Has the Supreme Court killed Democracy?

[Rich Jones]

Is Wisconsin the forerunner of every election from now on? The Supreme Court's recent decision on unlimited corporate contributions had a huge impact on the recent recall race. Billionaires were able to outspend by a margin of $30 million to $4 million, effectively buying the election. The Supreme Courts action, plus Walker's union killing measures (stripping the Dems of campaign funding), pretty much decided this election.
Is this is the trend for the future? If so, the Supreme Court has killed Democracy in this country by insuring that we have one party rule. Once in power, the Gop in the next term will have a good chance of making the Supreme Court even more radically conservative.
Somebody, please tell me it ain't so!!

Another thing. What's up with the people of Wisconsin? They overwhelmingly voted for Obama in '08 and it looks like they'll do so again in '12. So why do they vote in this super radical gov, not once but twice? And by a huge margin? Are they so swayed by the billionarie's lies that they can't think for themselves?
I'm confused and disappointed.

[Norman Bernstein]

I think it's possible to be both encouraged, and discouraged, by the example set by the recall election in Wisconsin.

The discouraging part: Walker was able to raise $30M, 68% of which was from out of state.... his challenger raised only $3.9M, and only 25% of it was from out of state. Clearly, the GOP superPAC's are going to pour money into the election process. The MOST discouraging thing is that they are likely to do it in a targeted manner.... my guess: they'll pour several HUNDRED MILLION into Florida before November, for the sake of the 29 electoral votes.

The encouraging part: despite being outspent by nearly 8:1, Walker's margin wasn't all that much better than his margin of victory when first elected, despite the massive outside money he took in. That's the good news.

[fishrswim]

I'm afraid they put a stake made of money through her heart. Now corporations are people and money is free
speech. Oh well, it was a good idea. Maybe next time, in a sunny land,far far away.

[John Smith]

You're all wrong. It's not the amount of money spent, but the lack of obligation for political messages to be honest. We have tv ads running in our state praising our state leaders for our balanced budget. According to the newspapers, it's not balanced.

One of the best examples I can point out is this interview on the Daily Show

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...ccaughey-pt--1

This guest began the "death panel" thing in the Affordable Care Act. She kept telling us was the page said. Stuart read the page twice and it did not say what she claimed it said. All over the airwaves and in the halls of congress we were told here explanation as to what this page said. All of those who said that, IMO, committed fraud for political gain.

As long as we accept being lied to by the news media, our elected reps, political ads, etc. we have only ourselves to blame.

[RodSBT]

If money were the sole determining factor in elections Steve Forbes and/or Ross Perot would be on the list of past presidents.

[fishrswim]

But,don't you see? If they can spend all the money in the world, they can repeat the lies so often that the lie becomes the truth. Pointing out that it's a lie just doesn't have the same effect.
"A lie travels around the world before the truth gets it's pants on."

[Arizona Bay]

If money were the sole determining factor in elections Steve Forbes and/or Ross Perot would be on the list of past presidents.

Whooosh

[Ian McColgin]

Actually, the notion that "If money were the sole determining factor in elections Steve Forbes and/or Ross Perot would be on the list of past presidents" is false on those very examples. Take Perot. He managed to raise a bit less than Bush, who lost, and a lot less than Clinton, who won. Perot's worst liability was not just a bit less money. His worst problem was that over 90% of it was his own money. He simply did not have human support.

In Wisconsin, we see very big money going past the point of cost-effectiveness to win. Massive advertising manipulates people only so far and I think we'll see in the fall-out from Wisconsin a swing away from voters being manipulated against their own interest.

[John Smith]

If money were the sole determining factor in elections Steve Forbes and/or Ross Perot would be on the list of past presidents.

Rules were different then. Today, a single billionaire can match the funds donated by the entire 99%.

[John Smith]

But,don't you see? If they can spend all the money in the world, they can repeat the lies so often that the lie becomes the truth. Pointing out that it's a lie just doesn't have the same effect.
"A lie travels around the world before the truth gets it's pants on."

I agree, but why do I get so little support for requiring these ads to be honest insofar as the facts are concerned? How can ads be running on behalf of a sitting governor telling the people what a great job he's done balancing the budget when the budget doesn't balance. That's fraud. But we accept it as free speech.

