10 Reaction To Supreme Court Decision on Campaign Finance

Voting machine for the future elections. Place your votes here,

Voting machine for the future elections. Place your votes here.

Last week, the United States Supreme Court decreed that the limits of $5,200 in campaign donation to a single candidate, and $123,200 to all candidates in an election cycle are unconstitutional because these limits represent a restriction on the constitutionally protected free speech. The decision made it possible to donate up to $3.6 million during an election cycle. I’m sure many of you felt frustrated by the burdensome regulation that prohibited you from donating more than $123,000 to the candidates of your choice… Not many of you? Wait, not even one of you? Well, apparently someone did feel constrained by these few campaign finance restrictions remaining after Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that money equals free speech and that corporations are people. Here are 10 reactions to the latest Court’s decision on campaign finance and free speech.

1)  Vladimir Putin, president of Russia: Thank you, Supreme Court! Thank you! Now I know that don’t have to spend $100-$200 billions to prepare for the new Cold War, I just need $10-$20 billions to buy up all the American politicians and win it.

2)  Average Republican voter:  I’m also happy with this decision. I am absolutely, positively sure that whenever a wealthy job creator gives a few million dollars to a Republican candidate, he does so because he genuinely has my best interests in mind.

3)  Susan P. Stein, curator of Thomas Jefferson museum at Monticello:  We have temporarily suspended all tours to the Jefferson family’s burial plot due to the complaints of some strange noises heard there. It sounds like something is rolling underground.

4)  Republican National Committee:  To celebrate the Supreme Court’s decision, we will hold a special Red Thursday sale on all Republican candidates! Perfect for both running errands and for entertaining your dinner guests with their outrageous antics! Get them while supplies last! And don’t miss this amazing deal: 50% off on all used candidates like Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney!

5)  Lawrence T. Elliot, high-profile criminal defense lawyer:  Since the Supreme Court has established that money is speech, I, instead of bothering to argue a criminal case for my affluent clients in court, will just be able to donate a few million dollars to the judge.

6)  Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Justice: Unfortunately, our decision still left in place most of the restrictions on the free speech. Look, $3.6 million limit per donor is still an infringement on free speech. Asking donors to disclose their donations – certainly an infringement on free speech. And, finally, making it illegal for politicians to promise special favors in exchange for large donations – well, that sounds a lot like free speech infringement to me.

7)  Armed Patriots For White Power, a militia organization:  This was a very encouraging decision, and it gives us hope that today’s Supreme Courts will soon recognize political assassination as a form of protected free speech.

8)  Republican National Committee: We have been trying to eradicate voter fraud from elections since 2008 – and the Court’s decision has finally offered us the solution to the problem of people just not getting our message and still showing up to vote. Why can’t we just have decide the winner of all future elections by whoever raises the most money?

9)  List of X: I was planning to continue this list to 10 items, but then I realized that my standard of writing exactly 10 numbered items is nothing but a restriction on my free speech, and I’m just not going to stand for it.

19,221.61) So there.

On a personal note… Last Friday, my blogging buddy and Galactic Empire stormtrooper TwinDaddy has made my blog a target of his Stuphblog’s Feature Friday series where he spotlights his favorite bloggers. I was both honored and perplexed that I was even considered for this exclusive club – but what floored me the most is that TwinDaddy actually wrote a list of 10 reasons why you should follow List of X. Since I myself can’t think of a single reason why you should follow me, I suggest that you read them in his post. Please don’t forget to check out his entertaining Stuphblog and follow it, because if you don’t, it means that you do not respect TwinDaddy’s right to free speech and hate the Constitution.

Don’t forget to leave a comment – or just send me a check, because, as you know now, money is speech, too.

Advertisements

About List of X

An Ostensibly Funny Commentary* of the Recent News and Events. (* warning! may not actually be funny or a commentary. Also, since I am not quite sure what "ostensibly" means, it might not be "ostensibly" either.) Blogging at listofx.com
This entry was posted in Humor, List of 10, Satire and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to 10 Reaction To Supreme Court Decision on Campaign Finance

  1. 1jaded1 says:

    I was happy that he featured you bc you are hilarious. I’m sharpening my guillotine for the other stuff (not stuph) relating to the next revolution.

    Like

  2. Does this mean that the Clinton Foundation can bankroll a Hillary campaign?

    Like

  3. Ankur Mithal says:

    No.2 hits the nail smack on the head. I suppose political donations would be permissible deductions as legitimate business expense.

