General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNewt Gingrich: Unlimited campaign donations will ‘equalize the middle class and the rich’
Former Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich argued on Sunday that allowing unlimited campaign contributions was a necessary step to equalize the middle class with the rich.
Last week, the Supreme Court followed its controversial Citizens United decision, which allowed corporate spending in elections, by striking down the total limit that donors could contribute during elections.
It is a big deal because it means that people can give to scores of campaigns, Gingrich told a panel on ABC News. Its part of a continuum. It started a long time ago when they said that speech included money, which is the original decision. You, as a billionaire or millionaire, could go out and spend your own money. Of course, speech is money.
Whats happen is that youve gone from that original decision to Citizens United, which said in effect that corporations could give, and created super PACs.
Last weeks decision struck down limits on the total amount of contributions that donors could make over a two-year period, but it left in place limits to individual campaigns.
Gingrich asserted that the next step would be to allow candidates to accept unlimited donations.
And you would overnight equalize the middle class and the rich, he declared.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/06/newt-gingrich-unlimited-campaign-donations-will-equalize-the-middle-class-and-the-rich/
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Despite the fact that it's been pointed out on any number of talk shows that only a few hundred individuals bumped up against the donation limits last cycle, and that the donation limits were already so high that only the top couple percent of Americans could ever afford to donate so much.
The middle class would have been fine with the limits being decreased, not eliminated. Making the max total donation for all candidates per cycle something like 10k would have made a lot more sense than making it unlimited if you truly wanted to 'equalize' spending.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)that the goals of the rich and the middle class are diametrically opposed? Or was this just an inadvertent gust of truth?
Warpy
(111,417 posts)What he's saying is that he'll be able to live that upper-upper middle class life he's always wanted if some of those billionaire dollars surge his way should he decide on another perfunctory run for the presidency.
Frustratedlady
(16,254 posts)with just the thought of all that cash...a buck for the campaign...hmmm, what's this?
Anyone believe all that campaign money ends up in the campaign fund where it is supposed to be actually counted, recorded and reported?
Gotta bridge....
reformist2
(9,841 posts)House of Roberts
(5,192 posts)10,000 to 1?
100,000 to 1?
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)and media exposure than even hits the internet.
People may not watch these talk news shows but they sure get a lot free press and media exposure.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)He whined to daddy while in college because daddy dared suggest he work to live. His whine was why not keep sending him checks to support his lazy privileged ass, so he can only play at school...(donations!)
And then later become a Christian conservative who ran on a platform of US, you and me, being too lazy and hoping to live on unemployment-welfare (so we can drive a Cadillac)social security.....
I guess this is my polite way of saying: Fuck Newt Gingrich. I wonder when he will cheat on this wife as he speaks of the sanctity of marriage?
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)Brutal honest tried up in spin that paycheck to paycheck now can spread out to more organizations, apparently in similar fashion that rich and poor alike are prevented from sleeping under bridges equally under the law.