Supreme Court is considering a case called the question verses FEC
now have you thought citizens united was bad wait till you get a load on my couch
this promises to be citizens united on steroids nine ish Lee we should be able
to work
limit the campaign spending because we knew that it
often corrupted our politicians are but of course slowly throughout time
the Supreme Court is taking that ability away from us so in bug removal a %uh
they said the money is speech in they said
would be no limit on campaign spending that was so be a limit on how much
an individual could contribute now later on through May different cases they even
with all that down and in Citizens United they said
if you're giving an independent expenditure
well then you could be all unlimited donations
now it took a system that was already broken corrupt
an and and we're in terrible shape
and made it much much worse well now I'm a coach in promises to do it even more
and they're saying okay now though one of the few remaining things is
yes you can give unlimited at independent expenditures in donations
and yes if you're running a campaign you can spend unlimited
but now we'd like to do is to be able to give almost an unlimited amount
snow directly to the politicians and to the political parties
so in the old days which is today
it all rules the limit you can give for an individual
is 123,000 two hundred and dollars
and two hundred dollars in the 2014 election cycle for example
okay so that is the max you can give
to specific individual campaigns and to the political parties
okay then you are limited to independent expenditures a few what
that's the Koch brothers to show the nelson et cetera well
what the court is now considering is giving
up to three and a half million dollars
to the joint fundraising committees so they use spread that around
to all the politicians in a particular party that you like you're actually
doing it to both political parties
and if you're driving folks perhaps you think why not you actually go up to
seven million
if you max out on both parts because those
poor people only giving a hundred twenty-three thousand dollars the
politicians
well golly gee there just wasn't enough we should allow them
to K give bribes up to three and a half million dollars
I G I wonder if he would have disproportionate power in this system I
meanwhile I could escalate doesn't think so
you things we put too many limits on the Reg and during questioning yesterday
in ORL arguments he explained that aggregate limits
have a consequence to sap the vitality
a political parties I
so schoolio thinks the political parties are too weak now
I mean is unlimited spending in other arenas because people like antonin
scalia
and why should we let the political parties to
unlimited spending to any get unlimited donations
oh the poor politicos parties they've been sapped of their vitality
and then double irony here
the he says the aggregate limits are not stopping
big-money in politics yeah I know
that's because you open other giant back doors
for the rich and the corporation's the funnel money into the politicians
you want to open that door and now you're saying well looks like they're
already corrupt
might as well make a more corrupt thanks a lot and today we really appreciate it
I know the devil's in the details
so we're not done yet though
lee fong wrote a great article about how
if the concert was when I'm a cut chin
to get a full complete victory is another door that opens
that's even worse so let me just review for you
the critical case in 1976 thats are all this mess was buckley V Valeo
the court there said money equal speech okay
now you get money is property and so
a lot of people would certainly argued that contention and it opened
the pandora's box then they also said Kennedy's can spend
unlimited amount and again that's where
you'd then in every chart economic chart you see
the diagram the great divergence begins in 1976 and 1978
are where somehow all golly gee
the since the camp is to spend an unlimited amount they wanna
somehow getting a limited amount and using from incredibly rich folks
incredibly rich corporations
so corporate profits skyrocket the our productivity still great
but our way just artist Agni starting all the puppy reviled
but even back then they put in a couple restrictions they said
oh there's a cap on donations that are permissible so
even though you could spend as much as you wanna campaign they can't give you
as much as they want any particular donor
right so that some limits well now there are you human touch in
those limits should be thrown up so but we will AO
was not extreme enough those parts a bug removal air that's all the mess in the
first place
should be overturned to make it even more extreme now one other element
it said the appearance of corruption is a standard that we have to be concerned
about
such as corruption but if the public believes that there's an appearance of
corruption because
as a lobbyist you're giving them money and then you're voting when you're
taking their money in the your
giving them your votes that's at least an appearance of corruption
and that's something that the government has an interest in regulating well now
the Conservatives are arguing and by the way the republican national parties
arguing
she I wonder which side is more corrupt
that you know what we shouldn't even worry about the appearance of
corruption.
and at the supreme court agrees there are so many different laws both the book
federal level at the local level where
people say because the appearance of corruption we can't let lobbyists do
this or that
all those would be wiped off total freeway
unlimited campaign spending unlimited donations
unlimited appearance of corruption.
if you thought it was bad now and it's about almost as bad as it could be
they're planning to make it even worse
now look even if the supreme court doesn't go in this direction they
somehow miraculously vote no
okay the system would still be horribly broken
if they vote yes all the people who
said there are no I think maybe the Supreme Court might reverse itself
no we don't need a constitutional amendment because maybe the supreme
court will change its mind
I if anything the only opportunity they have
is unforeseen this the service from court is to make it worse
not better okay so get real doc
only thing that's gonna work is a constitutional amendment saying that
corporations are not people they cannot spend unlimited amount of money on our
politicians
and we should publicly financed elections so that our politicians are
not forever ok
on their legalize bribes she I wish there was a group that was doing that
alright wolf dash pack dot com
ok that's why we set up of pac everything else is a pipe dream
an amendment Israel still one thing the Supreme Court
decadent as they are seeping corruption as they are
can not ignore it goes above their head and says
this is the american people we have spoken weird
tired of this corruption we don't give a damn what you think
you put in their cost to San they can't take it out
reklame the country for the people not for the donors
wall flashback dot com do whatever you can
sign up that's great donate if you can
become a member help us get our democracy back