CONGRESS & WHITE HOUSE FOR SALE BY SUPREME COURT DECISION

SUPREME COURT DECISION ON APRIL 2, 2014, PUT ALL FEDERAL OFFICES UP FOR SALE.

MONEY WON, MONEY ALWAYS WINS IN POLITICS, SO WHY DO THE AMERICAN VOTERS ALLOW MONEY TO WIN?
WHY NOT TAKE THE MONEY OUT OF THE PICTURE?

   

IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH MONEY IN AMERICA, YOU, TOO, CAN BUY A GOVERNMENT! AND IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH "CONSERVATIVES" ON THE "SUPREME COURT" YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT IN LESS THAN 4 YEARS

   "Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard.” 

"In 2010, lobbyists gave members of Congress $3.5 billion to influence their decisions. Many special interest groups are thought to run the country, but what can Americans do to buy back Congress?" 
FIRE THEM ALL, OR IMPEACH THEM FOR HIGH TREASON, AND START AFRESH, THAT'S WHAT!

Justice Stephen G. Breyer rightfully noted that the decision “eviscerates the nation’s campaign finance laws,” and “creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate’s campaign.”

 BOTH "PARTIES" ARE CRIMINALLY INSANE, BUT THE 'PUBLICANS UP ON THE HILL ARE A BREED APART...THEIR "LEADERS" ARE WHAT IS CALLED, IN PARTS OF AMERICA, "BAT-__" INSANE, REFERRING TO BAT GUANO/MANURE.

A VERY SHALLOW SEARCH OF REPUBLICAN TACTICS TO BAR VOTERS FROM THE POLLS SHOULD SHOW ANYONE WITH A FUNCTIONAL MIND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2 PARTIES.

OLD BONER (BOEHNER) PROBABLY SWALLOWED HIS OWN TONGUE SCREAMING FOR JOY AND LICKING HIS VERY THIN LIPS.

In a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, APRIL 2, 2014, struck down limits on the overall campaign contributions individual donors may make to candidates, political parties and political action committees.

In an impassioned dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer rightfully noted that the decision “eviscerates the nation’s campaign finance laws,” and “creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate’s campaign.” (Super PACS have already figured out how to skirt the limits; today’s decision simply opens the money floodgates even more.)

[NOTE: THAT REFERS TO THIS:
The Adelson family gave a super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich another $5 million in March, bringing the family’s total investment in the lagging GOP presidential candidate’s campaign to more than $20 million. HOW MUCH WILL HE DONATE IN 2016? THE GOP IS ANXIOUS TO KNOW! ]

The framers were very clear, wrote Breyer.
The 1st Amendment protects not just the right to free speech, but the right of the people to be heard by their representatives.
“The 1st Amendment advances not only the individual’s right to engage in political speech, but also the public’s interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matters,” he wrote. "What has this to do with corruption? It has everything to do with corruption. Corruption breaks the constitutionally necessary ‘chain of communication' between the people and their representatives. It derails the essential speech-to-government-action tie. Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard.”
Start dancing, suckers.

The Framers [aka, FOUNDING FATHERS] had just one kind of dependence in mind for members of Congress: a dependence on the people. The Federalist (the then-anonymous essays by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay that are often used as a contemporary account of the Framers’ intentions), made this point: Federalist Paper #52 describes the House of Representatives as that “branch of the federal government which ought to be dependent on the people alone” (emphasis added).
But in the last two decades members of Congress have developed a fearsome dependency: campaign cash. The total amount spent on campaigns by all candidates for Congress in 2010 was $1.8 billion. Fundraising has become a way of life, and extravagant giving has been institutionalized; only the diamonds are missing.
Example: Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana), chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, whose position gave him a critical role in the debate over President Obama’s healthcare proposal.
Between 2003 and 2008, Baucus received $5 million in campaign contributions from the financial, insurance, and health industries. But there are similar examples from both sides of the aisle, both political parties are ON THE TAKE!!!
<<The corruption, Lawrence Lessig says, is systemic and systematic: in 2009 alone, lobbyists spent $3.5 billion, or about $6.5 million per each elected member in Congress.>>

CAMPAIGN CASH...OUR POLITICIANS ARE AS ADDICTED TO IT AS A CRACK ADDICT IS TO CRACK!
THEY ALL NEED TO BE SENT FOR A CURE!

AUCTIONED OFF, SOLD TO THE HIGHEST BIDDERS!
THAT IS WHAT THE DECISION AMOUNTS TO... WHOEVER CAN SCRAPE UP THE MOST MONEY, THE BIGGEST CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS CAN NOW BUY THE WHITE HOUSE, THE SEATS IN CONGRESS, AND EVERY POLITICIAN WHO WANTS TO MAKE MEGA-BUCKS WHILE IN OFFICE.
BILLION-DOLLAR PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS SUCH AS OUR LAST ONE WILL SKYROCKET TO MAYBE TRILLIONS INSTEAD...WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET THEIR GUYS IN OFFICE SO THEY CAN TELL THEM HOW TO VOTE.

AFTER ALL, WHEN YOU BUY A "CANDIDATE", THAT WHORE SHOULD PERFORM ANY WAY YOU SAY, RIGHT?

YOU ARE SOLD OUT, AMERICA, SOLD DOWN THE OLD RIVER, AND IF YOU DON'T CONTRIBUTE IN AMOUNTS OF AT LEAST 6 ZEROS, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ON ANY INVITATION LISTS OF ANY OF YOUR "ELECTED OFFICIALS" , YOU WILL BE A NOBODY IN YOUR CHOSEN "PARTY", NOR WILL YOU GET SO MUCH AS A CANNED REPLY BACK IF EVER YOU TRY TO CONTACT YOUR LIARS ON ANY MATTER...THEY DON'T NEED YOU ANYMORE!
THEY HAVE A TAP INTO THE BIG, REALLY BIG MONEY NOW!
I AM OPPOSED TO ANY PARTIES.
I BELIEVE THE "PARTY SYSTEM" SHOULD BE BANNED AND ANYONE TRYING TO FORM THEM AGAIN SHOULD FACE IMMEDIATE, MANDATORY CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.  


I ALSO BELIEVE THAT ADVERTISEMENTS BY CANDIDATES MUST BE BANNED.
LET THE MOTHERLESS LIARS STAND BEFORE LIVE CROWDS AND FACE THOSE WHOM THEY HAVE BETRAYED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, NOT HIDE BEHIND THE SMALL SCREEN OF SAFETY WE CALL TV.
LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY FROM EACH OF THESE LEECHES, THESE BOTTOM-DWELLING SCUM-EATERS WHO SUCKLE OFF WALL STREET'S BIG NAMES.

TOTALLY ELIMINATE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS!
LET THEM TRY FOR OFFICE BASED ON WHAT THEY CAN GET OUT TO THE PUBLIC ONE-ON-ONE, USING THEIR OWN MONEY TO GET AROUND TO THE VOTERS.
LET THE "INCUMBENTS" RUN ON THEIR HISTORIES, HOW THEY VOTED, WHO THEY TOOK MONEY FROM, HOW MANY TIMES THEY LIED TO THE "CONSTITUENCY". 

TRAVEL IS CHEAP, SO LET THEM BOOK MAJOR SPORTS ARENAS, CIVIC CENTERS,  AND THEN STAND THERE AND FIELD QUESTIONS FROM 'WE, THE PEOPLE', AND LET THERE BE A "THUMBS UP-THUMBS DOWN" DECISION AT THE END OF THEIR SPIELS, AND THEN A RELEASE OF THE TIGERS AND LIONS.

POLITICIANS ARE NOT HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO VOTERS ANYMORE.
THEY DON'T ANSWER TO THOSE WHO SUPPOSEDLY "ELECTED" THEM, AND GIVEN THE DAMNABLE CURSED ABOMINATION OF THAT "ELECTORAL COLLEGE", WE KNOW THAT VOTERS HAVE NEVER ELECTED A PRESIDENT...THE FOUNDERS DECIDED WE WERE TOO STUPID TO DO THAT, REMEMBER?
NO, WITH THIS DECISION, IT'S A WHOLE NEW BALLGAME, AND THE RICHEST TEAM WINS!

AS FOR THE "SUPREME COURT", IT HAS ALWAYS SUPREMELY LEANED/VOTED IN THE DIRECTION OF THE PARTIES OF THE PRESIDENTS WHO APPOINTED THEM.
MAYBE IT'S TIME WE STOPPED PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS, FOLLOWED BY CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.
MAYBE IT'S TIME WE GOT RID OF THAT OLD "SUPREME" COURT AND LET THE STATE COURTS DECIDE WHAT APPLIES TO THE STATES.
MAYBE IT'S TIME WE GAVE THE RULE IN AMERICA BACK TO THE RIGHTFUL RULERS...THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

Money won. Doesn’t it always?

It was not a big surprise that the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision today striking down certain limits on federal campaign contributions was divided along partisan lines.
Conservative justices sided with the idea that money equals speech, and that speech should be limited as little as possible. (Justice Clarence Thomas said there should be no limits at all.)
Money, argued the losing liberal minority, drowns out other, equally protected political speech.

The case was brought by Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee, who argued that Watergate-era restrictions on aggregate campaign donations were unconstitutional.

REMEMBER THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE NEXT ELECTION...THEY'LL BE THE ONES THROWING BONAFIDE DULY-APPOINTED CONVENTION REPS OUT THE DOORS...AGAIN. THEY WILL ALSO BE THE ONES WITH THE MOST GOONS NEAR THE POLLS TO SCARE AWAY AS MANY OF THE "WRONG KIND" OF VOTERS THAT THEY CAN.
AND THE 'DEMO-CATS'? THEY'LL BE THE ONES CAMPAIGNING FOR FELONS TO HAVE VOTING RIGHTS RESTORED.
SHAKE BOTH PARTIES IN A BAG AND ROLL THEM ONTO ANY FLOOR AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE.

MONEY WON AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ELATED, DANCING IN THE STREETS.THEY CAN'T WIN BY POPULAR VOTE, CAN'T STOP ALL THOSE POOR PEOPLE AND "OTHER RACES" FROM VOTING, CAN'T STOP THE TROOPS OVERSEAS FROM CASTING THEIR VOTES, BUT THEY HAVE TRIED MIGHTILY TO DO ALL THAT, AND NOW THEY CAN JUST LET THEIR BIG MONEY RICH GUY SUPPORTERS BUY THEM THE OFFICES THEY WANT.

THE SUPREME COURT IS ALWAYS "DIVIDED ALONG PARTY LINES"

It was not a big surprise that the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision today striking down certain limits on federal campaign contributions was divided along partisan lines.
Conservative justices sided with the idea that money equals speech, and that speech should be limited as little as possible. (Justice Clarence Thomas said there should be no limits at all.)
[WELL, CLARENCE PROBABLY WOULD VOTE TO SEE AN END TO CHARGES OF ADULTERY, MAYBE, RIGHT? ]

Money, argued the losing minority, drowns out other, equally protected political speech.
The case was brought by Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee, who argued that Watergate-era restrictions on aggregate campaign donations were unconstitutional.

WHO OWNS CONGRESS?
MOTHER JONES MAGAZINE PUT FORTH A LOT OF EFFORT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN 2010.
"What if members of Congress were seated not by party but according to the industries which gave them the most money over their entire careers?
THEY COMPILED A GREAT LAYOUT OF ALL 100 SENATE SEATS, COLOR-CODED TO WHICH COMPANIES/GROUPS/INDIVIDUALS SPENT THE MOST ON SENATE CAMPAIGNS,
GUESS WHO SHELLED OUT THE MOST TO ALL SENATORS? (A TOTAL OF 57 OF THE 100)
FINANCE COMPANIES, REAL ESTATE COMPANIES AND INSURANCE COMPANIES (CALLED "FIRE" IN THE MJ ARTICLE. REMEMBER THIS)!
LAWYER GROUPS AND LOBBYISTS FINANCED THE 2nd LARGEST BUNCH OF SENATORS, 25 IN ALL.
AGRIBUSINESSES BOUGHT 5 OF OUR CHEAP LITTLE WHORES, AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS TIED WITH ENERGY/NATURAL RESOURCE GROUPS TO BUY 2 EACH.

ONLY 3 SENATORS OF ALL 100 RAISED NO MONEY FROM THE MEGA-DONORS, JUST 3.

BUT THE TOP 3 SENATORS WERE BOUGHT.
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.)
Total raised: $17 million, 7% from FIRE
Top donors: In the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat, Brown's biggest donors were Fidelity Investments, Bain Capital (Mitt Romney's old firm), and Credit Suisse. But—whoops!—he voted for the financial regulation bill.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
Total raised: $35.4 million, 17% from lawyers and lobbyists.
Top donors: 5 out of the majority leader's top 10 lifetime donors are casinos or gambling interests.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
Total raised: $37.2 million, 14% from FIRE
Top donors: The top Senate Republican's most generous contributors have been US Smokeless Tobacco—now part of Altria, née Philip Morris—and Brown-Forman, the maker of Jack Daniel's.
Cheers!

WHAT ABOUT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES?
YOU MAY BE SORRY TO LEARN THE RESULTS...

LABOR AND "FIRE" TIED ON BUYS, WITH BOTH BUYING 159 REPRESENTATIVES EACH.
HEALTH COMPANIES (PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, et al) MADE A HAUL IN THE HOUSE, BUYING UP 26.
AGRIBUSINESSES MANAGED TO BUY 23.
LAWYERS AND LOBBYISTS GOT THEMSELVES 20 REPS.

AND WHO WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO BUY JOHN BOEHNER (OR, AS I CALL HIM, "BONER")?
WELL, IN 2010, JOHN-BOY WAS HANDED ALMOST $13 MILLION BY MOSTLY INSURANCE COMPANIES, SECURITIES AND INVESTMENT FIRMS, ELECTRIC UTILITIES AND LOBBYISTS.
BONER LOVES THOSE PACS!

OTHER BIG NAMES IN THE HOUSE RAKED IT IN AS WELL...

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
Total raised: $11.9 million, 19% from FIRE
Top donors: Sure, her husband is a major real estate investor, but the biggest all-time donor to the speaker (who has her own Napa vineyard) has been California wine giant E&J Gallo.!

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.)
Total raised: $17.3 million, 24% from FIRE
Top donors: The top donor to the GOP whip, a leading opponent of cap-and-trade legislation, is Dominion Resources, a Virginia power company.

OH, HOW POLITICIANS LOVE THOSE PACS AND SUPER-PACS!
THEY FOUND A LOOPHOLE TO USE THEIR "LEFTOVERS" FOR FAMILY FUN AND FAMILY FORTUNES...AND 60-MINUTES CAUGHT THEM AT IT

20 Oct 2013
On Sunday, a 60 Minutes investigative report by veteran CBS reporter Steve Kroft and Government Accountability Institute (GAI) President and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer revealed how leadership PAC loopholes allow members of Congress to convert campaign cash into lavish lifestyle upgrades for themselves and their family members. 

“It's another example, unfortunately, where the rules that apply to the rest of us, don't really apply to the members of Congress,” said Schweizer on 60 Minutes.

Despite the fact that funds from leadership PACs are supposed to go to help elect fellow members of one’s own political party, lax campaign laws allow lawmakers to turn their leadership PACs into private slush funds to fund just about anything.
Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ), for example, tapped his wife, a lawyer and an associate law dean at Rutgers School of Law-Camden, to be a PAC compliance officer for his leadership PAC. She approved the use of donor dollars to fly her, Rep. Andrews, and their two daughters to Edinburgh, Scotland for a wedding at a posh resort. Andrews’s leadership PAC paid $16,575 in airfare. His campaign committee picked up the rest of the tab, which was slightly under $14,000. Schweizer says Andrews’s leadership PAC even paid for the wedding gift, which was china from Bloomingdale’s. Andrews and his wife even merged a campaign event with their daughter’s graduation party, allowing them to combine the costs of the two events, even though the PAC did not pick up the entire bill.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss’s (R-GA) leadership PAC dropped $107,752 at the Breakers resort in Palm Beach during the 2012 election cycle. That is over three times as much money as he gave the National Republican Senatorial Committee to get fellow Republicans elected. One year, Chambliss spent nearly one-third of his entire leadership PAC funds on golf, limos, and at least one private jet ride. His leadership PAC also picked up a $26,814 dinner tab at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse and $10,344 at Pebble Beach.

“The abuse is substantial and pretty widespread,” said Kroft.

Schweizer agreed and said that is precisely how the Establishment likes it.
“We hear a lot about how there's so much partisan fighting in Washington,” said Schweizer. “Here's a great example of bipartisanship. Both sides like this current system.”

Sunday's 60 Minutes report is just the tip of the iceberg.

ICEBERG?
DIDN'T AN ICEBERG SINK THE BIGGEST SHIP EVER MADE IN ITS TIME?
AND WON'T THIS ICEBERG SINK AMERICA?
WHEN WE ALLOW THE FINANCIERS AND CORPORATIONS TO BUY OUR CONGRESSMEN AND PRESIDENTS, WE DON'T HAVE A REPUBLIC LEFT TO SAVE...
DO WE?

WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S RULING TODAY, ALL WE HAVE LEFT ARE PRICE TAGS PUT ON THE BROTHEL INHABITANTS UP ON CAPITOL HILL, AND AT 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW.

IT'S NOW THE MONEY THEY CAN TAKE, NOT THE VOTE YOU CAN MAKE,THAT PUTS SMALL MEN IN HIGH POWER.
IT'S THE END OF HOPE FOR AMERICAN VOTERS.