There is a truth here. The word contributions is mentioned and there are plenty of politicians that sell out to their donors.
By trying to imply Washington politicians sell out to Wall Street while in office, he would be implicating himself. I don't think that is what this is about.
I haven't heard anyone discuss 'the way it is' or how ridiculous it is. I know Senator Sanders is extremely successful in raising money and I sincerely appreciate that ability of his, but, there is a truth rarely breached.
Our candidates for office have to compete with their opposition. For most of those candidates not having experienced the success of a grassroots funded campaign 'it is what it is.' The real culprit here is not Congress. The real culprit is the Robert's Court. That court has put every member of Congress between a rock and a hard place.
The Robert's Court told Congress they have to compete with opponents where the sky is the limit. That is hideous. It doesn't work either. Ask Karl Rove about the 2012 election.
But, that isn't the point, the PREMISE behind the court's decision is completely corrupt. They treated corporations as citizens because they spend money. In that now is the understanding that corporations can buy candidates. When looking at the donors for the candidates both Republican and Democrat those that have big money donors have INDIVIDUALS donating with complete recognition of the corporations they work for. Think about that a minute. Let me get an example.
Contributor Total Individuals PAC
This is real. Citigroup had a total of $891,501 in contributions to one candidate. Of that $883,501 are individual contributions. Only $8000 is from a Citigroup, Inc. PAC. How many individuals felt compelled to participate to credit Citigroup with that level of donation. Better yet, if these are individual donations why was it important to be recorded with the understanding ALL THAT MONEY came from one source.
Excuse me?
The ONLY reasonable answer for a company PAC donating $8000.00 to include all those individuals under one umbrella is because the corporation wants the candidate to completely understand how much of their candidacy hangs in the balance if Citigroup doesn't get it's way with Congress.
Everyone seems to forget there was a law that passed from Congress when this travesty went to the Supreme Court. Congress passed a law to limit campaign spending. I guess they don't like the pressure to perform like a circus clown when Citigroup calls with a demand for an amendment to be attached to the USA Budget Bill.
This corruption was completely facilitated by the Robert's Court. This is the difference between a Supreme Court with a conscience for the condition of the country and one that simply reads the words on parchment and decides those words never intended to have campaigns limited in their ability to spend money. That is nonsense. When the US Constitution was written and the amendments were added there was no campaign funding. Money was not a citizen. So, when the Republicans are stating 'We want a strict constructionist," it is a lie. It is politics and nothing more.
Senator Bernie Sanders is nothing short of a small miracle and I would expect every person in Congress to be grateful for that.
Senator Sander's campaign has proven the power of the grassroots and their small contributions. He is a great man. I love that guy and the way he has knocked down every aspect of modern politics.
There is no doubt in my mind he is the most successful political leader alive. He has reached out to the people who needed him the most and damn it he made it a campaign. There is no not loving Senator Bernie Sanders.
He turned the Supreme Court's very corrupt decision into a joke. Our democracy is important. Our democracy is great and he has proved it so.
By trying to imply Washington politicians sell out to Wall Street while in office, he would be implicating himself. I don't think that is what this is about.
I haven't heard anyone discuss 'the way it is' or how ridiculous it is. I know Senator Sanders is extremely successful in raising money and I sincerely appreciate that ability of his, but, there is a truth rarely breached.
Our candidates for office have to compete with their opposition. For most of those candidates not having experienced the success of a grassroots funded campaign 'it is what it is.' The real culprit here is not Congress. The real culprit is the Robert's Court. That court has put every member of Congress between a rock and a hard place.
The Robert's Court told Congress they have to compete with opponents where the sky is the limit. That is hideous. It doesn't work either. Ask Karl Rove about the 2012 election.
But, that isn't the point, the PREMISE behind the court's decision is completely corrupt. They treated corporations as citizens because they spend money. In that now is the understanding that corporations can buy candidates. When looking at the donors for the candidates both Republican and Democrat those that have big money donors have INDIVIDUALS donating with complete recognition of the corporations they work for. Think about that a minute. Let me get an example.
Contributor Total Individuals PAC
| Citigroup Inc | $891,501 | $883,501 | $8,000 |
Excuse me?
The ONLY reasonable answer for a company PAC donating $8000.00 to include all those individuals under one umbrella is because the corporation wants the candidate to completely understand how much of their candidacy hangs in the balance if Citigroup doesn't get it's way with Congress.
Everyone seems to forget there was a law that passed from Congress when this travesty went to the Supreme Court. Congress passed a law to limit campaign spending. I guess they don't like the pressure to perform like a circus clown when Citigroup calls with a demand for an amendment to be attached to the USA Budget Bill.
This corruption was completely facilitated by the Robert's Court. This is the difference between a Supreme Court with a conscience for the condition of the country and one that simply reads the words on parchment and decides those words never intended to have campaigns limited in their ability to spend money. That is nonsense. When the US Constitution was written and the amendments were added there was no campaign funding. Money was not a citizen. So, when the Republicans are stating 'We want a strict constructionist," it is a lie. It is politics and nothing more.
Senator Bernie Sanders is nothing short of a small miracle and I would expect every person in Congress to be grateful for that.
Senator Sander's campaign has proven the power of the grassroots and their small contributions. He is a great man. I love that guy and the way he has knocked down every aspect of modern politics.
There is no doubt in my mind he is the most successful political leader alive. He has reached out to the people who needed him the most and damn it he made it a campaign. There is no not loving Senator Bernie Sanders.
He turned the Supreme Court's very corrupt decision into a joke. Our democracy is important. Our democracy is great and he has proved it so.