[wardd]

I think it's possible to be both encouraged, and discouraged, by the example set by the recall election in Wisconsin.

The discouraging part: Walker was able to raise $30M, 68% of which was from out of state.... his challenger raised only $3.9M, and only 25% of it was from out of state. Clearly, the GOP superPAC's are going to pour money into the election process. The MOST discouraging thing is that they are likely to do it in a targeted manner.... my guess: they'll pour several HUNDRED MILLION into Florida before November, for the sake of the 29 electoral votes.

The encouraging part: despite being outspent by nearly 8:1, Walker's margin wasn't all that much better than his margin of victory when first elected, despite the massive outside money he took in. That's the good news.

to republicans any win is a mandate to do what they want whether they discussed it during the campaign or not

[wardd]

madison ave makes gobs of money because advertising works

[2MeterTroll]

Well lady liberty will soon be covered up. money has spoken and said that we bought our politician and he stays where we put him. but if you think it through there is a small glimmer of light.

with all the money spent the vote was still 40 some by 53 or so not a real big margin. IMO folks are getting savvey to the money gobs. course the country will be a wreck before they learn the lesson, but it is happening.

[wardd]

Well lady liberty will soon be covered up. money has spoken and said that we bought our politician and he stays where we put him. but if you think it through there is a small glimmer of light.

with all the money spent the vote was still 40 some by 53 or so not a real big margin. IMO folks are getting savvey to the money gobs. course the country will be a wreck before they learn the lesson, but it is happening.

to the republicans it's a win no matter what they cost and a small investment for greater returns

[David W Pratt]

Has the turnout been announced?
I've read that it was large, but I don't know what %

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

I really wonder what Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (Harvard Law, magna cum laude, editor of the law review) thinks of the current turn of events. He fancies himself as a historian if the Court. Of the "Unholy Four", Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas, only Roberts seems likely to be the least bit introspective about how the court's decisions pan out in the real world.

[Tall Boy]

to republicans any win is a mandate to do what they want whether they discussed it during the campaign or not

And....to a democrat, a lose is a reason (or need) to whine and demand that the rules be changed....again.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

And....to a democrat, a lose is a reason (or need) to whine and demand that the rules be changed....again.

The big test is yet to come. Isn't that right, boy? We shall see who whines longest and loudest come November.

[2MeterTroll]

what? something to remember no money can put the country back together once they rape and pillage it. Another burning river, higher cancer rates, Slaves, no min wage, poor dead on the streets. I have said it for several years now "in order for the population to actually get a clue in this country, things will have to get so bad they cannot ignore it." Looks like just the ticket; I wont be here in any case, thats the beauty of boats they take you away when you want to be away.

to the republicans it's a win no matter what they cost and a small investment for greater returns

[Chris Coose]

That 1/3 of Federal government went into fatal decline when they handed the presidency to Cheney and his crew.

[2MeterTroll]

Yes and its going to slide the rest of the way into total uselessness under the republicans onslaught. however as has been observed; the powers that corrupt can only hide stuff for a little while before it seeps into the ground water.

That 1/3 of Federal government went into fatal decline when they handed the presidency to Cheney and his crew.

[McMike]

If the people weren't so ignorant and easily lead by heir emotions money wouldn't be an issue. This country is where it is because the people don't take education seriously as a nation leaving them vulnerable to the power of suggestion. We live in a country of stupid, welcome to the show.

FWIW, I'm on the fence about unions but this recall result was clearly aresult of fear mongering and misinformation powered by the almighty dollar.

[Durnik]

If the people weren't so ignorant and easily lead by their emotions money wouldn't be an issue. This country is where it is because the people don't take education seriously as a nation leaving them vulnerable to the power of suggestion. We live in a country of stupid, welcome to the show.

FWIW, I'm on the fence about unions but this recall result was clearly a result of fear mongering and misinformation powered by the almighty dollar.

Isaac Asimov said it well..

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

While on the subject, he also said this - (for context, google - FTM - is your friend)

..Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes...

enjoy
bobby

[David W Pratt]

Actually, the turnout was 57%, Walker won with 53% of the vote, meaning only 30% of the registered voters voted for him, who knows how many potential voters are not registered. It seems the big winner was Apathy.
It tuns out that 57% is big for a gubernatorial election, but even Presidential ones only get about 65%.
It seems there is a lot of muscle that could be mobilized, no matter how much $$$ is poured into the race.
IIRC, the woman who lost in the Governor's race in CA spent $46/vote.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Government For Sale! And the Repubs LOVE it!

[bobbys]

Im glad Sarah Palin did not write she was Killing anything or we would have had at least 6 lectures on civility...

When a liberal uses these sorts of Phrases it goes unnoticed.

Guess its a Right brain left brain sort of thing...

[bobbys]

I think it's possible to be both encouraged, and discouraged, by the example set by the recall election in Wisconsin.

The discouraging part: Walker was able to raise $30M, 68% of which was from out of state.... his challenger raised only $3.9M, and only 25% of it was from out of state. Clearly, the GOP superPAC's are going to pour money into the election process. The MOST discouraging thing is that they are likely to do it in a targeted manner.... my guess: they'll pour several HUNDRED MILLION into Florida before November, for the sake of the 29 electoral votes.

The encouraging part: despite being outspent by nearly 8:1, Walker's margin wasn't all that much better than his margin of victory when first elected, despite the massive outside money he took in. That's the good news.

.

Give us the Number of Obamas stash.

Is this money going to the Ronald MacDonald house or to run his campaign?

[McMike]

Im glad Sarah Palin did not write she was Killing anything or we would have had at least 6 lectures on civility...

When a liberal uses these sorts of Phrases it goes unnoticed.

Guess its a Right brain left brain sort of thing...

For crying out loud . . . quit yer whining.

[bobbys]

For crying out loud . . . quit yer whining.

.

LOL hey i was baiting Glenn not you. Consider yerself collateral damage!

[McMike]

.

LOL hey i was baiting Glenn not you. Consider yerself collateral damage!

LOL, or Consider yourself tag-teamed . . . . PMs my friend, PMs.

[skuthorp]

Your supreme court has been somewhat politically dodgy since GW got the job. What's new. And you're expecting balance in a Laissez-faire electoral system or the private media? Money rules.

[Glen Longino]

Im glad Sarah Palin did not write she was Killing anything or we would have had at least 6 lectures on civility...

When a liberal uses these sorts of Phrases it goes unnoticed.

Guess its a Right brain left brain sort of thing...

"Guess it's a Right brain left brain sort of thing..."

First, you must determine that you have a brain!
Second, you must find a right and a left side!
I expect you to be occupied for quite some time with the First Step!
Get back to us, okay?

[Glen Longino]

.

LOL hey i was baiting Glenn not you. Consider yerself collateral damage!

Consider me baited!
Fer crying out loud...quit yer goldanged whiiiiiiining and piiiiiiiiiiiining over Sarah....will you puleeeeese!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
No?
I figgered!

[John Smith]

what? something to remember no money can put the country back together once they rape and pillage it. Another burning river, higher cancer rates, Slaves, no min wage, poor dead on the streets. I have said it for several years now "in order for the population to actually get a clue in this country, things will have to get so bad they cannot ignore it." Looks like just the ticket; I wont be here in any case, thats the beauty of boats they take you away when you want to be away.

Look, the people don't want to know the truth. They want to believe the country is better off if they get a tax cut. Or even if just the rich get these cuts. Many believe that overregulation led to the Wall Street disaster, or that frivilous lawsuits are killing American jobs. These are the same people who believe Reagan balanced the budget, that Clinton raised taxes and destroyed our economy, and Bush's tax cuts cause huge economic growth.

They won't listen to the truth, they will listen to those who tell them the truth is what they want to here. Until those giving us the information are abligated, legally, to be honest, the public's right to know is a farce.

[John Smith]

If the people weren't so ignorant and easily lead by heir emotions money wouldn't be an issue. This country is where it is because the people don't take education seriously as a nation leaving them vulnerable to the power of suggestion. We live in a country of stupid, welcome to the show.

FWIW, I'm on the fence about unions but this recall result was clearly aresult of fear mongering and misinformation powered by the almighty dollar.