    Like

  4. As always, very clever. And like you, I’m also a little bemused as to how TD came up with 10 reasons to follow you.

    As you know, I only follow you so you will follow me back…

    On a serious note, #1 scares me a little.

    Like

    • List of X says:

      Thank you, but as I said, I’m a little afraid of following you, because I do a lot of blog reading at work, while sitting just across from my boss, and I don’t want to be caught staring at your hot topless photos. I come and read you at night, assuming I’m still not at work.

      Like

    • List of X says:

      Ok, I think I found the solution – I can follow you by e-mail only.
      P.S. now that you got me to follow you, I guess you can stop following me now 🙂

      Like

  5. omawarisan says:

    I’d say something, but money is kinda tight.

    Like

  6. A bank vault full of money +++ was poured into Mitt Romney’s campaign and look how that turned out. The Koch brothers might just as well have set all that money on fire for all the good it did. Without sane candidates, none of it matters.

    Twin Daddy is insanely generous with his real estate. He’s constantly promoting the work of others. The man is an angel, I tell ya.

    Like

    • List of X says:

      I think that money still matters a lot in elections, especially in smaller elections where you have two flawed and more or less unknown candidates. In those cases, money can really help to amplify the faults of the “wrong” candidate. It’s not a guarantee of anything, but if it adds a few percentage points to the final vote count, that can be just enough to win.

      Like

      • Don’t get me wrong…I hate the Supreme Court’s decisions on election financing. If money didn’t matter, politicians wouldn’t pursue it with such vigor. I just think it’s a riot when millions are poured into a campaign and it’s all for nothing. That amuses me.

        Like

        • List of X says:

          I agree, this is funny. Like watching NRA lose on 90% or so candidates they supported, that was fun.

          Like

          • Different story this fall. Dems in for the thumping of their lives, much of it well deserved. Idiots. I’ll have to cover my eyes.

            Like

            • List of X says:

              Thumping of their lives was 2010. I expect that this time it will be merely unpleasant – 2010 was when Kenyan Muslim socialist president was a novelty and Obamacare was a disaster.
              Speaking of which, what happened to with your Obamacare debacle? Were you able to find anything?

              Like

              • I’m waiting to hear if a job interview I went on a week ago will result in an offer. If they hire me, I’ll have full benefits and I’ll have to find something else to complain about. (Don’t worry. I will.) If they hire someone else, I’ll have to buy a market-rate insurance policy and slowly be bled of what money I’ve managed to save. Stay tuned and thanks for asking. It shows you’re paying attention.

                Like

  7. john zande says:

    Would you do a #10 if I paid you $100 billion?

    Like

  8. Trent Lewin says:

    Great stuff, X. I’d like to request a Canadian post in the future, if that is possible. I’d like to see you have a go at our side of the border. Especially Quebec (impending election today, separation on the books as a possible topic).

    Like

    • List of X says:

      I’d also like to have a go at your side of the border, but does your side of the border ever reach the levels of stupidity and/or hypocrisy we have here?

      Like

      • Trent Lewin says:

        Probably does, honestly. Or starting to seem that way. Although the Liberals took a majority in Quebec yesterday. The Parti Quebecois that preceded them had initiated something called the Charter of Values, basically banning religious clothing/items for anyone in the public service. That now falls away. So does a referendum on separation. I swear, sometimes the Quebecois believe they are Scottish.

        Like

        • List of X says:

          I would think a number of Quebecois got cold feet about voting to separate from Canada, after they saw what happened to Crimea after it declared independence.
          I don’t know how much of this was a joke, but Canada does have a large Ukrainian diaspora.

          Like

          • Trent Lewin says:

            Canada has a large component of international populations that often make the list of “second-largest populations in the world”. Lots centred in and around Toronto. If we have any greatness as a nation, it’s because of that.

            Like

  9. mhasegawa says:

    Pretty soon you will be the only List of X left….

    Like

  10. El Guapo says:

    I’m looking forward to the koch brothers rebuttal of this post.
    AND IT WILL BE THE BEST BLOG POST MONEY CAN BUY!!!
    (No, they don’t get capital letters.)
    (Hell, they’ve already got a ll the rest of the capital.)

    Like

  11. Twindaddy says:

    If money is the same thing as free speech I must have absolutely NOTHING to say…

    Like

  12. I would like to see you start using 9.75 reasons a little more. I have 3.6 million dollars* to give you if you comply.

