So I've noticed on a few news sites I read and especially Huffington Post, that since the Supreme Court ruled on the 'McCutcheon' case the left has been frothing at the mouth with hysterics...
Personally I don't think it will really change much. But beyond that all I can do is shrug my shoulders and not give much of a fuck. The SC has long become little more than another political body, and this is the expected result when constitutionality stops being about what the Constitution says and becomes about legal precedent. Most legal precedents are simply rulings that get in the cracks and chip away at the Constitution one ruling at a time until the rights it was written to defend, and the limitations it placed on the government barely exist at all.
Just a thought...
Just like citizens united this will have a huge impact making the rich even more powerful. You're right the SC has become horribly political. 
attjack - Just like citizens united this will have a huge impact making the rich even more powerful. You're right the SC has become horribly political.You have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.
And how is standing up for the First Amendment political?
How is money speech? What a nonsensical load of crap. You can bow down to the plutocrats I'll pass.
Congratulations you were born rich and have more speech than other Americans, I guess speech isn't free after all.
attjack - Just like citizens united this will have a huge impact making the rich even more powerful. You're right the SC has become horribly political.
They have the balls to directly equate money with free speech... This increasing income inequality gap suddenly just got a lot scarier. Might as well start giving double votes to ppl based off income brackets. I mean it's not coincidence you have governors lining up to spitshine Adelson's circumcised dome
rufus -attjack - Just like citizens united this will have a huge impact making the rich even more powerful. You're right the SC has become horribly political.You have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.
And how is standing up for the First Amendment political?
You honestly don't understand how these give more power to the rich? Are you kidding?
Money now directly equates to political influence. The entire point of democracy is to spread representation to everyone regardless of income bracket or position, these hearings allow the rich to have a sphere of influence well beyond local politics that affect them.
Not to mention there were what? 500ish ppl who hit the donation cap last year? So we're not expanding the first amendment right or voter pool, we're simply allowing a small group of assholes to have more influence over politics beyond their region. This isn't a left-right issue, I don't understand how anyone can be in support of this. Rich people should be allowed to say whatever they want, they shouldn't be able to directly shape politics and, again, I don't understand how someone could see shit like Christie putting on that embarassing show for Sheldon Adelson and not be perturbed
I don't believe the founders ever thought money and speech could be equated... However, legal precedence got us to Citizens United. It really shouldn't surprise anyone.
amadeus - I don't believe the founders ever thought money and speech could be equated... However, legal precedence got us to Citizens United. It really shouldn't surprise anyone.
Agree about what the founders intent probably was, but Citizens United was the opposite of siding with legal precedence. The majority opinion specifically said they were overruling Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce that said corporate spending could be regulated. They also overruled portions of the Taft-Hartley Act. Citizens united was judicial activism.
I would like to live in a democracy where I retain my natural rights. I don't want to live in a place where my rights are for sale, and where most of the super rich got from a little rich to the top by way of government aide, tax loopholes, war profiteering, or the Fed-fractional banking system.
Special intrest groups are bad enough with the amount of influence their money has over a politics. Does this ruling potentially give one single person the same amount of influence as say the NRA?
If people were informed campaign donations would not matter,are people swayed by commercials and signs?