Oddly enough, no mention of George Soros. Friends – If you thought the Koch brothers and their ilk were bad, this Supreme Court decision makes them even more dangerous: Last week, the conservatives on the Supreme Court handed down a decision in McCutcheon v. FEC that will open the floodgates — even beyondCitizens United — […]

Read more from the original source:
DNC Rails Against “Dangerous” Koch Brothers…

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress

The Favor of Big Money Donors

On April 4, 2014, in Barack Obama, by LorieRubybulb

[guest post by Dana] After this week’s Supreme Court campaign finance decision based on the First Amendment right to free political speech, Harry Reid immediately exercised his own right to free political speech, “The Supreme Court today just accentuated what they did on Citizens United, which is a decision that is one of the worst decisions in the history of that court,” the Nevada Democrat said. “All it does is take away people’s rights because, as you know, the Koch brothers are trying to buy America.” This was followed by exercising his right to mad tweeting, “Today’s Supreme Court ruling gives even more power to the wealthiest few who are trying to buy our democracy, like the Koch Brothers.” So, where do the largest political donations really go? The answer is not surprising: Of the 20 largest current overall political donors , 62 percent of the biggest donors’ money went to support the Democrats. In descending order: -a couple of hedge-fund guys who give 100 percent of their donations (more than $11 million) to Democrats -people associated with the city government of New York (84 percent to Democrats) -Democratic Governors Association, the National Education Association (89 percent to Democrats) -the Carpenters and Joiners Union (79 percent to Democrats) -the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal employees (100 percent to Democrats) -the AFL-CIO (81 percent to Democrats) -the National Association of Realtors (53 percent to Republicans) -the electrical workers unions (97 percent to Democrats) -AT&T (62 percent to Republicans) -Lockheed Martin (61 percent to Republicans -Comcast (58 percent to Democrats) -the engineers union (79 percent to Democrats) -Northrop (57 percent to Republicans) -American Association for Justice (i.e., lawyers, 96 percent to Democrats) -Honeywell (58 percent to Republicans) -Boeing (57 percent to Republicans) -Votesane PAC (70 percent to Republicans) -Every Republican Is Crucial PAC (100 percent to Republicans) -Laborers’ union (90 percent to Democrats) (Two points: The first GOP donation comes in at #8, and note the trend in GOP groups) No word from Harry Reid about this. –Dana

Read the original post:
The Favor of Big Money Donors

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress

Little to See Here

On April 2, 2014, in Barack Obama, Congress, by TameraVNWQ

SCOTUS renders on political speech (aka contributions) again – The Supreme Court pressed ahead on Wednesday with the majority’s constitutional view that more money flowing into politics is a good thing — even if much of it comes from rich donors. By a five-to-four vote, the Court struck down the two-year ceilings that Congress has […]

Read the rest here:
Little to See Here

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress

David Savage, writing in the L.A. Times : WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday freed wealthy donors to give more money directly to congressional candidates, extending its controversial 2010 Citizens United decision that opened the door for unlimited independent spending on political issues. In a 5-4 decision, the court’s conservative majority struck down Watergate-era aggregate limits that barred political donors from giving more than $123,000 a year in total to candidates running for seats in the House of Representatives or Senate. The court said this limit violated the free-speech rights of the donors, and it was not needed to prevent “corruption” of the political process. The justices noted that donors mush still abide by rules that prevent them from giving more than $2,600 per election per candidate. (Yes, he said “mush still abide.” Screenshot here . Look, do you want the story done professionally or do you want it fast?) I’ve said it before and I will say it again. You can have laws against money in politics or you can have a First Amendment, but you can’t have both. The 5-4 nature of the decision reminds us why Republicans cannot spend 40 years in the wilderness. Our rights are at stake every time one of these cases goes before the Court.

More here:
Justices Strike Down Campaign Finance Restriction on Free Speech Grounds

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress

Scott Martelle, writing in the L.A. Times : If the state of Mississippi had finished what it started, Michelle Byrom would be dead right now. Instead, based on revelations about confessions kept from a jury and an alleged case of perjury, the state’s Supreme Court on Monday tossed out Byrom’s murder conviction and ordered a new trial — but also ordered that a new judge conduct it. In his piece, Martelle does not reject the notion that Mississippi’s problems result from racism against whites like Byrom. I don’t agree with that silly argument, of course. But, strange as it may sound, Martelle “tacitly accepts” it. Because as we all know, according to Scott Martelle, “to not reject is tacit acceptance.” This post is the second in a series on surprising positions tacitly accepted by Scott Martelle.

See original here:
L.A. Times’s Scott Martelle Accepts That Mississippi Justice System Racist Against Whites

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress