On Sep 22, 2024 at 5:15:12 PM MST, "ferguson" wrote
<be7a5e12464b05aa7e4f66dd9c0d8eae@dizum.com>:

> Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:66f08748$0$3068683$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>
>> On Sep 22, 2024 at 11:24:09 AM MST, "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote
>> <vcpncb$2a0ta$2@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>> Snit wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> The country is in deep trouble... that is a symptom of the disease
>>>> and not the disease itself.
>>>
>>> Correct. It was an extractive economy in the heyday of the the oil
>>> industry antitrust rulings in the early 1900's, and in the American
>>> sweatshops.
>>>
>>> Then reforms eventually took hold, along with more compassionate
>>> rulings.
>>>
>>> Then we got Citizen's United, giving the wealthy corporations great
>>> leverage over Congress.
>>
>> Horrible decision.
>>>
>>> That leverage moved us back to an extractive economy (how nations
>>> fail), and many people (people at the margins, rural people,
>>> blue-collar workers) felt the thumb of the oligarchs.
>>>
>>> That gave enery to rich boy Apprentice Trump's "I alone can fix it"
>>> nonsense.
>>>
>>> (Oversimplification admitted)
>>
>> The *Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission* decision,
>> delivered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010, had profound impacts on
>> the American political landscape. Here are the key effects and
>> consequences:
>>
>> ### 1. **Increased Influence of Money in Politics:**
>> - The ruling allowed corporations, unions, and other organizations
>> to spend
>> unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, as long as the
>> spending was independent of the candidates' campaigns themselves. This
>> led to a significant increase in political spending, particularly from
>> wealthy individuals and special interest groups.
>>
>> ### 2. **Proliferation of Super PACs:**
>> - The decision gave rise to the creation of Super Political Action
>> Committees (Super PACs), which can raise and spend unlimited amounts
>> of money to support or oppose candidates. Super PACs are technically
>> prohibited from coordinating directly with campaigns, but they often
>> operate in close proximity to candidates and their strategies.
>>
>> ### 3. **Shift in Political Power Dynamics:**
>> - The ruling shifted power towards wealthy donors and large
>> organizations,
>> enabling them to have a greater influence over political discourse and
>> elections. Critics argue that this has led to a system where elected
>> officials may be more responsive to their financial backers than to
>> their constituents.
>>
>> ### 4. **Impact on Campaign Messaging:**
>> - With increased funding, political messaging has become more
>> aggressive
>> and widespread. Super PACs and other independent groups often fund
>> negative advertising campaigns, which can heavily influence public
>> opinion and the outcome of elections.
>>
>> ### 5. **Legal and Political Controversy:**
>> - The decision remains highly controversial. Proponents argue it
>> protects
>> free speech by allowing all entities to express their views through
>> financial contributions. Opponents argue it undermines democracy by
>> allowing wealthy interests to dominate the political process and drown
>> out the voices of ordinary citizens.
>>
>> ### 6. **Increased Transparency Issues:**
>> - Although political spending increased, transparency did not
>> always follow
>> suit. Many organizations use “dark money” groups to channel funds
>> without disclosing their donors. This lack of transparency makes it
>> difficult to track who is influencing elections and policy decisions.
>>
>> ### 7. **Policy and Legislative Responses:**
>> - In response to the ruling, there have been various legislative
>> and
>> advocacy efforts aimed at increasing transparency and reducing the
>> influence of money in politics. Proposals like the DISCLOSE Act, which
>> would require greater disclosure of political spending, have been
>> introduced but face significant political hurdles.
>>
>> ### 8. **Long-Term Electoral Impact:**
>> - The decision has affected not just federal elections but also
>> state and
>> local races, where large sums of money can have an outsized impact. It
>> has contributed to the entrenchment of political polarization and the
>> rise of candidates who are more extreme, as they can attract funding
>> from highly ideological donors.
>>
>> Overall, the *Citizens United* decision fundamentally changed the
>> landscape of American elections and campaign finance, with lasting and
>> widespread implications for political campaigns, governance, and the
>> influence of money in politics.
>
> That's how Obama, Biden and Pelosi got rich.

