Neither further proof of the Robert’s Court idiocy
- Thread starter archives
- Start date
QP!
Verified User
I did not miss it. This is just your comprehension problem and your inability to read.
Citizens United does change that and you are wrong. Remove ALL the spending that Citizen United allows and things change greatly. Do you agree?
So now lets then focus on the baseline spending ('table stakes') that both you and i seem to agree exists and is necessary and then BEYOND THAT the diminishing returns kick in.
What you are NOW trying to say is that 'only in that point BEYOND the table stakes' that Citizens United united spending does not change much, which is a point i have made ("diminishing returns") but that DOES NOT MEAN that the 'table stakes' portion of spending Citizen United is not impactful up to that point and thus why you cannot say that Citizen United is not important in this area.
The Table Stakes portion for National campaigns is critical to all that follows. THat baseline of money is not critical to both parties ability to run robust national campaigns.
evince
Truthmatters
And your fucks make it so easy
All we need is truth
Your lies won’t stand up to truth loser
And straw donors have nothing to do with Soros.
You should stick to simply saying things in front of the mirror instead of repeating them here.
Citizens United has zero to do with an individual donating to a PAC
yet here you retards are
QP!
Verified User
How Citizens United v. FEC changed the flow of money into PACs and political spending:
What the Case Did (2010 Supreme Court Ruling)
- Ruled that corporations, unions, and nonprofits have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited money on independent political speech
- Overturned limits on independent expenditures, not direct contributions to candidates
What Changed for PACs and Political Money
- Allowed unlimited independent spending by outside groups
- This led to the creation of Super PACs (officially “independent-expenditure-only committees”)
How Super PACs Changed the Money Flow
- Super PACs can:
- Accept unlimited donations from individuals
- Accept unlimited donations from corporations and unions
- Spend unlimited amounts supporting or opposing candidates
- They cannot donate directly to candidates or coordinate with campaigns
The Practical Impact
- Wealthy individuals and corporations can now:
- Write million-dollar checks to Super PACs
- Fund massive ad campaigns, media blitzes, and voter outreach
- Political spending shifted from:
- Campaigns → Outside groups
- This made PACs (especially Super PACs) far more powerful than traditional PACs
Dark Money Connection
- Nonprofits (like 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups) can:
- Spend on politics
- Donate to Super PACs
- Often don’t have to disclose donors
- This increased anonymous political funding
Bottom-Line Impact
- Before Citizens United:
- PAC donations and corporate political spending were heavily limited
- After Citizens United:
- Unlimited money can flow into Super PACs
- Political influence became more concentrated among large donors and organizations
- Campaigns rely heavily on outside spending rather than direct fundraising
One-Sentence Summary
tldr
SpeechNow.org v. FEC is what created super pacs, not Citizens United
SpeechNow.org v. FEC is what created super pacs, not Citizens United
- Citizens United (Jan 21, 2010) removed the ban on corporate/union independent expenditures
- SpeechNow.org v. FEC (D.C. Cir., Mar 26, 2010) is the decision that knocked out contribution limits to “independent expenditure–only” committees—the legal move that made the Super PAC model (unlimited fundraising for independent spending) viable.
Ah, certainly is a major factor when one candidate has an open check book and the other limited resources, one of the reasons why candidates further down the ballot seldom do well
And considering these big buck “donations” don’t come free isn’t complementary to the ideal of a democratic government that the Founders had in mind
QP!
Verified User
Sure.
But now lets see if you can think at another level beyond the surface.
Do you understand you are touching on a element while ignoring others?
What you are ignoring is Trump had a massive lead in campaigning as well as the established history of POTUS, which many were leaning towards.
So you cannot simply use your simplistic black and white 'see Kamala spent more so the money does not matter' analysis you are trying to apply.
We have a history in politics showing there are factors BEYOND just money, such as incumbency, prior incumbency, etc that still matter but what that DOES NOT SAY, as you are pushing, is that money does not matter and is proven when the other factors play in.
All analysis shows with the late start Kamala (even as VP) due to a late start had to spend more in the need to play catch up as most of the country, despite her being VP, had no real vision of who she would be as POTUS.
So you cannot just hand wave away campaign spending as 'not really important' because 'Kamala spent more and lost' as that is just simplistic analysis. You can, for instance look at this in a more simplistic way, and take any long term incumbent and put up a new contender with far less name recognition, who spends more to unseat that person and comes close but still loses and that IS NOT an argument that 'money does not matter' or have impact. If you think so that is because you are ignoring other factors.
QP!
Verified User
Not reading is why you are wrong on almost all topics you discuss.
You have a partial understanding of how SpeechNow impacted it while you have no understanding of how Citizens United fed in to it.
Since you will NOT READ anything that explains that dynamic you continue, in your ignorance to not understand the connection.
But at least you admit you remain willfully ignorant by not reading anything to help you understand.
But he didn’t lavishly donate to one principle candidate nor do it motivated out of personally self interest
We can and will, "Those who spend more do not always win." this was the Truism that we were talking about. Long winded excuses notwithstanding, it is not always true that whoever is able to spend more will win.
Also, interesting how quickly one of the candidates was able to obtain nearly 1/3 more than the other candidate spent in 2 years and spend it within that 107 days... She was paying Beyonce for gawds' sakes...
Yes they were, before Citizen United PAC contributions were limited, documented, and regulated on how the money was controlled, after Citizen United, nothing, even secret undisclosed donations are legitimate.
You are blinded by your partisanship, Citizen United opened up the flood gates for unlimited uncontrolled funding, of which both parties are taking advantage of, and which is detrimental to what the Founders had in mind in establishing a Democratic Republic, a government for and by the people, not billionaires
He spread it to candidates where a small amount of money could sway the race like DA races. The fact these candidates had a financial advantage cause many of them to win. Soros certainly was motivated by a liberal self interest. Harris was a pathetic candidate and Democrat mega donors gave her over a Billion dollars in a month or two.
George and Alex Soros gave 60 million to help Harris.
Not about what parties did what, both do it, as I just noted above, you are blinded by your partisanship.
Citizen United opened up the flood gates for unlimited uncontrolled funding, of which both parties are taking advantage of, and which is detrimental to what the Founders had in mind in establishing a Democratic Republic, a government for and by the people, not billionaires with check books
PAC’s have always been required to follow election laws, and Citizen United radically changed those election laws, so saying it had nothing to do with the idiocy of unlimited funding is not correct