NRA member.

ALL non-profit organizations need to be 100% transparent. Get rid of all the IRS designations 501C-xx. How many are there now? 30 different ones? 527 organizations as well (PACS) Make them all tax exempt or all taxable, either way but make them all the same. Even the politcal ones. Then there's no more arguing if certain effort go too far towards being political. If they are all getting a tax exemption and are not attempting to make any profit then there is zero need for any secrecy on their part, so in return they should disclose EVERYTHING. For example, Planned Parenthood has to open their books to everyone. No more guessing whether they perform abortions using federal money. Also, same for churches. No more guessing who got paid off etc. in regards to the Catholic Church's pedophilia episodes.

For-profit organizations on the other hand have certain needs for secrecy that protects their profitability. They have rational fears of losing trade secrets and intellectual property. I guess for corporations to continue to do certain activities (lobbying, political contributions etc.) they would need to form a non-profit subsidiary that must follow all the same openness rules.

There are plenty of other technically legal non-profit organizations that take in a lot more money than their actual expenses for services. Reread my post. I asked for total transparency on all 527 organizations. Get rid of all the loop holes and carve outs.  

If you object to the mega churches and their extravagant spending then take a look at any variety of large not for profit organizations. They simply take their "excess" revenue and spread it around, calling it costs, i.e. higher and higher CEO salaries and lush surroundings but oh no, no profit here. The Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Illinois parent CEO makes over $10 million. Look at the non-profit athletic departments of any of the large universities and how much "extra" money they have to spend every year to avoid showing a profit.  Tax'em all if you wish but don't single out churches or mega-churches.

I agree with Ed, make transparency a requirement for ALL non profits, not just churches. Anyone not gaming the system shouldn't mind conducting their "non profit" business in the light of day.