The *Citizens United* decision reshaped the political landscape in a way that
affected all major political figures, including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy
Pelosi, and contemporary Republican leaders such as Donald Trump, Mitch
McConnell, and Paul Ryan. While Obama, Biden, and Pelosi publicly criticized
the ruling, they, like their Republican counterparts, benefited indirectly in
several ways:

### **Democratic Figures:**
1. **Increased Campaign Contributions:**
- **For Obama and Biden:** The ruling allowed for increased spending by
Super PACs and independent groups, which supported Democratic candidates and
causes. For example, during Obama's 2012 re-election campaign, pro-Obama Super
PACs like Priorities USA Action raised and spent millions to counteract
similar efforts from Republican groups. While Obama initially opposed Super
PACs, his campaign ultimately embraced their support to remain competitive.
- **For Biden:** During the 2020 election, pro-Biden Super PACs and
independent groups played a significant role. Groups like Unite the Country
and Future Forward USA Action spent millions supporting Biden’s candidacy and
attacking Donald Trump.

2. **Support for Democratic Causes and Candidates:**
- **Pelosi's Role:** As Speaker of the House, Pelosi benefited from
increased fundraising and spending that helped maintain and expand the
Democratic majority in the House. Super PACs and dark money groups supported
various Democratic candidates and causes aligned with her agenda. While Pelosi
herself was critical of the decision, she navigated the post-*Citizens United*
environment to strengthen Democratic fundraising and campaign efforts.

3. **Balancing Against Republican Spending:**
- Both Obama and Biden faced well-funded Republican opposition,
particularly in the 2012 and 2020 elections, respectively. The *Citizens
United* ruling allowed Democratic-aligned groups to raise funds more
effectively to counter the significant spending from Republican and
conservative groups. This was crucial in competitive races where both sides
needed significant resources for advertising, outreach, and ground operations.

4. **Mobilizing the Democratic Base:**
- The decision also provided an opportunity to galvanize the Democratic
base around the issue of campaign finance reform. Obama, Biden, and Pelosi all
used their opposition to the ruling to rally supporters who were concerned
about the influence of money in politics. This helped them frame their
campaigns as fights against corporate interests and for democratic reforms.

5. **Funding for Policy Advocacy and Legislative Efforts:**
- *Citizens United* facilitated the growth of nonprofit advocacy groups
that aligned with Democratic policy goals. Organizations like the Center for
American Progress and others received increased funding, enabling them to
advocate for progressive policies and support Democratic legislative agendas.

### **Republican Figures:**
1. **Increased Financial Support from Conservative Groups:**
- **For Trump:** Donald Trump benefited from significant support from Super
PACs and independent expenditure groups in both the 2016 and 2020 elections.
Groups like America First Action and Great America PAC spent millions on
advertising and mobilization efforts to support his campaign and policies.
- **For McConnell and Ryan:** As key Republican leaders in Congress, Mitch
McConnell and Paul Ryan benefited from increased fundraising capabilities for
GOP campaigns. McConnell, in particular, has been a vocal supporter of the
*Citizens United* decision, arguing that it upholds free speech rights.

2. **Strengthening GOP Super PACs:**
- Republican Super PACs like the Senate Leadership Fund (aligned with
McConnell) and the Congressional Leadership Fund (which supported House
Republicans) became powerful tools in funding competitive races. These
organizations helped Republicans maintain control of the Senate until 2021 and
remained influential in House races.

3. **Influence of Wealthy Donors:**
- The ruling enabled wealthy conservative donors like the Koch brothers and
Sheldon Adelson to significantly impact Republican campaigns and policy
discussions. Their funding supported candidates who advocated for tax cuts,
deregulation, and conservative judicial appointments, aligning with the
priorities of GOP leaders.

4. **Counteracting Democratic Spending:**
- Just as Democrats used Super PACs to counter Republican spending, GOP
leaders leveraged the decision to balance or exceed the financial support
directed at Democratic candidates. This was particularly important in
battleground states and close races, where funding could tip the scales.

5. **Shaping the Judicial Landscape:**
- McConnell, in particular, has used his influence over campaign finance
and the judiciary to ensure the appointment of conservative judges who support
broad interpretations of the First Amendment, further entrenching the
principles behind the *Citizens United* decision.

### **Criticisms and Political Positioning:**
While Obama, Biden, and Pelosi have publicly criticized the decision, Trump,
McConnell, and many Republicans have defended it as a protection of free
speech. McConnell has argued that restricting political spending is tantamount
to limiting speech, a stance that aligns with conservative legal principles.

### **Conclusion:**
In the post-*Citizens United* era, both Democratic and Republican figures
adapted to the new landscape of campaign finance. Obama, Biden, and Pelosi,
while publicly opposing the decision, strategically utilized the increased
financial resources available to remain competitive and advance their
political and policy goals. Conversely, Trump, McConnell, and other
Republicans embraced the ruling, using it to amplify conservative voices and
maintain political power. This duality of criticism and adaptation is a
hallmark of how the ruling has affected American politics.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.