    *and by dollars I don’t mean legal tender – I actually mean I will give you nothing. And by nothing, I mean zilch. With a capital M.

    Like

  13. China Telecom: We’re gonna need a bigger abacus.
    Classic list, X!

    Like

  14. I would love to find Clarence Thomas on a dark street and kick him directly in the nads, I am afraid though it would do zero damage. That wonder of zero balls, I would be far better served to kick his wife where his balls are then shove Scalia’s head up his azz. There I am done ranting.

    Sorry. I rarely go off in this manner. My sincere apologies.

    Love your list. It is as always dead on.

    Like

  15. Just . . . I don’t . . . even . . . what . .. I . . . yeah, apparently this has left my free speech speechless. I mean, some people might call that buying an election, but in Republicspeak it’s free speech! How does money equal speech?

    Loved the reference to Jefferson rolling in his grave.

    Like

  16. Eva says:

    I love reading your lists, X, though I hate all the vomiting that follows.

    Like

  17. Great list. This is obviously a big concern and you have laid out the lowlights concisely and with a good dose of funny. In Canada, all elections are decided through naked wrestling. Televised naked wrestling. Physical combat in its purest form. And weeds out anyone who is even slightly homophobic.

    Like

  18. Ned's Blog says:

    I’m still deciding if I can afford to check the “Donate $1 to your party’s campaign fund” box on my tax return…

    Like

  19. Katie says:

    “Up to” $3.6 million? I can’t believe we’re putting a cap on democracy.

    Like

  20. How the hell do you make me laugh about things that make me want to cry???

    Like

  21. Steve Ruis says:

    Awesome, Sawbuck, awesome! You are right in your wheelhouse. #3 and #4 elicated hearty guffaws (real ones, not the gloating plutocratic type).

    Like

  22. dorannrule says:

    My good ole Dad always said, “Money talks.” Guess he was right if it represents free speech.

    Like

  23. Elyse says:

    I agree that Corporations are people, but I don’t understand how somebody who never speaks — Clarence Thomas – can argue in favor of free speech when he never says a word.

    And Mr. Jefferson and his compatriots have been rolling in their graves for a while now.

    Like

    • List of X says:

      I think Clarence Thomas’s position on free speech is the most consistent of the Court: no matter who is speaking before the court, Justice Thomas will religiously respect the speaker’s 1st Amendment right and will never interrupt them even with the most innocent of questions.

      Like

  24. aFrankAngle says:

    Instead of stuffing politicians with money behind closed doors, at least the door doesn’t have to be completely closed. Meanwhile, great list … and oh so sad.

    Like

  25. djmatticus says:

    I saw something about this in the news the other day and quickly turned the channel. I just don’t care anymore. I figure to get elected in this country you have to be dirty somehow, beholden to someone. The campaign finance limits that were in place weren’t helping curtail that, it just made people think of more clever ways to buy their politicians. The whole system is absurd and won’t get better until it is scrapped entirely and built up again from scratch.

    Like

    • List of X says:

      I partially agree with the your attitude, but, unfortunately, many of those politicians would only be happy to hear that you don’t care. Because the less you care, the easier for this corruption to continue, and the easier for these politician to make laws that will eventually come back to hurt you. To expect that the system gets scrapped and rebuilt anew is unrealistic (doesn’t stop me from hoping as well), because the people who run the system are pretty happy with it. So the only short-term solution is to show up on the election day and vote for whoever stinks less, Maybe if we do that enough times, we can purge the system of the worst of it.

      Like

  26. Aussa Lorens says:

    #3 made me giggle.

    Like

  27. Pingback: Exchanging pleasantries | darkofficehumour

  28. Pingback: Friday Nite Lite: No pit stop for you! | Sky Dancing

  29. Ankur Mithal says:

    Took the liberty of referring to you and this post in my most recent post, “Exchanging Pleasantries” (http://darkofficehumour.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/exchanging-pleasantries/. I hope you won’t mind.

    Like

  30. Douglas E says:

    Comment at the Conference on World Affairs panel on corporate personhood – “I’ll accept corporations as people when Texas executes one.”

    Like

    • List of X says:

      I remember that phrase. But I don’t think that corporations are interested in being recognized as people – they just want the people’s rights, without any of the obligations. (Like getting executed by Texas, for example.)

      Like

I can see you have something to say...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s