3 ms·
LOL, Constitutional Democracy by butt. When you have the ability, as an elected official, to receive money from "campaign sponsors" and do not have to disclos
by DamnYuppie 13y ago
LOL, Constitutional Democracy by butt. When you have the ability, as an elected official, to receive money from "campaign sponsors" and do not have to disclose where it came from what you have is not a democracy but a puppet regime dressed up as the peoples choice.
- twoodfin 13y agoWell then we're safe, because campaign contributions to candidates in Federal elections in excess of $200 must be disclosed to the FEC: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Disclosure http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Disclosure Corporations, labor unions and foreign nationals are also forbidden from donating to candidates' campaigns. If you're thinking of Citizens United, it doesn't apply to elected officials "receiving money".
- jlgreco 13y agoRe 'Super PACs not permitted to coordinate directly': There is an important difference between "not permitted to" and "don't".
- twoodfin 13y agoAgain, if the original comment was meant to imply that candidates could legally receive significant quantities of money from anonymous sources to finance their campaigns, that's flat wrong. I'm not sure what argument your comment is meant to respond to. Candidates and PACs sometimes run afoul of FEC regulations? Who's saying they don't? That's a big jump from a regime of legal anonymous direct contributions implied by the original comment.
- jlgreco 13y agoLegalities are irrelevant, what is important is the reality of the system. Widespread illegal bribery with little to no enforcement is not a better situation to be in than widespread legal bribery; the situations are functionally equivalent.