Over half of money donated to Super PACs since Jan 2011 came from just 46 people

[krazen1211]

The title of of course wrong. 46 individuals and groups of course constitute more than 46 people.

[krazen1211]

Corporations aren't people anymore?

Labor unions are not 1 person, no. They are groups of people.

[krazen1211]

But remember guys, America is the greatest country in the history of the world, precisely because of our love of democracy.

Democracy is actually starting to become a bad word among far right circles.  It implies the Democratic Party has any sort of constitutional ground to exist.  This is a Constitutional Republic, good sir, for Republicans only.

I'm surprised Krazen hasn't jumped on this new trend yet.

Actually, it's the liberals over the last few years who seek to disenfranchise the people they deem as 'ignorant' on whatever issues that those same liberals decide.

A great example is the sanctity of traditional marriage.

The liberal position of course gives them dictatorial power.

[krazen1211]

Before anyone tries to make the disingenous arguement that these donations include a significant amount of union money rather than being almost entirely from a handful of old rich white dudes, let me quote this snippet from the article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's right: Sheldon Adelson has personally donated over twice as much as every labor union in the country.

At the minimum, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson of course count as two people, rather than one. Which would of course still make the OP title off.

[krazen1211]

Krazey is absolutely right here of course.  This story is in fact evidence of the liberals' firm grip on campaign finance abuse, not conservatives.  And something about gay marriage again.

Certainly liberal candidate Barack Obama was instrumental in demolishing the public campaign financing system.

[krazen1211]

Before anyone tries to make the disingenous arguement that these donations include a significant amount of union money rather than being almost entirely from a handful of old rich white dudes, let me quote this snippet from the article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's right: Sheldon Adelson has personally donated over twice as much as every labor union in the country.

At the minimum, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson of course count as two people, rather than one. Which would of course still make the OP title off.

Do you honestly not realize what a soulless bean-counting p-zombie you present yourself as or do you just not care?

I am really not aware of what a soulless bean-counting p-zombie is. Is this a clever way of you calling me names?

[krazen1211]

Clearly, the fact that Newt Gingrich is now the presumptive Republican nominee and flattening Obama in the polls shows that Sheldon Adelson's millions spell the end of American democracy.

And? What's your point, that it's ok because that one guy didn't succeed? Same goes for Krazen, what is your point? That Democrats are worse? Who cares, both sides are absolutely horrendous regarding campaign finance. What is the purpose in defending your party in a battle akin to cancer vs AIDS?

Campaign finance is really a fabricated problem that a handful of butthurt individuals yell about for whatever reason they choose to yell for. It's a general lack of interest in freedom of speech.

[krazen1211]

Clearly, the fact that Newt Gingrich is now the presumptive Republican nominee and flattening Obama in the polls shows that Sheldon Adelson's millions spell the end of American democracy.

And? What's your point, that it's ok because that one guy didn't succeed? Same goes for Krazen, what is your point? That Democrats are worse? Who cares, both sides are absolutely horrendous regarding campaign finance. What is the purpose in defending your party in a battle akin to cancer vs AIDS?

Campaign finance is really a fabricated problem that a handful of butthurt individuals yell about for whatever reason they choose to yell for. It's a general lack of interest in freedom of speech.

So in your mind, there is no challenge to the concept of democracy when power is concentrated among very few? When does that change the system from being democratic? These people control the process over the people and you don't think there's anything wrong with that?

The people of course retain the authority to choose their representation regardless of how many millions someone like Meg Whitman spends to obtain elected office. The exact details of how someone like Obama acquires millions of dollars from Wall Street is really opaque to the average joe, who really doesn't know or care.

Power remains with the people and remains democratic, subject to of course Nathan's veto on issues he deems otherwise, in which case it is no longer Democratic, but Nathanatic.

[krazen1211]

Power remains with the people and remains democratic, subject to of course Nathan's veto on issues he deems otherwise, in which case it is no longer Democratic, but Nathanatic.

I think you would enjoy living under a purely parliamentary system in a country not subject to any international human rights law very greatly, krazen. Are you sure a country with an encoded bill of rights and no notwithstanding clause is right for you?

Certainly I am. In fact, Citizens United is essentially based on an expansionary view of such bill of rights.

The Nathan solution is of course based upon a more restrictive view of freedom of speech.

[krazen1211]

If I give $1,000 to Barack Obama's re-election campaign, I'm expressing my support of him with my wallet.
If I give $100,000 to Barack Obama's re-election campaign, I'm making an investment and I expect something in return.
If we're going to argue that money=speech, then let's limit that speech to a few thousand dollars. We limit all kinds of other speech already.

Superpacs are not donations to any re-election campaign.