Neither further proof of the Robert’s Court idiocy

[zymurgy]

Yes they were, before Citizen United PAC contributions were limited,

what was the campaign limit I could give before citizen united?

I will wait for your ignorance to catch up with reality

give me the exact dollar figure you claim I am limited by - and prove it with a statute

meanwhile - choke on this:

Three individuals—film producer Stephen L. Bing, financier George Soros and insurance executive Peter B. Lewis—gave $11 million during January, February and March to several “527 organizations,” so-called because of the section of the Internal Revenue Code under which they’re organized. Five other individuals, all supporters of liberal causes, contributed at least $1 million each during the same period, according to the Center’s analysis of reports filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

The $11 million from Bing, Lewis and Soros during the first quarter boosted their combined total to 527 committees to $26 million since disclosure began in late 2000.

The money pours in – Center for Public Integrity

Incomplete disclosure By Derek Willis July 27, 2004 527s – Frequently Asked Questions By The Center for Public Integrity November 21, 2005 Driven by a surge in giving by wealthy individuals, political non-profits raised more than $59 million during the first three months of this year, with much...

publicintegrity.org

 

[FastLane]

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...

Yep Trump spent a lot less than Clinton or Harris did.

 

[archives]

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.

Wait a minute, didn’t you previously tell us above that contributions had little effect on election outcomes?

And Soros, who doesn’t concentrate his contributions on one candidate, and is motivated by his idealism, not personal self interest, what he can financially profit off of the contribution. Two people giving 60 million isn’t one person giving close to 300 million

 

[archives]

what was the campaign limit I could give to a PAC before citizen united?

I will wait for your ignorance to catch up with reality

give me the exact dollar figure you claim I am limited by - and prove it with a statute

Already did, PAC’s were obligated to follow election finance laws, with Citizens United, those laws nearly disappeared

At one time there existed a $5,000 limit to PAC’s, but after the Robert’s Court debacle, Super PACs are allowed, where donations are unlimited, barely regulated, and often secret

 

[zymurgy]

Already did, PAC’s were obligated to follow election finance laws, with Citizens United, those laws nearly disappeared

At one time there existed a $5,000 limit to PAC’s, but after the Robert’s Court debacle, Super PACs are allowed, where donations are unlimited, barely regulated, and often secret

bwahahah

a distinction without a difference

so like I said - nothing stopped a rich person like Elon Musk giving unlimited money to political causes.

you are a retard wasting time retarding away. Citizens United isn't what allows this change that created super pacs the other court case I mentioend did

 

[archives]

bwahahah

a distinction without a difference

so like I said - nothing stopped a rich person like Elon Musk giving unlimited money to political causes.

you are a retard wasting time retarding away. Citizens United isn't what allows this change that created super pacs the other court case I mentioend did

I know you MAGA hate to read, but here, educate yourself, so you don’t appear as uninformed going forward:

Citizens United, Explained

The 2010 Supreme Court decision further tilted political influence toward wealthy donors and corporations.

www.brennancenter.org

PACs, Super PACs and More: Your Guide to Key Election Spending Vehicles

By learning about the differences between election spending vehicles, voters can be better informed about who is attempting to influence their vote and our government.

campaignlegal.org

Fifteen Years Later, Citizens United Defined the 2024 Election

The influence of wealthy donors and dark money was unprecedented. Much of it would have been illegal before the Supreme Court swept away long-established campaign finance rules.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[zymurgy]

I know you MAGA hate to read, but here, educate yourself, so you don’t appear as uninformed going forward:

you are the one needing education

SpeechNOW.org v. Federal Election Commission

ballotpedia.org

this is the case that created the Super PAC. Citizens United is not it. If this case was not decided, we would still be using 527's and hiding the coordination, like was always done

 

[evince]

Who funds the groups harassing ICE agents in Minnesota?​

No one

Who bankrolled the tea tards?

 

[evince]

I know you MAGA hate to read, but here, educate yourself, so you don’t appear as uninformed going forward:

Citizens United, Explained

The 2010 Supreme Court decision further tilted political influence toward wealthy donors and corporations.

www.brennancenter.org

PACs, Super PACs and More: Your Guide to Key Election Spending Vehicles

By learning about the differences between election spending vehicles, voters can be better informed about who is attempting to influence their vote and our government.

campaignlegal.org

Fifteen Years Later, Citizens United Defined the 2024 Election

The influence of wealthy donors and dark money was unprecedented. Much of it would have been illegal before the Supreme Court swept away long-established campaign finance rules.

www.brennancenter.org

Pearls before swine comes to mind

 

[evince]

Matthew 7:6, "Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn and tear you in pieces"

 

[Damocles]

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

Pointing out that the person that spent the most doesn't always win is a non-partisan thing.

