Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: 7/17 NYT Magazine - Thought Provoking Analysis of Citzens United

Posted 8 years ago on July 17, 2012, 9:49 p.m. EST by throaway (57)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The author argues that McCain-Feingold (meant to eliminate 'soft money') actually opened the flood gates more that CU decision did. Of course, the 527 groups (so named from the IRS provision that allows them) are also in play.

Would seem the cry to repeal CU must also inculde The Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (aka M-F) and section 527.

Good read -




Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 8 years ago

Huh....I found that eductional. Never realized McCain-Feingold was a part of the problem, too.

Wonder how many OWS'ers realize this, since I don't recall seeing any threads about that on this site?

Also didn't realize the liberals were the first to take advantage, but as the article said, this happened while W was the prez.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

I think everybody who read the decision understands this.

[-] 1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 8 years ago

Guilty as charged :-)

[-] 1 points by throaway (57) 8 years ago

This really is a good article.

If you’re a Democrat, there’s some good news here. One persistent fear you hear from liberals is that Citizens United altered the balance between the parties in a permanent way — that corporate money will give Republicans a structural advantage that can never be overcome. What’s more likely is that the boom in outside money will prove to be cyclical, with the momentum swinging toward whoever feels shut out and persecuted at the moment. Liberals dominated outside spending in 2004 and 2006. And should Romney become president, they’ll most likely do so again.