Chart: After Citizens United

Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:04 PM EDT

We know the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling reshaped American campaign finance. But as Dan Froomkin notes, that ruling allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts for and against candidates, just when Super Pacs without limits came into being. That's where corporations have put their money so far, and when it's a PAC not required to disclose its donors, those break conservative.

— Filed under: campaign-finance

Palmquist1

Yes they have three supreme court judge's in there pocket. Money is coming in from other country to help there agenda to distroy this country.

#1 - Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:28 PM EDT

Covah

The only "money is coming in from other country" is foreign money invested in America by buying our government bonds. The only ones screaming TAX CUTS are Republican traitors who refuse to invest in America because they feel America is a liberal utopian experiment that deserves to fail.

This country is built on foreign capital.

Everyone believes in America except Republicans.

#1.1 - Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:36 PM EDT

Mynnah

2012 will drown in this money.

So I can't find the Citizens United Jr. article. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

#2 - Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:54 PM EDT

ramurphy2005

That's the public funding for campaigns, the one that's under fire in Arizona, right?

I haven't seen anything new on that case recently. I did see an article about it in the Bangor Daily News a few weeks ago because Maine has a similar law in place, and questions about how Maine might have to change things depending on the ruling from the court.

#2.1 - Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:01 PM EDT

John-2416054

I had NPR on in the car they other day and they were talking about this, or something related. The guest said he anticipates that each side in the '12 election will spent $1 trillion.

$2 trillion to elect the next president. It's heart-stopping.

1 vote

#3 - Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:09 PM EDT

Covah

each side in the '12 election will spent $1 trillion.

Democrats have rich powerful friends who do not want to see Republicans in power. Not everyone is duped by Republican lies.

1 vote

#3.1 - Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:31 PM EDT

John-2416054

I know, Covah. I was just stunned by the amount of money being spent...I mean, the 08 was like $2 trillion when you added up all the races for pres and congress and all.

Rachel a while back made a point about regular people making "human sized" difference in elections. I guess it didn't sink in until now how outmatched us regular people are by the moneyed interests on both sides.

1 vote

#3.2 - Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:51 PM EDT

c5499351

But 4 Trillion to pay back the voting blocks is killer

#3.3 - Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:28 PM EDT

Mike Paganucci

The issue cuts both ways because the Dems will be able to utilize the same SuperPacs from their campaign donors. I would not hold my breath waiting for campaign financing reform. Neither party is willing to give up certain aspects of campaign funding. It will take constitutional amendment to achieve reform. Some states can put a referendum on their state ballot to call for an amendment or a constitutional convention. That would be a way start moving toward real reform.

#4 - Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:19 PM EDT

Covah

I'd like to know what corporations buy from Republicans besides debt.

There is no question that the rich have been getting richer since 1981. They have not been getting richer on tax cuts. The rise of investment return for the property class has been due to increasing productivity from the working class. As working class people work more hours per day, more hours per week, with fewer vacations and fewer benefits, and with labor-saving tools such as computers and automation, they become more productive. But they have not been getting the return from that effort. Instead the rich are profiting from this working class productivity.

What have either Republicans or Democrats done about the growing economic divergence between the haves and have-nots? Nothing. Both parties are equally culpable for globalization and deregulation.

I maintain that the rich who give money to Republicans are duped. Republicans, in spite of their postures and lies, have no interest in supporting the rich. Tax cuts for the rich only lead to debt and economic collapse. The Ryan Plan cuts taxes for the rich and cuts benefits for everyone else and Simpson/Boles attack the Ryan Plan for doing nothing to reduce debt. What's the point? I again maintain the point is to bankrupt the national economy and provoke civil unrest in preparation for a fascist coup.

1 vote

#5 - Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:26 PM EDT

c5499351

Nothing it is a political ruse that both parties use to garner voter support. The Republicans promise tax cuts for big corporations and the rich. The Democrats with promises to the union bosses and socialist/progressives agendas. In both cases, the working class sees little benefit unless their productivity exceeds the spending of the ruling party.

Hence the need to address spending.

#5.1 - Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:41 PM EDT

MechTrek

Yep, we're boned.

2 votes

#6 - Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:33 PM EDT

Jacob Wisner

Best investment decision ever made by a sitting supreme court justice?

Cost:

- perceived integrity by those who were unlikely to pay to have you as a guest speaker at their events in the first place

= $0

ROI (return on investment) -

+ Year to year increase in value of industry wife's firm operates in by ?%

+ Free hotel suites and all-you-can-eat buffets at guest speaker gigs for life

= ? $$$$$$

Have to wait on 2012 spending numbers to even guess though. The increases that occurred prior to this decision was fairly significant. Whether there exists significant room for increased total expenditures will depend on whether or not contributors determine they can expect realizable returns for more cash. Those estimations will likely largely be made based on the results of recall, special, and primary elections between now and then.