 

[evince]

Good thing these fools are not as smart as swine

Stupid pigs will eat anything much like these fools

And they will die once the pearls get stuck in their intestinal track

 

[evince]

Pointing out that the person that spent the most doesn't always win is a non-partisan thing.

And you back the corporate grift designed to enslave you and all your progeny

Not smart

 

[Damocles]

And you back the corporate grift designed to enslave you and all your progeny

Not smart

I back nothing of the sort. You folks constantly forget that one does not have to vote for Kamala in order not to vote for Trump. I didn't vote for either of the status quo parties that take advantage of those laws... Seems you voted for one of them though.

 

[QP!]

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...

So then why are you now trying to change what you said and what i replied to, unless you now KNOW you were being too simplistic and do not want to admit it?


What Terry said and you replied to was "... money is not anywhere close to the thing that wins or loses (elections..."

I don't see it that way. Money is important in a political campaign, but it is not anywhere close to the thing that wins or loses one.

And as i point out, that statement is WAYYYY to simplistic.

Money is absolutely core but just NOT the ONLY core thing as i point out. Money and extreme gerrymandering are the #1 and 2 factor and we can argue over which is more impactful. Then comes the candidate name recognition, etc, which are also important but if you take away ALL the money that was opened up nationally due to Citizens United and what flowed from that, even those with extreme name recognition struggle and would mostly lose.

 

[QP!]

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

Correct.

Citizens united and what flowed from that along with extreme gerrymandering were the SC way of trying to shift the voting power away 'from the people' to the Corporations and Oligarchs.

It is a response to the changing demographics that were showing the country was on an inevitable to minority, majority and that rule would have to increasingly involve minorities and women.

This is the last chance to stop that.

 

[QP!]

what was the campaign limit I could give before citizen united?

I will wait for your ignorance to catch up with reality

give me the exact dollar figure you claim I am limited by - and prove it with a statute

meanwhile - choke on this:

Three individuals—film producer Stephen L. Bing, financier George Soros and insurance executive Peter B. Lewis—gave $11 million during January, February and March to several “527 organizations,” so-called because of the section of the Internal Revenue Code under which they’re organized. Five other individuals, all supporters of liberal causes, contributed at least $1 million each during the same period, according to the Center’s analysis of reports filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

The $11 million from Bing, Lewis and Soros during the first quarter boosted their combined total to 527 committees to $26 million since disclosure began in late 2000.

The money pours in – Center for Public Integrity

Incomplete disclosure By Derek Willis July 27, 2004 527s – Frequently Asked Questions By The Center for Public Integrity November 21, 2005 Driven by a surge in giving by wealthy individuals, political non-profits raised more than $59 million during the first three months of this year, with much...

publicintegrity.org

This refutes every thing you are trying to say...

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
  • 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​

---

Citizens United didn’t remove limits on donating to candidates — it created a system where unlimited money could flow into Super PACs, allowing wealthy donors, corporations, and unions to spend massive sums influencing elections independently.

​

 

[Damocles]

So then why are you now trying to change what you said and what i replied to, unless you now KNOW you were being too simplistic and do not want to admit it?


What Terry said and you replied to was "... money is not anywhere close to the thing that wins or loses (elections..."







And as i point out, that statement is WAYYYY to simplistic.

Money is absolutely core but just NOT the ONLY core thing as i point out. Money and extreme gerrymandering are the #1 and 2 factor and we can argue over which is more impactful. Then comes the candidate name recognition, etc, which are also important but if you take away ALL the money that was opened up nationally due to Citizens United and what flowed from that, even those with extreme name recognition struggle and would mostly lose.

It is a Truism.

 

[QP!]

It is a Truism.

But it is not.

A truism captures the entirety of what is being expressed and that statement by Terry is only partially accurate and stating it like he does misses the core part i explain to an extent to make his statement misleading.

Money may not be the ONLY factor that wins elections but it is arguably the most important element alongside gerrymandering.

 

[Damocles]

But it is not.

A truism captures the entirety of what is being expressed and that statement by Terry is only partially accurate and stating it like he does misses the core part i explain to an extent to make his statement misleading.

Money may not be the ONLY factor that wins elections but it is arguably the most important element alongside gerrymandering.

But it is. It encompasses the entirety of my statement, "The one who spends the most money is not always the winner."