People are ignorant by the design of those with money who want to keep them ignorant. A citizen SHOULD be able to listen to any "news" based network and get the facts correctly. We are entitled to our politicians stating matters of fact with some degree of accuracy. Sadly, we don't get that. Political ads, candidates, elected officials, and "news" outlets have NO OBLIGATION to report matters of fact accurately.

[wardd]

People are ignorant by the design of those with money who want to keep them ignorant. A citizen SHOULD be able to listen to any "news" based network and get the facts correctly. We are entitled to our politicians stating matters of fact with some degree of accuracy. Sadly, we don't get that. Political ads, candidates, elected officials, and "news" outlets have NO OBLIGATION to report matters of fact accurately.

but they are not meant to be factual statements, or so i hear

[John Smith]

but they are not meant to be factual statements, or so i hear

Of course not. My point is they should have a legal responsibility to be factual.

[Waddie]

Money wasn't the issue in Wisconsin. Everybody there had a clear view of their choices. H**l, 38% of UNION households voted for Walker. Besides, if you look back to when the petition was filed, both sides spent about the same. Both sides went all out. Unions provided massive amounts of manpower to the challenger.

Money didn't decide this election. Obama turned down federal funding in 2008 so he could greatly outspend McCain. Did he "buy" that election? Do you think EITHER candidate will accept federal funds (and their restrictions) this time around? Think not....

regards,
Waddie

[Keith Wilson]

Money wasn't the issue in Wisconsin.

I think that's a highly dubious claim. Once the Democratic primary was over, during the actual election campaign, Walker outspent his opponent more than 8:1. I expect that's well beyond the point at which a bit more or less money would have made any difference: 6:1 or 10:1 wouldn't have changed things much, but I'm certain that large a disparity had an effect. The real effect of Citizens United is going to be in state and local races, where money is much shorter than national elections, and a couple of well-placed anonymous millions can make a real difference. Primaries too.

[John Smith]

I think that's a highly dubious claim. Once the Democratic primary was over, during the actual election campaign, Walker outspent his opponent more than 8:1. I expect that's well beyond the point at which a bit more or less money would have made any difference: 6:1 or 10:1 wouldn't have changed things much, but I'm certain that large a disparity had an effect. The real effect of Citizens United is going to be in state and local races, where money is much shorter than national elections, and a couple of well-placed anonymous millions can make a real difference. Primaries too.

THIS IS AMERICA. Money is always an issue. Exit polls showed a large percentage didn't believe in the recall. It would be interesting to see how many of those actually had good data as to why the recall effort was made.

I feel like a lone voice in the wilderness, but with nothing to keep political ads honest, then money allows misinformation to be spread far, wide, and often.

[Tom Hunter]

Money wasn’t the issue, the issue was a strategy driven by irrational hatred of Scott Walker, hubris, and overreach.

The Unions hate Walker, that’s rational, he is bad for them. It’s irrational to organize a recall election to remove a sitting governor just because you don’t like him. Thinking you can beat the guy just because you are organized and driven by your hatred of him is hubris. Now that you’re in your own little world you try to do it and you overreach. Then you fail.

It’s five months until November, if they had waited they might have won then. They still might win then, but their chances are much worse.

It would not surprise me if Wisconsin went for Obama in November, this vote says much more about the rewards of bad election strategy than it does about the voters of Wisconsin.

[Rich Jones]

Even if a large percentage didn't believe in the recall, would it cause Demrocrats to vote for Walker? Even if I didn't believe in the recall, I certainly would have taken the opportunity to get rid of Walker.
Evidently, Barrett was a very poor candidate so that was a big factor.
I still feel that Citizens United caused the demise of democracy in this race.

[Tom Hunter]

Apparently the large percentage that felt recalls are for corruption, not disagreement, did cause people to vote for Walker. It was one of many factors, and Barrett is naturally another factor. I have concerns about Citizens United, but I don't think this race proves much of anything, because of the mix factors I mentioned in my first post.

[ccmanuals]

Unless you live in WI you did not see the barrage of television political ads that the people there were subjected to for almost a year. One such notable tv ad sponsored by the NRA told the hunters of Wisconsin that Barrett was going to take away their hunting rifles and their right to hunt. If someone believes that this kind of garbage wasn't effective then they need to check what they are smoking.

[wardd]

Money wasn’t the issue, the issue was a strategy driven by irrational hatred of Scott Walker, hubris, and overreach.

The Unions hate Walker, that’s rational, he is bad for them. It’s irrational to organize a recall election to remove a sitting governor just because you don’t like him. Thinking you can beat the guy just because you are organized and driven by your hatred of him is hubris. Now that you’re in your own little world you try to do it and you overreach. Then you fail.

It’s five months until November, if they had waited they might have won then. They still might win then, but their chances are much worse.

It would not surprise me if Wisconsin went for Obama in November, this vote says much more about the rewards of bad election strategy than it does about the voters of Wisconsin.

removing a guy whos policies are detrimental to your well being is rational

[2MeterTroll]

the truth might not be heard now but give it time; truth kinda seeps in. lies might be faster but truth is persistent. Look I grew up part of my life in the projects of the windy city, when the whole country looks like that you cant just ignore it. I was lucky others not so much.

Look, the people don't want to know the truth. They want to believe the country is better off if they get a tax cut. Or even if just the rich get these cuts. Many believe that overregulation led to the Wall Street disaster, or that frivilous lawsuits are killing American jobs. These are the same people who believe Reagan balanced the budget, that Clinton raised taxes and destroyed our economy, and Bush's tax cuts cause huge economic growth.

They won't listen to the truth, they will listen to those who tell them the truth is what they want to here. Until those giving us the information are abligated, legally, to be honest, the public's right to know is a farce.

[David W Pratt]

Did Barrett spend 100% of what he raised?

[PhaseLockedLoop]

I agree, but why do I get so little support for requiring these ads to be honest insofar as the facts are concerned? How can ads be running on behalf of a sitting governor telling the people what a great job he's done balancing the budget when the budget doesn't balance. That's fraud. But we accept it as free speech.

It's easy, John. Who's going to determine the "facts?" You'd have to have a fact-determination panel that everyone accepted, and since everyone doesn't agree on the facts, such a panel is impossible to form. Am I missing something? The notion that citizen speech must clear a group of officials is a totalitarian notion.

[John Smith]

Money wasn’t the issue, the issue was a strategy driven by irrational hatred of Scott Walker, hubris, and overreach.

The Unions hate Walker, that’s rational, he is bad for them. It’s irrational to organize a recall election to remove a sitting governor just because you don’t like him. Thinking you can beat the guy just because you are organized and driven by your hatred of him is hubris. Now that you’re in your own little world you try to do it and you overreach. Then you fail.

It’s five months until November, if they had waited they might have won then. They still might win then, but their chances are much worse.

It would not surprise me if Wisconsin went for Obama in November, this vote says much more about the rewards of bad election strategy than it does about the voters of Wisconsin.

Walker's not up for re-election in November.

[John Smith]

It's easy, John. Who's going to determine the "facts?" You'd have to have a fact-determination panel that everyone accepted, and since everyone doesn't agree on the facts, such a panel is impossible to form. Am I missing something? The notion that citizen speech must clear a group of officials is a totalitarian notion.

That's a cop out. Taking something out of context to change it's meaning is simply being dishonest. There are matters of fact that are not debatable.

A really good example from this election is the ad that quotes Obama as saying, "If we talk about the economy, we will lose", when Obama was, in fact, quoting McCain. Or how What Bill Clinton said a few days ago is being taken out of context and distorted. It's not so hard to keep matters of fact correct, and it's easy to distort them for political gain.

Lying for political gain, IMO, is not free speech, but fraud.

When Romney says it was an easy decision for Obama to make to send the seals after Bin Laden, and he (Romney) would have made the same decision, the matter of fact is that Romney is on record stating he would not have looked for Bin Laden, so he had already made a decision different from Obama's.

If you read the lanugage in the Affordable Health Care Act that was referenced as "death panels" it was, IN FACT, a means by which the government could insure that LIFE SUSTAINING requests were honored.

The people running ads in my state know our budget isn't balanced, but they put out ads bragging that it is. How is that free speech, and how is it difficult to determine if the budget is balanced or not?