Ultraviolet Thunderpussy's View: Commentary, Vintage Male Photos, Videos.

now the wealthy can blunt the bribed mooch class who get free benefits from democrats Media Spins This Decision It did not take long for the leftist media which is the mouthpiece of this Administration to spin the decision by the Supreme Court to allow contributions to as many candidates as you'd like to make in Federal elections as an injustice. The media is always quick to presuppose that money spent by the rich influences elections - but what the media fails to ever mention is that the voters who ultimately pull the lever or fill in the dot or stick something in a punch hole ultimately have the most power - and leftists realize this with bribes to the masses with unmitigated controls. We are constantly reminded that the rich are called the 1%, but what we don't often hear about are the 50% or higher proportion of the electorate who pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES AT ALL and often get money they never paid back as Earned Income Tax Credits.   And since those who mooch on the government tit out number the so-called 1% by 50 to 1, these poor and lazy Americans get a disproportionate vote and impact on Government.    This is such a powerful disadvantage to the rich that the poor are now so powerful that they can vote for increased benefits and goodies and overpower anyone else who stands in their way. The media has to make this decision today all about the rich against the poor, but money only buys you advertising, it does not buy you outcomes.    And, what the media has also left out is the huge number of monied Democrat supporters like the assholes in Hollywood who donate only to Democrats - so these people will have a greater impact which will blunt the often invoked Koch brothers impact.    And let's not forget that the Democrats have their own Coke addiction - known as George Soros - the Democrat party bankroller who made almost all of his money through currency trading and banking on ruining other countries' currencies for profit. Now at least the wealthy have a chance to influence more people to vote against the pathetic Progressive leftist infection of bribing the poor with free goodies and increased benefits that they have never earned. “Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” the chief justice wrote. “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.” Under the current limit, a donor can’t give more than $123,200 to candidates, parties and political action committees. Of that, just $48,600 can go directly to candidates. That means if someone wanted to give the maximum donation, he could only contribute to nine candidates. Chief Justice Roberts said it made no sense that someone couldn’t give to a 10th candidate or more — and said the government didn’t offer a clear line on where corruption would come into play. But defenders of the law posed a hypothetical, saying that if someone were allowed to give the maximum to every political candidate and party, it could amount to $3.5 million — which could then be redistributed to other campaigns by the candidates and parties themselves. Strict campaign finance advocates said they feared those candidates and parties could then collude and siphon the money back to a single candidate the donor had wanted to benefit in the first place, which would effectively break the contribution limit. “We think the risk of corruption is real,” Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. had told the justices when the case was argued in October. The Sunlight Foundation, which criticized the decision, has already crunched numbers on 20 wealthy donors it said are most likely to take advantage of the end of the aggregate limit. Of those, 13 were identified as GOP donors, while four gave only to Democrats. Justice Roberts‘ ruling was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion joining in the judgment, though he would have gone further in undoing the limit on how much can be given to individual campaigns. The court’s four liberal-leaning justices dissented, in an opinion written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer that blasted the majority ruling, calling it devastating to democracy. “It creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate’s campaign,” Justice Breyer wrote. “Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election [Commission], today’s decision eviscerates our nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.” The ruling comes four years after the justices decided that Citizens United case, a 5-4 ruling that opened the door for interest groups to spend unlimited money on issue ads, though they are still limited in their contributions to candidates themselves. (Washington Times)  The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that wealthy donors shouldn’t be limited in how many candidates they can contribute to during an election, though the justices did leave in place the maximum donation that can be made to a single candidate. The ruling is certain to reignite a debate over the role of money in politics and it enraged Democrats, who argue that conservatives are dismantling the campaign finance system one ruling at a time. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in the controlling opinion in the 5-4 ruling, said that while the government has an interest in preventing corruption of federal officeholders, individuals have political rights that include being able to give to as many candidates as they want, in order to show support.