« | »

Pelosi: SCOTUS Ruling Is A Threat To Democracy

From The Hill:

Pelosi: Campaign finance ruling is ‘existential threat’ to democracy

By Mike Lillis | April 3, 2014

The Supreme Court decision to eliminate a decades-old cap on individual campaign donations poses "an existential threat" to the nation’s democracy, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) charged Thursday.

These ‘caps’ go back to the Watergate era. And never mind there has been an astronomical increase in campaign money since then, despite the caps.

The California Democrat, who has long championed legislation to limit the influence of money in politics, warned that the high court’s ruling would only heighten the power of well-heeled interests in Washington at the expense of the vast majority of Americans.

Pelosi has only championed limiting Republican money. She has never spoken out against the tax exempt unions, who spend untold billions on Democrat candidates and work for them.

Or the countless tax exempt non-profits, which are nothing more than Democrat front groups that also spend untold billions on Democrat candidates and work for them.

"It wasn’t surprising what the court did, this being the court that decided Citizens United," Pelosi said, referring to the 2010 ruling that eliminated caps on corporate and union donations.

And, in fact, unions ended up spending twice as much more on campaigns in 2013 than the corporations did. From the Sunlight Foundation: "A Sunlight analysis of groups and individuals who wrote checks of $10,000 or more to super PACs and other political committees that report to the FEC revealed big labor bested big business in 2013 by better than 2-to-1."

"But it adds great insult to a terrible injury to our democracy. "This is a very existential threat to who we are and how we do our campaigning," she said, adding that “it should be something that should be roundly rejected."

Remember how we were told that the Supreme Court decision on Obama-Care could not be questioned? It was now the Law Of The Land.

Pelosi acknowledged the ruling doesn’t discriminate between the parties and that Democrats will now have access to more money from their wealthy donors, just as the Republicans will from theirs…. "Just because the ante is raised for everyone does not make it right," she said. "Is this just supposed to be a money war?" …

It’s long since been a money war. Which is why Pelosi wants to keep our side unarmed.

Pelosi, who raises enormous amounts of money for her party, acknowledged that Democrats have hardly shied away from fundraising efforts, despite their calls to reduce the amount of money in campaigns. But the only way to reach that legislative goal, she conceded, is to exploit the very election finance system she wants to upend.

"The fact is that you have to raise money to win the election," she said. "You’re not going to unilaterally disarm, but if you can win the election, then that’s where you differentiate and you go forward with initiatives to change the laws under which our campaign funding proceeds…"

Isn’t that a handy excuse? And never mind that for most of our lifetimes Democrats have controlled Congress. What meaningful campaign finance reforms have they ever done?

Not to mention that for the first two years of Obama’s tenure, Democrats had super majorities in both houses of Congress, as well as control of the White House. What campaign finance reforms did they pass?

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Friday, April 4th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “Pelosi: SCOTUS Ruling Is A Threat To Democracy”

  1. I want to know how Robert’s stripped gears for brains work .. that on the one hand he decides that a Mandatory Fee for living inside our borders can be called a Tax. But that there are federal subsidies for not paying this mandatory tax while simultaneously siding with the 1st Amendment that political giving is a matter of free speech ..

    That is a kind of mental gymnastics that even a Mobius Strip cannot unwind ..

    • captstubby

      During his confirmation hearings, Roberts said that he did not have a comprehensive jurisprudential philosophy, and he did “not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document”.Roberts analogized judges to baseball umpires: “[I]t’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”
      Wikipedia

      then there is the story about the three umpires;

      Three baseball umpires (were talking about how they make calls on each pitch.)
      The first umpire said: “There’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call them like they is.”
      Umpire number two said: “No, there’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call ‘em like I see ‘em.”
      umpire number three said: “There’s balls and there’s strikes, but they ain’t nothin’ until I call them.”

  2. Astravogel

    Pelosi and democracy in the same sentence? Land sakes and lawsy me!

  3. canary

    Pelosi: “It’s difficult,” she added. “You can’t win unless you have the resources to fight.”

    The Democrats still have voting fraud and rigging on their side.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »