|Eye on Miami Bloggers|
In a rare phone call, both of us bloggers at Eye on Miami had the same sentiment, let it be over, enough with this election. For us the Presidential Primary on the 15th will at least put Marco Rubio out of the race and then the two Republican Sociopaths can fight their way to victory...or not.
I and my Republican buddies are so proud of ourselves, look at the lengths voters are going to get around billionaires like Adelson, Koch, Fanjul, and Braman. The Citizens United Supreme Court decision (unlimited funds to candidates, PAC's and ECO's, treating Corporations as people) - the worst decision ever made by the court in modern times) is destroying the Republican Party and that makes me very, very
So, if you think the Supreme Court is not important, think again. This election chaos is not thanks to Donald Trump it is thanks to the Supreme Court. Just like Bush's victory over Gore, the Supreme Court is the manipulating entity. This time, with Citizens United, they went too far and billionaire (of course) Donald Trump took advantage of the crack the Supremes created by allowing too much money in politics. Trump slipped in, beholden to no one, and milked it to death. Beholden to no one, makes everyone happy.
When you vote: Forget any stupid nonsense you have heard. Think only about the Supreme Court as the number one reason to vote for a candidate. Batshit crazy Ted Cruz would destroy the Court for 20 more years. Women will have to go back to coat hangers. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has had pancreatic cancer, she is frail. We are indeed in trouble if the court swings far right again. And this batch of Republican candidates, they are Borkster lovers for sure.
More on Citizens United:
In 2010, the Supreme Court case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission overturned the ban on certain types of corporate expenditures for political candidates. This brief outlines campaign spending regulations before Citizens United, the details of the case, and the final decision.
Prior to Citizens United, campaign spending was regulated by the Federal Election Campaign Act and amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. These laws prohibited corporations from spending money on independent expenditures or financing electioneering communications.
Independent expenditures are funds spent on communications that expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a clearly-identified candidate. These communications are made entirely independently of a candidate or political party’s authorization, cooperation, request, or suggestion. In other words, the party paying for the communication is operating entirely on its own.
Electioneering communications are any broadcast, cable, or satellite communications that do all of the following:
Refer to a clearly-identified candidate for federal office;
Are publicly distributed shortly before the relevant election; and
Are targeted to the relevant electorate (this applies to U.S. House and Senate candidates only).
The Issue: Was Political Spending a Form of Speech Protected by the First Amendment?
In reviewing Citizens’ petition, the Supreme Court decided that rather than focus on this film or, in the future, other specific instances on a case-by-case basis, it must consider the broader issue of political speech as it relates to the First Amendment, which provides that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition on corporate spending for independent expenditures and electioneering communications was unconstitutional. Arguing that laws restricting political speech must be subject to strict scrutiny, the Court ruled against the FEC and reversed the ban on corporate spending. However, the ruling upheld the existing disclaimer and disclosure requirements.