Roberts strikes down freedom of speech for the 99% & for sale to the 1%ers: "Down with Democracy"

[Bill USA]

Last edited Fri Apr 4, 2014, 05:08 PM - Edit history (2)

Because there is only so much time available in a day for advertizing, those who have all the wealth will out bid those with less funds for media time. Most of the ad time will be bought by the 1%ers (including the Roberts 'corporate-humans' in that figure) leaving little time for those with less funds to get their message out. Roberts has made 'free speech' not free, but for sale to the highest bidder. It follows then, that the government will also be for sale to to the highest bidder.

With Citizens United and this decision Roberts has pretty much made it "open season" on government "by the people ... for the people" in America. ..."So long, it was sure good to know ya."

Roberts' animus for government "by the people for the people" and his craftiness in his pursuit of the end of Democracy in America, places him among the greatest villains of history.


Roberts Court continues assault on campaign finance law
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/04/02/roberts-court-continues-assault-on-campaign-finance-law/

Continuing its steady and unrelenting assault on the laws that limit the ability of wealthy Americans to influence the course of electoral campaigns, the Supreme Court today declared that regulations that limit the aggregate amount donors can give to electoral campaigns in a single election cycle are unconstitutional. This is a campaign finance limit you probably haven’t thought much about, and it’s one that affects a relatively small number of donors (at least up until now).

It’s too early to tell how much the removal of this limit will alter the electoral landscape. But the implication is clear. The five conservative justices on the Supreme Court seem determined to dismantle the entire edifice of campaign finance law.

Today’s ruling is a small but important step on the road to the ultimate victory for those who would like to make it possible to literally buy any politician you wish: the removal of all limits on contributions to candidates. That’s the end game, and that’s where this Court is headed.

There’s a nice explainer of what was at issue in this case here, and I’ll let the Post’s Aaron Blake explain what the Court did today:

In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that individuals should be able to give the maximum per-candidate and per-party contributions to as many party committees, presidential and congressional candidates as they want. Under the current limits, individuals could give no more than $123,000 in total and $48,600 to candidates for the 2013-2014 election cycle.

The court did not strike down contribution limits per candidate (now $2,600) and per party committee (now $32,400), but the decision does overturn previous rules that restricted individuals from giving those maximum donations to dozens of candidates and several party committees.

This meant that wealthy donors would have to be more selective about whom they contributed to — contributing to House Democrats’ campaign committee, for instance, but not Senate Democrats’.

(more)

[GeorgeGist]

1. I have a question about Robert the Supreme ...

How is he going to cash in?

If he's just doing this for shits and giggles, he's been pwned.

[Bill USA]

2. I think he's a 'true believer', thinks he's a fascist messiah figure. I often refer to him as the

Christian Ayatollah (because he feels there is no limitation on the scope of his edicts). He's a fanatic, a psycho. His arguments are in the garb of plausibly reasonable bullshit.... but ultimately circular.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. Supreme InJustice Roberts has George W. Bush's shit-eating smirk down cold.