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

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I like how it's not allowing certain folk to get married to each other that's standing up for freedom and allowing them to that's 'dictatorial' on this issue. How's that individual responsibility and personal freedom stuff going?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

More restrictive in that it's a view that doesn't consider a preferential option for the rich 'free', yes.

Also it's obviously not the issue that you were initially referring to, but I suppose I shouldn't expect anything other than complete disingenuousness and malice from you anyway.