“You’re not going to find anybody more committed to aggressive campaign finance reform than me.” -Hillary Clinton
Everything sounds pretty from the mouth of liar. As it should since they spend more time practicing their lies then practicing their honesty. If you ever catch a practiced liar in the act, you can see the click in their eyes when they switch from charming you into their lies, to hurling accusations at you.
They will accuse of being a hateful liar bent on destroying them because of some fallacy on your part. You being the non practiced liar will start to trip up, maybe even believe it since they say it so convincingly. You’ll back down, sorry off or maybe apologize. What they will do is never admit once that they lied. They are so convinced of their ability to lie that they take it for granted people will always believe them.
I’m sick of those people. They’re bullies.
So why have they infested our government? Why does the description above fit so many politicians? No wonder people no longer have any faith in the government. Only 19% of Americans today say they can trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” (3%) or “most of the time” (16%).
Corruption in our politicians is an accepted face. The solution offered isn’t. Some very honest people in Washington want control what money is given to campaigns. That sounds so nice! But like everything politicians aim to do, it’s not the whole story.
The Real Reason Politician’s Want Campaign Reform
The funny thing about campaign reform is the people who demand it. The biggest advocates for reform seem to be arguing against their own interest. Since the receive massive shady donations (i.e. John McCain and Hillary Clinton). Why would these two ever want finance reform? I’ll give you a hint, it’s because the rules don’t apply to them.
Indeed, a Center for Public Integrity investigation reveals that Clinton’s own election efforts are largely immune from her reformist platform. While Clinton rails against “unaccountable money” that is “corrupting our political system,” corporations, unions and nonprofits bankrolled by unknown donors have already poured millions of dollars into a network of Clinton-boosting political organizations. That’s on top of the tens of millions from an elite club of Democratic megadonors, including billionaires George Soros and Haim Saban, have contributed.
Liberal justify Clinton’s large stash of unaccountable money claiming her enemies would use such things to bring her down. If she doesn’t get her own rich foreign aid then powerful conservative interests, most notably the secretive outfits backed by billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, will support Republican presidential nominee with hundreds of millions of dollars.
They can do anything and everything they accuse their political opponents of and maintain a moral high ground while doing it. You’ll find when dealing with Liberals that rules rarely apply to them but always to their opponent.
They could bury their “collective heads in our ideals and principles and cede the new political reality to the likes of Karl Rove and the Koch brothers or play by the rules as they are and play to win,” Brock said. “We made the decision, the correct and only one in our view, to play by the rules as they are and play to win so that progressives can gain enough political power to move America forward in a number of critical areas including campaign finance reform.”
Don’t be surprised when these laws have two effects:
- A bunch of social welfare non-profits shooting up because Federal says they don’t have to reveal their donors.
- A more centralized administrative agency that follows the President’s bidding on who is allowed to say what.
That’s exactly what we need right now, more powers in the hands of the swamp. We can trust them to tell us what political ads to play. And sure some of these campaign finance laws may make it harder to for the average citizen to get together and pool money, but at least we still have our corporate lobbyists.
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russ Feingold (D–WI) and John McCain (R–AZ).
It is no coincidence to me that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act came about after the troubling years the Clintons were having in the 90s. When we’re talking about negative “sham” political ads, they’re clearly addressing the “right wing” conspiracy theorists that were determined to bring down Hillary Clinton at any costs. Because she’s a woman. The only woman in Washington really and so Republican’s always felt the need to baselessly attack her.
This beautiful law was challenged in Citizen’s United. According to the bill co-sponsored by the snake John McCain himself, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, would prohibit unions, corporations, and independent groups from running political advertisements that mention the candidates within 60 days of a federal election (arbitrary and self serving on its face I know, no body talk about the election before the election 🙄).
Do you know who was a co-sponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 and voted for the bill that ultimately passed in 2002? Why Hillary Clinton her gosh darned self.
Not only did she want to reform campaign finance reform. She went a step further and called for public financing of campaigns to combat our corrupt organizations turning America into a dirty oligarchy. Instead of t. She’s also endured more than a couple campaign finance scandals during her political career.
I bet Hillary Clinton absolutely loves the Citizens United decision because she knows it’s going to help her — it makes her stronger and a more viable candidate,” Bossie said. “And yeah, the irony of Hillary benefiting from Citizens United is not lost on me. Frankly, I’m entertained by it.
The McCain-Feingold bill, by limiting the ability of individuals and groups to express dissenting opinions, will only serve to further centralize power in the hands of elected officials.
Don’t worry the number one rule of the Act still there. The prohibition on national party committees raising funds from sources and in amounts that were inconsistent with federal law—that is, unlimited soft money contributions from corporations, individuals and labor unions. To date, the ban has withstood constitutional challenge.
According to the authors of the Bill, spending by “unregulated” outside groups, which were running issue ads with unregulated funds, were rising. (Unregulated means it’s not touching five hands for permission).
Think about the effect of this law. Basically the only way a political add could be played if it was vetted by some centralized body. Can you think of what the Clinton’s would have done with this power? We would have never heard of Monica Lewinsky. The Clintons would have called it a wild and cray accusation made up by the Right to destroy them. But it is only through alternative media and private actors that the true story of Monica Lewinsky came out.
Further comparing the 200 election before the law was passed to the 2012 cycle, the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee raised over $650 million combined, as compared to approximately $330 million combined in the 2000 election cycle. Inflation doesn’t go up that fast. Though the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was supposed to bring donations to heel, it doubled them.
The Act just made it more it exponentially more expensive to communicate with voters.The McCain-Feingold Act federalized almost all elections, even those for state and local office, and forced the state and local parties to pay for most everything they do with hard money.
The McCain-Feingold Act was bipartisan alright, it received support from Republican’s and Democrats alike to screw the people from having a voice. All while cloaked under the non threatening much supported auspices of campaign finance reform.
The most hated case by Liberals ever. To them this is the 21st century version of Dread Scott and it is destroying democracy. It of course makes sense that this hated law is mired in the storm that is the Clinton’s. I’m not sure that the majority of the public is aware that the speech that was sought to be protected in Citizens United, was political speech against Hillary.
The case involves the film by conservative group Citizens United, which criticized then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign. Siding with filmmakers of “Hillary: The Movie,” who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the Supreme Court struck down much of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
Did the apocalypse happen?
Contrary to what our political slavers would have us believe, Super PACs are not just the devil incarnated. A case decided two months later in the D.C. Circuit (SpeechNow.org v. FEC) removed limits on donations to political action committees, thus making these PACs “super” and freeing people to pool money the same way one rich person can alone. Nothing freaks a Liberal out more than the average American gaining political power.
In fact, Citizens United didn’t do anything “to our democracy” except to allow the competition of candidates and ideas to escape complete federal control. Politicians are allergic to competition because it means they’d actually have to held accountable for the crap they say.
And the evil companies that were freed from the only thing standing between them and devouring our politicians? They actually spend little money on political advertising, preferring to focus bulk of their time and money on lobbying the government, something that the McCain-Feingld Act did nothing to curb.
Liberals hate Citizens United because the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party hates the American people. The notion that American citizens think for themselves or figure out anything for themselves is taboo. We can see the argument in the split of the Supreme Court when deciding Citizens United.
First, I think the case is interesting in how it reveals the schism on the Court (and in all of politics) between those with faith in experts and those with faith in markets. The campaign finance laws, and the dissenters’ views of elections law, are premised on a belief that we can design rules, no matter how layered and complex, that can be implemented by well-meaning bureaucrats with the result that we can take the money/corporate influence/corruption out of politics and finally create Democracy. These people are uncomfortable with uncertainty and unknown outcomes, and believe we should plan our way to some sort of utopia. The Citizens United majority, on the other hand, seems to have a distrust in experts and regulating natural things out of existence, preferring instead to rely on markets to work toward the optimal state of affairs.-Todd Henderson
Make no mistake, Citizens United enabled groups of citizens, including those organized in the corporate form, to freely engage in political speech by poling their money so they can compete with larger and richer donors.
Yet many influential public leaders continue to portray the repeal of Citizens United as the one and only answer to political corruption.
The Only True Reform that Works
The only true campaign finance reform is term limits and limiting the power of our government.
To the extent that “money in politics” is a problem, the solution is to reduce the political scope that money can influence. Shrink government, and you’ll shrink the amount people spend trying to get a piece of the pie.-Ilya Shapiro
As long as the Federal Government can pass sweeping regulations into every industry, businesses would be foolish not to advocate for themselves through expensive lobbyist and long political campaigns. Just look at Microsoft when they decided not to spend money on lobbyist. Their competitors did and Microsoft got hit with an antitrust suit.
And I have a question for Hillary and McCain, if y’all love campaign reform, why not support term limits for elected officials. Seems to me we could inject some new blood into Congress and guard against too much money flowing into the government.
P.S. If you made it this far or keep coming back, like and subscribe. You’ll get access to our weekly newsletter if you do. Unlike other newsletter mine is funny and cute.