HERE is the decision.
The world will end as we know it according to the fear mongering democrats I listened to since the decision came down yesterday. Money is only good if it is democrat money. Republican money is bad. Money is speech, or in my opinion, it buys free speech. Or it buys democrat lies if you really look hard at them. Can't have that can we? Funny how the democrat party and all the liberal whiners complain that the Koch Brothers money is buying something for the Koch Brothers while the democrat money supplied by the hedge fund lefty, Tom Steyer is good money.
The democrat prostitutes in the US Senate did a so-called "filibuster" on their support for the hoax of man made global warming for their master Steyer a couple of weeks ago. They were afraid Steyer would not follow through with his pledge of a $100 million dollar donation to them if they did not re-up their support for pursuing the hoax. If that is not bald faced hypocrisy and corruption by the democrats then what is?
My position has always been in favor of free speech. If a American wants to give a gazillion bucks to a candidate I am fine with that. The only caveat is there must be immediate disclosure of the "giver". Then the voters can decide if they like the whole thing. What the democrats have had all these years is hegemony in the "messages" delivered to the voters. What I mean is the democrats did not have to worry much about the dispersion of their message because they had the press and they got free dissemination all the time. Until Rush Limbaugh, talk radio and FOX News, the left had a monopoly of like minded people in charge of their message. That is now being balance out by the decision yesterday and the "Citizen's United of a few years ago.
If the arguments from the left were valid about the dangers of money in politics, they would have curtailed their own fundraising many years ago. But of course they did not. If they think the country will be ruined by money limits being removed, they are naive. Money has always been important. How does a candidate get his message to the voters? If they self fund then a candidate is rich and the left hates that. Of course there are more millionaire liberals in Congress than Republicans but you don't hear that from the press do you? The press must be embarrassed. Probably not.
I like the angst I read from the lefty newspapers and other media now that they no longer have the only viable way to send mass information to the voter. Why should the media have a monopoly? They manipulate all the news articles to a lefty slant and of course they deny that happens. But the Media Research Center proves they do manipulate our information all the time. The New York Times has no monopoly now. Of course they will take the money from the Republicans to pay for ads but that is OK. A free speech mantra seems to only come from the right as is evident in the Wall Street Journal Video Editorial on the decision.
All in all the left has had a huge advantage all my life in the political messaging and now that may end. Money always seeks its own level and no matter what the politicians do to curb it's influence it will never be banned from the process. The handcuffs of phony outrage placed on money by the system (McCain/Feingold) are now removed and in my opinion, the country is better for this decision. This morning I watched CSPAN's Washington Journal and the host had a woman from a "neutral" non-profit that has the word "sunlight" in it's name. What a joke. The woman was totally in the tank against the Republicans and had not one word to say against any tactic by the left. Yet she was touting herself and her organization as "non-partisan". She and her organization are why you cannot trust anything these liberals say. The SCOTUS decision puts her bias front and center and allows Americans to judge these liberal hypocrites by listening to their own words.
The press conference by Nancy Pelosi this morning also showed the American people how afraid the liberals are now that the playing field of fund raising is balancing out. (remember Oba,a's billion bucks?). She cried the blues about money in politics yet receives huge amounts for herself and her pals. She whines about the Republicans voting over fifty times to rid the country of the travesty of ObamaCare yet she and her democrat pals have at least that many attempts to overturn "Citizen's United"! What is worse? At least the SCOTUS Decision allows personal freedom while ObamaCare takes it away. I'll go with personal freedom.
To me the bottom line is this. If people want change in government then they have to vote it in. Low voter turnout is the problem. The voters need to get off their collective asses and vote. No excuses accepted by me for not filling out the ballot. American have the freedom to stay home and watch "Dancing with the Stars" rather than trekking over to the polling place. But you see what we get. It is the voters fault for the mess in my view. Lazy, excuse laden reasons to stay home. Yet, even with all the easy ways to vote the voter still doesn't. We allow voting by mail, permanent absentees, motor voter, and same day registration. We have people that will come pick you up and take you to the polls! We have tried to make it all really easy yet the lazy ass voter still stays home. If you want better candidates then you run for election. But they don't. California voters are the worst. Hell if every Republican voted in the off years we would own the State offices and most of the Congressional Districts! But I digress.
As long as the message to the voters cost money there will be lots of it being spread around. Get used to it. I am really excited to see how this decision is utilized in this year's elections. We Americans can be really creative. All in all, I think McDonald's spends more in a year on advertising their products than we as a people spend on all the elections of our politicians. So you want a better Big Mac? Gotta spend the dough.